 felly mae gennym ni wedi cael ei laseth oherwydd bod chi i chi oesgarach, am e Gyiar不同 i goprwyddi Amy Eric Sirr, i g могутoio, drwy pethau i hyn o'r gwyl Directing, i gydag ysgol teulu, byddai mwy o'r trafn paextol, fe tunt i chi, arsmarw scai ar gyfer trasiodfneyd cyfgol dros unig y maes. ei mewn, oes mae rai bod byddai d poison. Those of the debate provides an opportunity to reflect on the current strength of Scotland's economy. I would also like to use the time that we have for this debate to outline the approach that has been taken by the Scottish Government and the wider public sector to build a Scottish economy that is characterised by inclusive growth by the creation of opportunity iawn i ddweud i gael eu gofynuol yn yr allanau. A gynonwch y funud eich ddoswyd ac yn yr ystafellion ei gwrthog yn Scotland, y llanwch yn y sydd arwag ei gwrthog o ran maes arwag ein gweithiwn yn yr ystafellion eu gynonwch gyfer y Gwrthog cifio Gwyrdd. Fy hwyl yn ystafell, rydych chi'n ddpokech i gyrwch gyffredinol, yn yr ystafellion wych yn erbyn hefyd, yn arddangosu unedwet ar gyfer mwy fwy cael ac yn un. O'r fan hyfforddiadau i'r bobl yn yr oeddwn yn gweithio'r economiaeth, i ddatblygu'r lleoes, dod hynny, ac i'r digwydd yn hynny yn y masgau teimlo yn flinio. Mae gweithio'r ddataeth o'r ffwrdd gwrdd, oedd yn ystod yn cael ei swydd ac yn dech tape frombwyllus ar y dda ddweud ei wneud. Aledd ei wneud yn cael ei sefydliad pwysig o ein byddwyd yn rhoi sy'n holl ddechrau'r mynd i ddechrau'r prif inger loddes o'r pryd-dechrau'r investment with the construction sector demonstrating an expansion of 21 per cent in its activities, a measure of the significance of the capital works that are currently underway in Scotland, which of course have just been referred to in relation to the Borders railway. At the same time, consumption has been buoyed by factors such as high employment and low inflation, and in terms of GDP per capita, a key measure of our economic strength, Scottish GDP per head had recovered to just 0.2 per cent below pre-recession levels by the first quarter of this year, while the UK as a whole remained 0.6 per cent below its pre-recession peak in the same quarter. On employment, the picture is also encouraging. Our employment rate is above that of the UK, while youth unemployment is at its lowest level in six years. Our performance also ranks favourably in the European context with the second highest female employment rate and the third highest youth employment rate in the European Union. Our strong economic performance is expected to continue, with the consensus forecast growth in Scotland this year of around 2.4 per cent, and this recent trend picks up on a longer-term story of improvement. For example, the value of our international exports has increased by around 40 per cent between 2007 and 2013, and in recent years we have consolidated our position as the UK's most successful area outside of London in terms of attracting inward investment. As a result, over the last 10 years, Scotland has secured more than 37,000 jobs from foreign direct investment. Will the cabinet secretary agree with me that, with Scotland being one of the most successful exporting nations, it will be absolutely catastrophic to build barriers between ourselves and the rest of Europe? Mr Stevenson will be familiar with the commitment of the Scottish Government to the continued membership of the European Union. We believe that that is an essential part of the economic prospects of Scotland. Of course, there is a period of significant uncertainty with which the business community will have to wrestle in the course of the next few months, as we await the timing of the EU referendum. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Given all the good news that he has referred to, why does he believe that such a large gap has opened up over the past year in terms of business confidence in Scotland, which lags very far behind in the rest of the UK? There is a range of surveys about business confidence. One of the surveys that I look at most closely is the Bank of Scotland purchasing managers index, which has shown a sustained level of growing confidence in the Scottish economy and in the business community. The reason why I look so closely at the Bank of Scotland PMI is that that is an index that, certainly in my experience, has come the closest to predicting some of the economic challenges and difficulties that we have had to experience. Therefore, what it reflects in terms of economic confidence is worth listening to in terms of the pattern of that index. The foundations around foreign direct investment have been well expressed, but we have also seen business research and development spending in Scotland increase by 29 per cent over the past six years in real terms. Our business base is also growing with the number of registered businesses in Scotland growing by 10 per cent since 2007 to an all-time record level. However, we know that there are areas in which we can do better and improve performance. In particular, we need to address structural challenges around productivity in order to ensure that skilled and well-paid job opportunities continue to be created within Scotland. Productivity has been a consistent theme in our approach to the economy since this Government came to office, and it is an area in which we have enjoyed some success and made significant progress. Since 2007, the productivity gap between Scotland and the United Kingdom has been significantly reduced. However, we still lag well behind countries such as Sweden, Germany and France. At the same time, many economically successful nations of similar size to Scotland have also achieved greater levels of equality and better social outcomes. Although income inequality in Scotland, as measured by the Gini coefficient, is lower in the United Kingdom as a whole, it remains higher than in many strong-performing northern European countries. We must do more to increase competitiveness while ensuring that we also achieve a fairer society where the proceeds of growth are more evenly distributed. Those mutually reinforcing priorities are central to our updated economic strategy. The strategy reaffirms our commitment to boosting productivity through investment, innovation and internationalisation. It also sets out an approach to the economy based on partnership and a commitment to tackling inequality, not just as an important priority but as a means of boosting productivity in the economy. There is a growing evidence base that delivering sustainable growth and addressing long-standing inequalities are reinforcing and not competing objectives. That has been supported by recent work from the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD. For example, analysis from the OECD found that rising income inequality in the UK reduced GDP per capita growth by 9 percentage points between 1990 and 2010. