 Y осidio yn y pryd yn ein pawr o rhan o blynyddiol. Ysgrif Weinidog yn gyfnodol, Snohor, erbyn gyda eu gynhyrchu? Ysgrif Weinidog yn cyllid y peth eich gwrdd cymrydol yng Nghymru, ond mae eich cyndig arall yn unig arma sy'n cael ei mawr. Os ydw i, mae'r pryd yn cael ei hynny'r arfer, ac mae'n ei wneud i'r parwysmmu a ddechrau sy'n ganno ei gyfnodol i'w ddod o'r cyfwyrdd. We have looked at this fairly recently, and there hasn't been an uplift, and it is a postage and printing provision that is £5,500. We do consider it sufficient to enable members to correspond with their constituents adequately for a couple of reasons. New technologies i'w gofnifolniol iawn o'i gняflu합니다ia bubblesach, os oedden nhw. Efallie'r gwываемau uwch yn gyrtaife ar wahцы hyn am dda colour cyfadorau penyrs o gyfad formidable Llywodraeth nhw'n gweithio gwn Bodywhy. Yn ei gwaith chi g hyd s' does iawn anferTR a dnowid yn edrych defnyddio fещig maen nhin yn gweithre prosperr yn y cyf grievриfa peote. gwahodd aeth os anon pwyllfa sydd ar y cael ei gynhyrchu y mae gennym nhw i schaffio mwyfyrdd o'r 137,000 o borderfyniadau 60 o 10000. Rwy'n gwzglulio'n gyda mynd i g lensiau y staf 1 yn 3 qwerthraff yw ei hwn yn cael ei ddangos, maen nhw, ond pwyllfa ddylau i gydag ag unig ar hynny. Mae gennym eich gwaleis i sefydig y乙odiau meddwl, Ac rydym yn ddim ni i'w gydag eu phoblach company body to look at the funding that we have to do our job properly and to pay our staff properly? I can not comment on what happens at Westminster. I can only comment about the management that we in the company body take of our Parliament in Scotland. I make it plain that there is a completely separate issue from the member support allowance and that it is different rawerion—staff salaries, ac niferwarion. Felly bod yna rydyn ni'n fwy o gwaelio ei fod yn y cwmwyng paste, ddechrau ac y prifon Willog. Rwy'n meddwl fod ni roi bod yn gyntafol, ac rydyn ni bod ychydig hynny gweld ei fod yn ddiwedw'r prifon i gydag i ddechrau. Mewn ddweud, waxi, mae'n gynnal eich bodor hwn o ffordd ymgyrch o'i bryd yn fyrde o'r bywm autographau the Parliament. I thank the member for her question. I know that she will acknowledge that it is everyone's responsibility to ensure that we maximise every single opportunity for everyone, including young people, to see their Parliament in action, no matter where they are based. Before I address this specific point, just by a way of information, I thought it might be helpful if we would just update on what Parliament is actually doing in terms ffordd o addysg yr euchydigio, fyddwch yn ieddiwch ddaeth i parlymygol. Mae cyfathor yn gwneud o'r ddechrau i ddod o gyfathor yn rwyf. Yr wych yn gwneud o gyfathor yn hollwyrd ac mae'n ddod o'r ddod i'r cymdeithasol yn ei gwybod. For example, visits by staff and MSPs to schools are a very important part of this day of the Parliament day's initiative. We've also offered travel subsidies for schools to see committee meetings in action in local towns and cities. The outreach programme of education sessions in school as an alternative to a visit in the Parliament is proving to be very popular. Between 10,000 and 11,000 pupils each year come through the programme, a similar figure of visits coming through Holyrood on the inward programme. That's taken up across the country, but, particularly in areas where it's more difficult to arrange the travel in the highlands, west of Scotland, Aberdeenshire, etc., that is much more difficult. The SPCB has improved the range of resources on offer to young people, particularly online, in as colourful and imaginative publications as we possibly can, and those are all free of charge. To address the member's specific point, the recent Public Audit Committee, and I know that she has an interest in that, the meeting in Inverness at the start of February local schools were offered a contribution towards their travel costs along with the school visit, should they have wished to attend that meeting. Subsidised travel has also been offered for specific events. For example, just on Friday when 42 pupils attended a day-long event for higher English students, which was examining the use of language in the Scottish Parliament. To extend the use of subsidies to many more schools, I hope that the member will understand that that is quite a complex area, and that it would involve considerable extra costs. I thank Liz Smith for a very comprehensive answer. If I may, Presiding Officer, could I remind the corporate body that the committees of this Parliament visited the rest of Scotland much more in the first and second sessions than they do now? In fact, as a member of the audit committee, a committee had not sat in Inverness for 10 years since we visited in February. We did invite the pupils from Wick High School, but it was in the middle of their prelims. Neil Macintosh, the modern studies teacher from Wick High School, tried unsuccessfully to get pupils to visit the Parliament last year at a cost of nearly £70 per person, not to mention five hours of travel each way. That was prohibitive, making this Parliament inaccessible for pupils from Caithness. Given the exceptional costs in money and time, and I appreciate what is happening in webcasts and online, can the corporate body perhaps continue to monitor the issue and perhaps even consult with remote and island schools to see what can be done to further improve their access to this Parliament? Yes, absolutely. The member makes a very important point about that. I think that, in one sense, we have been the victim of our own success in that more and more pupils are wanting to come to the Parliament, and that in itself is a very good thing. At the same time, there are complexities when it comes to the criteria by which you make a decision what to pay and what not to pay. Yes, we will give the undertaking to monitor the situation. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how it will engage on the proposal to establish a register of lobbying. Could I thank the member for a question that obviously has particular importance at this current time? The member will be very aware that the Scottish Government responded to Neil Findlay's bill proposal for lobbying register by committing to legislate to give effect to the proposal, and it committed to doing that in this parliamentary session under rule 9.14.13 of standing orders. The member will also know that the SPPA committee recently published its lobbying inquiry report, which sets out a model for a register of lobbying activity and recommends that that is the basis for the Government's legislation. The SPCB has taken a keen interest in the potential resource implications of a register for both the Parliament and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life. As a result, the SPCB has emphasised to the Scottish Government the importance of closely consulting with the SPCB and its supporting officials throughout the process of assessing the additional work that is required in estimating the associated costs. John Wilson. I thank the member for that response. Can the member clarify how the monitoring of the proposed register of lobbying is intended to be administered, thus ensuring that there is a maximum level of transparency of the register for the public to have confidence in any register that is established in the Parliament? Let's be absolutely clear about that. There are two issues here. One is the political issue, which is a matter for the SPPA committee. That is a very important thing, which will obviously take advice from the member who submitted the original bill, obviously the Scottish Government. The second issue is about the implications on things such as information technology and on the costs of parliamentary officers' times. That is a slightly different issue. The SPCB is very clear that we have an obligation to advise on that basis, but not to get involved in the political debate. The member makes a good point about transparency. It is up to the SPCB to be utterly transparent when it comes to our advice on the administration of this. Obviously, it is entirely a matter for the committee and its chairman about the political implications. The Scottish Government is almost two years since it took over my bill. Despite continually asking when the legislation will come forward, there is no legislation coming forward as yet. I wrote to Joe Fitzpatrick a few weeks back and asked for the timetable for the bill, and no timetable was forthcoming. Will the corporate body now approach the Scottish Government and ask for a timetable for the bill? Clearly, there are implications for the corporate body. The answer to that is no, because I do not think that that is a competent matter for the SPCB. Our role is to ensure that the actual administration of this is correctly undertaken, but it is a political matter, and that must go through the SPPAA. It is a matter for the committee members to decide in relevant to what you have asked. Many thanks. There are no other questions to the corporate body. That concludes questions to the corporate body. Thank you to all who have taken part. We now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12521, in the name of John Swinney on protecting public services and boosting Scotland's economy. I would invite all members who wish to take part in this debate to press the request to speak with us now or as soon as possible. I would invite you all to insert your cards to allow you to speak, and if the Deputy First Minister is ready to speak, I would invite him to do so. Mr Swinney, you have 14 minutes or thereby. Presiding Officer, I am delighted to open this debate and to have the opportunity to set out the alternative approach that is put forward by the Scottish Government to the austerity agenda that is being pursued by the United Kingdom Government, and which is such a strong feature of the Westminster political debate. The approach that we propose balances the need for sustainable public finances with ensuring that public services are protected. Scotland's economic recovery is now well-established. Our economy has grown continuously for two years. GDP is above pre-recession levels, and the number of people in employment in Scotland is at an all-time high. The economic outlook is also the strongest that has been for many years. The Fraser of Alder Institute yesterday revised up its forecast for the Scottish economy and now expects growth of 2.6 per cent in 2015 and employment to rise by 51,000. I know that he was about to say this in his speech, and I am sorry if I am pre-empting this, but I am sure that he is going to go on to praise the United Kingdom economic policy. Is that something that he is intending to do? What I was going to do was go on to read the next paragraph of the carefully crafted argument that I have to share with Parliament, which goes as follows. However, the growth has come in spite of, rather than because of, the United Kingdom Government's austerity programme. I hope that that meets Mr Rennie's expectations, which is always something that I am very keen to ensure is the case. The growth that we are now seeing follows years of slow growth in the United Kingdom, and that is the serious answer to Mr Rennie's point. In 2010, it was predicted to be the return to growth in the economy in 2012, in 2013 and 2014, and it was not until 2014 that we began to see that growth emerging into the economy after two years in which growth was poorer by comparison. Our recovery has been relatively weak compared to some of our G7 partners. I will give way to Mr Johnston-Alex. Would the cabinet secretary not concede that the countries in Europe that followed the policy that he advocated at the time may have done well in that initial phase after the recession, but are now languishing with some of the lowest growth rates in the western world? What I am making the point about is that if we look at the sustained investment strategy that could have been pursued by the UK Government, which was not to reduce public expenditure as fast as was proposed and has been executed by the UK Government, we set out against the original plans of the United Kingdom Government, our total opposition to the one-third reduction in public expenditure and capital spend that was proposed by the UK Government, and the UK Government, to be fair to them, lowered the degree of the cut that it was proposing to make from 33 per cent to 26 per cent as a consequence of the pressure because of poor economic performance. We are now beginning to see growth resuming to the UK economy. My point is that if the UK Government had not delivered that accelerated reduction in public spending to begin with, but had tempered its reductions in public spending, we would have been able to see better growth in the short term, which the evidence supports. GDP per capita in the UK remains 2 per cent below the level that it was at in 2008, when, over families, we are not seeing the benefits of the recovery as real wages are not expected to return to their pre-recession levels until 2019. What is worse, of course, is that, on the news of the Fraser Islander Institute, it has refreshed its figures, but it still leaves unemployment high. The report in November said that it was questionable whether the number of full-time workers would ever reach pre-recession levels, and the data points towards a permanent structural shift towards part-time work and self-employed work, which is low-paid, much more difficult work. Therefore, in terms of tackling inequality, it leaves us with a difficulty. I will accept that analysis. Although the headline employment levels are encouraging, the unemployment is coming down. It is below £150,000 for the first time in five years. We have a record number of employment in Scotland. We have a record level of female employment, but I accept that, beneath the headline positive indicators, there are challenges about under-employment, about part-time employment and about low pay. That is exactly what the Government's economic strategy that was set out on Tuesday is all about trying to address, about focusing on some of those underlying factors that I know are of significance in improving the performance of the Scottish economy and, more important, providing individuals within our economy with a more rewarding experience of employment. Despite five years of austerity, the chancellor has failed to meet his deficit or debt targets. In June 2010, the chancellor predicted that the UK would run a budget surplus on the structural current budget of £5 billion this year and that debt would be falling as a share of GDP. Yet the latest forecasts are now for a structural current deficit of almost £50 billion this year and for debt to continue to rise. In total, over the six years to March 2016, the chancellor is likely to borrow £150 billion more than planned in his June 2010 budget. That is the equivalent of almost £2,500 for every person in the United Kingdom. That is my point to Mr Johnson earlier on that the chancellor is significantly adrift from the end-by-point to Mr Rennie in the predictions that he made at the time. I will give way. If we follow the Scottish Government's preferred and published approach, when would the deficit be eliminated? On the proposals that we have set out, the deficit would take longer to eliminate, and we would be borrowing more than the chancellor predicts, but we would be recovering the public finances by investing in growth in the Scottish economy. As Mr Brown is well aware, because he is part of a Government, supports our Government that presides over this, borrowing is a factor and a feature of the management of public expenditure for any administration that takes it forward. The question is, how is that balanced and how is it balanced effectively into the bargain? I will do, but we will need to make some more. It is a very brief one. In light of what you have said, can you confirm that it is the view of the Scottish Government that we should have full fiscal autonomy? As Jackie Baillie knows, my belief is that Scotland should be in control of all aspects of our expenditure, all aspects of our revenue, all aspects of our economy, because I believe that Scotland should be an independent country. That is the position of the Scottish Government. The suggestion that the Scottish Government has brought forward in terms of the alternative to the austerity agenda of the UK Government was set out in the last couple of weeks by the First Minister, and she concentrated on the fact that the entire Westminster debate circles around maintaining austerity, but reducing the deficit is just one of the many interconnected challenges that we should address, such as boosting productivity, improving living standards and reducing the inequality that we face, which is the point that Mr Rowley raised with me a moment ago. The deficit needs to be