 The next item of business is debate on motion 15390 in the name of Richard Leonard on Scotland's future economy. I would invite members who wish to speak in the debate, press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Richard Leonard to speak to and move the motion for up to 12 minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In recent weeks, we have witnessed again the unacceptable face of capitalism from Kayam in West Lothian to health environmental services in North Lanarkshire. Whilst this Parliament was in recess, almost 500 working women and men discovered first that they were not being paid, and then that they were losing their livelihoods altogether. Now, there are outstanding questions in both of these recent workplace closures, which I hope we will get answers to this afternoon. Answers about who knew what and when, including Scottish Government officials and even Scottish Government ministers, which we will come to in this debate. The point is that those industrious women and men who worked in those firms, those who, through their hard work and endeavour, created the wealth that built those businesses up, were the last to know, and by any measure, economic, social, moral, that simply is not right. We move this motion and raise this debate today not simply because this is a battle over jobs in the Scottish economy, although it is. We raise it because this is a battle over justice in the Scottish economy. The trouble is that what happened over the last few weeks is not unique. Over the last few months, I have met too many working people whose jobs are under threat. Along with Colin Smyth, who will speak in this debate, I met with the Pinnies workers in Anand where 700 jobs have now been lost in a devastating blow to the local community. In fact, I met them on the day that the first people left the factory for the last time. They told me that it felt like a bereavement. Just before Christmas, I met with the workers at Gemini rail services in Springburn, whose jobs are also now under threat, jobs that have existed for 150 years. I have to say this, that the economics of neoliberalism, the rule of the market, the push for deregulation, the doctrine of fiscal austerity and the experiment of privatisation are what has led in the end to this threat to those jobs in Springburn. Today's debate is about Parliament reasserting itself. It is a declaration of intent that the economy cannot be left to the market, that we will not stand by whilst working people are exploited and then cast aside. It is a rejection of the creed that the economy has nothing to do with Parliament and politics because it has everything to do with Parliament and politics. The Parliament is nothing if it does not side with the working people that we represent. Can I say that I do not believe that the answer to the crisis in our economy is to be found in nationalism, either Scottish or British, which is why we say to the SNP that Brexit represents a major immediate threat to our economy. The reason many of us not only voted remain, but campaigned for remain in 2016 was precisely because of the big economic shock that withdrawal would bring. It is why we have argued for a customs union with the European Union, why we have argued for a close economic relationship and access to the single market and a commitment to the maintenance of workers' rights, consumer rights and environmental rights. It is why we, implacably, all along the line have opposed a no-deal Brexit, but the damage posed to the Scottish economy by the threat of independence, which the First Minister was tweeting about just this morning and holding a press conference about just this afternoon and the growth commission's prospectus, which she was not tweeting about, which the economy secretary sat on, is far worse a threat. So we will not be supporting the SNP amendment. I thank the member for giving way. Apart from the bit about nationalism, I agreed with a lot of what he said. If his attack is on neoliberalism, does he not think that Scotland might be healthier and might have less neoliberalism if we were independent? Richard Leonard. No. Neither will we support the Tory amendment. I say to the member, look at the growth commission report. It is a recipe for neoliberalism and further austerity. Let me also say to the chamber that neither will we support the Tory amendment, which advocates the very neoliberal small state free market economics, which has created the crisis in the first place, which is now discredited, not least in the eyes of the people. The existing imbalance of power in our economy is not addressed by nationalism, which simply leaves economic relations and so power relations unreformed, simply transferring power from one Parliament to another or from one group of politicians to another, whether that is from Strasbourg and Brussels to London or from London to Edinburgh does not address the real democratic deficit that exists because people need more than a vote, they need a voice, which is why for us the answer is to be found first and foremost not in national sovereignty but in popular sovereignty. It is not simply enough either to denounce the existing system. We have to give people hope to do nothing is to be complicit in these injustices that we have witnessed in recent weeks, so we firmly reject the doctrine of inevitable decline. We need to invest in a modernised industrial base but we need to invest in the workforce to innovate and to run it as well. Let me be clear, the Scottish Labour Party is not simply calling for a Keynesian style reflation of the old economy or merely asking that the tears are taken out of capitalism as somebody once said. We are calling for a wholly new approach based on popular democracy and workers' rights, on sustainable development, on a social purpose as well as an economic purpose, an approach to the economy where the needs of all will count for more than the profits of the few. Whereas well there is nothing wrong with running industries and services in line with the wider national interest rather than the narrow shareholder interest, so it is a transformative change that we are after. Building for full employment, investment-led, closing production gaps and productivity gaps, securing an industrial renaissance that is ecologically sustainable with a new investment bank that looks beyond the market and opens up the prospect of public planning. The argument is not about whether we can afford to make the change, it is about a realisation that we cannot afford not to. It is about new ideas but old ideals as well. We are proud of the fact that we are a Labour Party that stands firm with the trade union movement, a Labour Party proud of its past but building for a future. So we want Scotland, the home of Robert Owen, the birthplace of the Fennick Weavers to be the co-operative wellspring of democratic ownership, to become the Mondragon of the North. A new report by the new economics foundation entitled co-operatives unleashed shows the urgency of this and with this ambition must come investment but must also come accountability. So it is welcome that last August the Scottish Government announced that it was setting up a new group to increase employee ownership, to increase it in Scotland from around 100 businesses to 500, but hugely disappointing that it was only given £75,000 to do it. We know that this is symptomatic of a wider level of mediocrity and malaise in the landscape of industrial development support in Scotland. Since 2007, Scottish Enterprise has awarded £222 million in regional selective assistance grants, but just £140 million of that has been awarded to Scottish-owned firms. We know that because it is a matter of public record that Michelin received £4.5 million of regional selective assistance, two sisters in Camberslang, a half a million pounds and Ciam in Livingston £850,000. There is a wider point here about what this bias in grant awards means because it has not challenged, it has entrenched even further the branch plant model of the Scottish economy with the result that, according to the Scottish Government's own statistics, overseas owned firms now generate a third of all turnover in the Scottish economy and in manufacturing industries where much of regional selective assistance is targeted, nearly half of all turnover is now in firms which are owned overseas. We want to see a rebalancing of the economy. We want to see more of a mixed economy and so that means Gemini rail services, which for decades were in public ownership, should be considered once again for public ownership when we return the railways back to public ownership. It means that HES, which has grown as a result of public sector contracts, largely in the national health service, should be insourced, not outsourced, and we should be entering into agreements with companies that seek RSA grants or in future will seek Scottish national investment bank loans or equity stakes agreements that include not just job guarantees but investment guarantees. Here is another radical idea. It means that all workers should be given a statutory preferential right to buy the enterprise that they work for when it is put up for sale or facing closure. If this Parliament can back land reform, let it also back industrial reform as well. If this Parliament and this Government have a choice, we can go on as we are or we can take a more radical direction. Ownership is power. We can extend democracy in the economy. We can liberate people at work. We can make a real change. That is what people are crying out for. That is what this Parliament needs to do and that is what this Labour Party will continue to argue and campaign for. I move the motion in my name. I call Derek Mackay to speak true and move amendment 15390.3 for up to eight minutes please. Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name. I am genuinely pleased to respond to today's debate on Scotland's future economy, certainly following on from yesterday's just transition debate, which I think is pertinent. I am grateful to Richard Leonard for bringing this motion to Parliament today for us to be able to consider our efforts around the economy and the very important matter of jobs. Across the chamber, I think that we are all in agreement that Scotland does have huge economic potential and we all want to see fairness and quality employment as well. Richard Leonard believes that Scotland's future economy needs an industrial strategy. I say that we already have one and it is focused on the strong, vibrant and diverse economy that is necessary to support quality jobs and strong, resilient and regional economies. Of course, there is a challenge, of course. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary can explain why regional selective assistance, as is highlighted by my colleague Richard Leonard, is focused so much on firms that are foreign-owned rather than indigenous. Is there any way in which the Scottish Government can address that quickly? Derek Mackay? First of all, I am genuinely trying to make this as consensual as possible, because I think that there is a lot of agreement on what we are trying to achieve for the economy. I mean that I am genuinely trying to ensure that we reach that consensus. The simple answer is that first we are bound by some legal impediments as to how we can direct financial support state aid rules, swan and so forth. Do I want to support indigenous companies? Of course I do, but equally, when there is quality employment, I will come back to Michelin. Michelin is a foreign-owned company. I do not think that Richard Leonard was suggesting for one moment that we should not have been supporting Michelin, for example, to grow, expand and recalibrate. I make the point that, on the one hand, we have been asked why we do not do more to support companies to provide quality jobs and then, at the same time, be challenged on why we are supporting certain foreign-owned companies to grow in Scotland. Do we want to do more domestically? Yes. Do we want to do more around the kind of debate that we were having yesterday in the dress transition? Yes, we do. We are recalibrating the enterprise agency's work on upskilling and upscaling domestic and indigenous companies as well. I am very focused on that and very focused on targeting our financial support to do that as well. I hope that that reassures Claudia Beamish. The Government is working to create the conditions for greater and inclusive economic growth, to raise the standard of living and better fund our services. It is right that Parliament reasserts itself, but we have taken a number of actions in relation to very individual, industrial and commercial difficulties over the recent period. The business minister, Jamie Hepburn, was able to cover in detail at the economy committee that I was also giving evidence at in relation to some of the companies that Richard Leonard had raised. I suppose that the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland would expect to seek to abolish capitalism as he sees it. I have to say that the Scottish Parliament is a wee bit constricted on what we can do in terms of macroeconomic policy and the economic model. I hear Murdo Fraser say just as well, but that is the difficulty that we are bound by Westminster decisions in terms of macroeconomic policy in large part. However, we are doing to support an economic strategy that sets out our vision for sustainable and inclusive growth, and growth that does boost competitiveness whilst tackling inequalities. Growth that delivers for our communities, for the environment and workers and for business. The economic action plan was launched last year, and it does reinforce the vision that we have set out. Examples of the financial investment that we are making to achieve that vision include city and region deals. They are focused on tackling inequality and supporting those regional economies. So far, we have committed over £1 billion of investment through the city region deals across Scotland. The significant injection of investment to accelerate inclusive economic growth can deliver tangible benefits in the form of jobs and new opportunities in growth areas for businesses to expand in that inclusive way. That is why the amendment has put forward references to the growth deals and the demand for UK Government to match the funding that the Scottish Government has committed to. In addition to the direct impact, those deals have been the catalyst for the development of regional economic partnerships that are evolving across Scotland. The partnerships bring together local authorities, education, skills providers, the third sector and the private sector, and they can be powerful tools to create the linkages across the economy to drive that inclusive growth. I just want to reference some of the current economic indicators, because it is where we are right now in terms of the unemployment rate sitting at 3.8 per cent, its joint lowest rate on record and lower than that of the UK. Productivity growth has been higher than any other country or region in the UK, including London, since 2007, so over the period of devolution. We want to see more about employee ownership in Scotland, and that is why we have set up the commitments around the programme for government. In terms of GDP growth, we have had five consecutive quarters of growth. I say that this is challenged by the Brexit chaos that has been brought upon us by the UK Government. I heard what Richard Leonard said very clearly. Many workers in Cambuslang, Dingwall, Dumfries, Dundee, Livingston and Shots will take little comfort from the success elsewhere. Those economic indicators and workers are affected. I am absolutely very mindful of that in terms of the support that we can put in place as a Government and, of course, pace when that is required. Some companies volunteer to the Scottish Government and the financial difficulties that they find themselves in, and some do not. Where we have a willing partner, I would like to make some further progress, because I have not much time left, but I have a few things I want to