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving me on that point of income inequality. He represents a rural constituency as I do, and he will understand the difficulties that the agricultural sector has faced this summer in particular. In that context, and in the context of his point about rural inequalities, would you undertake to look at some of the issues that are around the transportation of fodder to areas in the outlying parts of Scotland that are facing particular pressures because of the summer that we have just had? I think that Mr Scott makes a very substantial point. A visit that I paid to Orkney, and indeed I was in the Western Isles just at the weekend, I was receiving representations about the difficulty because of the inclement weather in actually growing enough feedstock for livestock, which of course particularly in Mr Scott's constituency and also in Orkney are central, and the Western Isles, all of our island communities, are central to the livelihoods of individuals. As Mr Scott will know, the rural affairs secretary was in Brussels yesterday discussing those very issues with his European counterparts, and we will of course consider as part of that analysis the substantial issue that Mr Scott has raised. The issue of income inequality and the tackling of income inequality has been central to the Government's economic strategy, and one of the members of the First Minister's Council of Economic Advisers, Professor Stiglitz, recently commented that tackling inequality is the foremost challenge that many Governments face. He remarked that Scotland's economic strategy leads the way in identifying the challenges and provides a strong vision for change. In practice, implementing the strategy will mean that we will focus on boosting competitiveness and tackling inequality through four key priorities—long-term sustainable investment in people, infrastructure and assets, growth based on innovation and openness to new ways of undertaking business activity, promoting inclusive growth and creating opportunity through a fair and inclusive jobs market and regional cohesion, and the creation of a country with an international outlook open to trade, migration and new ideas. All of those elements are essential to the process of wealth creation that the Government believes to be important in this extract. I welcome the fact that you have acknowledged the disparity in productivity. Can I just ask of the first point in your investment strategy, the long-term investment in people? Will that look at the drastic fall in opportunities at FV colleges—150,000 fewer places for part-time? Will that look at the opportunity at schools to do STEM subjects and, indeed, ICT subjects, which have also been cut drastically? There are two points in Mrs Scanlon's intervention. The first is in relation to college places, where the Government has taken a conscious decision to deepen the skills that individuals are acquiring when they go to college. Our commitment was to maintain the full-time equivalent numbers at about 116,000 at further education colleges. We have exceeded that at about 119,000, but the purpose of that was to concentrate deliberately on entrenching the skills base to ensure that the productivity gains that I am talking about could be achieved because we had a more deeply skilled workforce. The second point that Mrs Scanlon raises is in relation to, essentially, STEM and digital skills. She will be aware that we have recently, in partnership with the industry, established code clan, which is the new digital skills academy, designed specifically to address the issue that Mrs Scanlon raises. I cannot have a conversation with the business community today without the issue of digital skills and their availability being raised. We realise that the measures are central to the development of the economy, and they are in place to try to address that. Of course, the Government will continue to reflect on how effective that can be taken forward to ensure that we achieve those objectives. The strategy that the Government has set out makes clear that our ambition is to reach the top quartile of OECD countries for productivity, sustainability, inequality and wellbeing. Those are the aims of the Government's economic strategy. Our priority with regard to business is to build the conditions for businesses to grow both here at home and overseas and to ensure that Scotland remains a highly attractive location for international investment. One of the first acts of the Scottish Government in 2007 was to establish the most competitive business rates regime in the United Kingdom. We have supported business by directly maintaining the support of our enterprise bodies and investing, as I have just relayed to Mrs Scanlon, in the physical and digital infrastructure and the skills of our workforce to support that activity. That has, of course, been against the backdrop of the public expenditure challenge that we have faced. Building on the measures that have been taken over recent years, we announced further measures in our programme for government to update our activities and to reflect changing economic conditions both at home and internationally. Many of those aspects were set out in the programme for government debate in the course of the last couple of days. A strong business sector is vital to the creation of a fairer society. The reverse is also true. A fairer society can benefit business into the bargain. That is one of the reasons why we will continue to place a strong emphasis on promoting fair work. We will promote the living wage, the real living wage, what makes work pay and it reduces poverty. It can also help businesses to increase productivity, to reduce absenteeism and to improve staff retention. Last year, we set a target of 150 living wage accredited companies in Scotland. There are already more than 300, and we are now working on our target of 500 by the dissolution of Parliament. Over the next six months, the fair work convention will create a new framework for the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions, public bodies and government. In particular, it will propose and promote employment practices at both the aggregate economy level and within individual businesses to maximise productivity, including in skills, workplace innovation and job security. The business pledge is central to our vision of fair work, founded on a partnership between employers, employees and government. The business pledge is a shared mission between government and business with the goal of boosting productivity, competitiveness, fair employment and fair work. By making the pledge, companies demonstrate their commitment to shared values and to deliver them through their actions and future plans. We are making strong progress here with the 100th adopter of the business pledge, Edinburgh-based games development company Blazingriffin, which is announced only today. In conclusion, fair work is one strand of our approach to inclusive growth, raising attainment and eliminating gaps in attainment. The expansion of childcare provision and the wider provision of equality and affordable housing are other key measures to how we advance the efforts that we take forward to tackle inequality in our society. The Government's economic strategy has, as it has, the determination to create a prosperous and a fair economy, but also to create a fair economy for the individuals of our society. At the heart of our approach is a focus on partnership and shared endeavour. We want to work with businesses and with all of our partners in the Scottish economy to ensure that our economy continues to grow and, most importantly, creates opportunities for all to flourish. I move the motion. Thank you. I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to your move amendment number 14156.3. It was Baillie, 10 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We debated the Scottish Government's economic strategy in March. I think I described it then as a glossy and colourful publication with lots of pictures, but light on detail. We anticipated today an action plan, timescales, targets, and unfortunately not that much has changed. There is really, really no room for complacency, because we know that we have fewer businesses