reduced, but that should be done in a way that is not harmful to the social fabric of the country. The Scottish Government believes that there is a sustainable alternative to Westminster's obsession with the deficit. The Scottish Government has outlined an approach that should provide real terms growth in spending on public services of 0.5 per cent every year from 2016-17 to 2019-20. Compared with current UK Government plans, that would permit a further £180 billion of investment in public services across the United Kingdom over the next four years. For Scotland, that would free up additional resources of around £14 billion over the same period. That is money that could be invested in health or education or actions taken to invest in other parts of our economy. Neil Findlay? I see he and the First Minister now promoting the economic policy is going to tackle inequality. Can he tell us what redistributive policies the Government is going to pursue? The first act over tax that I have had was to take forward a redistributive measure that favours those who are undertaking property transactions at the lower end of the spectrum. That is the first initiative that I have been able to take. I would have thought that Mr Findlay might have welcomed that. I was delighted to see his colleagues supported us on that when they supported us on the order at the committee just the other day. Although that approach would have been borrowing slightly more than the UK Government currently plans, our spending proposal would keep the public finances on a sustainable path and would reduce the deficit as a share of our national income over the next Parliament. Protecting infrastructure, education and innovation will also support stronger and more sustainable growth in the future. That will help to reduce national debt as a share of our GDP further. That means that we can manage to bring the deficit down but at the same time support public services and the important services that members of the public rely upon. We are not alone in advocating a rethink of Westminster's austerity agenda. The director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research has argued that the idea that further austerity is inevitable, desirable and necessary simply does not add up from an economic perspective. The Scottish Government approaches to support growth in both a balanced and a sustainable way and that the benefits of economic success are shared by everyone. That was set out this week in the Government's economic strategy. It is well understood that a strong economy is essential in building a fair and a wealthy society. However, the Government believes that their verse is also true that a society that is fair and equitable underpins a strong economy. We believe that equality and cohesion are good for growth as well as good for individuals. For example, the OECD estimated that rising inequality has reduced economic growth in the UK by nearly nine percentage points between 1990 and 2010. That implies that UK GDP could have been nearly £100 billion higher in 2010, equivalent to £1,600 for every person in the country if the United Kingdom had been a more equal country. The evidence is clear that inequality is not only important in itself but that it is vital to creating the conditions to deliver sustainable economic growth over the long term. That is why the Scottish Government's approach will continue to be based on the principle that delivering sustainable growth and addressing long-standing inequalities are reinforcing and not competing objectives. Scotland's economic strategy sets out an overarching framework for how we aim to achieve a more productive, cohesive and fairer Scotland. We have four priority areas where we believe that our actions can make a real difference. First, we want to invest in our people and our infrastructure in a sustainable way in contrast to the sharp reductions in public expenditure that will be faced on either the election of a Labour or Conservative Government at the forthcoming election. Secondly, we want to foster a culture of innovation and research and development to promote the development of new technologies, products and working methods. Thirdly, we aim to promote inclusive growth and create opportunities through a fair and inclusive jobs market and through cohesion within the regional economies of Scotland. Finally, we are looking to promote Scotland on the international stage to boost our trade, our investment, our influence and the networks for undertaking international business activity, which is central to broadening the export opportunities of companies in Scotland. That means that we will continue a range of policy interventions that the Government has taken forward, which are already helping companies and citizens across the country, such as maintaining the most competitive business rate scheme in the United Kingdom, investing £11 billion in Scotland's infrastructure, despite further cuts to our budget and expanding the level of funded childcare from £475 to £600 per year to help those with young children to participate in the labour market. We will continue to build on those actions. Support for businesses will remain— Have Jackie Baillie said that he would support full fiscal autonomy. Does he agree that that would cost your budget £4 billion a year and 70,000 jobs across the Scottish economy? Could I remind him? Not my words, but his. I will not accept that, because what the Government believes—I have gone through that point many times with Jackie Baillie before, and we will no doubt have to go through it many times again—is that this Government believes that when we have the ability to take the decisive decisions about our economy, to improve productivity, to deliver growth, we enhance the tax revenues and the public finances of Scotland, and as a consequence we can support and sustain the public services upon which people in our country depend. That is a very simple argument for Jackie Baillie to come to terms with. I am very happy to deal with any further interventions in my closing remarks on the debate. In our approach to inclusive growth, we are also promoting fair work by establishing a fair work convention, encouraging employers, employees and trade unions to share the best practice, including promotion, as the First Minister said at question time today, the application of the living wage across workplaces in Scotland. The Government will continue to lead by advancing greater gender equality and making sure that all staff covered by our own pay policy receive the living wage. In conclusion, we challenge the UK Government's unfair austerity agenda, as it imposes the heaviest burden on the most vulnerable in our society. It is our belief that fairness and prosperity can and must go hand in hand. That is why we endorse an alternative approach, which is fairness at its heart, protects critical public services and keeps public finances on a sustainable footing. That is supported by our economic strategy for Scotland, which sets out our twin objectives of boosting economic growth and tackling inequality. I move the motion in my name. Many thanks. Now I call on Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment 12521.2. Miss Baillie, you have 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In 62 days, the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom face a choice—a choice between the Tory's austerity plans that will take us back to levels of public spending that we have not seen since the 1930s, before Labour created the NHS, or a Labour Government that will extend the living wage, end-zero-hours contracts, a Government that will balance the books in a fair way and deliver more funding for our NHS. In a recent Ashcroft poll, it is clear that Labour and the Tories are neck and neck. It is the biggest party that will form the Government. That is a fact. Scotland gets to pick the winner. The more SNP MPs there are, the fewer Labour MPs there will be. Quite simply, that means that a vote for the SNP lets the Tories get in by the back door. Mark McDonald? To perhaps engage with something substantial that the member said, she talked about the plans of the Labour Party to extend the living wage. In terms of the Labour Party's plans for the minimum wage, which the claim is to increase it to £8, can she advise when the minimum wage would rise to £8 and how that would compare in terms of inflationary pressure? I am happy to tell you that we will increase the minimum wage. We will do so substantially. Our plans are centred on making work pay and getting the country working. I will take no lessons from the SNP who sat on their hands during an austerity debate in Westminster yesterday where they had the chance to end Tory austerity and what did they do? Nothing. Let me return because there are lots of howls from the SNP back bench. I will give way in a second. Be patient. Let me remind them that it was SNP MPs that brought down the Labour Government in 1979 by voting with the Tories. It was SNP MSPs that voted with the Tories from 2007 to 2011 in this Parliament. Of course, it was Alex Salmond himself that told us all to vote liberal at the last general election and look where that got us. I will take no lectures from the SNP, but the motion from the SNP today deals with austerity and the Government's new economic strategy. Let me start with the economic strategy because it was a very glossy, very colourful publication with lofty aims of growing the economy, reducing inequality, and very few people would fundamentally disagree with that. However, there was disappointingly little detail about how that would actually be achieved. Instead, what we witnessed was a repeat of targets and commitments that were made before. For goodness sake, the SNP have announced the Scottish Development Bank on my counting five times, which is taking recycling to a whole new level. There is lots about austerity, but nothing that tells us how we will achieve growth, investment, jobs and wealth, nothing about new tax powers or fiscal policy, nothing about debt, despite the shocking figures revealed in The Guardian about the scale of local government debt, nothing about the deficit caused by the collapse in oil prices. Those are real challenges that our economy faces, but not a word about them. That is an economic strategy for an alternate universe. However, the member should realise, if she is read all the way to page 77, that the detail and policy direction will be published in the coming months. I wait with anticipation and great excitement for this, but we have had eight years. Where has been that detail over the last eight years? Then, of course, we have the corporation tax that Mr Swinney did not mention. The SNP mantra was to cut corporation tax by three pence more than the Tories would do. That was not a race to the bottom, do not worry about it. That was good for growth, we were told. It would appear that it is not so good for growth now. What about air passenger transport duty? That was to be cut and then abolished. I got to the bit of the report that said that it would be replaced by a new tax. Who thought about that? Again, no detail. Then we come to double standards. Declaring support for the living wage but making no mention of the promised summit on the issue. No mention that the SNP blocked Labour amendments to the procurement reform act requiring all public sector contractors to pay the living wage. That is just an inconvenient truth. Whilst all of that on this side of the chamber would agree that we want a fairer society, there is not one redistributive tax policy in that document, not one word about a top rate of income tax or anything that deals with income inequality. Presiding Officer, there is a pattern emerging. We always get warm words from the SNP, but we never get any action. Business is crying out for practical steps that will support them to grow, to access new markets, to have the pipeline of skills available to meet future needs. Let me turn to austerity. The scale of the Tory austerity plans are breathtaking. The Office of Budget Responsibility states that the Tories want to return to 1930s levels of public spending. The independent institute of fiscal studies says that the cuts that the Tories are proposing would be colossal. They would wreck Scotland's public services and our NHS—I have already given way to you. That is why Labour MPs voted against Tory austerity plans yesterday and why it is just so important that we stop the Tories from being the largest party after the general election. However, the SNP should be ashamed—I will give way to you in one second—that they dare to come here and lecture us about austerity today. A mere 24 hours ago, they sat on their hands and refused to back Labour in calling for an end to Tory austerity. That is breathtaking hypocrisy. It is completely shameless, and I look forward to John Swinney explaining why. John Swinney? What I am interested in and I am grateful to the member for giving way is why the Labour MPs trooped through the lobby to vote for the same austerity agenda in the charter of budget responsibility that the Tories went through the lobby to vote for several weeks ago. Thank you, Bailey. Try as Mr Swinney might to spin this. That is just not accurate. Yesterday, yesterday, yesterday, you voted to continue by actually sitting on your hands. You voted to continue Tory austerity. It is increasingly clear that if you want to stop the Tories' austerity plans, then you have to vote them out. It is as simple as that. The SNP proposition that if you vote for them, they will stop austerity is just utter nonsense. What you will get from the SNP is austerity max. Not only would your starting point be Tory austerity plans, the SNP would add to that austerity. The SNP, by the cabinet secretary's own admission, wants to end the Barnett formula. That is the mechanism by which we share the resources of the United Kingdom. It is like having an insurance policy for when times are bad, but instead what the SNP wants is full fiscal autonomy. In short, this is raising Scottish-only taxes for Scottish-only spending. That would mean an end to sharing risks and rewards across the UK. It would mean an end to things like the UK pension, but it is even worse than that. The cost of raising all our own taxes means that we would need to raise billions more to simply stand still. We would need to cut billions of pounds from our public services. Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney have admitted that scrapping the Barnett formula would cost Scotland £4 billion. She said that in a speech to SEDI in March last year. John Swinney has said similar in SNP press releases, but that was before the oil revenues fell. The white paper forecast oil at $113 a barrel, but at the start of this year it was below $50 a barrel. That strips at least another £6 billion from the Scottish budget. That is half of the funding for our NHS. That is the entirety of the school's budget. That would be austerity max, the SNP's austerity max, and not one word about what they would do about it, whether they would raise taxes or cut services. Mr Swinney is always fond of telling us that he always balances the books, but he is remarkably silent about how he will balance the books, facing such a huge deficit in public revenues. Will he raise more taxes or will he cut services? Will the voters deserve to know before the election? Will I look forward to Mr Swinney intervening now? No, no answer. The truth is that the best way to avoid Tory austerity is to vote Labour. The SNP offers austerity max and let the Tories back in to number 10. Labour's plans for the economy are based on the fact that, when working families prosper, Scotland prospers too. We want to grow the economy. We want to create jobs. We want people to have decent wages and to feel secure at work. We will call time on zero-hours contracts, increase the minimum wage and extend the living wage. Our economic plan will deliver rising living standards, more good jobs and stronger, more balanced growth. We will share the burden fairly. We will reverse the Tories' tax cuts for millionaires, introduce a mansion tax on houses worth over £2 million to help fund the NHS, and in Scotland that will provide an extra thousand nurses. Every vote for the SNP in May risks another five years of the Tories and their failed austerity policies, but we also know that the SNP's plan to bin Barnett would rip billions from Scottish public services. That's bad for jobs, bad for services, bad for pensions and bad for this country. The people of Scotland have a choice in May. The reality is that the only way to stop Tory austerity plans and SNP austerity max is to vote Labour. Many thanks. As I reminded the chamber yesterday, the interventions from a sedentary position are neither welcome or necessary. Please stand up if you have something to say. I now call on Gavin Brown to speak to and move amendment 12521.1. Mr Brown, you have six minutes please. I thank you all start by moving the amendment in my name and by saying on this side of the chamber that we are always happy to debate the economy. We are always happy to discuss what is happening at a UK level. We are pleased to say once again on this chamber under the approach of the coalition government that the plan is working. They told us that it would not. They do not like to hear it anywhere else on this chamber, but the plan is working with growth of 3.5 per cent in 2014. In jobs, we have record employment and unemployment in Scotland at 5.4 per cent, and we have a deficit chopped in half from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, Deputy Presiding Officer, with, of course, more to do. It is no surprise that, once again, Mr Swinney, the reasonable, mild-mannered John Swinney cannot bring himself to give any of the credit to the UK Government, none whatsoever. However, they have gone one step further this week, Deputy Presiding Officer. The First Minister said that, as a result of the actions that we have taken, we have seen a period of sustained growth in Scotland's economy over the last couple of years. According to the First Minister, all of the sustained growth is down to the actions that we have taken, Deputy Presiding Officer. The First Minister did not see any irony in the fact that, just minutes later, she said that we do not have any job-creating powers in Scotland, and we are not going to be getting any job-creating powers. It is sheer magic through which the Government has managed to create jobs and growth, but, apparently, it does not have any job-creating powers. I see Mike McKenzie on his feet. I am always happy to give way to Mr McKenzie. I thank Mr Brown for giving way. Mr Brown will not acknowledge that, in the 30 years preceding 2007, the Scottish economy, however you measure it, marginally underperformed against the UK economy, but, since 2007, marginally outperformed the UK economy. The member is dancing on the head of a pin, as he usually does in desperate defence of the Scottish Government. He does everything in his power to put himself forward from ministerial office, and I wish him luck at the next reshuffle. I genuinely do. I think that he would be a great addition to the team, but he will have to do slightly better than that if he wants to be raised up. What is interesting is that, again, Mr Swinney says that all of this growth is happening despite the UK Government. Alex Johnson made a key point in an intervention, because why don't we compare the position of the UK with other countries in Europe? We are getting growth of 3.5 per cent, predicted to be 3 per cent this year, but the euro zone as a whole is predicted to be just under 1 per cent. That is quite a difference, Deputy Presiding Officer. We are looking at unemployment 5.4 per cent in Scotland. We have double-digit unemployment in the euro zone as a whole—double-digit in France and Italy on an average. Is there a huge difference between what is happening in the UK and what is happening in competitor countries? I will take Chick Brody first, if I have time later. Mr Brody— Mr Brown mentioned that the forecast for GDP will be at 3 per cent. Why is that different from what the officer of budget responsibility said just in December, that, in fact, it would fall and fall substantially? That would be 1 per cent above what it had been at the time of the recession. I certainly did not say an OBR report that said that we were not going to have growth this year, that there is going to be negative growth. If he can point to where it says that there is going to be negative growth this year, then I am happy to see it, but that would certainly be out of kilter with every other economist on the report that I have seen. Let's move on to the second plank of the Government's motion, where it talks about £180 billion—that's going to appear from nowhere—and described, I have to say, by John Swinney as slightly more. Borrowing £180 billion in his view is borrowing slightly more over the course of the next few years. How long will it take? Sure, if he wants to retract, that's maybe a bit more than slightly more. I'm going to retract nothing of what I said. What I want Mr Brown to explain to Parliament is his justification for the chance that they're having to borrow £150 billion more than he predicted in 2010. He ignores six quarters of negative growth across the entire Eurozone—a crisis across a continent that has led—but all I can say is that Mr Swinney is not in a strong position when he talks about predictions for the economy. This is the man who just months ago said that we were going to collect £7 or £8 billion a year from oil revenues, and he had the audacity to describe this as a cautious estimate, but that wasn't fantasy. It was a cautious estimate. How foolish does that prediction look? In my final minute, I won't be giving away, but the idea that £180 billion is slightly more is absurd. He had no idea when he would eliminate the deficit under his plans. Looking at his plans and giving them the most generous interpretation that I could, it would appear that the deficit may be eliminated in 2024. Almost two full UK parliaments away. All I say to the Deputy First Minister is, what impact would that have on investors, on the market and on the rates of which we would have to pay on borrowing if we were saying that it was going to be two full parliaments before we got anywhere near eliminating the deficit? The economic strategy from the Government adds little to the programme, which is why I look so much forward to hearing the details in the coming months of what they intend to do with the economy. I move the amendment in my name. I am worried about John Swinney who is a carefully crafted persona of cool, reasonable, competent and safe. That is the public persona that he has worked hard to craft, unlike most nationalists—I hear Stuart Stevenson talking over my shoulder—but, in just a few short months, that persona has started to crumble. Let's take the performance on the economy. He said that the UK Government's economic plan would fail, that there would be higher unemployment, lower employment and that growth would not return to the economy. Now what do we see? Employment is at a record high. Up 187,000 in Scotland since 2010, wages are outstripping inflation, and the UK is vying with the United States of America for the fastest growth in the G7 group of countries. John Swinney got it wrong on the economy. Then he all have to look at the second oil boom. He boldly predicted that the price of a barrel of oil would remain at $110. He claimed that oil revenues would make an independent Scotland one of the richest countries in the world. However, with oil, half the price his predictions were, there is £155 million per day too high. That was his predictions—not just now. That would have decimated hospital, school, college and university budgets, but thankfully the no vote in September saved us from feeling the real effects of his reckless claims. Because we chose to remain in the United Kingdom means that we can all focus on addressing the jobs crisis that the industry is facing in the north-east and throughout Scotland. Something that I know that most members in this chamber will take seriously. We got it wrong on oil as well and we will take an intervention. On the issues relating to jobs, as Mr Rennie knows, as a result of the no vote, the fiscal powers that relate to the oil and gas sector remain the responsibility of the Westminster Government. Does he agree that the Westminster Government should be putting all of its effort into ensuring that investment and exploration is stimulated with the oil and gas industry? Is he pressing his colleagues for that action in the budget? Yes, they are, and I am pressing. I agree with Mark McDonald—probably not for the first time, but maybe for the last. The latest blow to Mr Swinney's reputation was dealt by a most surprising source this week. His own leader abandoned his policy on corporation tax, with no explanation on page 80 out of page 82, the fag end of the document, no explanation at all on a wet Tuesday afternoon. It was at the heart—this three-pence cut of the white paper—that it was at the heart of the referendum. He defended it, he advocated it, and now his leader has ditched it. Was it because—I will take a short intervention. I find it unusual that the normally bullish claims about the 3 per cent corporation tax were not even mentioned in a 14-minute speech from the person who created the policy. Mr Finlay might think that Mr Swinney was embarrassed by the prospect of having to explain the corporation tax cut, but I am sure that that is not the case. He will give a full explanation in his summing up at the end of this debate, because I am sure that the chamber would be delighted to hear whether there is an explanation for that. Was it because the economic policy of the UK Government has created six times as many jobs in Scotland in less than a quarter of the time that Mr Swinney's policy proposed? Was it because the evidence for the case for the policy was so weak that it could never be made public? We tried repeatedly, including through the information commissioner, to try and get some details about how many jobs would be lost in the first few years of this policy. In fact, at one point, one of his officials said that releasing the information may lead to opposition parties starting a debate—heaven for then that we would ever know the real reasons for the policy. Three big errors—three big errors—on oil, on the economy and now on corporation tax. John Swinney's reputation is beginning to crumble. I have taken too many interventions, but I have a chance for him to restore his reputation. He could adopt some of the policies that the Liberal Democrats are proposing. Earlier this week, my colleague Danny Alexander published our plans to introduce a special rate of corporation tax on the banks. Now that he has abandoned his policy on corporation tax, perhaps that might encourage him to support Danny Alexander on corporation tax—an extra billion pounds that should help us to balance the books of the United Kingdom. We have also in favour—I think that this is probably where John Swinney and I might agree on some aspects—that he agrees on a fairer society. We agree with expanding children. We would like him to make sure that he accelerates the expansion of that childcare earlier and we would encourage him to do that. We would also encourage him to adopt our policy on cutting tax for those who unload middle incomes, because I know that members on his benches have opposed that policy. I hope that he reverses that position and supports it instead. I would encourage John Swinney to listen to what the Liberal Democrats have said on the economy, because that might be one—just one way—that he might start to restore his reputation. We now move to open debate on the six-minute speeches, and I call on Mark McDonald to be followed by James Kelly. I think that many members who had listened to Jackie Baillie's speech talking about how the Labour Party was the absolute opposition to the Tory-Lib Dem coalition and then watched as they teed up jokes and one-liners for each other might have had some difficulty in reconciling those two positions. Nonetheless, Mr Rennie talks of the personal allowance changes that the UK Government has put in place and heralds those. The difficulty for Mr Rennie is that he views those as measures in isolation and does not look at the interactions of other UK Government policy positions in relation to those, and he will know the independent analysis of UK Government budgets have shown that the pressures that are faced by the lowest economic groupings in society are higher than those faced by those at the top end as a direct result of decisions that have been taken. It is the cumulative effect of decisions that are the issue here, not individual decisions such as the personal allowance being raised. On the arguments that are being put forward thus far in the debate, it would be fair to say that the opposition parties want to rerun the referendum debate, and that is open for them to do, but the thing that I have great difficulty with is that they want to do so from the absolute position of talking down Scotland and talking down the potential of Scotland, because we have heard it now on more than one occasion from the front bench the argument that, firstly, Scotland is a subsidised nation, and secondly, that Scotland is somehow too poor. Somehow Scotland is uniquely incapable of managing its own finances, managing its own resources and shaping and growing its own economy perhaps a little bit later. What we have seen being outlined by the Scottish Government and by the First Minister is firstly an economic strategy that sets us on a narrative around inequality and growth in the economy, demonstrating that the two do not need to be viewed in isolation but should be viewed absolutely as cohesive aims that complement and support each other. Secondly and beyond that is the very important argument, and Jackie Baillie was quite right to remind us of the short period of time in which voters will go to the polls. Jackie Baillie says that voters face a choice between Labour and Tory, and if they are all for austerity, that is certainly true, because the difficulty that the Labour Party has is that it was not just the charter for budget responsibility that Labour MPs walked through the voting lobbies to vote in favour of, they also voted in favour of George Osborne's budget at that exact same time. They walked through the lobby to vote for George Osborne's austerity budget for the coming year and also for the charter for budget responsibility, which commits future UK Governments of whatever colour to £30 billion of austerity measures. That was what they trooped through the lobbies to do. I know that Mr Findlay is trying desperately to reconcile his position with that that his party has taken at a UK level, but even he must have been disappointed by the actions of his Westminster colleagues, and I will give Jackie Baillie a second on this one, because I asked Jackie Baillie what the Labour Party's position on the minimum wage would result in in terms of when they would deliver the £8 minimum wage that they have heralded. They would deliver the £8 minimum wage by 2020. At present, in 2015, the living wage is £7.85. That means that, by five years time, the Labour Party will have increased the minimum wage to a level of 15 pence above the living wage. Can Jackie Baillie perhaps advise the chamber whether, by 2020, £8 will be a living wage? I thank Mark McDonald for taking the intervention. I also point out to him that what we believe in is not re-running the independence referendum but is in what is the best form of devolution that delivers for Scotland. I recall with a degree of fondness that Mark McDonald's vehement defence and vehement support for the co-operation tax has changed his mind. Can he tell us why? I have always been on record as saying that I will support any measure that supports growth in the economy, particularly in key sectors of the economy. However, we understand and we know from the opinion polls that the Labour Party is in a state of somewhat panic and desperation. You can tell that they are in a position of desperation the minute they start harking back to 1979. I was not born in 1979, Presiding Officer. However, in the years in which I have been alive, in 1983, in 1987 and in 1992, in 2010, Scottish voters went to the polls, they voted Labour, and they got Tory. We know full well that the Labour Party trooping out there and selling this message that Scotland's voting for the Labour Party will prevent the Tories is simply rhetoric. It does not match up to the reality of election results, but what it also fails to disclose is the fact that, under Labour, we would continue to see the same approach being taken on austerity, just repackaged and rebadged, because Ed Ball's, however much the Scottish Labour Party might try and deny it, is fully signed up and fully paid up to that austerity agenda. However, what the Scottish Government and what the SNP has put forward in terms of a 0.5 per cent increase in public spending—a modest increase, yes, but an increase that would still allow for £180 billion of additional expenditure at a UK level and £14 billion of additional expenditure at a Scottish level—would allow us to take the action that we want to take in terms of tackling inequalities, supporting vulnerable citizens and, most importantly, investing for future growth in the economy. That is the real choice that faces voters in May, and voters are not going to be fooled by the rhetoric of the Labour Party. James