say. Specifically, where we can take actions that we have, and I think that I have been able to show that in a number of areas in pace, it gets involved when there are redundancy issues and we try to find alternative employment. Let us not forget the Michelin example in Dundee that I have mentioned. That was a partnership approach that brought together key politicians, the local authority, the company that it involved and, crucially, the trade unions to get the best possible outcome for the site and its workers. That will lead to future growth opportunities around quality employment and innovation that will make a difference, for example in remanufacturing, recycling and low-carbon transports. That is supporting the ambitions that we have laid out in recent debates and also supporting the workers in what has been a very difficult time. Each company is different, of course, and I want to mention what is the biggest threat to our economy right now, because it is significant and real. I just want to say a word about Brexit, because leaving the European Union and taking us out of the single market against its interests will play Scotland at a competitive disadvantage, and that is why there is reference of Brexit in the Government's amendment. The debate may well be focused on business, and it is not unreasonable to expect the UK Government to set out urgently in clear terms what it plans to do to support the economy and businesses as they face the Brexit challenge. Inequally, I will set out the further support that we can deliver as a Government, but there is now that chaos created by the UK Government that we want to address. In conclusion, we want Scotland to be the best place to live, work and invest. The Government is absolutely committed to that through the economic action plan and the economic strategy that we have set out. We will intervene where we can with the ways that we can support companies and the workforce, and we have that desire, as Richard Leonard has said, to set out for more employee-owned companies as well. Scotland has huge economic potential, and we want to work together to ensure that we can unlock that potential in the interests of all the people of Scotland. I call Dean Lockhart to speak to and move amendment 15390.1 for up to seven minutes. The fiscal framework now means that the size of the Scottish Government budget will, in large part, be determined by the performance of Scotland's economy relative to the rest of the UK. For the past 11 years under the SNP, Scottish economic growth has been an average of 0.7 per cent, which the Fraser Valander has described as the longest period of low growth in 60 years and half the rate of UK economic growth. The Scottish Fiscal Commission is forecasting another five years of Scotland's economy underperforming the rest of the UK, and that will have a significantly negative impact on the Scottish budget. After 11 years of SNP government, we have a low growth, low productivity and low wage economy. We have an SNP Government that has failed to meet every one of its own seven economic targets. Scotland is now the highest tax part of the UK for workers earning over £26,000 and for businesses looking to expand. We have the lowest business creation rates in the UK, and we have seen a series of large-scale business failures referred to in Labour's motion, showing that the SNP's enterprise policy is not working. It does not have to be this way. Scotland's long-term economic growth rate is above 2 per cent, and we on this side of the chamber believe that Scottish economic growth can return to those levels. To do so, we need a new direction in economic policy, and perhaps Derek Mackay is about to tell us what his new economic policy will be. Dean Lockhart has just mentioned that there is a different path. Will Brexit assist to GDP growth or be a disadvantage to GDP growth? Brexit applies across all of the UK, and we are seeing the rest of the UK growing at a far stronger rate than in Scotland. The cabinet secretary should not try to use Brexit to blame his underperformance for the past 11 years, because the Scottish economy has underperformed for 11 years under the SNP. I need to make a bit of progress. We have long argued that the SNP's economic policy is not fit for purpose. The Fraser of Allander agrees. Late last year, the Fraser of Allander called for the SNP to change course, but when it said, let me make a bit of progress, Fraser of Allander said, it is time that the Government looked again at its overall approach to economic policy. Commenting on Derek Mackay's so-called economic action plan, the Fraser of Allander said, where is the clarity? Where is the clarity of purpose that underpins what the Government is trying to achieve? Our amendment to the Labour motion today indicates how the Scottish Government can deliver a change course on economic policy and deliver the high-paid jobs that everyone wants. The UK industrial strategy is the most far-reaching and ambitious UK economic policy in decades. Under the UK industrial strategy, £50 billion of funding will be made available for research and development, investment in new technology and the commercialisation of innovation across the UK. It makes available a scale of investment for Scotland's economic development that would not be possible in a standalone Scottish economic policy. Investment of scale, additional R&D and global expertise is precisely what medium Scotland's new innovative industries need to scale up, including life sciences, low-carbon and fintech. According to the Scotch-Whiskey Association, the UK industrial strategy presents an opportunity for the Scotch-Whiskey industry to flourish as a flagship manufacturer and exporter. To address Richard Leonard's concerns over neoliberalism, the UK industrial strategy is about creating higher-paid jobs that does not trickle down economics. I will give way. I wonder if Mr Lockhart can explain if the UK's approach to research and development policy is so much better than Scotland's wine 2017. R&D spend here in Scotland increased by 13.9 per cent, but in the UK as a whole, it only increased by 2.9 per cent. Dean Lockhart? I think that you will find that, over the past 11 years, R&D across the UK as a whole has been higher in Scotland on business research and development. To fully capitalise on those opportunities under the UK industrial strategy and to create the high-paid jobs that the Scottish economy needs, the Government should incorporate elements of the UK industrial strategy into its economic policy and work closely with the UK Government to deliver the full benefits. We have also long argued that increasing the tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK will damage the economy. Scotland needs to be able to attract the brightest and the best from around the world. That is important not just to address the skills gap in highly-skilled sectors, but we need to attract more higher-paid workers to strengthen Scotland's tax base. The finance committee has heard evidence that for every 20 new additional rate taxpayers in Scotland, the Scottish Government would get an extra £1 million in tax revenue, meaning that if we can attract 2,000 new additional rate taxpayers to Scotland, the Scottish Government budget will get an extra £100 million a year in tax revenue. However, instead of trying to attract those higher-paid workers to Scotland, the Scottish National Party is doing exactly the opposite by making Scotland the highest tax part of the UK for those workers. It is time for the Scottish National Party to listen to leading organisations such as the Scottish Life Sciences Association and reverse its policy of increasing the tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In the area of enterprise and skills policy, Scotland spends £2.5 billion a year on enterprise. That is more than 50 per cent higher than the rest of the UK, but we are seeing business development rates at economic growth lower than the rest of the UK. Last year, the Parliament passed a motion recognising the problem of a cluttered enterprise landscape. However, instead of streamlining the enterprise landscape, the SNP has created another two quangos, the strategic board and the Scottish National Investment Bank, and it is still not clear how those bodies will help to streamline the enterprise landscape. That is why we are calling for the enterprise landscape to be streamlined. It needs real leadership from the Scottish Government, and taxpayers need to see a better return for their investment. Government policy also needs to prepare Scotland for a digital future. At the economy committee, we heard that only 9 per cent of business in Scotland have embedded digital in their business operations. That compares with 43 per cent of business in other countries. That digital gap presents a massive challenge for companies that are looking to increase their exports. The global export market is increasingly dominated by e-commerce and digital platforms. The Scottish business will lose out on those Twitter opportunities if we do not address the digital gap. That is why we are calling for the establishment of a dedicated institute of e-commerce, a specialist public agency in Scotland, that would help to move large and small businesses online in order to take advantage of global opportunities in e-commerce and get the Scottish economy ready for a digital future. We have heard yet again that the cabinet secretary will attempt to hide his 11-year economic failure by blaming Brexit, but the reality is that the SNP has been in charge of Scotland's economy for 11 long years and has turned it into a low-growth, low productivity and low-wage economy. That is why it is time for a new direction in Scotland's economic policy. I move the amendment in my name. I call Patrick Harvie. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am grateful that Richard Leonard's motion gives us all the opportunity to reinforce the opening sentiment in the first lines of the motion in expressing solidarity with those who have been affected by recent announcements of workplace closures and job losses. The individuals, their families and their wider communities who have been affected should be in all of our thoughts. I am pleased that Richard Leonard's speech in opening the debate made clear the argument that the wealth of our economy is created by all of us, by people working in the economy, not by some supernatural small subsection of society called wealth creators or entrepreneurs. It is not only those who own businesses or who control capital who create the wealth of our economy—it is all of us—and not just those who are in paid employment either. A great deal of unpaid work in our society, whether in caring for one another, in looking after our communities, in volunteering within them, is also critical to creating the wealth in the widest sense of our whole society. I am pleased that the motion offers an opportunity for some consensus. My amendment, which was not selected, would have added a little. The Liberal Democrats had not added an amendment, so I assume that they are happy with the motion. We will hear that in a moment. The Government amendment also adds to the motion that has been submitted. I regret that we are not going to see the opportunity for consensus if the Labour Party does not support the Government amendment. I will say bluntly to Richard Leonard in the best and, hopefully, most constructive sense. If the Government's amendment had been raving on about the growth commission, I would have been voting against it absolutely. I would have been voting against that kind of agenda without hesitation. The Government's amendment does not do that. It talks about extra investment, perhaps not as much as it has justified, but I hope that none of us would be unwilling to welcome the extra investment if the UK Government was to make it. It talks about ruling out a no-deal Brexit. I hope that that is something that the Labour Party would also agree with. I would regret it if we cannot unite on that point. Neil Findlay I do not know if Mr Harvey was in for the statement from the cabinet secretary, but I made it absolutely clear, as did Richard Leonard in his speech, that we oppose a no-deal Brexit absolutely and we will never accept that. I am very pleased to hear that, and I hope that we can unite in that position by backing the amendment that includes it. I am always happy to debate the future of the economy. One of the reasons why the Green Movement and the Green Party exist is to offer different ideas about the future of our economy, because we are convinced that the current, extractive, exploitative, fossil fuel-powered and growth-dependent economic model that is dominant in the world has given us a legacy of environmental crisis and inequality. Our approach to that, and to the case for an industrial strategy, was set out largely yesterday in the debate on just transition. The work that we have done, including reporting jobs in Scotland's new economy, showed how there is a huge opportunity to create high value, lasting and genuinely sustainable employment in the industries that can replace fossil fuels, but we are not going to see that change take place if we do not recognise the change that is coming. I would make the comparison between that approach to the fossil fuel industries that exist in Scotland at the moment and something on a smaller scale, such as Longannock. For years, we all knew that Longannock was coming to the end of its life. The Government knew it, local council knew it, the owners and operators of the plant knew it and the workforce knew it. Everybody knew that plant was coming to the end of its life. For the most part, people buried their heads and said, no, no, we are fully committed to the long-term operation of this plant. The last 10 years of that plant's operation should have been dedicated to generating investment in the local area to replace that economic activity. We are in danger of seeing the same kind of failure to invest on a much bigger scale in relation to the North Sea. The oil and gas industry cannot last in its current form, at least not on the current scale. It is not the future of our economy and we are only going to make the case for investment in something new, something that can genuinely be sustainable if we recognise the change that is coming. I give way. Rachael Hamilton Patrick Harvie for the intervention. I am interested in his comments about the jobs that are reliant actually on fossil fuel energy production. Going forward, we will be looking at new forms of energy. I just wondered if the Green Party had any solutions or suggestions for job recreation that will not be as many jobs created within that fossil fuel industry. Yes, indeed. I will very happily send a link to the various reports that we have published on that over the years. The one opportunity that I would set out is the case for local energy companies, for example. If every local authority in Scotland had the opportunity to create its own local energy company, perhaps in concert with housing associations or with other community bodies or local development trusts, there would be a huge opportunity to turn more of the economic activity of the energy industry into public investment in the built environment and others. The last point that I will make, Presiding Officer, is that I know what type of time I do say that Brexit is a profound threat, not only Brexit but also the loss of freedom of movement and historic political achievement that is about empowering people in the economy. I do hope that Richard Leonard in his closing speech might take the chance to agree that we must not return to the idea of an economy where capital is freer to move than people are. If his party is committed to that, will he continue to back the principle of freedom of movement wherever the outcome of the Brexit shambles that we are seeing down south? Willie Rennie, six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We are living at an incredible moment. I agree with the SNP amendment that Brexit is the biggest threat to our economy, to our cost of living and our way of life. Breaking from Europe would be damaging. To the Labour members who are still here, that means that any kind of Brexit, not just a no-deal Brexit, would be damaging, but so would any kind of Brexit, too. Breaking from the UK with independence would be equally damaging, if not more damaging if we were to agree to it. We should learn the lessons from Brexit and reject independence, too. So, yes, the Scottish economy is stuttering. Yes, there is a real need to address the specific job losses and specific locations across Scotland mentioned in the Labour motion and the pain that that causes to families and individuals. Yes, city deals are part of the solution. We agree that the UK Government should contribute more to the city deals. 