in Scotland ahead of the population than anywhere else in the UK. There has actually been a fall in the number of businesses in Scotland. Our start-ups are fewer in number, business R&D spend is lower than the UK average, and our GDP is 2 per cent higher than the pre-recession peak, but the rest of the UKs is 5 per cent higher. We could trade stats all afternoon. The truth is, the picture is very mixed. Don't just listen to me. The Federation of Small Businesses reported a drop in business confidence now at zero as revenues and profits fall. Importantly, they highlighted skill shortages as a real problem hampering business growth. The Scottish retail consortium also reported that retail sales were down on the previous year and food sales were down too. A few people would fundamentally disagree with the aims of the Scottish Government strategy. Growing the Scottish economy, reducing inequality are sound ambitions and we share them. The problem is that we don't know how the Scottish Government is going to do it and we certainly don't know how success is going to be measured. The First Minister, in her programme for government speech, made a plethora of announcements. I'm not sure how many are all that new. After all, I think that, if my memory is right, this is probably the sixth time that the Scottish Business Development Bank has been announced. I look forward to it appearing soon, but it is the difference that these actions will make in terms of outcomes that matter. With no measurements or targets, little means of judging whether that strategy is actually working. The spice briefing on the SNP economic strategy is indeed well worth a read. It notes the lack of any smart targets, and if there are no targets, it is not possible to assess whether we are able to measure the success of the new strategy. I think that Professor Ronnie MacDonald summed it up beautifully when he said, this is really quite bizarre. If you don't have targets, it doesn't really take you anywhere. So we lament a lack of targets and measurements as a sign that the SNP aren't really serious about making this work. Let me turn to taxation. The SNP's previous economic strategy had an over-reliance on oil and a belief that if you cut the corporation tax, that would in and of itself promote growth. I'm pleased that they've moved away from that and recognise now what we've been saying all along that cutting corporation tax would simply be a race to the bottom. As for oil, the SNP overestimated the amount of revenue that would be achieved from oil and gas taxation. Recent stats tell us that oil revenues for the most recent quarter were £168 million, for the same quarter last year were £969 million. Happy to give way. I wonder if he agrees with me and with Sir Ian Wood, a friend of the union who said in his report on oil and gas that the fiscal regime and the regulatory regime had been extremely damaging for Scotland's oil and gas sector. I always pay careful attention to what Sir Ian Wood says, and I think that some of his recommendations in his recent calls should be paid attention to by both the Scottish Government and the UK Government, because he is saying that oil is currently, oil production is unsustainable below $50 a barrel. Let me remind the member that the SNP told us that the economic projections for oil would be $110 a barrel. The figure has recently been revised down to $70 a barrel. The truth is that Brent Crude fell to $42 a barrel last week. I worry about the sustainability of our oil economy, and this is not some debating point about the SNP's desire for full fiscal autonomy. This has real consequences. There have been more than 5,000 job losses. 35,000 job losses are predicted over the next three years. That touches every constituency in Scotland, but in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire the impact has been severe. Unemployment is going up, youth unemployment is going up, business starts are falling by a fifth, and 91 per cent of businesses saying that they had been adversely affected. Aside from the consequences of the falling price, not at the moment, oil is in decline and the cost of extraction is indeed increasing. However much we might not want to talk about this, we need to start thinking now about a post-oil economy. What do we do about decommissioning? Let's have a clear strategy from the SNP Government to bring investment to do that here. How do we make sure that the skills, the talents, the jobs in the oil industry transfer into the new industries of the future? There is little in the strategy about that. Members may recall back in March that the SNP Government published two different economic analysis papers within a week of each other. That set out the benefits of improved economic performance and was the SNP's demonstration of how they would improve onshore revenue receipts and close the gap in the nation's finances. Aside from wrongly including the benefits of the Barnett formula in their calculations about full fiscal autonomy, the papers made a number of sweeping assumptions. We would see a growth in productivity, no underlying policy analysis for achieving this. We would see a narrowing of the gap between Scotland and our international peers on business investment, no underlying policy analysis for achieving this. We would see a 50% growth in exports, a growth rate higher than China's in its heyday, again no underlying policy analysis for achieving this. Let me go on with the sweeping assumptions for just a minute. All this would apparently generate £3 billion more in tax revenues. That is the SNP's best-case scenario. Far be it for me to point out to the cabinet secretary that, with a gap of at least £7 billion, he was a little way short, some £4 billion short. That would mean a cut in services like schools, hospitals, reducing the number of teachers and nurses, or indeed it would mean higher taxes, but we have yet to hear which it will be. The SNP is still committed to pursuing a policy of full fiscal autonomy that would cost Scotland's economy, dear. Our focus for the economy must be forward-looking. We know that the Scotland of tomorrow will not be like the Scotland of today, and the greatest asset we have in the future is our people, because it is human capital that can drive economic success. That means that we need to invest in their potential. We need to give them the very best start in life, the best opportunities in school, access to further and higher education and, indeed, lifelong learning. Education is an economic issue. My leader, Kezia Dugdale, visited CellX yesterday to talk about the engineering jobs of the future. Engineering UK estimates that Scotland will need nearly 150,000 new engineers by 2022, and that is great. That could result in a £1.7 billion bonus to our economy. Why is it that a pathway to engineering course being offered at Dumbarton academy in my constituency is being cancelled by West college? I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree that that is very short-sighted and perhaps driven by financial considerations more than the needs of the local economy. I am grateful to the member for giving way. I hope that she would agree that there should be a broader range of possibilities for those students at her local school than to see their future working in the arms industry in a business that has a track record of dealing with some of the most brutal regimes on the planet. I thank Patrick Harvie for his intervention. I think that he will recognise that what I was trying to illustrate is that there are jobs there in the future, principally