Kelly will follow by Christina McKelvie. There is no doubt that debates on the economy are always important, because the economy drives so much that is vital in our communities in terms of making a difference to people's lives. From that point of view, I look closely at the document that the SNP Government published on Tuesday for some clues as to the road map that the Scottish Government was going to take us on. We often hear in these debates people talking about the creation of a fairer and a more equal Scotland. That is something that a lot of people agree on. However, when you examine the detail of the document, you are left puzzled as to how that would be created. There is talking in the document about the Scottish salmon getting the accorded, the label rouge in France, about the number of heritage sites that we have. Those things are all very welcome, but I ask myself the question, what does that mean to constituents in my area? When I look round my area and I look in canvas line at some of the areas of social deprivation and I look at the document with all its glossy pictures and graphs and I ask myself what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle social deprivation in canvas line. You can go from Bridgeton to Beersden and the life expectancy decreases as you go on that journey. I ask myself what in this document is going to be done to tackle health inequalities. I look at attainment levels in education and the struggle that working-class kids continue to have to get to university and the fact that the SNP Government has cut over 130,000 college places makes that an even greater hurdle. I look at the housing situation with 150,000 people on social housing waiting lists and I look at people in my constituency staying in overcrowded accommodation, something that blights the economic opportunity. I ask myself what the SNP is doing to tackle the crisis. When I was vice-community of housing at Aberdeen City Council, we were able to start building the first council housing for a generation in the city of Aberdeen as a result of the measures taken by the Scottish Government to remove the right to buy. Does Mr Kelly agree with that and does he not lament the fact that the Labour Party has never removed the right to buy in all its time in office? I lament the fact that the SNP Government has cut the housing budget between 29 per cent and that contributed to the biggest crisis in social housing since the Second World War. There is no doubt that the impact of the Tory cuts since 2010, which have left families £1,600 worse off, have not helped in terms of the crisis that communities face. I recently met the local citizens advice bureau and they can tell you that as a result of the welfare cuts, they are getting much more referrals in terms of cases. I think that the issue in this debate has got to be how do we move things forward, what can you do in practical terms. Obviously, the general election focuses a lot on that. In terms of the Labour way forward, we are certainly proposing using a mansion tax to raise £3 billion, which we use to promote economic growth and the introduction of a £0.50 rate of tax to get some redistribution into the economy and to help those who need it most. From a Scottish Government point of view, we would like to see more action on zero-hour contracts, tax avoidance and the living wage. All areas that regrettably the Scottish Government voted down stronger amendments that we had in the procurement bill. The way forward, as we have heard from Mr Swinney from an SNP perspective, is that of full fiscal autonomy. There is no doubt that, in the words of Arthur Monford, that would be a disaster for Scotland. To lose the Barnett consequentials of £4 billion, that would have a disastrous impact. Just look at the publication this morning of the report from Audit Scotland showing how council budgets have been cut by 8.5 per cent in real terms. The impact of losing the Barnett formula would be to take another billion pounds out of council budgets. Councils are then faced with a position. What you then find on the ground is that council groups are then faced with a prospect of cutting back on care packages, closing libraries. There are schools in my constituency where they are not able to print out the homework and people are asked to print it out at home. How can you print out the homework when some homes do not even have a computer printer? That is the reality of what is happening on the ground. In terms of the economy, what the SNP need is, first and foremost, we need a proper analysis, not just simply a glossy document, and then we need solutions that are going to work, that are going to make a difference. We need to commit to those in the coming period so that we can make a difference for Scotland. I now call on Christina McKelvie to be followed by John Pentland. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Before I get into the substantive remarks on my speech, I would like to remind Mr Kelly who runs South Lanarkshire Council that it is a labour Tory coalition. When it comes to housing, South Lanarkshire has failed in every single point to take part in any of the grant schemes to build more council houses. Maybe that should be down to the fact that South Lanarkshire Council has been so incompetent with its budgets over the past few years that it has had to fork out £72 million to settle unequal fair pay claims. Let us get to the nubbiness. Somehow we have ourselves in the air position where we are almost apologising for wanting to care for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our community. It is as if public services have gone out of fashion. I wonder why that could be. Might it have something to do with the coalition and Labour's austerity agenda? That hurts the vulnerable, hurts them deeply, or perhaps it is to do with UKIP or benefit street programmes on TV, possibly Labour leaders suggesting that universal benefits is a something for nothing culture. Fortunately, this Scottish Government is not prepared to bow down to those kinds of pressures that would see our lone parents demoralised and miserable, their children in abject poverty and their educational attainment cut from under their feet. There is something that Ms McKelvie said that I would agree with, but could I ask her how then a 10 per cent cut passed on by the UK Government to the Scottish Government becoming a 24 per cent cut till local government helps the situations that she is describing? I think that Mr Finlay needs to go back and look at his figures, because earlier he said that it was an 8 per cent cut, so I don't know what he is talking about himself. Outward disabled folk who, through no fault of their own, suffered depilitating conditions such as motor neuron disease, multiple cirrhosis, down syndrome or mental health problems, for example, they are easy targets for the coalition and for Labour to attack and to attack the people most least equipped to challenge it. I see many lone parents in my constituency who cannot get a house because of South Lanarkshire Council, not only do they face the challenges of benefit sanctions and cuts, but they struggle to pay for heat and food as well. The coalition, along with her pals in the Labour Party, seems to think that once you've got people down, you can easily grind them a bit further until they shut up or, in some cases, die. I think that squeeze them until the pips squeak is the term used this week. When it's set out like that, not one person here will admit to buying into that mentality. The reality is that many in this chamber are doing exactly that. They are buying into the coalition and Labour's agenda of ever-increasing austerity, focused on those those least able to fight it. There is a real alternative. Money doesn't grow in trees, we know that, but it can be much better managed if it was brought here and dealt with here. £100 billion for tried and renewal alas Mr Finlay, whether that should be spent on bombs and not burns. What could we do with our share of that? We certainly wouldn't be aiming to destroy half the world. Maybe the specialist early learning teachers, Mr Kelly, that South Lanarkshire council are laying off, would be protected. Maybe we could target more resources towards helping children with learning difficulties who become fulfilled and independent. Meanwhile, we have a finance secretary, Mr Kelly. Kelly McElvie, perhaps remind the chamber, who allocates a budget to South Lanarkshire council that has been cut in such a swing in terms since 2007. That would be South Lanarkshire council who is running away for their Labour pals in Cosla because they don't like the deal that they got. Is this the same South Lanarkshire council who has been so incompetent with their budget that they lost £40 million? A few years ago, nobody knew where it went. Oh, it was a paper exercise that says not wasn't. It was a cut on services. Maybe South Lanarkshire should consider cutting the hospitality budget and not their early learning teachers. Maybe that's the way they should look at it. We should not be protecting bankers' bonuses or tax exemptions for properties in Kensington or Chelsea. You have already heard a lot about what we as a Government are doing in achieving within the powers that we are available to us. The Labour Party asks us to look at tax evasion, to the living wage, to all of these things, employment law—yeah, fine—will the Labour Party support this Parliament in having those powers devolved? No, I didn't think so. Those powers have got a limited, but we are working on that. We need far more substantial and direct powers here in Scotland. Will Labour commit to the devolution of the living wage? I don't think so. The UK was ranked 28th out of 34 OECD countries in terms of income inequality. That hasn't changed. It doesn't matter what colour sits at Westminster for that. It hit out of the poor, the vulnerable. It's easy. It's easy to hit out of immigrants and the asylum seekers. It's easy. UKIP have proven that. My message to those disadvantaged groups is to fight back with your vote on 7 May. Don't lie down and accept those attacks on your right to have a decent fulfilling life. We shouldn't need food banks but we do. More than 50,000 people visited Truswell Trust food banks in Scotland between April and September last year. The message could not be simpler or more stark, nor the division more direct. Back, Tory, Lib Dem, our Labour coalition, austerity agenda and the mission is to extend misery and poverty or support the driver change for a fresh look at how we can be all we can be. We all need public services. We should neither be an apology nor a defence. They are the stuff of our lives, all of our lives, and we should be protecting them. Presiding Officer, when I saw this motion, my first impression was that the cabinet secretary was having a joke. Protecting public services and boosting Scotland's economies, excuse me, but is this the same cabinet secretary who, in his watch, masterminded the attack on the very services that boost Scotland's economy? In case you have forgotten, local authorities are Scotland's biggest employers, but most of Scotland's cuts imposed by you, cabinet secretary, have been dumped in their doorsteps with thousands of job losses. There is more hardship to come. In my own authority, it is having to find a further 75 to 80 million pounds of cuts over the next three years. Likewise, the NHS is a victim of the SNP's mismanagement and underfunding. This hits the poor and vulnerable hardest, and healthy qualities are not only unfair, but they also undermine our economy. Damaging public services restricts growth. Rather than develop a sensible and sustainable plan, the Scottish Government has been reluctant to admit problems. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost this week, for example, Fypoforced, to announce a routine branch review, they admitted that they do not have all the answers and are seeking outside help, ministers should follow suit. And what have the SNP done for education, especially in the most deprived areas? Colleges have a major role as a stepping stone to higher education and jobs, so deep cuts in staffing, resources and students undermine action to tackle inequality and promote growth. It is for the police service. How can we protect it when Government policy insists on one arbitrary target but says to hell with everything else? Of course, there are tough decisions to be made, but refusing to face up to economic reality does not help. The SNP opposition to delivering a balanced, long-term budget was a cringe-worthy and infatile posture. It ignored the argument that balanced the books does not have to mean austerity, but not only can that be done without strangling the economy and growth, but growth is the key to balancing the books without forcing austerity on the UK. This week, the old alliance reared its ugly head when the SNP voted with the Tories against a proposal to end the UK's failed austerity plan and to replace it with a different, fairer and more balanced approach. Despite the SNP retreat on corporation tax, it still has not embraced progressive policies such as the £50 tax rate in the mansion tax. The SNP claimed to support social justice, its empty rhetoric, unless it accepts that reducing inequality needs redistribution. After all, it became increasingly clear that, since it helped thatcher to power. That wealth just does not trickle down, you know. Despite what the SNP tried to pretend, it has scottened his powers to achieve redistribution and is getting more, yet it seems that the SNP will never be satisfied until it has ruined Scotland. Now, the SNP wants to decimate public finances by removing the shared support and the safety net of the Barnett formula. Almost without exception, the Barnett formula has benefited us, so we would be forced to reject it, especially when our fiscal gap is growing even wider. The First Minister has even acknowledged this, Mr Swinney, that this would mean £4 billion in cuts, dwarfing Tory austerity and threatening pensions. If she admits £4 billion, that is probably an underestimate. The SNP might call this fiscal autonomy. What I call it is cutting off your nose despite your face. It puts the SNP and Tories alongside each other as agents of austerity, and the only way to avoid Tory austerity and SNP austerity plus—I want you to listen to this, Mr Coffey. I want you to listen to this. The only way to avoid Tory austerity and SNP austerity plus is through a Labour Government. The First Minister has finished his intervention. I now call on Chick Brody to be followed by Mike Mackenzie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Mr Pentland, I want you to listen to this. All we ever get is you oppose everything and propose nothing. We have heard numbers—this is not just about numbers historically. It is about a strategy. I have heard nothing. Nothing from the Opposition benches says that here is what we are alternatively presenting, not a thing. It is not just about numbers. It is about a strategy that will achieve sustainable growth in the interests of the Scottish people. The longer-term economic strategy, underpinned by our annual budgets and spend—that, of course, depends on what we find particularly as we are governed or have more fiscal power engenderd down south. Based on that, we have to achieve the foundation through all that of the aspirational outward-looking and fairer Scotland that we all wish to see. While we are talking about fairness, I look at the Lib Dem motion. We have the temerity of the Lib Dem talking about having a fairer society. It wants to increase the income tax threshold to £12,500. I checked this morning with Spice and the numbers are that, if somebody earns £25,000 a year, the basis of that increase in the income tax threshold is a benefit of £500. However, a person on £100,000 gets a benefit in net income of £1,000. Where is the fairness in that? Is the member aware that, when the tax threshold was substantially increased, that the higher-rate tax threshold was reduced in order to fund that? As a result, higher-rate tax payers do not benefit from that increase. In 20,000, Mr Johnson, not 100,000, as I mentioned, the tapering starts at 100,000. What we want in a strategy is greater growth and investment, more competitiveness, zero inequality and absolutely no austerity. Our solutions are rooted in history and we should learn from that. Whether we go back as far as 1915 to the Lloyd George Government changing, increasing or bringing about national insurance and the minimum wage at that time, or Roosevelt's new deal in the Depression or Macmillan's capital investment programme, investments that provoked an economic foundation for recovery. However, our economic recovery has also done still not just increased employment but more fairness and equality