388 million pounds is that difference between what the Scottish Government is contributing and what the UK Government is contributing. Nick Clegg was the driver behind the city deals during the coalition days. Remember those calm periods during politics? Oh, I wish that we could return to that calm period with Nick Clegg. It is reasonable for me to point out that the one deal before the 2015 election, the Glasgow city deal, saw a broadly equal level of funding from the two Governments. The Conservatives should have stuck to that wise liberal Democrat approach from the Nick Clegg days. Today, I want to talk about an issue that does not just affect our economy and our way of life but will affect countries across the world. We are in the midst of a technological age that is transforming the world around us at a pace that we have never seen before. The internet has fundamentally changed almost every aspect of our lives—how we work, how we shop and how we relate to one another. Advances in robotics and artificial intelligence are creating possibilities that just a few short years ago were the realm of science fiction. However, with the age of the internet, every great liberating advance that is produced throws up new problems and new risks. Constant technological advances in automation and artificial intelligence threaten many traditional jobs—manufacturing, retail, transport and professional services. In the next 15 years, almost one in every three current jobs in Britain could be automated. That is one in three. That is 10 million people. What will we say to the truck driver whose job is a thing of the past? To the shop assistant laid off as robots fill the gap? To the paralegal or auditor whose knowledge and analysis is no match for the algorithm? Machines still have limits and will continue to do so. They cannot empathise or accurately mimic the full complexity of human interaction. Increasingly, that will be what separates us from them. Our very humanity will be more precious than ever. For example, our ageing population requires a growing care sector. Care work should no longer be dismissed as low-paid and unskilled. Instead, we need a care revolution to place care giving where it belongs as a vital and hugely valued part of our society, with well-paid staff recognised for the significant skills that they bring. I believe that we should welcome the advent of new technologies and the opportunities that they bring, but we must anticipate that those without adaptable skills could be hurt very badly indeed. One of the answers must be a massive investment in educational skills and retraining. New technologies can create high-skilled, well-paid jobs or turn us into minimum-wage drones. Search for lists of potential new jobs and their roles sound like something straight out of a sci-fi novel. Cyber City Analyst, man-machine team manager, personal data broker. There are stories of faceless algorithms bossing around warehouse staff to meet next-day delivery targets, workers who avoid drinking water so that they do not lose time going to the toilet. Technology is supposed to make work better. It is not supposed to turn us into machines. We must ensure that the proceeds of that progress, too, are not hoarded by the rich and powerful but shared to create a fair and just society. The Government must start planning for this future. That is not the time for incremental change. That is why my party has established a technology and artificial intelligence commission to explore how we can make the most of the possibilities that this revolution brings and ensure that all of us can benefit from them. That has been led by Dr Sue Black, who led the campaign to save Bletchley park. The advances in robotics and artificial intelligence will help us to do things that many of us have committed to over the generations on education, transport, poverty, healthcare and more, but we must plan, address the challenges that come with that progress and ensure that we all share from the proceeds of that change. We move to the open debate, and I give members warning that we are very short of time, so strict timings of six minutes and less otherwise agreed. Jenny Marra, followed by Angela Constance, five minutes pleased Ms Marra. My own city of Dundee knows all too well the pain of factory closures and job losses. When globalization was a new phenomenon, Dundee was at the forefront of it with the bitter and heartbreaking closure of Timex. Ten years later, Levi's closed its door and NCR has gone from employing 6,000 people, including members of my family, to 500 today. Now, Michelin 2 is due to close. At the start of November, Michelin announced that it would end production in Dundee by 2020. The loss of 845 highly skilled, well-paying jobs and the closure of Dundee's last large-scale manufacturing plant. The cabinet secretary knows that, for years, it was known in the city that Michelin owed its survival in a difficult global market to a productive workforce and a stellar relationship between the trade union and management. However, it was not enough for it to survive today's environment, and we have seen the flight of capital again from our city and the awful knowledge of the impact of that on our community. Just this morning, I visited HMRC in Dundee, which is due to close in 2022 with the loss of another 300 jobs. People have planned their lives, their families, taken finance on their homes, holidays on the basis of expected income and security. I heard at HMRC this morning of staff who were married to staff at Michelin, expecting both to lose their jobs in the next two to three years. The further critical consideration for us as politicians and the devastating impact for the existing workers is the fewer opportunities in the community for children leaving school and college to go into. If there were 850 fewer opportunities at Michelin, that would be bad enough. I have described some historical closures, but the tally of job loss in Dundee today is much worse for families. In 2016, I fought unsuccessfully alongside the 115 flint workers to save their plant. They had a group of workers that wanted to buy their plant, as Richard Leonard suggested, but that option was closed to them. The same-year pressure fab closed with the loss of 42 jobs, the previous year, and the mirror feels shut, with redundancy of 284 construction workers. More job losses in the game sector in Dundee have been announced just this week. People generally feel more secure in public sector jobs, but that is not the case today in Dundee, with those 300 job losses at HMRC and Dundee City Council itself. It is expected to make approximately 400 council workers redundant as a result of the terrible budget settlement for local government from the SNP. We now know that NHS Tayside is planning 1,300 fewer posts over the next few years. Fewer staff, cabinet secretary, is never going to solve the well-documented problems of NHS Tayside, and politicians running this Government in Scotland should know that. I say to Derek Mackay today that we cannot go on like this. His Government is adding insult injury with public sector job cuts. The cabinet secretary will remember at the end of November that he admitted to me at a meeting in Dundee that this Government has no economic plan for the city of Dundee. It has supported the waterfront, and it has put in place a steering group for Michelin. However, we need a much wider economic plan for Dundee, where I hesitate to say this, but work is fast becoming a privilege rather than an expectation. That is why the labour motion is so important today. Our politics were founded on the basis that their right to work dignifies people and brings hope and security. The constitutional debates are clearly critical for the economic conditions that they create, but we cannot take our eyes off of what can be done here and now in Scotland to create a better economy. I say today that we need a proper economic strategy, one specifically for Dundee. We have terrible employment figures, and we have one of the lowest male employment rates in Scotland and the highest proportion of males in part-time work. He knows where there is joblessness, poverty and all its associated problems. I would like him to commit to a proper plan for Dundee. I was not allowed to take your intervention, but I am sure that you will give me that commitment in your closing speech. I am very grateful for the opportunity to express my solidarity with all those who have lost their jobs across Scotland in recent weeks. I represent the constituency that I grew up in, and I have spoken before how unemployment marked my own upbringing. Anytime there are job losses in my constituency, most recently, with the events that I am, it always feels like someone is picking a scab or poking at a sore spot. I, like many members, have been involved in supporting and representing many people over the years who have lost their jobs, but it is still hard to find the words to express the experience that I recently had at the meeting on Christmas Eve where the Administrator's KPMG broke the news to more than 300 workers that they were being made redundant without notice or pay before Christmas. Despite the difficulty and distress, I was struck by the dignity of the workforce, not that they should ever have had to endure this treatment. We should not forget that work is part of our purpose in life, part of our identity, as well as how we make a living. Creating meaningful employment is indeed the most important social policy, and I have heard the cabinet secretary rightly make that point on a number of occasions. I want to take the opportunity once again to pay tribute to the wider West Lothian community for rallying around the Kayam workforce. You just have to look at the Let's Help Kayam Employees Facebook page to see that people are posting job vacancies, offering to help others with CVs, as well as the work around the nations and fundraising. The Kayam experience reminds us of some of the lessons that we need to start to learn. Our economic strategy, in my view, needs to be smarter at getting the right balance and the right connections between the local, national and international. Globalisation is not new, it is not the discovery of our generation, and you only need to look at the history of the silk roads to understand that. Time and time again in West Lothian, we have seen public money invested in large, often international companies, who at some point later upsticks. I want the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise to continue to invest in West Lothian. I recognise that you can only ever reduce risk and can never remove it entirely. However, our actions and investments must always seek to really anchor high-quality jobs in our communities and to have that forensic understanding of the nature of any business in any sector and the interplay between the local, national and international settings. Kayam was dependent on business from big data companies such as Google, Amazon and Facebook operating in a highly competitive market with stiff competition from China. However, Kayam did not just shaft his workforce, it also cheated small supply chain companies out of payments, too. We must, of course, scrutinise how Scottish Enterprise and others detect the early warning signs of financial difficulties in companies, particularly the ones that they account manage. History of laying of his accounts had not made a profit since 2012 and had a history of laying staff off. We know that 95 per cent of companies in this country are small to medium-sized enterprises. If we truly believe in diversifying our economy and not putting all our eggs in one basket, we need to have stronger, earlier outreach and support to smaller enterprises of all shapes and sizes across all sectors from the grassroots up. The debate next week on regional economic partnerships in city deals is timely. We need a broad-based economic strategy with inclusive growth at its very heart. The Government and, in particular, its agencies should be more assertive and, dare I say, more aggressive about the business pledge and the fair work agenda. As time is short, I cannot bear to talk more about Brexit. I want to say that we look forward to the day when there are more economic and financial powers returned to Scotland, in particular the national minimum wage. I will end by saying that the lightning rod of our economy should be tackling inequality, supporting job creators large and small, being serious about diversity in our workforce and diversification in our economy, and getting out and about raising our horizons beyond the sterile Scotland versus the rest of the UK economic comparators, and getting out and about along those silk roads, perhaps. I thank Ms Constance for her brevity. I remind members of six-minute speeches unless previously agreed, and I call Rachel Hamilton to be followed by Sandra White. I refer members to my register of interests. Businesses, as we are discussing today, are the backbone of our economy in Scotland and, indeed, in my constituency of the borders. In recent time, we have seen significant job losses and business closures across the region. Economic mismanagement is at the heart of the debate today. For a decade, we have seen the SNP's fiscal incompetency hit businesses and, in turn, hit jobs. Scotland's economic growth forecast is lower than the UK, as my colleague Dean Lockhart said. Scotland's economy is growing at half of the rest of the UK. As a whole, business investment in Scotland is at a lower level than in 2014. As Angela Constance said, it is not about comparing with the rest of the UK. I hope that we can get to the point where we can be as successful as the rest of the UK. Yes, I will give way to John Mason. I thank the member very much for giving way. Would she accept at least some of the responsibility for the economy that might lie with the Westminster Government? In response to John Mason, I would say that perhaps now is the time to consider getting involved in the industrial strategy. There is a long-term ambition to tackle productivity and to tackle the low-wage economy that we are currently in, which is hitting families hard. We all know on those benches that you do not grow the economy by hiking up tax on businesses. Under the SNP, unfortunately, we have seen that. Whether it is on the high street or the factory floor, the SNP's assault on businesses has meant that the ordinary hard-working people have lost their jobs and trading has, in some cases, ceased altogether a cacophony of higher taxes, whether the large business supplement or higher income tax, combined with an obsession with independence, has damaged business investment and expansion in Scotland. That is regrettable, I must say. The constituency that I represent in Ettrick-Roxford and Berwickshire has seen its fair share of job losses and workplace closures of late and a fact that is mirrored across Scotland. Recently, we have seen the coped hangar manufacturer, Meneti, in Jedbra suffer. Can I finish the bit about Meneti, please? Meneti employs more than 350 staff in Jedbra. However, before Christmas, they saw 50 job cuts due to a restructuring programme, which is fair enough, but it seems to be mirrored across Scotland, as I said. 50 jobs losses in a small town such as Jedbra is significant. It was and