in engineering that was once considered an industry in decline, and this is something that we should encourage. He is a former pupil of Dumbarton academy. I hope that he would want to join me in seeking a reversal to the short-sighted decision made by the college to cancel a pathway to engineering course. Employers complain about having a pipeline of skilled people. That is borne out by the FSB survey, so the jobs of the future need investment now, particularly in stem subjects, science, technology, engineering and maths, but we need to invest in the classroom in basic literacy and numeracy. There is little to celebrate when the attainment gap is 12 per cent in reading, 21 per cent in writing and 24 per cent in maths. That fundamentally harms our economy, so the attainment fund that is announced by the SNP is welcome, but it needs to be made a budget priority as well as a political one. Just contrast the approach of the SNP when they say that they will cancel £250 million of air passenger duty in a year when investing just £25 million in closing the attainment gap 10 times more on cutting taxes than investing in our children and the future. Our approach to the economy is about investing in skills, not cutting taxes, and I look forward to taking Scotland forward in the future. Any thanks. I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak to and move amendment 14156.2, Mr Fraser, six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by welcoming the scheduling of this debate this afternoon and also the recognition from the Scottish Government in its motion of the fact that we are seeing steady and sustained economic growth. Over the past year, the UK grew faster than any other advanced economy in the world and Scotland is very much part of that. For employment, we have seen unprecedented increases. That has been an employment heavy economic recovery and has been central to the Conservative party ambition. I welcomed the cabinet secretary's narrative of all the economic successes. What he missed out was attributing those economic successes to his real architect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. He was a result of his difficult decisions taken in the teeth of opposition from other parties in this chamber that we have delivered this economic success. Let us just remind ourselves what we heard from these other parties. We were told that economic growth would not come. When employment was growing, we were told that those increases were illusionary. Instead, the facts speak for themselves. We have had more than two million new jobs created across the UK in the last five years, three quarters of which have been in full-time position. For those in work, we have seen wages rise over the past year, increasing at an average of 2.8 per cent in a period when inflation has been flat. UK Government policy now exceeds the pre-election pledges of either the SNP or the Labour Party in working towards an enforceable £9 per hour national living wage for 2020. I am sure that Mr Macdonald would like to join me in celebrating success, so I will give way to him. I wonder if the member could perhaps advise me on two things. Firstly, why is it then that poverty groups are saying that in-work poverty has increased? Secondly, can he advise whether the living wage as set by the Scottish Government would be above £9 at the time at which the conservative minimum wage reaches £9? On the second point, the living wage proposed by the Scottish Government would not have been legally enforceable. That is the difference. The national living wage being introduced will be legally enforceable for all over 25s. Everyone will get the benefit of that. It will not be a voluntary scheme. I am glad that the member has raised the issue of poverty, because in his annual poverty and income report earlier this year, the Scottish Government acknowledged that we had some of the lowest levels of poverty in Scotland since figures began in the first half of the 1990s. According to the Scottish Government itself, which Mr Macdonald should pay attention to, there are now 140,000 fewer individuals and 60,000 fewer children in poverty since 2020. As the Scottish Government itself acknowledges in its report, that reflects more people moving into employment and increases in hours' work. In particular, there has been a shift from part-time employment to full-time employment for those on the lowest incomes, so the record is an encouraging one, although there is more work to do. It is unfortunate that, in the areas where it has control, the Scottish Government has set out a number of negative signals during its time in office. We are pleased that a number of these measures have been reversed, for example the so-called public health levy, possibly the most thinly veiled cash grab on the retail sector that has ever been conceived, which ended just this year. If it really was about public health, why did it come to an end? Of course, we see the same cash grab instincts arising from the Scottish Government's treatment of shooting and deer forests in the land reform bill, currently before this Parliament. Only yesterday, I was talking to a gamekeeper concerned about the prospects for his own job as a result of his ill-conceived measure, where there is little consideration of how business is affected and how sectors of our economy will suffer as a result of these targeted attempts to raise revenue. That is regrettable. No, I need to make some progress. Thank you, Mr Harvey. One year on from the referendum, we also see the Government continuing to agitate over the constitution. With the odd exception, the Federation of Small Business has chartered business confidence in Scotland in relation to the rest of the UK over the past few years, as Jackie Baillie reminded us. The latest figures make for grim reading. Confidence in Scotland has fallen to a mere 1.7 points, while UK-wide stands at 20.3 points. Over the past year, the gap between the two has widened. The cabinet secretary, when I intervened on him earlier, was too quick to dismiss those figures. I think that he should be asking why that gap exists and why it has been widening. That should be a matter of concern. I want to say something about business rates. If the Scottish Government is sincere about its intention to make Scotland a competitive business environment, it must follow its ambitions with actions, which is why we are calling for a written branch review of the business rates system. It is perhaps surprising that that has not yet happened. The Scottish Government has established a commission on local government finance, yet excluded from its remit any examination of business rates, the single largest local tax in Scotland. I encourage a review to be established, and I hope that it will be as open as possible, looking at the fundamentals of local business taxation. There are also a number of specific problems in the administration of the current system that could be addressed. With the rise in rates for empty properties, for example, we are putting a large additional expense on properties that are vacant due to undergoing refits or refurbishments—already a considerable cost on business. For the whole of England and Wales, there is a single assessor for business rates valuations. What case can now realistically be made in Scotland for retaining 14 separate assessors? Why is there no single mechanism for payment rather than separate mechanisms for each of our 32 local authorities? There are a great many issues that need to be looked at. I urge the Scottish Government to address the