basis, and that is what I believe the strategy does. Merit, contribution and productivity, further development of skills and training align to the strategy experience, joint share participation of capital and labour in the economic business place and to diminish the practices of cronyism and discrimination. If we create that level playing field, that has to be a final resting place, as we said, about reducing inequalities in the workplace and the remuneration that attends them. I am sure that others of my colleagues will speak in more depth of inequality and austerity. Therefore, I will address briefly, let me focus on growth, investment, innovation and internationalisation. We will not escape austerity. In fact, we will become more mire than it unless we accept the principle that capital spending will result in greater employment, increased tax receipts, both income and VAT, and reduced debt, allowing the cycle of investment to continue. Something that the UK Government should have done years ago and has failed to do. That, of course, is underpinned by a commitment to securing simultaneously the principle of people being paid a living wage. In that, the 0.5 per cent real increase in spending in public services over the next few years has to be seen to be critical. That should encourage the public sector in all its forms, its protection and performance, to embrace, I believe, the third sector and the social enterprise, by outsourcing to them non-core public service activities. By suit doing, we will generate real productivity and innovation and in reducing disparities and meeting the needs and wants of ignored communities in the Public Procurement Bill and the Community Government Bill. The stimulation of innovation in our focused sectors and markets, primarily and not solely through our universities and their research and development capabilities, is a key element in which our international economic foundations and global success and national income will be built. On global reputation for manufacturing and remanufacturing, engineering, food and drink, life sciences, tourism and new technologies demand a much more global approach and creation extension of our campuses internationally particularly will promote the competitive advantage that we seek and that is outlined clearly in the strategy. Having spent some time, much of my business here is in manufacturing, I am encouraged that the strategy requires a stronger role for the increased exporting of goods and services and that manufacturing firms are more likely to innovate to invest in R&D and will be vehicles of change as we drive to open up more markets. It is to be hoped that greater productivity and a further token to reduce inequality will be achieved through greater equity, financial and management participation in companies, not just restricted to manufacturing and that in all sectors we recognise that our economic success will be charted by an equivalence and approach to skills that will be achieved either through vocational qualification or academic qualification. Our economic success will be built on foundations inherent in this strategy. Opportunity, equality in sharing, fairness, no discrimination, merit, skills in training, productivity, innovation and above all, what we as a nation should be is not being afraid to fail but to challenge. This strategy, I believe, addresses these and more and I fully support it. I think that it is useful to examine the longer-term context in which this debate has taken place from the immediate post-war period when the UK was still the premier manufacturing country in the world to one where it is now close to the bottom of the league of developed nations in this respect. It takes a special type of incompetence to throw away such a lead in such a short time. Labour had their version of incompetence, the Tories had their version and this whole period has been characterised by a sterile political debate between the two main UK parties and this ideological war like all wars has been extremely damaging although new Labour effectively gave up this battle when they joined the ranks of the Tories. Over this period we have fallen behind most of our competitor nations in manufacturing capability, in productivity and in GDP per capita. And while we have tortured ourselves in endlessly fighting the ideological battles of yesterday, the rest of the world has moved on, investing in their industries, investing in their people and investing in their comparative advantages, becoming more competitive, more productive and more prosperous. In the UK over the last 30 years has been characterised by rising inequality and rising debt, with the UK public debt now risen to an astonishing level, approaching £1.5 trillion. Both Labour and the Tory Lib Dem Government are culpable. Not long before the banking crisis, Gordon Brown made the amazing boast that he had ended boom and bust. That is part of the reason why the Lib Dem amendment is absurd. Willie Rennie knows that Gordon Brown did not end the boom and bust of the business cycle and that we are now on the words leg of that cycle. Willie Rennie knows that much of the recovery of the coalition of which his party is so proudly a member has been bought on the backs of the working poor. Willie Rennie knows that this has been bought on the back of the proliferation of zero-hours contracts on the back of austerity and increases in poverty, which have brought abject misery to the disadvantaged across the whole country. This austerity programme is merely a continuation of that sterile ideological debate that has taken the UK almost to the edge of the economic abyss. The Tories and the Lib Dems boast that the deficit is reduced, while at the same time trying to hide the fact that they have missed each and every one of their deficit reduction targets, but failing all the time to tell the public that the debt itself continues to rise. But this Government, this SNP Government, has moved on and is refining and improving its policy. Under the SNP's published plan then, when would the overall debt stop rising? I certainly accept what Mr Brown says. It may take a bit longer to pay off the debt and when it is finally paid off, if it is ever paid off, just as when the war debt was paid off, nobody noticed. However, this Government has moved on and is refining and improving its policy, while Willie Rennie is concentrating on the last year's battles. Mr Rennie. Is Mike McKenzie seriously thinking that controlling the public debt is not important? Is that what he is saying? Mike McKenzie. I think that it is important, but the best way to control it is to seek increasing growth, not try to cut costs. This Government has moved on as it is refining and improving its policy, and Mr Rennie is, as I was saying, concentrating on last year's battles. He is looking backwards instead of forwards. That is why the Lib Dem vehicle keeps running off the road and is about to crash. There is not much to say about the Tory amendment, except to say that the Tory idea of competitiveness is a race to the bottom and an economy characterised by ever lower wages. That is the road to economic ruin. The Labour amendment at least admits that austerity is not working. It is just a pity that it has recently voted with the Tories, ensuring its continuation. It is just a pity that its own economic plan is indistinguishable from that of the Tories. The only alternative economic wisdom that is supplied by the SNP Government is learning lessons from more successful European neighbours, recognising that a fairer, more equal economy is also more successful in economic terms, recognising that innovation and investment will see us becoming more competitive and productive, recognising that Scotland's people will repay every penny invested in them and their skills and education many times over. That is why we will send enough SNP MPs down to Westminster to bring that economic wisdom right into the heart of the UK establishment, for the sake of everyone in Scotland, but for our friends in England too. Deputy Presiding Officer, sometimes I ask myself the question in this Parliament, whether I am in a chamber that is full of parliamentarians that are debating and discussing the big issues for their constituencies and their constituents, or whether that is a room for political activists that are trying to put the case for their own political parties. Sadly, the levelly debate today includes the latter. The fact is that there are major issues facing our communities and our constituents, and the focus of this debate should be on those big challenges and how we tackle them and how we move forward. The Scottish Government, on page 63 of the report, says that the ambition for a socially just and more equal Scotland has been a central objective of this Government since 2007. If that is the case, you would have to say that that has failed, because both the UK Government, the London Government and the Edinburgh Government have both presided over a rise in poverty and inequality. I tried to come in on Willie Rennie and Gavin Brown, because the point that I was wanting to make was that, yes, we are seeing a growth in jobs, and any growth in jobs is welcomed. Although the point when Mr Swinney took an intervention is that quite a lot of those jobs are low-paid jobs, we are seeing much more part-time work in the economy, and many more people are self-employed. The types of jobs are very important, and the Deputy First Minister acknowledged that. However, the fact is that, in terms of equality and poverty, over the past number of years, we have seen food banks grow in communities the length and breadth of Scotland. My own constituents say that, in Blingare, in Versaith, in Invercaithon, food parcel collection in Kelty, tonight, when I leave this chamber, I will be going to the opening of the food bank in the town of Cowanbeath. The levels of poverty and deprivation have been increasing, and, although we should be celebrating jobs and doing more to create jobs and support people, we have to acknowledge that there is real inequality in our communities. I believe that the people of Scotland acknowledge that there is inequality and poverty, and the people of Scotland, regardless of their politics and regardless of whether they voted no or voted yes in the referendum, expect their politicians to focus on those big issues. Christina McKelvie takes great delight today in standing up and attacking South Lanarkshire Council. The fact is that it is acknowledged by the Scottish Government that the settlement for local government has been, year on year, a very difficult settlement, and there are authorities in Scotland who have a 17 and 25 per cent cut taking place in their budgets. If you look around, with some of those authorities, it is where there is greater poverty and deprivation. Mike McKenzie? I agree with Mr Riley on a lot of what he is saying. Will he agree with me that we should forget the austerity policies and look towards the SNP policy of a half a percent increase in a budget every year and therefore be able to pass on perhaps some of that increase to councils and at least protect them from further cuts? I would say to Mike McKenzie that, regardless of who you blame for the global economic crisis that took place, the fact is that, in 2010, when Labour left government, we were coming out of the session because, unlike the current administration, the Tories and Liberals in London, who are actually believed the way to tackle this is to cut public expenditure and create greater problems, Labour was growing the economy. There is a difference in approach with the last Labour government and there is a difference in approach for the party that I represent. However, I would want to come back to this document because I do believe that there are areas in terms of inequality and poverty. My surgeries over the weekend were some of the busiest surgeries that I have ever had since becoming an MSP. The biggest difficulty that people were coming to me was either a lackey housing or the fact that they were homeless and lovingly were family, friends, etc. We do have a housing crisis over 180,000 people on council waiting lists in Scotland. The cost of buying an average house is rocketed for some £73,000 at the turn of the century to some £179,000 on average now, pricing so many people who are in work who are earning out of being able to go into that market. We are at a stage where, in a manner reminiscent of the Victorian times, building a public sector housing before we had to build a public sector housing, there were as many poor households and smaller private rented sector than there was in the large public and social sector. We have to address that. I am always banging on about their 10,000 houses a year, but the fact is that it is reckoned that it will take some 60 years to claim the backlog. You then sit alongside that in terms of the jobs that can be created, in terms of the skills, the apprenticeships and five of our programme right now for 2,700 houses being built, council houses for rent over the five-year period, and they have a great record of working with the private sector. The number of apprenticeships is there, but those companies are now saying to me that we are heading in terms of the whole building sector to a crisis in skills, where there is not a company last week who could not recruit electricians. At a time where we are not promoting the skills, we have a skills shortage. I would like to see a much more focused programme of housing. I spoke to the cabinet secretary after his budget and welcomed the investment, because I will always welcome investment that is going into house. I would simply say that we need more, but we have to look at a new deal with local government and how we can work together. If you look at the Glasgow City Deal—I will conclude in a minute, but if you look at the Glasgow City Deal, it has been able to mobilise £1.2 billion in the city deal for all the authorities in there and are projected to create some 20,000 new jobs. I would say, let's cut out in this place the party politic and for cheap points. Let's stand up for our constituencies and have a real vision for Scotland and tackle the issues that are impacting on our constituents every day. That's why they send us here. That's what we get paid for. Thank you very much. I have a little bit of time in hand when members take interventions, but not a huge amount. Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Gil Paterson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me just respond to the challenge that Alex Rowley has laid out before us and agree with him on much of the analysis. I will come to the conclusions a little bit later in my contribution. I think that there is an announcement today from the Scottish Government, which I think illustrates the approach that this Government is taking on schools. The Government has reached agreement with all of the local authorities, as we know, to maintain teacher numbers. It is important to train the next generation, but £100 million to improve educational attainment in Scotland's most disadvantaged communities that was announced last month reinforces what we are doing. Today's £21 million for investing or constructing a new school facilities is very much to be welcome. The Government is addressing the issue of raising the attainment levels of people in communities across Scotland. The Schools for Future programme will create more than 100 new schools over the length of it. We know that the Scottish Government has a view about what should be happening in the UK and the effects that that should have in Scotland in the £180 billion more that we should be spending. What the OBR has to say about the UK Government's policy is that it will result in cuts to day-to-day spending on public services around £94 billion. That does not mean very much. I have not ever seen £94 billion sitting in a pile, but when you say that it is £1,800 a head, you realise why there is that fiscal drag on the domestic economy of far too many people in our country. I am going to make a proposal on whether it will be welcomed by the cabinet secretary or not. I am not certain. Perhaps we might think about, in our expenditure, looking at projects that have a particular characteristic that I have not seen discussed very much. That is a characteristic that enables more of the money to be retained in communities, and that means probably trying to spend more of our money on smaller projects. The big projects will always attract international competition and with it the risk that more of the money goes elsewhere. Smaller projects, more of the money is likely to stay in our local communities. That addresses perhaps some of the points that underlay the contribution of Alec Rowley. I am very grateful, because, although that analysis seems very plausible, I put it to the member that experience tells us that contracts tend to go to contractors who have the longest balance sheet. Those, by definition, are the bigger ones who may well just displace the smaller businesses that should be winning the contracts. The member was perfectly correct. It is not without risk, and we cannot, in competition law, cut large companies out from bidding for small contracts. However, inevitably, if you have to transport people and goods across the country to work on a small contract, your overhead costs rise, so there is an intrinsic advantage in looking at small contracts. Now, let me just move to tertiary education, having said a little bit about primary and secondary. I absolutely welcome the raising of the modern apprenticeships from £15,000 to £25,000, and the objective to raise it to £30,000. Alec Rowley talked about the shortage of skills electricians, and indeed engineering companies, in my constituencies, report skills shortages mainly because people get poached for other higher-paid posts, but I very much welcome the modern apprenticeship, the focus on delivering employability through the modern apprenticeship scheme and the focus through our colleges on delivering employability. I think that that is extremely good news indeed. It is always interesting when you look at a debate and you find that all the Opposition parties in their amendments simply delete everything that the Government says after the Parliament. That tells you something about the nature of the debate, but nonetheless I will attempt to create some consensus, but let us look at the things that have been taken out. For example, all parties take out welcome the additional £180 billion of investment that endorses the approach to the Scottish Government. Yes, it does not welcome £180 million of investment. That is what we hear from the Tory benches. If we look at some of the effects that we have heard in the debate, we have heard a bit about minimum wage while in the last four years of the Labour Government at Westminster, three out of the four years it did not rise in line with the inflation. In the Labour amendment, we hear that we are going to abandon exploitative zero hours contracts with rules introduced to give new rights to employees on those contracts. Contrary to what Jackie Baillie said in her speech, which she said, the Labour Party are abolishing zero hour contracts, she is simply creating a new version of zero hour contracts in the future. She can argue for that if she wishes. I just have not heard the argument. She rejects full fiscal autonomy in favour of the continuation of the Barnett formula, but Ed Ball's in 2011 said that the Barnett formula was never intended to be long-term. We are getting to the point where it needs to be looked at again. The labour ambiguities on all of this are very substantial indeed. Today, I have been reading about blue labour and what John Cridders, who was elected to Westminster on the same day that I came here in June 2001, has just been praising the Tory's city agenda. We have got a record of achievement in this Government, which is very substantial. Plugging many of the problems that are created by Westminster, council tax benefit budget, we are plugging the gap. The bedroom tax, we are plugging the gap. I am delighted with what we are doing with more powers. My delight could soar to greater levels and I look forward to that happening. The word proud can sometimes be overstated and made the case unfounded. However, when it comes to the small business bonus scheme, I can safely say that I am proud of the SNP Governments in that regard. To see how this scheme has impacted on small businesses across Scotland, I will give an example of a business in Clydebank and Mulgyi. I was in a small photographer's shop in my constituency and the owner told me that not having to pay business rates was the most significant factor that had positively impacted on his business. He had been operating the business single-handed from one location in Clydebank, but when the scheme was introduced, it allowed him to expand his business to open another shop in another location. Although both shops only employ one person, nevertheless, the scheme by the Scottish Government to reduce costs resulted in my constituency contributing to growing our economy. Although modest numbers, firstly, he doubled his workforce, and secondly, he took occupancy of a shop that had been lying dormant for a long time, which helped to reinvigorate the local area, which brings a lot of benefits on its own right. I would suggest that this example can be seen across Scotland, and I am sure that colleagues know of small family businesses that have greatly benefited from the scheme in their own areas. I should say at this stage that the business that I own and run by my son does not qualify for the scheme as it distributes from three locations across Scotland. Combining the rates of all three takes up beyond qualifying the threshold. However, that does not mean that the scheme has not had a positive impact on my business. With the rise in the numbers of people in employment and the number of new businesses opening on the increase, I have no doubt in my mind that my business has benefited from the increased spending power. Without a doubt, we all have enjoyed the fruits of a more buoyant economy than if the small business bonus scheme had not been introduced, which would have undoubtedly led to large numbers of having to close, which would then have caused a spiralling downwards and have a hugely negative impact on the economy as a whole, but particularly for small businesses. Although it is not always the case, in my experience, in the business world, when a business has extra resources or is able to reduce its costs, which provide additional revenue, it has a number of options available to it. It will invest this revenue by employing additional numbers of staff. It will purchase new services or equipment. It will move to bigger or better premises. All of those options will have a positive impact on the economy and add growth. Very few business people that have additional resources spend it on themselves. For me, austerity does not work either in the short or the long term. You can balance the books without burning your best assets and that is your workforce. The general public is just like our workforce. When they have a bit of extra money to spend, that is exactly what they do, they spend. I am not for one minute suggesting that you can spend your way out of trouble but you can take a long-term approach to bring matters into balance through balancing spending over borrowing. After all, it is the Scots that invented the overdraft and did not do it for nothing. That is why it makes sense for a modest half-percent increase in departmental spending that is being proposed by the Scottish Government. That would not only reduce debt but would permit a further £180 billion of investment across the UK for the next four years, compared with the current UK Government plans and the £80 billion proposed more than the Labour Party proposals. There is no question of the positive impact that that will have on the economy and how it would help to counter the coalition's austerity agenda, which is hurting the most vulnerable in our society. The Tory-Lib dem coalition tax and benefit reforms have hit the poorest 10 per cent of households the hardest. The child poverty action group has predicted that up to 100,000 Scottish children could be pushed into poverty by 2020 due to the UK Government's welfare reforms. Food banks have sadly become the norm for too many people in the country compared to pre-2010 when they were a rarity. According to the Trussell Trust, over 51,000 people, including 15,000 children, visited their food banks in Scotland between April and September 2014. Who would ever have thought that a food bank would be located in prosperous small guy? It is hard to believe. The Labour Party, of course, voted with the Tories for a further £30 billion of cuts over the next two years, so it has pinned its colours firmly to its austerity mask. If we do not help those who are most vulnerable in our society, how do we build a sustainable growing economy and an equality of and a fairer country? I fully endorse the vision and proposals outlined by the Scottish Government and would commend the motion to Parliament. Many thanks. I now call Hans Alemalik to be followed by Richard Lyle. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government states that their focus is protecting public services. However, the continuous pressure on health and social care caused by our ageing population means that resources are being stretched thinner and thinner. Of course, I agree with the idea of protecting public services, but I do not understand some of the priorities that the Scottish Government set. The Government motion states that reducing inequality, which is a very interesting phrase, and inequality and is not only important in itself, but it is vital. But it still remains to be seen how the Scottish Government will reduce inequality. There is not a single redistribution policy proposed by the SNP. The SNP has declared its support for the living wage, but in reality the SNP blocked Labour Party's amendments to the Reform Act of 2014 regarding all public sector contributions to paying living wages, which I don't understand why. Mr MacDonald, you stand up every time when Opposition members speak. I merely seek to probe with Mr Malik what he feels that raising the minimum wage to £8, which would be £15 above the living wage by 2020, would be helpful. I note that Jackie Bailey is telling him the answer, and I am sure that he will be able to communicate it to me. Hans Alamalik. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm surprised that Mr MacDonald doesn't know the answer himself, or does he know it by just making a nuisance. In the background of the overall state of the Scottish economy, falling oil revenue has had a massive impact on the northeast of Scotland, which may lead to long term structural damage being caused by the continuous low oil prices. Scotland's economy needs to weather the storm and avoid the abandonment of oil fields that may be economically viable in the future. This can only be done within the much broader base of the economy of the UK by keeping the Parmer formula and implementing restructuring policies from the rich to the poor. The bankers' bonuses, the mansion tax, and the reintroduction of the 50pence tax rate are all parts of Labour's vision for a fairer country. The SMP vision for Scotland-only taxes means less spending on Scottish public services, not more. I don't know where they get the idea that they're going to have more money. Overwhelmingly, we agree with Gordon Brown's call for a major housing building programme in order to stimulate the Scottish economy. The 3,563 new-build starts in the last quarter are still far below demand. In addition, the number of approvals given for the construction of new social rented homes was only 198, down by 22% in the same quarter in 2013. With more than 150,000 people on council and housing associations waiting lists for their own home, I have constituents who have been waiting on lists for years, experiencing extreme levels of overcrowding, effecting children's education, health and social skills, and denying them the basic requirements of privacy. There is a shortage of homes across the board for single people of family homes. Shelter Scotland estimates that at least 10,000 new homes for social rent need to be built every year for decades to come. I would like to ask the Scottish Government to give us solid policies on social economic Scottish economy, not just empty and meaningless words. May I also go on to say, providing officer, that the Scottish Government talks about inequality. Well, that's an interesting word as I said when I started off my speech. I go and visit families regularly who are living in overcrowded situations. Families living in four room homes with 17 members in it waiting for a house for years in dampness and poor scholar conditions. I have disabled people who are living upstairs who cannot get a house on the ground floor. There are no sufficient rooms for particularly minority communities who suffer an additional disadvantage. Seeing wanting to deal with inequalities is easy, sad, than done. I think delivery is important. I think the Government needs to take this job more seriously. When they talk about equality, it is not only on in housing, even in the public sector. I would be interested to see if the Deputy First Minister can tell me one public service that reflects the population in Scotland today in terms of equality issues. Many thanks and I now call our final open debate speaker, Richard Lyle. After that, we will turn to closing speeches. First of all, I congratulate Jackie Baillie on not moving her amendment. This afternoon, let's look at the agendas of the Government of both sides of the border. First of all, the Westminster Coalition Government's austerity agenda and then to our Scottish Government, where the story is different indeed. Coalition Government to Westminster over the last five years has presided over an agenda of austerity and cut-back spending. It is an agenda that has hurt the most vulnerable in our society more than any other group and for that it is truly a shame on their record in government. According to the Child Poverty Action Group by 2020, 100,000 more children in Scotland could be pushed into poverty due to the UK Government's welfare reforms. The extent of the problem is deep and widespread, and the figures show it. 2013-14, as already has been said, Trussell Thrust food banks in Scotland provided help to 71,428 people. That is an increase of 400 per cent—400 per cent—than in the previous year, and shockingly 22,387 of those people in 2013-14 were children. That is 30 per cent. 30 per cent of those accessing Trussell Thrust food banks, as I say, are children. 100,000 more children could be pushed into poverty. Yet the Prime Minister and his Tory and Liberal colleagues in Westminster say that their long-term economic plan is working. Who is it working for? That is my question. Certainly not for Scotland's children, not for the most vulnerable in Scotland, vulnerable people like the disabled who are also losing out as a result of Westminster's agenda. In Scotland alone, it is estimated that more than half of those who claim disability living allowance will see their benefits cut by at least £1,100 a year. That money is a lifeline to many of our people, but that is not understood by the UK Government, as it is a world away from the London-centric focus of Westminster. What is the alternative that you may find yourself asking? The Labour Party? The Labour Party? The party is supposed to be for the working class, but it is yet left to its own devices. The Labour Party has made it clear and known in certain terms that they intend to carry on with Tory cuts, cuts that are inflicting real pain and hardship on families across Scotland. Although I am sure that those in the Labour benches will have much to say on this, they only need to look at their recent voting record. 