still is distressing for families and friends and for all those involved. Back in 2017, Meneti made a loss of 561,000, and this year they are forecast to make a loss again. After I have taken an intervention, I will discuss how Jim Hutchison believes that that has happened. Derek Mackay I thank Rachael Hamilton for allowing me to make the intervention and referencing the economic indicators and the responsibility of the Scottish Government. What does Rachael Hamilton have to say to the fact, then, that unemployment in Scotland is lower than unemployment for the rest of the United Kingdom and is at a record low level? Rachael Hamilton I congratulate the Scottish Government on that figure. However, it states that since 2010, productivity has been low. Also, the number of hours that people are working is actually quite low. We need to make sure that people have future job security. We just talked about Meneti having the troubles. The managing director of Meneti, Jim Hutchison, could not have been clearer on the point when he said, I quote, that businesses face with an ever-increasing cost base, with increases in national minimum wage, higher electricity costs and higher business rates. What we can do here is look at the things that are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, and the large business supplement has been detrimental to business expansion in the borders and is now causing firms to cut jobs as a result. Recent analysis has shown that over 320 large businesses in the borders will fork out over £1.4 million in the upcoming financial year because of the SNP's large business supplement. However, some 10 miles over the border in England, we see a different picture with lower rates, and the SNP was warned about this disparity. Their own Barclay review recommended that competitive disadvantage caused by the large business supplement should be ended. Why would a large business want to trade in Jebron and Kelso? Of course, it is a beautiful place, and it is a wonderful place to live and work, but perhaps they would consider relocating to Berwick. It could turn a larger profit and therefore employ more local people and, in turn, give them the opportunity to invest further within their businesses. We know that policies drive behavioural change. Clearly, Presiding Officer, when it comes to business rates on large businesses, Scotland is uncompetitive and discouraging at the moment, but something could be done about that. Derek Mackay could sort that out. The large business supplement is only one part of the story. The anti-business environment that has been created is evident in the start-up figures highlighted recently in the Sunday Times. There is a sharp increase in company formations occurring in other major cities in the rest of the UK. However, in Glasgow and Edinburgh, it is a different story. Glasgow saw 4.3 fewer start-ups compared to 2017, and the figures were worse for Edinburgh, down by 6.5 per cent. Can I just check, Presiding Officer, because I took in two interventions? No, I have no spare time. I will come to my conclusion. I believe that the SNP is hitting businesses with higher taxes. It is having a consequence. We are seeing fewer jobs, fewer business start-ups and a lack of focus on supporting mature job-creating companies. Labour's motion today is highlighting that that is where we need to see the focus, on supporting mature companies who are somehow just falling off the radar. I am looking forward to the debate and had been looking forward to it. The unfortunate thing is that I am sorry that Richard Leonard chose to use provocative words, as he might say. I could just give him a couple of lessons in the respect. It seems to me that everybody is a basket case apart from the UK and the Union. The most successful countries in the world are Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Netherlands and Sweden—all small independent countries, Mr Leonard. I think that it is about time that people learn that. We do not have all the levers. I wish we had, but I did not want to react to that. I am sorry, but I think that it is time that people learn. If you have only got 59 MPs representative out of 650 in Westminster, I do not think that that is a very democratic level playing field, but I have said what I wanted to say and thank you, Presiding Officer, for bearing with me in that particular one. I want to start off with the motion that the Labour Party put forward. I absolutely express solidarity. It is not a strange word to me that solidarity has not been a shop steward and a trade unionist—it is not just the Labour Party that owns that particular word. The people in the communities who have suffered is basically said in the motion the closures. I express my concerns to the many people unsure and worrying about their jobs and the future. It does not just take in the jobs that have been lost and the companies that have been mentioned in the motion by the Labour Party. I am thinking about two particular huge companies, and two of them are based in my constituency in Glasgow—HMV. People are worried that they do not know what is going to happen. They are in limbo at the moment. Devinums is sitting there as well, and they are worried too. I think about them as well, and all the others are uncertain about their future. I will go on to Brexit, which is putting forward an uncertain future. I welcome the call that has been mentioned in the Scottish Government motion, and I think that the Lib Dems mentioned that as well, urging the UK Government to provide additional funding to match the Scottish Government's commitment of £1,584 million in regards to city regions, deals and investment. I do absolutely welcome that as well. It goes without saying that leaving the EU—and I know that Brexit will have absolutely catastrophic results for Scotland and our economy. The FSB Scotland branch has its office in my constituency, and I really do thank them for the work that they do. Indeed, Glasgow Kelvin has one of the highest percentage of SMEs, many of them using local produce in their products. Many of them export those products and import parts and ingredients for their products. In the small business Saturday, I visited a number, as other MSPs did, in my agency and my constituency. Brexit really did loom large in some of the questions that they were asking about. They were concerned about, as I said before, importing, exporting, exchange rate, tourism and, of course, the eventual viability of their businesses as a whole. It is important that we do absolutely continue to support and grow our SMEs. They are the backbone and they are the lifeblood of our communities, and a huge part of our economy and our future. I think that everyone would absolutely agree with that. In the time that I have left, I want to comment on the report by the Fraser of Allander Institute, Brexit and Glasgow City region. Before I mention that, I think that the Conservative Party will absolutely say that growth is projected to continue in the Scottish economy this year and next. However, should a no-deal outcome become an eventuality, then growth is likely to slowly, sharply go down. That is a lesson, so do not quote to me about various other issues when you cannot quote the absolute truth as well. That is about Glasgow and what is going to happen if Brexit no-deal comes across. As a major European city with a diverse business rate, Glasgow City region cannot expect to be immune from the changes that Brexit will bring. Over the years, Glasgow City region has punched above its weight and is attracting international investment. Public services rely very much on EU workers to help to deliver care and support, and we depend on that as well. The city of Glasgow was ranked sixth in the UK in terms of international investments, projects that were gained in 2017. There are more than 700 EU-owned enterprises in Glasgow City region employing more than 46,000 staff. SMEs in Glasgow are booming, much to what Rachel Hamilton said to Drops. They are booming, but the big worry is the fact that, if Brexit comes about, what is going to happen to the EU people, to the EU workers and the EU nationals who own those businesses? That is a huge worry in certain areas, particularly in my area of Glasgow and, as I said, probably throughout Scotland as well. Glasgow City region, as I said once again, I do not mind talking about my area and my constituency, is crucial to Scotland's economy, and that is what it says in the report. Glasgow City alone is estimated to have contributed over £20 billion of GVA in 2016, over 15 per cent of Scotland's economic output. What could we do if we had the full powers and levers of an independent country? Much more than they can do when we are shackled to, I can just call, a basket case of the UK as it stands just now, and it will be even worse with Brexit. I would ask once again if Richard Leonard would support the amendment. I think it is rather sad that he comes with a very, very good motion to divide it like that, and I know that I am getting told now to be quiet, but thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Neil Findlay, followed by James Dornan and Mr Findlay, five minutes. Thanks, Presiding Officer. I begin by echoing Angela Constance's call to end the banal comparison between Scottish statistics and UK statistics. That was a very sensible call, because that means absolutely nothing to the workers at Kayam, the workers at Michelin, the HES, Carrillion, Gemini Rail Services, Spark Energy, Debenhams, HMV, Alds, Bakers, Homebase, Frazers, M&S, STV, BiFab, McDonald Hotels—just a few of the companies that have announced closures or significant job losses. Do not forget that, since 2009, more than 30,000 jobs have been lost in councils alone. That is the equivalent of a Kayama week for 100 weeks. That is the extent of that, just in councils, not the rest of the public sector. All of that has cost uncertainty and fear and worry for those who remain in employment as pay is cut in real terms, hours are cut, or at times hours increased with no financial reward. Terms and conditions are attacked. That is not good for the economy or society, for people's wellbeing and not good for social cohesion. In relation to Kayam, I was alerted to the situation by a friend of mine who works at the factory. Quickly thereafter, we received phone calls and emails from staff at the plant worried about their future. On Friday, before Christmas, Angela Constance and I met with Westlodden Council and Scottish Enterprise to discuss the situation. It was clear then that the company was in the verge of going under. Over that weekend, there was an outstanding response for the community to support the workers and an outstanding response from Westlodden Council and, indeed, later the PACE team and other agencies. On Monday, we attended a very busy meeting called by the administrators, where KPMG advised all workers that their jobs would be lost and that the wages that they were owed on Christmas eve would not be paid. Merry Christmas, indeed. However, as with much in the corporate world, all is not what it seemed, it soon emerged that the owner of Kayam had been involved in the purchasing sale of a business in the north of England in the previous year, securing what he described as a windfall in the process. Workers rightly are asking, where did the tens of millions go? We know that the company filed its accounts late and were threatened with closure by companies' house. Scottish Enterprise, at the committee yesterday, painted a picture of an improving business and moved to profitability. However, staff who worked at the plant will tell you that, at times, they were sitting around doing nothing and regularly asked the company how it was making money when they saw work drying up. We then established that Scottish Enterprise was informed of Kayam's troubles on 16 November. Ministers were informed on 22 November. Over a month before, workers were told that there was no money to pay them. At least one contractor, whom I met recently, told us about receiving an order for goods and services on 27 November, put in that contractor out of pocket to a significant amount of money, meaning that they had to make staff redundant. The owner of that business is absolutely furious that he has been put in that position when Scottish Enterprise and the Government could have helped to avoid that. Of course, we were then left with workers having no money on Christmas Eve, leaving that meeting in tears. I find it difficult to comprehend that people simply just want to brush aside the fact that both Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Ministers knew that this company was in major difficulty with serious danger of going under and workers being left unpaid, yet no one thought to alert 300 families before Christmas. Last week, we found out that Jamie Hepburn, the Government and Minister, had not lifted the phone to the company. I have to ask you if you will not lift the phone to try and help to save 300 jobs, what will it take for you to act? In the same circumstances, would you do the same again? Will you now take the opportunity today to apologise to the workers at Kayam for your inaction? The responsibility for the company's demise lies with the chief executive, but there is something wrong with a system that hands over public money and allows that to happen. We have to have a serious look at how the conditions of grant awards to such companies are managed and enforced and the rights of workers to know what has gone on in the place that they work and invest their time and effort in. If Kayam and all the other recent industrial bad news have taught us anything, we have to have an industrial strategy that rebalances our economy. We cannot carry on with the status quo. We need planning, we need more industrial democracy and we need greater accountability. I remind members to speak through the chair. I understand why members may use the term you, but please, as has been said often again, please speak through the chair. I now call James Dornan, followed by Gordon Lindhurst, and time is absolutely tight, not just for you, Mr Dornan, but for everybody. There is no doubt that this is a very important topic, and I am delighted to be able to participate. I, too, would like to extend my best wishes to the employees of recent workplace closures, particularly to those who were made aware of their redundancy during the Christmas period. There is never a good time to lose your job, but it is especially cruel to do so at that time of year. I am under no illusions that there are challenges facing our economy. However, there should be a recognition that Scotland has recovered comparatively well over the years since the global recession. Indeed, our economy has continued to strengthen in the first half of 2018, with annual GDP growth as strong as since 2014 and above the UK as a whole. Scotland's labour market continues to perform strongly, too, with unemployment falling over the past year and remaining close to its record levels. Scotland has advantages and resources that few nations can match. This SNP Government is committed to building a more competitive, sustainable and fairer economy, and since 2007, it has taken real action to support businesses, create jobs and build a more equal country. Thanks in part to the work of the Scottish Government in encouraging businesses to pay a living wage or free access to higher education and our labour market strategies, the productivity in Scotland is growing much faster than in the UK, as measured by output per hour worked. Scotland's best resources have always been its people and SNP policies will continue to support them, and we are also assisting our businesses. Scotland's international exports valued at £29.8 billion in 2016 are up 44 per cent under the SNP. Scotland is the top destination outside of London for foreign direct investment, and we are helping small businesses to expand and create jobs. Around 100,000 business premises now pay no rates at all thanks to the small business bonus scheme, and to date, small businesses have saved £1.3 