question of business rates. I do not have time, Deputy Presiding Officer, to address the issue of the Scottish rates of income tax. I would simply remind the chamber that business needs clarity on that, so that it knows that we will indeed be competitive. The Scottish Government, just in closing, will get our support and that from the business community if it does the right thing to create a more competitive environment in Scotland. I have a pleasure in moving to the amendment in my name. Six-minute speech is now very tight for time today. Colin Mark MacDonald will be followed by John Pentland up to six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that a couple of things that need to be raised from the earlier speeches, which I was going to touch on the topics during my speech. One of the things that interests me, though, listening to the contribution from Jackie Bailey, is that I thought that we would come to a degree of consensus. Patrick Harvie excluded on this, and I know that he has a different view from myself on air passenger duty. The benefits that air passenger duty reductions would bring for airports and economic activity in Scotland. I thought that the Labour Party was signed up to that. I now hear what seems like a rowing back on this from their front bench and a suggestion that they do not favour taking those steps to boost economic activity and support Scotland's airports. I think that that will be very interesting news for Scotland's airports, particularly for Aberdeen airport in my constituency, where I know that a number of potential routes would benefit significantly where that decision to be taken. Perhaps the front bench can clarify that a little bit later on in their speech. The second point that Jackie Bailey spoke about—I realise that it is a difficult balancing act for the Labour Party to try and, on the one hand, appear concerned by the situation as it affects the oil and gas sector, and yet, at the same time, try not to act as though they are pleased by the situation that arises. It is a difficult balancing act, which the previous Scottish Labour leader, Jim Murphy, spectacularly failed to carry out. The issue around when the oil price was high demonstrates the folly of the decision taken by the UK Government to implement the supplementary charge, which therefore had a detrimental impact on the exploration activity at a time when the opportunity was there for exploration activity to take place. That meant that the industry, when the oil price lowered, was not in as advantageous a position as it might otherwise have been had exploration activity been stimulated and encouraged rather than being discouraged by that activity. However, it would be remiss of me during the period of offshore Europe that takes place in my constituency not to focus on both positive developments and opportunities in the sector. I note yesterday an announcement from Lloyd's Register Energy that it will be developing a headquarter building at the Prime Four Business Park in Kingswell in my constituency, which it says in its press release that it will be the largest LR office worldwide in terms of headcount. I think that that is an important statement of confidence, both in the north-east economy and in the energy sector. I was drawn to an article on the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce blog today by Brian Wilson. Not often do you hear Brian Wilson being quoted on those benches, but it was one of his more temperate interventions. He pointed out that, in Azerbaijan alone, according to UKTI, there is £11 billion worth of export opportunities for British companies over the next few years as production of oil and gas continues to expand. One of the benefits that we have in Scotland and in the north-east of Scotland in particular is an expertise-based build-up over many decades that can be exported into other countries and can bring benefits back to Scotland as a result of internationalisation and export of both talent and of hardware and kit. The point on the living wage and the fallacy that Murdo Fraser makes and that the Conservative Party makes is that just by re-titling the minimum wage as the living wage does not make it a living wage. What makes it a living wage is whether it meets the standard as applied to the living wage, which is why, when the Conservatives increase the minimum wage, welcome through any increase in the minimum wage is by not increasing it to the level of the living wage as applied by the Scottish Government. It cannot then be called a living wage if it does not meet the criteria of a living wage. I am grateful to the member for giving me. Would he at least acknowledge, though, that it is higher than the manifesto commitment of his party at the general election? If all we are going to get from Mr Brown is this semantic argument, rather than looking at the reality of a living wage and what a living wage actually means, then we are not going to get very far at all, but I welcome the fact that, in Scotland, we see now nearly 135,000 people employed by living wage-accredited employers in Scotland, and I welcome the fact that the target has not just been exceeded but smashed in terms of living wage-accredited companies and, as a result, we are now looking for 500 by the dissolution of this Parliament. The living wage is important for more than just the fact that it boosts incomes. It is also the fact that a workforce that is well paid and properly paid is a more productive workforce, and that links into the point about productivity that the Deputy First Minister made. If you have a workforce that is enthused by the fact that they are actually receiving a proper pay for a proper day's work, they then are more likely to be a more productive workforce, and that will bring economic benefit as well. I believe that there are positive stories to tell in terms of both the offshore sector but also the wider Scottish economy, and I support the Government's economic strategy. Presiding Officer, as the Government motion notes economic growth was stronger and more sustained in 2001, Labour's second term of office famously when talking about its economic strategy, Gordon Brown referred to post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory. That may be a mouthful, but it is not just meaningless jargon. Underpinning it is idea that by investing in education and skills and tandem with support for scientific and technological development, we can make better use of scarce resources, perhaps even achieving the economic holy grail of sustainable growth in a virtuous cycle where success breeds further success. Only time will tell if that is possible, but most economists would agree that high-quality training, skills and education coupled with support for innovation is an essential key to maximising growth, so when discussing the economy and the economic levers in the hands of the Scottish Government, we cannot overemphasise the importance of education and training. The more we invest in education, the better employers look for high-skilled workforce and their reputation for skills and technological advances attract businesses. We need a coherent strategy to maximise our potential through schools, colleges, universities and employment-based training. How, cabinet secretary, will you ensure that everyone can access the educational opportunities that are needed to build their careers? As Kezia said yesterday, cutting the attainment gap begins in the classroom with the basics such as literacy and numeracy, and the gap between rich and poor is immoral and it is holding back our whole