30 billion more cuts over the next two years are put forward by the Tories, backed up by Labour. Better, together, still. That is why, when the people in Scotland have a say in May, as to who they want to represent them in Westminster, I hope that we will be sending a strong team of SNP MPs down to Westminster to not only demand the further powers that we are promised to help to build and grow our economy, but we will be sending MPs down who will change the course and turn the car around on the road of further austerity. With a call for more investment, a different outlook than the slash and burn economic approach of the coalition Government, which will also be followed by Labour, if it gains Government. That is Westminster for you. Tory Labour, Labour Tory. They all have the same austerity agenda, but the Scottish Government has a real alternative, which proposes not only to continue but to increase spending in 2019-20. As has already been said, a point five increase in departmental spending could reduce the debt, allow for a further 180 billion of investment across the UK over the next four years, much at odds with the UK Government's plans and much improved on Labour's. Having reflected on the Westminster Government action, it is only right that we look at the Scottish Government's too. The contrast could not be any more different. The Scottish Government has had to deal with five years of austerity, a 10 per cent cut in real terms to the fiscal budget, a further 25 billion cut in UK public spending over the next three years by the current UK Government. That cuts will affect those in low incomes the most. Despite that, however, the Scottish Government has committed to increasing the revenue budget for the NHS in real terms for the remainder of this Parliament and for each and every year of the next one, too. It has not just protected the NHS, but it has increased the health resource budget in spite of the cuts. The Scottish Government is also doing what it can to mitigate the effects of Westminster welfare cuts, which will cost families in Scotland £6 billion by 2015-16. From the £35 million top-up and discretionary housing payments to mitigating the effects of the bedroom tax, to the £38 million Scottish welfare fund to administer community care grants and crisis grants, and then, of course, the Deputy First Minister announced in April 2014 the Scottish Independent Loving Fund, after Westminster decided to close it. That is a scheme that safeguards support, given to more than 3,000 disabled people here in Scotland. It builds on the existing care through a £5.5 million investment reopening to new users, ensuring its long-term future. From investing in skills, training, education and working to close the attainment gap, to protecting and investing in our NHS, tackling inequality here in Scotland, mitigating Westminster welfare cuts, the Scottish Government provides the alternative to SNP, the alternative to Tory, the alternative to Labour. In May this year, I hope that the SNP will provide an alternative to the people of Scotland. A few seconds have left. Mr Rowley, I remember when you used to come to North Lancer Council. What did Labour ever do for housing in the 36 years that I was a councillor? Nothing. Thank you. We now turn to closing speeches. I remind all members who participated that they should be back in the chamber. I call on Willie Rennie. Six minutes please, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy. It is my political beliefs. It is my connection with communities. It is my upbringing. It is my surroundings that drives my work that I do in this place. I think that that is probably the case with every single member. That is why we are here. We are trying to make the world a better place. That is why I have argued for investing in childcare. I have repeatedly asked the Government to increase over a number of years, and I am pleased that some progress has been made. That is not as much as I would like, but that is one of my driving forces. I see kids that have not had the best start in life, and I think that they deserve a better start in life. That is why I have argued for taking thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people, out of tax altogether. I do not think that it is reasonable that anybody who is paying the minimum wage should be paying income tax. I think that the threshold should be brought right up, and we have made big progress towards achieving that. It helps to make work pay, it incentivises people and it makes their lives better. I met a man in the Borders just last week who earns roughly £12,000 a year. He has seen a big difference in his pay packet. I do not think that he should be paying any tax at all, and that is one of my great ambitions. That is why I have also argued for getting the economy back on track. I am pleased that we have made progress—187,000 jobs since 2010. That is why we are in politics. We all have different views about how we want to get there. We have all got roughly the same destination. We want to make the place a fairer. We want to make a stronger economy. We want to do those things. That is what drives us. We just have different ways of doing it. I do not think that we should castigate each other for having those different views, and we should respect those different views and perhaps criticise where we think that people have got it wrong. However, let us not impugn people's motives about why we are in this place. I think that it is important that debates like that are a great opportunity to thrash out those things. Politics is one of the great forces in society that makes our lives better. The fact that we have heated debates in this chamber is a good thing, because overall it will drive people to make it a better place. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has been lots of talk about inequality today, but the Institute of Fiscal Studies produced a report quite recently that talks about living standards, recent trends and future challenges. On page 13, it is quite clear that income inequality fell rapidly in the wake of the recession. The 90 stroke 10 ratio was 3.9 in 2012-13, at its lowest level since the 1980s. I am sure that other people will come up with lots of other statistics. I am sure that I can just pick one statistic out of the book, and there will be others that contradict in certain ways. However, let us not just say that this UK Government has increased inequality, because there is no doubt that in some areas we have made a big difference. I think that the tax threshold is one of our greatest achievements, taking people out of tax altogether—236,000 people in Scotland—and taking out of tax altogether. That is a great thing, and we should all celebrate that. Mark McDonald's point that I made to Mr Rennie earlier is that viewing that simply in isolation, when it has interaction with other things, for example, the raising of VAT to 20 per cent and also some of the benefit changes that have taken place, it means that some of the people who he is talking about are seeing negative impact as a result of those cumulative effects. There are negative impacts. What I recognise is that in order to get the deficit under control, we had to do some other things. To deny that we need to get the deficit under control, I think that it is not actually looking after our kids, because our children and our grandchildren will not thank us if we continue to build up the debts into the future and leave them lumbered with huge interest rates, huge bond yields that will just burden them down for future years. I think that past generations have done that, and I do not think that we should do that ourselves here. I am grateful that we have got to this point, because whilst I entirely accept that I would not want to foist a debt on my children or grandchildren, surely the size of the debt, numerically, is not the important bit. It is affordability relative to the country's income, the person's income, and surely that is the point, because he can actually increase the income, it becomes more affordable. I accept that. It is not just the size alone, but the size does have an impact on the affordability, and I am sure that he would recognise that. It is creating a robust enough economy. That is why, when we did not manage to keep on track with the deficit reduction, as we would have liked to have done because of the European economy, that is why the market still had confidence in us, because we had an economic plan that was for the long-term, that would have a long-term effect on the benefit of the country. He is absolutely right about that. It is not just a nice… The member said his last minute, I am afraid. I am sorry, Mr Rowley. I will not be able to take that in. However, it would be remiss of me to just observe just one important fact today, that not one SNP member has talked about corporation tax, not one. For something that was a central part of the referendum, a central part, which many members, who I am sure are grumbling just now, are a central part of the referendum campaign, three pence on income tax. You would have thought that at least one would have provided at least a little bit of an explanation as to why there has been such a handbrake term, such a reversal in the policy, and perhaps in his summing up, John Swinney might just do that. Many thanks now, Colin Alex. Johnston, six minutes please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have spoken in similar debates like this in the past, and I have to say that I have heard all the same speeches again today. So why should I let the side down? I will give much the same speeches I have given previously. The first thing that I would like to say is something that I have said before, and I hope that it does not embarrass him. It is how much I admire John Swinney. John Swinney is the best finance minister in this Parliament that this Government has ever had. John Swinney is the man who has been responsible for ensuring that a tight budget has been made to work for Scotland, and he has used the powers that have been devolved to this Parliament in order to achieve that. I am confident that he will do so with the additional powers that are coming. The problem is that John Swinney then goes and spoils it all, as he has done before and he has done again today by saying that, of course, in independent Scotland money would flow like water and he would spend it as quickly as he could get his hands on it. Unfortunately, that does not work. I rarely agree with Jackie Baillie, but occasionally I find something. Jackie Baillie was in an opening statement who described the Government's economic policy as—or prospects for the economic policy—as an economic strategy from an alternative universe. I couldn't agree more. The fact is that this Government is presenting a false prospectus to the Scottish electorate. It imagines that it can talk about labour spending plans and try to outflank labour on the left, but it does so with a broader economic policy that is based on conservative tax policies. There is going to be no increased tax, there is just going to be more spend. However, the fact is that £180 billion that they say they would invest a belief in the UK economy, rather than simply Scotland itself, will cost us money. The cost of borrowing £180 billion for 10 years at today's 10-year bond rate would be about £35 billion. That is £35 billion of interest payments that will not be spent on hospitals, will not be spent on schools and will not be there to be delivered on public services. No, thank you. The problem with that idea is that my good friend, Chick Brody, as he said in detail in his speech, believes in all my conservative economic theories. He believes that by investing in the economy and expanding the economy, he can create jobs, wealth, get greater tax yield and fund better public services. The problem is that that creative economic thinking for which Chick is famous does not include the fact that you have to borrow the money up front. If you cannot pay back the £35 billion over 10 years, you have not got a penny to spend at the end of the day. No, thank you. Even John Swinney, in his opening remarks, made reference to the fact that Chancellor George Osborne had adjusted his policy and loosened the economic bind when it was correct to do so. However, he failed to compare adequately the way in which our economy has travelled, compared with those in other parts of the world and, in fact, even just across the channel in France. When France was alone was elected president, he was elected on the basis of promises that he would flood the economy with resource, expand the French economy and turn France into a boom nation in the post-recession era. Today, France has hit the skids. It is we here in Britain who are enjoying 3.5 per cent growth in the last 12 months, who have seen our borrowing requirement drop from 10 per cent of GDP to 5 per cent of GDP. While John Swinney is complaining about or no longer projecting his plan B, the achievements of plan A, according to Willie Rennie's figures, have outperformed John Swinney's plan B by a factor of six. Alex Salmond, in September of this year, made some brave predictions about the price of oil. Three months later, he was proved dramatically wrong. John Swinney has today, in this Parliament, made projections about the prevailing economic weather in 2024, and he expects us to believe that to be the case. The prospect that the SNP has set out today is one that is based on hit and hope. It is one that is based on an alternative economic strategy, which has been tried and has failed across Europe and across the world. George Osborne has delivered a key economic strategy at a point of economic crisis for our nation. In the space of five years, he has taken us from that point of economic collapse, where no one wanted to know what was going on, and the Labour chancellor left office leaving a note saying that there is no more money, to a position where today we can project our way out of this crisis. We have delivered on behalf of the UK economy, and yes, we have delivered for the Scottish economy too. There is much to do, but a great deal has already been done. We cannot afford to spoil it by accepting the false economic prospectus. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. On Wednesday, the First Minister launched her economic policy. Unlike most things in her first hundred or so days, it went off with a whimper, a flat announcement that largely passed people by. Following the launch, the spin doctors took over, and we eventually found out through briefings to the media that one of the central planks of the Scottish Government's economic policy—one of the central arguments that deployed over the past decade—had actually bitten the dust, namely the demand for the devolution of the corporation tax, so that the Scottish Government could levy the most competitive business taxes in Europe, starting with a 3 per cent cut lower than anything Osborne would say. And yet, not a word off it in honest John's speech or any of the rest of them. Mr Finlay, can you just avoid our nicknames, please? We will do, Presiding Officer. As early as 2005 in her conference speech, Nicola Sturgeon was a great enthusiast for this. We will cut corporation tax because we know from our European competitors like Ireland and Sweden that it is the best way to grow our nation's wealth, said she. Almost every SNP MSP since has championed this policy. Not one of them had the backbone to stand up today and say that it was wrong, and particularly wrong, at a time of austerity and where public services are under such threat. I was always willing to take a Liberal Democrat. Check Brody. I always remind Mr Finlay that some people leave their party because of their principles, and others leave their principles because of their party. I just wonder when we are talking about backbone. How would Mr Finlay have voted on the Trident's agreement to spend £100 billion, or would he have been absent like many of the Labour members? And also, how would he have voted on the austerity cuts of 30 million pounds? Mr Brody, we are debating the economy. However, you may wish to know that I am a member of CND, so I think that the clue is there. Of course, this was one of the SNP's big post election. The difference is, Mr Brody, where I disagree with my party. I am willing to say it, unlike the sheep and the sycophants on the back benches. Of course, this was one of the SNP's big post elections demands. We can recall Alex Salmond, when he bounced into London after the 2011 election, when the list of six asks, he said, and I quote, "...lower incorporation tax would be the best available weapon for Scotland to become competitive." It would lead to a jobs boom, said he. And he told us that modelling shows that the policy would create 27,000 jobs in Scotland and increase GDP by over 1 per cent in the medium term. Of course, there was no greater champion off the policy than the freedmenites in the cabinet led by Mr Swinney, who said that control over corporation tax would enable us to boost investment, bring in jobs to communities across Scotland, grow the economy and take the right decisions for Scotland. He said, off his paper on the subject, "...there is clear evidence from around the world of the benefits from lowering burdens on businesses." In this 54-page document, it sets out the compelling evidence in more detail than ever before. Lower incorporation tax is a vital source of competitive advantage in an integrated global economy, helping to attract new businesses and highly skilled jobs. A competitive regime has been a feature of the economic successes of many countries and we want Scotland to have the same opportunities to bring in jobs and boost growth. Of course, endorsements—here, here—you have abandoned the policy, Mr Patterson. Of course, endorsements from sooter and murder followed, but no other credible commentator would endorse it. Stephen Boyd, the respected economist of the STUC, called the Scottish Government's policy document, and I quote, "...an excruciatingly awful piece of work in which every argument presented is easily debunked." Joseph Stiglitz, one of the First Minister's own economic advisers, said, "...some of you have been told that lowering tax rates in corporations will lead to more investment. The fact is that it's not true. It is a gift to the corporations, increasing inequality in our society." Richard Murphy of the Tax Justice Network