billion through the scheme. We are also standing up for Scottish industry. It was mentioned earlier on about Scotland for the EU, but, further to that, you also see the Scottish Government, which worked hard to secure a future for Scottish steel, the last remaining aluminium smelter at Lochaber in Ffergus and Shipyard, too. As I have said, the Scottish Government is taking steps to help our workers, businesses and industries grow, but, of course, we can always do more to improve the economy. However, as previously mentioned, Scotland does not yet have full control over all levers to grow the economy. The key powers remain at Westminster. Tax allowance for business, capital gains tax, corporation tax, employers' national insurance, tax and dividends and savings, to name but a few. We are trying to run this economy with one height, tan, tight behind or back. The people of Scotland are shown consistently in polls thrust MSPs here in Holyrood far more than they trust Westminster to look after their interests. The greater powers this Parliament is given, the greater chance we have to support our people and our communities. Let's be honest here, the public's lack of confidence in Westminster will only be exacerbated by the carry-on that has taken place down there over the last few weeks, a carry-on that would have made Sid James and Hattie Jakes blush with embarrassment. Last night, the Prime Minister lost her Brexit vote, yet, despite that being obvious to everyone outside the Downing Street bunker, it's clear that she does not have a clue what to do next. Presiding Officer, it could not be more clear that the main risk-facing Scotland's economy continues to be the prospect of a hard Brexit. Any Brexit presents a huge threat to jobs, trade, living standards and investment in Scotland, but a Brexit outside the single market could cost Scotland 80,000 jobs over a decade and people on average of £2,000 on wages. All Scotland's hard work in protecting and improving our economy will be seriously undermined by this Tory Brexit that we are subject to. A Tory Brexit, which still amazes me to say, continues to be enabled by Labour. Now, bear with me as I read through a quote that I've taken from the official report. In the wake of the Brexit vote, a survey by the Fraser Valander Institute of 320 Firmes across Scotland found that 60 per cent believed that the outcome of the EU referendum will have a negative effect on their business, and that even more, 67 per cent believed that the uncertainty that it creates is an additional problem. As we all know, the people who suffer most from any business downturn are those working people who are already on the most precarious contracts, who are already the lowest paid, who are in the deepest-inworked poverty and who are living from week to week. Those people will be the victims of any economic collapse as a result of breakfast, and they are the people that the Parliament must be cut for. Those very wise words were made in 2016 by Richard Leonard MSP, and he is right. Businesses are weary of Brexit, and the losers will be the workers. He refused to confirm whether his party would campaign in a snap election to stay in or out of the European Union. Even worse, last night, Rebecca Long Bailey confirmed that Labour would be campaigning to leave the EU in a forthcoming general election. Given his previous comment, I am sure that it is incumbent on Richard Leonard to A, back of people's vote and then B, ensure that Scottish Labour colleagues campaign for remain. Labour party members want me to do it, Scotland wants them to do it, let's hope he takes the opportunity. It's clear that the people of Scotland strongly believe that Scotland's future lies within the EU, as does this Parliament. Of course, we in the SNP believe that Scotland's future would be best served by being there as an independent nation, something that I truly believe will happen before too long. However, in the meantime, I urge Richard Leonard MSP's colleagues to get behind any move to revisit the most damaging decision that the UK has ever made voluntarily. That way, they really would be protecting Scotland's future for us all. Thank you very much, Mr Dawn. I call Gordon Lindhurst. We followed by Shona Robison. Deputy Presiding Officer, other members have already spoken about this, but I think that it is important that we emphasise the situation. Just days before Christmas, we learned of the fate of computer technology firm Kayam in West Lothian. As workers across Scotland packed up for the holidays, Kayam employees were informed en masse that they would not be receiving Christmas wages and told that they would not have jobs to come back to afterwards. Whatever beliefs we hold across the chamber about how we run our economy, I am sure that we can all agree that the mistreatment of Kayam workers has been truly shocking in this whole story episode. Our immediate thoughts must be with the workers and how their long-term futures can be secured. It is encouraging to hear of the potential for the company to be purchased as a going concern with what appear to be over 20 notes of interest, but as well as those immediate tasks, there are clearly lessons to be learned for the future of our economy. In particular, lessons about how government resources can be used more effectively to deliver the sort of growth that is so badly needed for our economy. We have had to ask some difficult questions during recent economy committee meetings about just how those resources were used in the case of Kayam. Government financing was intended to bring about jobs and grow the economy of Livingston West Lothian and wider Scotland, yet more than £800,000 later the company were laying off workers and continued to fail to register a profit. Taxpayers' money, which could now be lost to a company whose track record in delivering for Scottish jobs and growth has been sketchy at best. In the best interests of the future of our economy and our workers, I hope that the due diligence over how those public funds are being used can be reflected on and lessons learned for the future, especially given the sums involved and the jobs lost. Our best interests are also served by maximising the opportunities available to us to succeed in the modern economy. Opportunities that arise from initiatives such as the UK industrial strategy, which identifies and supports areas where Scotland plays to its strengths and which will be important for the future, including in financial services, life sciences and higher education and research, sectors in which some of the £1 billion arising from city deal investments will help to deliver the high-quality and diverse jobs that we want to see. In my own region of Lothian, we have seen £300 million of UK Government investment as part of the Edinburgh and South East deal that is delivering exciting prospects, including major investments that could see the region become the data capital of Europe. The industrial strategy challenge fund further supports Scottish businesses and researchers, including a combined £9 million between Heriot-Watt and Edinburgh universities that are used for research on marine offshore infrastructure. Support is going to a wide variety of worthwhile projects and is directing funding to areas in which Scotland already does well. That enables our country to benefit from playing a key role in UK ambitions to be at the forefront of a modern economy in areas such as artificial intelligence and clean growth. However, as we look forward and consider the future of our economy in a changing world, one thing that remains constant is the importance of our relationship with the rest of the UK, not just when it comes to working together on the initiatives that I have outlined, but in terms of the importance of that market for our businesses, worth nearly four times as much as the EU to Scotland. Trading across that open border has become the norm for our businesses, which export and 500,000 Scottish jobs remain reliant on that border remaining open and barrier free. Rather than sowing division within the UK and raising the prospect that that trade could be damaged, the SNP Government should be working to maximise the opportunities that being a part of the UK market brings. It should take the threat of independence, so called, off the table that hangs over the head of businesses for whom the UK is their most important export market. By doing so, working constructively with the rest of the UK and delivering a pro-business environment, Scotland can improve its economic outlook, which sees growth forecasts being lower than the rest of the UK for the years ahead. I won't go through those figures again. We've heard about them a number of times already. I conclude by saying that we also need to simply look ahead optimistically towards a positive economic future that we can all work together to secure for Scotland. Thank you very much, Mr Lindhurst. I call Shona Robison. I want to begin my remarks by where it should be. That is with a well-deserved tribute to the Michelin workforce in my constituency. The workforce is an extraordinary and tenacious group of men and women who, over the years, have overcome so many hurdles to keep the Dundee factory open in the face of adversity. The partnership that they have with the management team is a model of good working, which has seen the workforce lead many of the reforms at the plant over the years. I have lost count of the times that I have spoken about Michelin in terms of the positive industrial relations model that others could well take a leaf out. On that point, the response of the Michelin management team stands in marked contrast to that of healthcare environmental services. I recently met the eight Dundee-based former employees of HES, and they have been treated appallingly by the company bosses. No communication, no partnership working, workers left out of pocket with unpaid wages and other entitlements. Again, I call for the company to do the right thing and pay the former employees what they are due. The returning to Michelin is not surprising, given that the history of strong partnership working, that, when the devastating news emerged that Michelin will finally cease time production next year, the local management team and the workforce approached that huge challenge with the same spirit, determined to work together to get the best outcome for the workforce and the best legacy for the factory and its site. We all wish that it could have been a different outcome. We all wish that it were different, but the response from the Scottish Government and the economy secretary, Derek Mackay, has been commendable. The Scottish Government was swift to offer every assistance and tried to persuade Michelin of an alternative course. When that proved not to be possible, the Scottish Government moved swiftly to establish an action group to examine all options for retaining tar production and, if not possible, to repurpose the site to secure a long-term economic future. Those efforts have been recognised by Michelin at the highest level and, unusually for the company, they have agreed to engage with the Scottish Government to ensure that the site can be repurposed and a legacy created to ensure that there are job opportunities, not just for the existing workforce but for those future generations who will need alternative job opportunities to Michelin. Michelin is working in partnership with the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, Dundee City Council and others to develop the next phase of the company's presence in Scotland to transform the site into a key location for the new economic opportunities in manufacturing, remanufacturing, recycling and low-carbon transport. It has welcomed that Michelin has appointed a senior executive to co-chair the steering group and we await their proposals emerging in due course. On Monday 17 December, Michelin signed an MOU with Scottish Enterprise and Dundee City Council to formalise the commitment. Now, while the £10 million allocated for the Tayside industrial strategy that was recently announced in the Tay City Steel is of course welcome, it has always been the case, as stated by Derek Mackay, that support for the Michelin plan will need resources beyond that in the Tay City Steel, most of which, of course, had already been allocated to projects across Tayside. I was pleased that the First Minister reiterated that commitment as recently as last week at FMQs when I asked her to do so. I would also reiterate my call for the UK Government to step up to the plate with the £50 million that would match the Scottish Government contribution also to make sure that Dundee is supported through their manufacturing strategy. I understand that there has been considerable potential commercial interest from many parties in developing economic opportunities at the Michelin site and I hope that many of those will come to fruition in due course through the work of the steering group. Our ambition should be that, at least as many good well-paid jobs are created at the Michelin site before the final tyres are produced at the factory. I believe that that is achievable, but it will require strong leadership, determination and where necessary resources deployed strategically to deliver the plan once it is in place. I hope that Ms May will retain a political consensus and support in backing the plan, which I hope that Jenny Marra will confirm. As Shona Robison knows, I have been working very closely and happy to back solutions for the Michelin plant. Given the job situation in Dundee, would she confirm her opposition to job losses and redundancies at Dundee City Council? I know that money is tight, as Jenny Marra knows. I know that John Alexander and the SNP Administration is working extremely hard to avoid compulsory redundancies. Jenny Marra knows very well that Labour is not capable of offering any alternative budget proposals in Dundee or in this place. That fatally undermines her credibility on the issue, because she has nothing to bring forward as an alternative plan. John Alexander has led from the front in Dundee trying to seize every economic and job opportunity, and I hope that that is something that Jenny Marra will back him on. The workforce, whether it is at Michelin or the council or anywhere else, deserves and expects nothing less from us as local politicians. On how the Scottish Government can best assist in delivering the vision for Dundee, it is critical that strategic investment decisions support that vision and that strategic investment decisions happen in renewables, commissioning and the deep water port that can enable it to grow and compete for future offshore wind contracts, so that it can be a main player in that field as opportunities emerge. I know that Dundee de Com and the council are working very hard. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, Dundee is a city transforming itself, building on its already strong performance in life sciences gaming and now as a cultural centre with the V&A. A strong manufacturing base is equally as important for the city. The port has huge importance in that vision. Of course, that, alongside the redevelopment and repurposing of the Michelin site, it can ensure that Dundee not only retains a strong manufacturing base but expands and diversifies that base. I now call James Kelly to be followed by John Rees and Mr Kelly. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that it is absolutely right that Labour devotes its business this afternoon to the number of closures that we have seen throughout the country in recent months. It is right to do that for two reasons. First of all, to show, as Patrick Harvie said, support and solidarity with those workers and local communities. It is also crucial to learn the lessons from those closures on how we can move forward and try to avoid some of those in the future. From that point of view, I want to draw on my own experience from the closure of two sisters plant in Canberra, which is something that I found deeply upsetting, not only because it is an area that I represent but also because it is an area that I grew up in and I continue to stay locally in Canberra. There were some deeply unsatisfactory aspects of that closure at Canberra. First of all, when Jed Cillan and I, the local MP, went to meet the management when the closure was first made, it was quite clear that they had already made up their mind, even though they would still have to go through a consultation process. It was really unsatisfactory because a plant had been there for 40 years, processing chicken, and it is still very much a valuable business. As things unfolded, it became clear that the company had been in collusion with the main supplier, Marks and Spencer's, who were essentially supportive. They confirmed that to me in writing that they were supportive of moving the business from Canberra to Suffolk. Added to that was the fact that, when the 457 jobs were lost, which had a devastating impact on an area in Canberra, it unfolded that two sisters had been given over a period of time grants from Scottish Enterprise totaling £543,000 on the condition that they keep the plant operation until 2021. They turned their back on the community, on the workforce and on that plant. It was revealed in the FOIs in November that they still had not paid back the £543,000 despite the fact that they had closed the plant down fully in September. I raised the matter at First Minister's Questions in November. When I met Scottish Enterprise just before Christmas, the money still had not been paid back. I would urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that that money is returned. When it is returned, it should be reinvested in the Cambusland community to help to support the people and the families who lost their jobs—many who had worked over a number of generations. I think that the whole aspect focuses on the use of public money. Very closely to what all members are saying about Enterprise support, Enterprise supports that to support sustainable economic growth and make the right interventions, and there has to be due diligence. However, I do not want to leave the point. I might have misheard Richard Leonard's opening remarks on whether the Labour Party is voting for the Government amendment or not. However, if the Labour Party is not voting for the Government amendment, I think that it severely misses an opportunity to say to the United Kingdom Government now that any Brexit is bad and a no-deal Brexit is particularly catastrophic, because I am listening very closely to members who are impassioned. I hear that, but that is a long intervention, and I will give you your time back, because that could have maybe dealt with in summing up. You were sitting on the front bench earlier on, and you heard Neil Findlay make very clear that the Labour Party is totally opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Going back to the serious point that I was making about loans and the use of public money, as Richard Leonard pointed out, the use of RSA grants have seen £220 million going to foreign companies with only £140 million going to Scottish companies. I think that there needs to be a proper assessment as to the economic impact of those grants. It is a matter of real concern that Sunday Mail reported in December that there are loans that have gone to firms that operate in tax havens in Jersey and the Eleman, £18 million of loans to companies that are not paying tax. We should be looking at calling such loans in, which are not being used by ethical firms. What we need to draw into a conclusion, Presiding Officer, is that we need another approach, which has to look at putting people first. It has to look at alternative business models such as co-ops. We need to address upskilling in the areas where people have lost jobs and to look at the challenge of automation. I think that the crucial lessons have to be learned as we show support for those local communities, but how are we going to move the issues forward? Thank you very much. I am sorry that the time is so tight. I called John Mason to be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have to say in starting that there is a lot in the Labour motion, which I certainly agree with. I have one or two reservations and some questions, and I will try to touch on them in the course of my speech. I agree that, as others have said, we should express solidarity with those who have suffered because of workplace closures. We are all part of a community and we all have a responsibility to help to ensure that there are suitable jobs available for everyone, and certainly to work with employers who are facing difficult times. I thought that we had a useful session yesterday at the economy committee asking Scottish Enterprise about its involvement with Cayam. Hopefully, going forward, there will be a future for that plant, but looking backwards, there were quite a number of points that came up, including that we expect Scottish Enterprise to take some risks. We have to accept that some investments will not work out as well as we and they and everyone else would have hoped for. Again, we do not expect Scottish Enterprise to take a hands-on approach, but we do expect them to take a hands-on approach, but not to micromanage a business or to take the place of the actual management. At the end of the day, as I think we have heard this afternoon, some companies' management is much more proactive and transparent than others when they hit problems, and that is quite difficult to legislate for. I think that that leads on to what types of jobs and what types of employers we should be looking for in the future. Maybe, as others have said, we have been too dependent on a few big foreign-owned employers in some of our cities and towns, and so if something goes wrong with them, that whole town is badly hit. I do broadly favour attracting inward investment, but clearly there are risks with that, and hence the emphasis on the motion on indigenous is extremely good, and I agree with that. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee is currently working on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, and just on Monday evening we had a formal meeting in Dumfries. A range of issues came up then, including, for example, is it better to have one big employer in a town like Annan with some 700 staff, or is that putting too many of our eggs in the one basket? Is it better to have 20 organisations with, say, 35 staff each? But again, on the other hand, does that take too long to grow that number of enterprises? Another question is the type of business and what it does. I think that there has been broad agreement that Scotland should focus on the high end of the market, quality food, drink, technology, rather than trying to mass produce cheap widgets. We are never going to be able to undercut India or China on cost. However, that does also leave us with a challenge when, say, one of our more traditional factories, which has been going for a long time, but with a lower end product, hits problems and closes, as I have seen happening in my constituency. I very much agree that we want an indigenous business development, as the motion says, and a more diverse economy. The economy committee has looked at some of those issues, and I think that there were some encouraging signs about the level of business startups. However, we were concerned about what is called fear of heights, and that there is a tendency for small indigenous businesses in Scotland to be sold off too soon, and often the owners are from outwith Scotland and the potential has not been realised. Again, going back to the wording of the motion, putting the interests of employees and their communities at its heart for the economy is something that I hope most of us would agree with. Enterprises must be there to serve the wider community, rather than the community being there to serve the enterprises. However, I think that there is a balance to be struck in all that, and I have a slight concern that customers are not mentioned in the Labour motion. We have had problems in the past with the likes of British Rail and British Airways, when the good of the employees was perhaps overemphasised to the detriment of the organisation's customers, and the result was a very poor and loss-making public service. I do believe strongly in public ownership, and I would have preferred if our gas, and electricity and railways had still been in public hands. However, we have to get a right balance in all that. A good enterprise will be good for the customers, the employees and the community. I again agree that we want more co-operatives and employee ownership models. Last Friday, I was visiting one of the largest social enterprises in Scotland, the wise group, which is based in my constituency, and I continue to be very impressed by all that they do. Turning to the Conservative amendment, it is nothing if not predictable. I wrote the next bit of my speech before seeing the Conservative amendment, and it turned out to be just as I expected. As usual, the Conservatives argue for low taxes to boost the economy as if cheap and cheerful is always best. I certainly agree with the stability in tax, and I would say that this Government has provided that with relatively small adjustments year on year. However, I would challenge the Conservatives as to whether business is always attracted to the cheapest place. London seems to remain a very attractive place for the finance sector, despite high office rents, high salaries for staff and high housing costs, presumably because there are other factors at play, such as a large pool of suitable labour and a desire for similar businesses to co-locate. In the same way, a place with low taxes and poor public services will not necessarily be attractive to business. Many businesses are looking for a good education system, a skilled workforce, and employees who will be wanting a good health service, good schools for their kids, even if that means paying a bit more tax. I am pleased that Labour has initiated this debate today. As a party, they are somewhat a bit detached from reality. However, I think today that I am much happier— I am sorry, you must conclude that I haven't even got spare seconds. You must sit down. I am much happier to be aligned with them than I am with the Conservatives. Thank you. Jamie Greene, followed by Colin Smyth, please. Thank you for ending that speech much to the benefit to the chamber. Don't get me wrong, there were bits to Mr Mason's speech that I thought were very interesting around diversification of the economy. I think that I will probably touch on some of those issues as well, but his mystic predictions of our amendment fascinate me. There is nowhere in our amendment does it say anything that we want Scotland to be a cheap place to come and do business? I think that the tone of that sends out completely the wrong message to any businesses watching this debate and listening to their Parliament. I am sorry, but I would like to thank Labour for bringing a debate about the economy to the chamber. It is nice to see some of the match arriving to the debate as we approach the final minutes, but I think that there is an important point to make throughout this whole theme, and that is something that many have touched on from right across the chamber, and that is that specifically around the issues that were mentioned in Labour's motion around some of those business closures that we have seen, we talk about it a lot in this chamber at some of those very large and medium-sized companies that are very important to small towns and cities, and when they go out of business, the profound effect that it has on those communities is immense. Losing a job is never easy, redundancy is not just a financial issue for many, it is also a psychological one as well. I would like to think that whatever differences, and there are many differences in taxation or state intervention or the privatisation versus nationalisation that Labour opened with, I think that we should remember that what lies at the heart of this is jobs, it is people's livelihoods, and that growing the economy is not just about having a few extra pounds in your pocket, but it is about the important emotional and positive mental effects that being in work provides. Labour's motion has many things to welcome and it calls for a new industrial strategy to promote indigenous businesses. We could argue that we are already doing quite well at some of that. Scotland is famous for and getting better at being famous for its industries. The whisky industry is the most commonly cited one, but what about our video games industry in Dundee or the satellite industry in the west or dairy farming in the south? The UK Government produced an industrial strategy in 2016 and I will not go into it in too much detail in the interests of time, but I think that some of the things that it looked at are what the UK and Scotland needs to be doing to future proof its economy. Investment in R&D and attracting those types of businesses, improving productivity, which we all accept is an issue, promoting STEM subjects at an early age and significantly upgrading infrastructure, which means digital, housing and transport networks to attract people and businesses to the area. The city deals, as others have mentioned, have provided more than one billion pounds invested into Scottish cities and regions. Some of that money will go towards very specific projects that will see some tangible benefits from other projects that I have mentioned before, such as the Glasgow airport rail link, which I hope that we can all get behind. I would like to see some of those projects come to fruition, because I think that they will deliver tangible benefits. That in itself is not enough. The Scottish economy is facing significant challenges. We are growing at half the rate of the UK. That is not a political point. Wage growth is slow, and the forecast puts us behind the rest of the UK. The reality is that our economy for many quarters has been teetering on the edge of negative growth, and I do not think that that should be acceptable to anyone in any party in this chamber. To Labour's credit, the outline in their motion is the need for business diversification and supporting indigenous growth. I think that those are two really important points to have in this debate. It is important to recognise that many areas in Scotland have suffered as the traditional industries have declined. In my area, we are facing the issue of Texas Instruments and tech business in Greenock. We have been struggling to find a buyer for that business for quite some time, and there is a significant cross-party effort going into looking at options for it. However, what we will come down to is that if we cannot find a buyer, it will close. What are the options for those people? It is the same story that we have every time that there is a significant closure. Those people either need to be reskilled and find other opportunities or many will take early retirement. It can be done, though. I think that we can future-proof our economy. However, to do that and to truly have an indigenous economy, we need to support our young people. We need to give them the right skills of the future. We need to support our new industries, such as the gin industry, the tech sector, the games industry and the satellite industry. Transitioning workers by improving their stem skills can help them to move from old traditional models into the new world. We have some ideas of our own. We do not have time to go into them today, but I would like to touch on one specific issue. That is the Institute of E-commerce. We think that there should be a dedicated and specialist public agency dedicated to E-commerce to bridge that gap between Scotland and some of our competitive markets. We need specialist training, support and advice to businesses to get into the digital space. I think that we are missing opportunities unless there is a renewed focus on the digital industries. When I was initially the spokesman for the digital economy, I spent many times calling for a dedicated digital minister in the Government, and it is good to see the renewed focus on the digital industries. I think that that will help to refocus our minds. In context, this is Labour Party's debate today, and we think that we can have an academic argument about neoliberalism. I am afraid that those benches make no apologies that what Scotland needs is economy of growth, entrepreneurialism and that wealth and job creation are not bad words and not should they be in this Parliament. Mr Smith is the penultimate speaker in the open debate. However long I have the privilege of serving the people of South Scotland as an MSP, I suspect I will look back on 3 April 2018 as one of the darkest days. Parliament was in recess that morning. I was sitting in my constituency office and I received a phone call from someone, I suppose that you would call, an insider who told me that later that day the workforce at Pinnies of Arran will be summoned to a meeting with management from owners young seafood and told that the Pinnies factory on Stapleton Road in Arran will be closing. To say, I felt sick to my stomach would be an understatement. I have lived in Dumfrieshire all my life and knew that this was an economic tsunami for the area. Pinnies was the largest private sector employer in Dumfrieshire and Galloway. The closure meant the loss of 450 permanent jobs and hundreds more agency and seasonal post. Let's put that into context. Annan has a population of just eight and a half thousand. 