country back. That gap needs to be cut. We need to get more young people from the private areas such as those in Mullerwell and Wishop into high-quality apprenticeships, colleges and university courses and good jobs. Unfortunately, there are still too many people left out in the cold with poor prospects, which gives the perception that the Scottish Government talks a talk but does not walk the walk. Cabinet secretary, you are feeling my constituency and others when are you going to fix that? As well as quality, we need to ensure that we develop the right mix of skills and that takes vision and long-term planning. When you look at the shortages of teachers, medical professionals, scientists and engineers, you will only see failure of foresight and planning. As Nicola said in 2001, a party that is now in its second term of office cannot avoid taking responsibility for its own failings. As Jackie Baillie said, Scotland will need nearly 150,000 new engineers by 2022. Failure to deliver engineering skills will cost Scotland £1.7 billion a year. Why is it that women constitute just 3 per cent of civil engineers and 10 per cent of senior managers in science and technology in Scotland? What is the Scottish Government doing to attract more women into science and engineering? We need a firm foundation in science at primary, but how many primary teachers have science degrees or even study science to a higher level? Done properly, studying science can enhance literacy and numeracy. Surely, that would be more useful than reintroducing national testing. Why did the number of sitting higher-level STEM subjects fall to just 4.2 per cent this year? Colleges that are crucial to lifelong learning and tackling the attainment gap by winning access to education for disadvantaged areas. Yet, we have seen a three-pronged attack with cuts to staffing courses and 140,000 fewer students. When it comes to apprenticeships, it should not just be about quantity. We need high-quality apprenticeships and we need a range of skills. Of course, we need retail, hospitality and the service sector, but should there be a higher proportion in science, IT, engineering, technology, manufacturing and construction industries that are the powerhouses of wealth creation, we need to ensure that apprenticeships are good quality and meet the needs of young people and the economy. In summary, what we have is a lack of science in primary, low take-up in secondary, courses cut to FA, too few graduates from universities and too few STEM apprenticeships. The Government report card has must do better at every level. If we want to build a fairer Scotland in a stronger economy, we have to concentrate on addressing those issues. That is what I want, and that is what Scottish Labour wants, but is that what the Scottish Government wants, or does it stall? I've got other things in its mind. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to support the motion today on support for business, infrastructure investment, innovation and internationalisation, and promoting and expanding fair work. In my constituency, we can see major developments in renewable energy, for example, at Wick Harbour, where the Beatrice offshore wind project is going to use that for its base and make major infrastructure and job developments there. Offshore wind, which is only partly consented by the UK Government and could be so much bigger than it is. Our energy minister, Fergus Ewing, has visited major N in my constituency, where he says that the eyes of the global marine industry are on the project. It is the first major tidal project in the world, and people are looking to it to see how to develop more tidal energy in the world. We also have Scots who are internationalising by making sure that they gain contracts in other places to use our technology at the present time. Take sterling-based natural power, which has a job with EDF to oversee the health and social environment and marine operations at the Pampol Breha tidal farm in Brittany in Côte d'Armor. Also at the new one at Ylda Grawat, I hope, and certainly at San Nazar offshore wind farm areas that I visit in the summer, and they welcome Scottish technology to help them to prosper. At the same time, we are faced with a UK policy that has the energy minister, Amber Rudd, making a big difference in the way in which Britain is going about energy policy compared to us or Germany or anyone else. Amber Rudd has arguably the most expensive single infrastructure project in British history, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, which is their choice while they sabotage the potential for thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of investment in Scotland in our renewable industries. I am surprised that the Labour Party did not notice in its talk about the post-oil economy that, in the programme for government, we have invested £200 million during 2014-15 and 2015-16, including the national renewables infrastructure fund and the new cares local energy challenge fund to support the roll-out of low-carbon energy, etc. Now, those kinds of investments are part of the post-oil economy. As are the report just very recently given to us by David Singsworth, the chair of the Scottish Fuel Poverty Forum, and here's where building infrastructure comes off. He says, Scottish and UK government policies surrounding fuel poverty now contain significant differences of approach given that Scotland is still tied to the energy company obligation scheme of the UK, designed and implemented by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. That has hampered the development of a uniquely Scottish solution. In my constituency, the vast bulk of it has got homes that are between 60 and 85 per cent in need of tackling fuel poverty, as does much of rural Scotland. Where are we going to get the money for those kinds of things? Into the bargain, the difficulties of the reserve powers are that we suffer other problems, such as the report today by Citizens Advice Scotland about the postcode penalty that distance travelled, the cost of parcels to our rural areas. Can we do something about that? We can protest, but our economy can take off if we get a proper system of delivering parcels to our rural areas, and we need those powers if we do not have them at the present time. Let me suggest that it is important to look at the drawbacks that there are, but also the successes. We have a record export in salmon farms and salmon production this year. We could be taxing whisky at source if we had the power over the whisky industry here and not the international companies that pay some taxes elsewhere. Indeed, we would be able to promote the fair jobs that this Government is famous for trying to promote. I was delighted that Annabelle Ewing, our Minister for Fair Work, visited my constituency at the Gordon Bush wind farm recently. She shows that women are employed by Scottish and Southern energy in many of those kinds of developments, but Scottish and Southern energy are held back by the economy policies of the UK. I would like to stop for a minute and think about one of the issues in the Tory amendment. That is the one about shooting rates and the removal of the dispensation to pay those. If that is the height of their ambition for rural policy, about £4 million a year, I think that we are seeing the white flag being raised by them. The late Dick Balhari, the conservationist, said that the traditional shooting estates embody the selfish greed of a Victorian era, and most private landowners in Scotland are outdated and ludicrous, as are the