said, "...these people really are in la la land. It's time they woke up and saw the reality of the harm they're really proposing to ordinary people who will suffer cuts in education, health, pensions and other essential services as a result of their mad thinking." But on they plowed until this week. Who did they send out to defend this huge uterm on Scotland 2015 on Wednesday night? Not Mr Swinney, not the First Minister, none other than the man who will say anything and do anything as we've seen today to become a minister. Step forward, Mark McDonald. Mr McDonald sent out to defend dumping a policy he wants champion. This is the man who said in a debate that at least Patrick Harvie's position on corporation tax policy is consistent, although I might disagree with it. Consistency, not a charge you would ever level at Mr McDonald or Mr Swinney. I do have a, no thank you, not at the moment. I will let you in, I will let you in, I will let you in when I finish my quote. I will let you in when I finish my quote. I do give Mr McDonald some credit though because at least he had the decency to look as though he would have rather had root canal treatment from the world's worst dentist than defend the policy you turn on TV, but defend it he did. Mark McDonald. I certainly rather have root canal treatment than listen to Mr Finlay, Presiding Officer, but perhaps Mr Finlay can advise us. In all of the years when Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer was reducing corporation tax, did Mr Finlay support that approach being taken by the Labour Party? Real Finlay. That was when the economy was growing. That was at a time of austerity. It is very simple, Mr McDonald. Why would you rip money out of the economy when the economy has gone downwards? Surely that makes sense even to you, but I am sure that your work will be rewarded by the whips. Can I say in their speeches that not one SNP member mentioned this policy, not one mentioned a redistributive policy from rich to poor, not one. Mark McDonald said that a Labour Government would be bound by the coalition's OBR charter—not a woman—by the OBR charter. No Parliament can bind its successor, so he knows that that argument is nonsense. I say that Christina McKelvie rightly raised issues of poverty and inequality, and I think that we probably agree on more than we disagree on those issues. However, we cannot address those issues when we cut council budgets by 24 per cent. Councils are the front line in the fight against poverty and inequality, as John Pentland said, and I like rightly evidence from his constituency, food banks, the social housing crisis and the jobs crisis. Those are huge issues that we cannot allow local government not to address. I am in my last minute. Mr Finlay-Mastrottir closed. This is a Government that supported tax cuts, but now says that it does not. Opposed a 50p rate, but now who knows? Cut 130,000 college places, but now wants to invest in skills. What we need is a Labour Government who will have a 50p tax rate, will bring in a bankers bonus tax, will bring in a mansion tax, will extend the living wage and the minimum wage, will end abusive zero hours contracts and borrow to invest. That is a credible plan for a fairer Scotland, and it is a plan that requires us to kick that lot out as soon as we can. Order. I now call on John Swinney to wind up, Mr Swinney. You have until five o'clock, but can I remind all members before you do that respect must be shown for each other in this chamber? I want to start with a comment that Mr Pentland made. It was possibly about the only remark that Mr Pentland made with which I agreed. That is that there are choices to be made in political life about the priorities that we support. This Government, one of its priorities, would not be to renew the trident nuclear missile system and to save the public of this country £100 billion of expenditure on a completely needless piece of weaponry. In the austerity climate that Mr Finlay is so concerned about, in the way in which he expressed his argument there, there was not a word from Mr Finlay about whether he believed that the priority of the next Parliament should be to renew the trident missile system or whether we should secure that saving and whether that represents the position of his party, because we know, of course, that his party is gung-ho to spend £100 billion on renewing the trident missile system. There are choices to be made in political life, and of course I have made those choices over the past eight years in this role as the finance minister in Scotland. Over that period, since 2007-08, between then and 2012-13, the budget available to me in real terms has fallen by 4.8 per cent. That is what has happened since 2000. Well, if Mr Finlay sits down a second, he will get a chance in a moment, so the budget available to me has reduced by 4.8 per cent in real terms, and the budget available to local government has decreased by 2.6 per cent in real terms. Local government has been protected from some of the cuts that have been inflicted upon this Government by the choices that we have made as the administration. Mr Finlay is now welcome to stand up and congratulate me. If he is protecting local government, why are councils year on year having to make the excessive cuts? Why are they having to lose jobs? Why are our services being closed? If that is protection, then he needs to wake up and see what is happening in local government. John Swinney went into an alliance with the Tories to stop Scotland being in control of our own affairs. That is why it happened, Mr Finlay. If Mr Finlay wants to look at the performance of local authorities, then Mr Finlay only needs to look at the Audit of Scotland report this morning, and Mr Finlay will read in that report a statement from the Audit of the Accounts Commission, which says that councils have managed the financial pressures well so far. Available performance information indicates that services have been improved or maintained. The report goes on at page 11 to say that it is clear that councils in England have faced more severe cuts than the councils have in Scotland. If you look at the budget performance in Scotland, the Labour Party, their principal, asked to me in the budget this year, was to give more money for the health service, so we gave more money for the health service. If you take the health service out of our public expenditure and look at the remainder, because they agree with us about health spending, the share of our budget devoted to local government was 55.7 per cent once you take health out of the equation, which they support us about. It is not 55.7 per cent available as a consequence of my budget, it is now 57.2 per cent. The local government settlement has given fair priority to local government. I do not in any way disguise the financial challenges that local government faces, but so do we face those challenges that everyone in the public sector faces because of austerity. That is why we want to do something about it. The Scottish Government's plan to increase real spending by 0.5 per cent per annum from 2016-17 to 2019-20 is an entirely sustainable proposition. Both public sector borrowing and public sector debt as a share of GDP will be falling by the end of the next parliamentary session. A deficit of 2 per cent, which is what that would result in, is sustainable and consistent with debt falling as a share of GDP. Interestingly, a deficit of that magnitude would be smaller than the average deficit in the United Kingdom over the past 60 years. I am very conscious that we have talked about full fiscal autonomy this afternoon. I wonder what assessment you have made of the impact of that, which is the SNP's policy on the deficit and on services such as health and education and pensions. Jackie Baillie has to understand, and I have explained this many times to her before, that fiscal autonomy comes with it, the ability to boost and expand the economy, which gives us the ability to invest in our public services. That is the answer. To perhaps look at the wider assessment, because there is a lot of critique from Mr Rennie and Mr Brown on the implications of our alternative approach to austerity, let me just read to Mr Brown and Mr Rennie and to the chamber a quote from the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who says that there is quite a lot of room for manoeuvre in terms of plans to get the deficit down over the next Parliament. Even what Nicola Sturgeon is proposing, which would involve spending quite a lot more and boring quite a lot more than what the Conservatives are proposing, would still result in a falling deficit and a falling debt over the Parliament, so it would be ffiscally sustainable, and I think that that should be recognised across the chamber. Colleagues across the chamber have asked about the Government's position on co-operation tax. I hate to disappoint Mr Finlay, who seemed to be getting himself worked up into a terrible lather about this. The Government remains committed to lower co-operation tax. That is the Government's position. That is what is stated on page 80 of the document. What we have set out is our approach to reduce co-operation tax in a targeted way to support investment in capital, which is entirely consistent with the remainder of our economic strategy. John Swinney has supported a blanket reduction in co-operation tax for almost a decade. When did he change his mind and why? What the Government has done is reviewed our economic strategy to make it more targeted on boosting innovation and internationalisation and infrastructure in our country, and that is why we believe that a more targeted approach is essential. Just to complete my response to Mr Finlay on this point, if Mr Finlay had turned over the page that he was reading from about co-operation—if he had read the co-operation tax point, first of all, he would have realised that we remain committed to lower co-operation tax—he would then have read on page 81 that the Government believes that we should have responsibility for employment rights, including the national minimum wage. Of course, that was my position in the Smith commission. It would be nice if the Labour Party had bothered to support it to enable us to tackle some of those issues. Mr Rennie invited me to redeem myself by learning some lessons from the record of the Liberal Democrats. Let me share with Parliament some elements of the record of the Liberal Democrats who have been associated with the Conservatives in a coalition Government that looks like it is going to give them a lot of electoral success as a consequence. As of the third quarter of 2014, GDP per capita in the United Kingdom was 1.8 per cent below pre-recession levels. That is what the Liberals have delivered. Real wages are 4.1 per cent below their 2008 levels. That is what the Liberal Democrats have delivered. The IFS has found that tax and benefits changes introduced by the UK Government have harmed the poorest 10 per cent of households more than any other section of the population. That is what the Liberal Democrats have delivered. The child poverty action group believes that an additional 100,000 children in Scotland could be living in relative poverty after housing cuts because of the UK Government's actions. That is what the Liberal Democrats have delivered. Very beefily, Mr Rennie. Taxes cut, pensions up, more childcare and the economy is back on track. That is what the Lib Dems have done and he needs to recognise it. If Mr Rennie tells that to the poorest 10 per cent of the population who have born the greatest bit of the burden of the austerity programme of the UK Government, they will laugh in Mr Rennie's face at the absurdity of his remarks. Jackie Baillie in her speech today tried to suggest that the Labour Party would have nothing to do with austerity. It was so gently expressed that we almost thought that Jackie Baillie had come to some conclusion that was different to her colleagues in the United Kingdom Government yet in the UK Labour Party. The UK Labour Party trooped into the lobbies of the House of Commons to vote for the Charter of Budget Responsibility, committing the next Labour Government to a £30 billion worth of cuts. Jackie Baillie should have been giving her pleading speech to the Labour Party in London rather than coming here after the event when the decision has been taken. I will happily take an intervention. OK. The SNP and the cabinet secretary explained to me why yesterday, when we had a chance to oppose Tory austerity measures, their MPs sat on their hands and did nothing. For two reasons, because the Labour motion yesterday was committing to sensible, nice labour cuts as opposed to horrible Tory cuts, but they are still cuts. Whether it is Tory or Labour or is it the other way around, I cannot tell the difference. The other reason is that yesterday was posturing by the Labour Party because the Labour Party, when it mattered, went into the lobbies and put it into law that the cuts must be made. That is the absurdity that the Labour Party has become and we will remind the people of Scotland of that right up until the 7th of May. Order. That concludes the debate on protecting public services and business of Scotland's economy. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bill of motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motions 12503 and 12496 on approval of SSIs. Questions on these motions will put a decision time to which we now come. I wish to raise a point of order in relation to exchanges today at First Minister's questions between Kezia Dugdale and the First Minister. During the exchanges, the First Minister said that we are spending more on colleges today than Labour ever did throughout its entire time in office. That is an inaccurate statement. In 2006-07, the spending on colleges was £598 million, £23 million more than the current college budget, which is £575 million. The First Minister has therefore misled Parliament and I seek your advice as to how the record can be connected. As the member is well aware, as I say, time and time and time again in this chamber, I am not responsible for what is said in the chamber, nor am I responsible for the content of the answers. You have now made your point and I intend to move on to the next item of business, which is decision time. There are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. In relation to this afternoon's debate, can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie is agreed to, the amendments in the name of Gavin Brown and Willie Rennie Fall. The first question then is amendment number 12521.2 in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion number 12521 in the name of John Swinney, on protecting public services and boosts in Scotland's economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parents not agreed, we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote and amendment number 12521.2 in the name of Jackie Baillie is as follows. Yes, 25, no, 8 to 1. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Is it at all possible that we're going to stop us shouting across the chamber? Can I now remind members that if the amendment in the name of Gavin Brown is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie falls. The next question then is amendment number 12521.1 in the name of Gavin Brown, which seeks to amend motion number 12521 in the name of John Swinney, on protecting public services and boosts in Scotland's economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parents not agreed, we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote and amendment number 12521.1 in the name of Gavin Brown is as follows. Yes, 17, no, 8 to 8. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment number 12521.3 in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend motion number 12521 in the name of John Swinney, on protecting public services and boosts in Scotland's economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed, therefore we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote and amendment number 12521.3 in the name of Willie Rennie is as follows. Yes, 4, no, 8 to 9. There were 13 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12521 in the name of John Swinney, on protecting public services and boosts in Scotland's economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed, therefore we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12521 in the name of John Swinney is, yes, 60, no, 44. There were two abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 125213 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on approval for an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12496 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on approval for an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. I now close this meeting.