600 job losses for that community is the equivalent of 48,000 job losses in Glasgow, 41,000 in Edinburgh, 18,000 in Aberdeen or 12,000 in Dundee. Pinnies has been part of the economy of Annan since it was established over 40 years ago. Generations of family have worked there and some cases hold families at the same time. On the evening of the announcement, I spoke to one mum who told me that she had worked at Pinnies so too did her husband and so too does her daughter, a whole household facing the loss of the livelihoods in a single day. The response from the Scottish Government to the closure was a so-called task force. The community was told that no stone would be left unturned to convince young seafood to change its mind. We then promised that everything would be done to find a buyer for the factor. Then, told support, we would be given to help those losing their jobs to find alternative employment. Since the closure announcement was made, just £250,000 has been invested by the Scottish Government directly to support the Pinnies workforce. That came from the existing budget of the South of Scotland economic partnership. We need an investment of £10 million and a proper economic action plan for annan, not just £250,000. It is now six months since the last worker left Pinnies. The factory is closed and many of those workers feel forgotten. As the trade unions have highlighted, the UK Government's decision in 2013 to halff the 90-day consultation period to just 45 days before large-scale redundancies can take place gave no time to properly explore alternative options for Pinnies. The tragedy of the Pinnies closure is not just the way so many livelihoods were cast aside so quickly at the whim of big business owners young seafood. It is a fact that there are simply not the alternative employment opportunities in the local area for people to turn to. Less than 200 of the workers who have held permanent posts at Pinnies have found new employment and just 38 of those jobs are within the town of annan itself. Unemployment across Dumfries and Galloway is rising and is now at its highest level for four years. The closure of Pinnies exposes in the neglect of the south-west economy. The gross value added per head in Dumfries and Galloway is just 80 per cent of the Scottish average. It is the lowest-paid region in Scotland, with annans 15 per cent below the national average. The proportion of people of working age with no qualifications is 12 per cent. That is twice the level of the highlands and islands. We have a chronic problem of outward migration of young people due to the lack of high-skill, high-wage job opportunities in the area. The Government talks about regional equity and inclusive growth in the past two economic strategies. Where has the inclusive growth been for the people of the south-west, which has for far too long been a forgotten region? There has been a chronic lack of investment in our infrastructure, both physical and digital, with key trunk roads such as A75, A76 and A77 simply not fit for purpose. The lack of interest in the region by national agencies such as Scottish Enterprise under government direction has meant opportunities to properly support growth and indigenous businesses have been missed, robbing those Pinnies workers of the opportunities that they so desperately needed. In concluding, the tragedy of Pinnies highlights the need for that new approach, one that sees investment in all of Scotland expanding further and higher education opportunities in those areas that have been left behind, delivering for once a competitive advantage in the rural areas when it comes to digital, instead of them always having to play catch-up and ensuring that we have a locally accountable south-of-scotland enterprise agency that properly supports local businesses, co-ops and social enterprises to grow and deliver the strong, diversified, sustainable economy that we desperately need to resolve. To pursue that alternative way to build the economy of south-west Scotland may be too late for Pinnies but it would allow us to say never again. We move to closing speeches. I say in all sincerity that I welcome Labour bringing this motion to the chamber. I share that concern about the volume of companies going out of business and the impact that it has had in staff. Indeed, one of the first issues that came to my attention as MSP after being elected in 2016 was the closure of the Tannoy business in my constituency. As people might know, there has been a major employer in Coatbridge for decades and the closure had a devastating impact on the workforce and their families when it happened. More recently, the sub-enclosure of TOM, which is a low and is a nearby area, impacted a great number of my constituents who worked there. I know my colleagues Alex Neil and Neil Gray, as well as the Minister for Business, Jamie Hepburn, have been doing a lot of work on the recent closure of the also-nearby HASI and SHOTs, and I would like to pay tribute to them for that. I also welcome some of the steps that have taken by this Government to grow our economy. Of course, my constituency, for example, has benefited greatly from the Glasgow City region deal through the huge investment and delivery of the gap-cost and Glen Boy Glink Road through the community growth area project. I will take this opportunity to join calls from my colleagues for the UK Government to be much more proactive in match the Scottish Government's funding to city deals across the whole country. Presiding Officer, as I have said, I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue and I would commend the chamber to back the Government amendment. I think that both the motion and the amendment raise very important issues, and I am going to put a bit of focus here on the issue of Brexit. Despite the people of Scotland voting overwhelmingly to reject Brexit, we are seeing our country and its businesses being affected in a way in a most damaging way by what has gone on since the vote. With less than three months to go before the UK crashes out of the EU, we have the most incompetent Prime Minister, probably in history, who has led our Government to the biggest defeat in history yesterday over a deal that took her two and a half years to negotiate, which had done nothing but damage to not only businesses in Scotland but across the whole of the UK. Like many colleagues, I spend some of my time in the constituency visiting local businesses, large and small, and the fear and concern about Brexit, and particularly on no-deal Brexit, is very, very real. Today, my office, for example, spoke with the managing director of Chemco International, Colin Waid, who I should say I am visiting on Friday. They are based in Shawhead and employ around 30 people locally. They are an international company that recently became employee-owned, and they developed the most advanced quotings worldwide. Just this morning, he has sent a communication to the senior managers in his company to outline their preparations for a no-deal Brexit. In it, he describes the European Union as, quote, easily the largest single market. The communication also outlines that the issue will not only be with shipping and finished products to the EU, but that, and I quote again, Chemco relies significantly on certain raw materials and specialist packaging that are manufactured, else components sourced from within mainland European Union. It goes on to say that a no-deal Brexit will lead to delays in shipping queues to queues at ports throughout the UK. Furthermore, I want to speak briefly about Clark Fire Protection, another international company operating in the world stage, which is based in townhead in Coltbridge and employs almost 100 local people. I have had the pleasure of visiting this company recently, and the general manager has told me that the complete lack of certainty about what will happen with Brexit has left them unable to properly prepare, and given, just like everybody else, they have no idea what will be happening from one day to the next. She explained to me that over 80 per cent of the products produced there are imported, and the business is under threat from their direct competition in mainland European Union. That is simply unacceptable that this UK Government is causing my constituencies such uncertainty in relation to their livelihoods. Presiding Officer, I am immensely proud to have these multinational companies in my constituency just getting on with the job day in, day out. Those are just some that I could mention many others, including, for example, Retronics, Freightliner and Gersherry, or the College and Casing Producers of Devro, based in Moody's Burn. Presiding Officer, it is clear that Coltbridge and Crescent is open for business through initiatives by North Lanarkshire Council and the Scottish Government. However, the reality is that Brexit is causing significant concerns and there are very real dangers facing businesses up and down Scotland as a result of the shambolic UK Government's handling of the negotiation process. That is the real threat to businesses in Scotland. There can be no doubt that Brexit poses this threat. As discussed earlier, if a hugely damaging no deal cannot be avoided, it is going to become increasingly clearer to the majority here in Scotland that our best interests and needs in welfare will only be met as a fully independent nation. I know that such self-determination will protect those businesses that I have mentioned and others in my constituency and protect the many workers and their families who depend on the jobs. One last plea to finish off, Presiding Officer, is a plea to the Labour Party. Please, when it comes to decision time, if you have not already made your decision how to vote, do not just vote against the SNP amendment for the sake of voting against the SNP, not given what has happened yesterday with Brexit. It is time to unite and send a message against the Conservative Government. Please, go back to the Government amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been an interesting debate. I start by thanking the Scottish Labour Party for taking the subject of Scotland's future economy. Some of the rhetoric that we heard from Richard Leonard at the start—to be fair to Mr Leonard, he does rhetoric very well—despite some of that rhetoric about ranting against neoliberalism, there are a number of points of agreement that we have with the Labour Party. In the spirit of consensus, I will deal with those first and then perhaps come to some points where we do not agree. What we heard during the debate was contributions from right across the chamber, from individuals talking about the impact on their communities of large plant closures. Jenny Marra and Shona Robison talked about Michelin in Dundee. We had Angela Constance, Neil Findlay and Gordon Lindhurst talking about Cayam in West Lothian. Rachel Hamilton talked about Manetti in Jedburgh. James Kelly, two sisters in Camberslang and Colin Smith, in Annan, might have been others whom I have missed. It is absolutely right to highlight the concern about individuals who have lost their jobs or whose jobs are at risk following the recent workplace closures. Those are always a difficult time for individuals, and any Government must be active in providing support to those who lose their jobs. It is a sad reality that in a dynamic economy there will be businesses that fail from time to time. It is not the business of Government to be involved in trying to save all failing businesses, regardless of the circumstances. Otherwise, we would still be subsidising candle makers and wheelwrights. However, the role of Government should be to support those who lose their jobs. If it is appropriate through Government intervention to secure a future for a business by going down a new route, that should be explored. Above all, what Government needs to be doing is creating a supportive business environment, allowing successful companies to be created and to expand, and providing jobs for those who might be the victims of redundancy elsewhere. That is precisely what the Scottish Conservatives believe the economy here should be all about. Does Murdo Fraser believe that Brexit is that very helpful environment in which businesses can prosper? I believe that Brexit is creating headwinds, but it is not the biggest threat to the Scottish economy at the moment. For the number of speeches that we have heard on the SNP benches today, for people pressing the case for independence at this time, there could be no greater threat to Scottish economic recovery than the prospect of another independence referendum. I want to pick up something else that was raised in the debate, first of all by Richard Leonard and others, including John Mason. It was this suggestion that too much support has been given to foreign-owned companies. It is interesting in the context of Richard Leonard's speech that a gentle irony that he railed against nationalism in all its forms. He went on to make that comment about foreign-owned companies. The issue about whether Government agencies are more supportive of inward investors rather than indigenous companies is something that I recall being addressed in this Parliament's economy committees that I have served on in previous sessions. It is a perennial issue, and yet, despite that, evidence in support of that contention is actually quite hard to find. Scotland does have a very good record in attracting inward investment. We have had that record for at least the last three decades, and we should not see that as a negative because many people have had successful careers in these companies with well-paid and secure jobs. However, it is fair to recognise that the structure of our economy means that we are not growing enough of our home-grown talent. We have an hourglass-shaped economy, with a smallish number of very large companies where, if they close, there is a major jobs impact, a very large number of very small companies but not enough in the middle. If there has been a failure of enterprise policy over a period of decades, it has been a failure to grow those middle-sized companies that are the mainstay of the economy in many other countries such as Germany. Where we would depart, Presiding Officer, from Labour, is in relation to some of those solutions. We believe that Scotland needs a competitive tax regime, not one where business is treated as a cash cow. Corporation tax may not be devolved, but business rates are, and it remains a concern, as Rachel Hamilton pointed out, that the large business supplement is still set at a rate much higher than the rest of the United Kingdom. Putting our businesses