arguments of Murdo Fraser. Perhaps we should look at the way in which we could give her a bonus to estates that meet the targets for culling deer and also charge the ones who do not meet those targets with a lot, lot more charges than they are paying at the present time. There is much to be said here, but my constituents across Scotland are being deeply wounded in our energy policies by the uncertainties of investment by the UK Government. The SNP's programme for government shows the way ahead. The Scottish Labour, of course, recognises the need for growth in Scotland. Jackie Baillie's amendment recognises that the Scottish Government must ensure that the benefits of economic growth improve the lives of working people and address increasing inequalities. In my brief, I am committed to facing the future and want to step back and take this opportunity to discuss less conventional measurement opportunities for our economy. I would like to highlight the framework for measuring economic activity and promote alternative measurements. As one of the members contributing to the Cabinet Secretary's national performance framework discussions, I am clear that the significance of this and the Scottish Government being measured against this criteria is fundamental. To know Scotland's success, we need to ensure prosperity beyond economic terms and also in social and environmental terms. I am certain that factors such as quality and security of employment, mental and physical health, time with family and friends, access to nature—to name but some—are equally important in understanding the prosperity and progress of our nation. Can the cabinet secretary, in his closing remarks, update the chamber on the scope and range and timescale of the review for the national performance framework? Although the GDP framework has limitations of specificity—if I can say that word, for innovative methods, innovative methods can go far better to reflect the quality of life and sustainability, as well as unpaid and public services and negative externalities. As politicians, we should surely consider strongly adapting to a system of measurement that better explores our modern economy. Deeper understanding means better quality decisions leading on to public policy. I recognise the analysis by Professor Stiglitz and I will look carefully at the cabinet secretary's four points raised today. We must seize the opportunities that the future holds and prepare for it today. The Government owes our communities a just transition, and central to that is the development of transferable skills. The recent announcement of the closure of Longannet plant was a devastating blow to local communities and those impacted by the knock-on and supply chain effects. As we shift to a low-carbon economy, there must be measures ready in place for those affected in this way. I mentioned earlier the importance of quality and security of employment, and so I was disappointed to learn that there appears to be no real strategy outlined by the Scottish Government for a just transition. A low-carbon economy is an inclusive economy, and whilst the shift is positive, provisions must be made for workers and communities in an incremental way to reach where we have to go due to the climate change imperative. A true example of forward-looking and creation of a new economy is also the circular economy. That, for those members who are not up to speed on it, which I was not a year ago, is where by waste is practically eliminated by reusing, repairing and remanufacturing materials and energy. That could strengthen Scotland's economy through advancements in education, employment and the environment. I am encouraged that the Scottish Government's current consultation on the subject is now open and the acknowledgement of the breadth of opportunities that it will make available to Scottish industries and communities. I would ask all MSPs in the chamber and beyond to highlight this consultation to their constituents. I am also clear that co-operative models can make a far more significant contribution to Scotland's economic future, urban and rural, in all sectors from finance to energy. Is co-operative development Scotland adequately supported by the Scottish Government to mainstream this inclusive economic way of working? Looking to the rural economy, I must address the sector-wide crisis hitting our farmers after 5,000 farmers joined a demonstration yesterday in Brussels. I am convinced that the dairy action plan is not moving as speedily as farmers deserve in the struggle with desperately low prices, market volatility and poor weather conditions. We must support the farming industry, and I urge the Scottish Government to take quick action also on new cap delivery arrangements, as well as on long-term planning for investment and research to better help out our farmers. Many rural communities in my region of south Scotland and beyond can be found to be living in an economically marginalised way. I am confident that the land reform bill, as part of the programme of government, holds significant opportunity for change, offering rural communities empowered and democratic input into their own economic future. The Racky Committee received a vast number of submissions to the bill, which clearly demonstrates the significance of those potential changes. The cabinet secretary's motion looks to achieve, I quote, inclusive growth and opportunities for all, and I encourage the Scottish Government to retain that ethos within the heart of the land reform bill as it moves forward. Finally, this week sees the opening of the new Borders rail line, and I congratulate the campaign for Borders rail on its success and the Government and other parties. This development will benefit the Borders wage economy, tourism and connectivity for residents while reducing carbon emissions and is a huge boost to my region. I agree with the campaign for Borders rail, which was raised with the cabinet secretary earlier, that we should consider very carefully the extent to which it can be extended to Carlyle. Sustainable transport, combined with real broadband access, still has a long way to go and the Scottish Government needs, in my view, to get a better handle on both of those. Scottish Labour demands more for rural Scotland, and I support Jackie Baillie's amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate. Continues growth over the last three years, despite challenging conditions, not only highlights the resilience of our economy, but underlines and embeds trends in the labour market, such as record employment levels and signs that real wages are increasing. Like many across civic Scotland, I welcomed the programme for government set out by the First Minister last week. It shows a Government that is working hard to create a strong and competitive economy underpinned by social justice, which is bold in its ambition to make Scotland the best place in the UK to do business through a focus on skills, productivity, innovation and, crucially, fair work. This afternoon, I would like to focus on the last of those, as well as equal access to skilled employment. People's experience of work must be fair and promote opportunity, fulfilment, security and respect. The importance that is placed on this by the Scottish Government is demonstrated by the creation of a cabinet-level post with responsibility for its promotion. As part of that, the fair work convention was established in April this year, which will be a focal point to develop, promote and sustain a fair work framework for Scotland. Largely, due to the efforts of the Poverty