in this sector at a competitive disadvantage, particularly a point for those close to the border, as Rachel Hamilton's constituency is, and if the Labour Party would go even further than the SNP in terms of business taxation. Labour's motion reference—I need to make some progress, I've only got a minute left, because I want to talk about the industrial strategy that Dean Lockhart, Gordon Lindhurst and Jamie Greene mentioned. This is a substantial investment from the UK Government, promoting innovative ideas, great people, major infrastructure upgrades, the best business environment and prosperous communities across the UK. We see evidence of that in the city deal projects being promoted across the country. In the area that I represent, the UK Government's contribution to the Tay cities region deal has been supporting innovation, with £20 million to the international barley hub and £25 million to the advanced plant growth centre in the James Hutton Institute in Invergowrie, £5.7 million to the development of the Cybersecurity Centre of Excellence at Abertau University, which I visited last week, £10 million for the Perth cities transformation project, including the refurbishment of the Perth city hall and up to £5.2 million for advanced plastic reprocessing in the area, among other projects. A practical example of how the UK industrial strategy is working to improve the economic environment in our country. I also join with others at the outset welcome today's debate, although it may not have appeared so at many junctures in this debate. There is much agreement, I believe, across the chamber in terms of the sentiment of the Labour motion. In that regard, I can say here and now that we will support that motion at decision time. I want to begin with the Tory amendment, in particular the opening remarks from Dean Lockhart. Ordinarily, in those debates, you reflect what people have said. I want to reflect on what Dean Lockhart did not say today. He failed to say that, over the last year in Scotland, economic outgrowth has outstripped the UK as a whole. He could not explain why the latest figures show that Scotland has outstripped business research and development expenditure growth that compared to the UK, 13.9 per cent against 2.9 per cent. He did not mention that, since 2007, we have seen a 93.6 per cent increase in business research and development expenditure compared to 27.2 per cent in the UK. He did not mention that between 2007 and 2016 productivity growth is here in Scotland higher than any other country in the UK and all regions of England, three times the rate of the United Kingdom. He did not mention that. You can mention what you want to mention in a minute. Mr Lockhart, let me continue to tell you what you tell Mr Lockhart. He did not mention at this juncture that we have a joint record low level of unemployment. He did not mention that we have achieved our headline target of reducing youth unemployment by 40 per cent by 2021 from 2014 levels four years early. He did not mention that youth employment is 3 per cent higher in Scotland than the UK. He did not mention that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has revised its growth forecast for the Scottish economy in 2018 by double the previous estimate. He did not mention that, because it lies with Rachel Hamilton's suggestion of an unsupported van. The number of registered businesses has grown by 16.6 per cent in Scotland since 2007. He did not mention that the value of exports in Scotland is up 45 per cent between 2016 and 2016. Let's see what he has got to mention now. Dean Lockhart, I did not mention it because the vast majority of data shows that the Scottish economy is underperforming the rest of the UK. You mentioned productivity in Scotland still below the UK. Talking about your own economic targets, the Scottish National Party has failed to meet every single one of your own seven economic targets. Jamie Hepburn I have literally gone through system by system systematically demonstrating the success of the Scottish economy, often by comparison to the rest of the UK. We hear from Mr Lockhart about an underperforming economy. I thought that it was important to place that in the context, but I think that we should recognise that we face challenges locally and nationally. In that regard, I want to turn to Labour's position and respect of our amendment. It is very clear that, here and now, the most fundamental immediate danger to our economy is Brexit. What we have heard from the FSB just today, Colin Borland, has said that we are not going to find a way out of this mess—that is the UK Government, Tory Government mess—without cross-party collaboration and co-operation. We have very clearly on a number of occasions that the Labour Party says that it is against a no-deal Brexit. It has the chance today to put their money where their mouth is. It has the chance today to demonstrate that that is the case. Today, of all days, when we debate the economy, when we know that Brexit is the most fundamental risk to the Scottish economy, we know that, if we have a no-deal Brexit, it will lead to further closures and job losses. That is Labour's chance to demonstrate that it clearly is against a no-deal Brexit and back this amendment. It is beyond my understanding, why it will refuse to back this amendment, but perhaps Mr Finlay will explain why. For the third time today, we oppose a no-deal Brexit. What part of that don't you get? I have given that commitment. Will you give a commitment to apologise to the Cayam workers for failing to lift the phone and make any effort to save 300 jobs? I will come to Cayam in a minute, but here is my challenge to Mr Finlay. He says that he has said three times that they oppose a no-deal Brexit. I am asking them just one time, one chance today, to press their button, to support our amendment, to demonstrate that they are against a no-deal Brexit. I will not be able to cover all of them today, but there was some suggestion about bias in regional selective assistance by the leader of the Scottish Labour Party. I think that that is an unfair characterisation, frankly. It is clearly the basis of any consideration of regional selective assistance that a proposition that is placed before our enterprise agencies will be given its full consideration. In the first context, we should say that of the 75 offers made to companies in 2017-18, 99 per cent were made to small and medium-sized companies. I am sure that every member in the chamber would welcome that. However, the idea that regional selective assistance is not supporting Scottish-owned enterprise is not correct. From 2009 to 2010 to 2017-18, there were 869 RSA-accepted offers, of those 578, 578, 66.5 per cent were to Scottish companies, 109, 12.5 per cent were to UK non-Scottish companies and only 21 per cent were to companies owned out with UK. Clearly, we want to do more and we must do more and we will consider more. I have a minute left, because I want to turn to some of the issues that have been touched upon. Michelin was touched upon. Clearly, we regret very much the decision that was taken by Michelin to withdraw from its current activity, but what we can see there is a positive example of a company willing to remain engaged in the city, working with unions to secure a positive future. That is something that we are taking forward through our Michelin action group and the memorandum of understanding that we have signed with them. That will secure a positive future for the Dundee site. What else will help is if we can see the UK Government and Jenny Marr ask what support we can give the city of Dundee. We are providing £200 million for a city region deal for Dundee. The UK Government is short changing that city region deal by £50 million. Here is another challenge to the Labour Party and to Ms Marra. Again, you have the opportunity to demonstrate that you support the Dundee city region and every city region area in Scotland by calling on the UK Government to meet the commitment of the Scottish Government to meet the same amount of investment. You can do that again today, you can rule out a no-deal Brexit, you can back the Scottish city regions by saying that the UK Government can invest the same amount. To do that, you can back our amendment. I call on Rhoda Grant to wind up the debate. We brought forward the debate today in the shadow of company closures and huge job losses. Those are frightening statistics. However, they all represent people's lives and their futures. To be told that you are losing your job and possibly others in your household are the same is truly terrifying. Your future is in the balance. Many people are one pay packet away from a food bank and we saw that graphically at Christmas when workers were not paid and forced to resort to food banks. We need real change to rebalance our economy. We need to move from chasing inward investment from abroad to supporting and promoting our own indigenous businesses. While we need to do that, we need to put employees and the communities that support at the heart of our economy. Workers need to be able to own and run their own companies and we have seen the success of many workers-owned businesses and co-ops, yet those models of ownership are left at the sidelines when it comes to support. That is simply wrong. Those companies endure providing jobs and economic development. The wealth that create is kept in their communities rather than moved overseas. I am a Scottish co-op party MSP and I am proud of it. In the short term, we would like to see the doubling of the size of the co-operative economy in Scotland. That would lead to greater wealth in our communities and more socially aware employment. Richard Leonard and Neil Findlay listed many of the companies under threat of closure, and that is a damning indictment of the management of the economy by the SNP. Many of them knew about and did nothing about. Others can be put down to their mismanagement of the Scottish economy. We need real change in economic policy. The opportunity for those workers to buy those failing companies is following the principles of a right to buy under land reform. I will take the intervention and ask if Labour believes that Brexit is a threat to the economy, it will lead to more closures. Why is the Labour Party not voting against that Brexit this evening? I will come to that later in my speech, but I want to point out to the Government what their policies are wrecking the Scottish economy. The cuts that they impose on local government councils have made huge job cuts in our communities. They have done nothing about that, and those jobs are those well-paid jobs that are needed in our communities, supporting the most vulnerable. Jenny Marra talked about the impact of job losses in the wider community in Dundee, talking about Michelin, HMRC and local government as well. All the way back to Timex, the first trade union conference that I attended was addressed by Timex workers, women fighting for their jobs. They inspired me to get involved in the trade union movement and politics. Neil Findlay reminded us of the distress of the Kayam workers going unpaid just before Christmas—how angry they must have been knowing that the Government had pumped money in and when they knew that they were going down under and did not even warn them. Where did their loyalties lie then? Was it to the Scottish workforce or was it to the overseas owners? In a debate on recent job losses in the Scottish economy, the minister who was involved in it did not even mention it in his speech. I absolutely agree with that, and I think that it is disgusting that the minister—maybe the minister is going to address that very comment. Let me observe that, of course, I will always reflect on what more I can do past in any of those circumstances, but Ms Grant and the Labour Party must surely understand that in those circumstances every effort is made by the Government, by our agencies to do what we can. That was the case in Kayam. Unfortunately, it does not always work out the way that it would like it to, but that was the effort there and it will continue to be as we go forward. That fell short of the apology that we were looking for. James Kelly talked about two sisters. They have received £543,000 of public money. Had that money been given to the workforce, maybe those jobs would still be there today. Colin Smyth talked movingly about the impact of the closure of Finne's devastating whole communities and the point that he made about small communities where large job losses can have a disproportionate effect. I understand that with job losses in Dingwall, invergordon and Fort William in the Highlands and the impact that has on their communities. Can I just turn to the SNP amendment? The amendment talks about the threat of Brexit and it is a threat. It has already damaged our economy and we will never—I stated again—never support a no-deal Brexit. However, what is lost in the nationalists is that independence is an even bigger threat. We do four times more trade with the rest of the United Kingdom than we do with Europe. If the last few months have told us anything, it is to avoid independence at all costs. They do not see it. Their cuts commission pointed it out and they still do not see it. The biggest threat to the Scottish economy is independence. Presiding Officer, we need to retain the benefits of industry within our communities and we need to work with them. That is the way that we build our economy and lift people out of poverty. We need an economy that works for the many, not the few, an economy in which wealth and power are shared and that empowers our people. That should be at the heart of the Scottish industrial strategy. That concludes our debate on Scotland's future economy. The next item is consideration of a legislative consent motion. I ask Jeane Freeman to move motion 15391 on the healthcare international arrangements bill. The next item is consideration of business motion 1548, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the Bureau, setting out a business programme. I ask Graham Day to move motion 1548. No one wishes to speak against this motion. The question therefore is that motion 1548 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motion 15416 and 15418, on the stage 1 timetable for two bills and 15417, on the stage 2 timetable for a bill. I ask Graham Day to move all three motions. If no one objects, I would like to move all three motions on block. The question therefore is that motions 15416, 15417 and 15418 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 15415, on approval of an SSI. I ask Graham Day, on behalf of the Bureau, to move the motion. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. We come now to decision time. The first question this evening is that amendment 15390.3, in the name of Derek Mackay, which seeks to amend motion 15390, in the name of Richard Leonard, on Scotland's future economy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15390.3, in the name of Derek Mackay, is yes, 70, no, 47. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 15390.1, in the name of Dean Lockhart, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Richard Leonard, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a division again, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15390.1, in the name of Dean Lockhart, is yes, 28, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 15390, in the name of Richard Leonard, as amended, on Scotland's future economy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15390, in the name of Richard Leonard, as amended, is yes, 70, no, 47. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 15390, in the name of Dean Freeman, on the healthcare international arrangements will be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 15415, in the name of Graham Day, on the approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We're going to move now to members' business, in the name of Gail Ross, on Highland Youth Survey, but we'll just take a few moments for members and the minister to change seats.