Alliance and the Living Wage Foundation, the Scottish Government's target to achieve 158 living wage accredited employers by the end of 2015 has been met eight months ahead of schedule. They are well on the way to achieve the revised target of 500 Scots-based living wage accredited employers by the end of March 2016. No thanks, I do not have much time. The Scottish Government itself became accredited in June. The UK Government recently announced an enhancement to the national minimum wage. It is more important than ever that the Scottish Government continue to champion a true living wage, the level of which is calculated according to the basic cost of living, taking into account the income that households receive via the welfare system. The new national minimum wage that is announced by the chancellor is restricted to over 25s and is coupled with significant reductions to working-age benefits. The programme for government also outlines the considerable track record that Scotland has built as a world leader in social enterprise and the social economy. That is being modest. In fact, the results of Scotland's first-ever survey of the shape, size and impact of social enterprise reveals that business is burgeoning with over 5,200 social enterprise firms providing 112,000 jobs, with assets worth £3.86 billion. That is truly world-leading, not to mention the fact that the social enterprise sector contributes £1.15 billion to the economy, as well as playing a pivotal role in tackling social issues. The gross value-added figure is roughly £1.7 billion. That research, commissioned by a wide range of public and third sector groups, including the Scottish Government, Social Enterprise Scotland and Glasgow Caledonian University, confirms that Scotland is a trailblazer when it comes to nurturing social enterprise and validates the Scottish Government's decision to protect and work alongside the social enterprise sector, a sector of which the UK Government has yet to fully grasp and embrace. There is a good spread of social enterprises across both rural and urban Scotland, and I always take the opportunity to highlight a success story in my constituency, and I am going to do that now. The usual place is a community cafe in Dumfries, set up by two fantastic and innovative women called Linda Whitelaw and Heather Hall, who saw a gap in the market in relation to the training of young people with additional support needs. Working with the local college, the cafe will help train those youngsters up for a career in the hospitality industry. That is indicative of the progressive nature of social enterprises. Many work with those who are furthest away from the labour market, representing a fairer and more inclusive way of doing business. In terms of gender equality, 60 per cent of social enterprises have a woman as their most senior employee. Not only that, but the sector is already achieving a 50-50 born member membership target, and a notable 68 per cent of social enterprises pay at least the recognised living wage. It is clear that the social enterprise sector is playing an increasingly important part in Scotland's economy, and with its inclusive business practices, it will be important in the development of the fair work agenda. The Scottish Government, I am very pleased to note, is already investing £5.4 million in the social enterprise development and will be strengthening the support available as part of the 10-year social enterprise strategy, which will be published next year, and I very much look forward to seeing that. I am very optimistic that, with the Government's commitment, we will see the sector grow from strength to strength and contribute to the overall success of the Scottish economy. Thank you very much. In this week of all weeks, with offshore Europe starting today in Aberdeen, rather than talking down the oil industry, we should be looking at what it needs, given the importance of that industry to not just the Aberdeen economy, but to the Scottish and UK economies as well. In an energy supplement for the press and journal, Andy Samuel, the Office of the Oil and Gas Authority new regulator said just the other day that the risk that is involved in low or negative profitability in producing fields could lead to the permanent decommissioning of critical infrastructure with the potential to shut down whole areas of the UK continental shelf, stranding valuable resources. That is a very in-oil way of saying that if price falls, oil rigs will stop producing and infrastructure, pipelines and processing facilities right across Scotland and the UK will be under severe pressure and some will potentially close. Andy Samuel went on in the press and journal to describe in a diagram the facilities, many of whom are by definition of course in Scotland, but some are down the east coast of England as well that face that kind of pressure. One of those is Sulunvo. Sulunvo oil and gas terminals has been the centre of the North Sea for longer than I've been involved in many aspects of public life and goes back to when I was growing up in Shetland. I thought that now, for the first time, because oil prices, as some members have mentioned, are at below $50 a barrel on a consistent basis, there can be no doubt now of those dangers. I think that they are real and significant dangers and therefore what needs to be done to tackle those. It is not, as some keep saying, a matter of tax. If they were making money they'd be paying tax, but most of the oil industry at the moment, indeed none of the oil industry that I know is making any money. Ian Wood, who rightly said just the other day that the best way that the UK Government could assist at this time is with bigger capital allowances that do fluctuate according to the price of oil. He's argued that the OGA, the UK Government and the industry need to recognise that a mechanism that fluctuates, while to some degree imprecise, does at least allow for the investment that has been described in this debate already but must take place to continue rather than absolutely stalling in terms of what is going on right now. The MERSC development that was announced just last week happened because of the previous tax regime introduced under the last budget, but that was then and now we are where we are today. All prices are actually even lower than they were at that time and that's why I believe that Serene Wood's proposal in relation to some kind of graduated capital tax allowance to assist where price is low is something that Scottish Government should support and it's something that the UK Government should absolutely introduce at the first opportunity, which would be the autumn statement later this year. Otherwise, I very strongly fear for a lot of the infrastructure and therefore for the jobs that go on in many different parts of Scotland, at least of which the Silenvo Oil Terminal in Shetland. It's as simple as this, if more and more fields are decommissioned and just yesterday Nixon, who were owned by the Chinese state oil company, announced that they are going to continue and indeed will decommission the electric and black bird gas fields in the upper muddy first. If that continues, if that trend continues, which remorselessly it would appear to be doing so at the moment, then the price per barrel made and the overall productivity will fall on the left fields and therefore on the infrastructure that is left and that just puts into question the productivity and the cost basis for those facilities and therefore their continuing existence in their current form. I think it is, we are absolutely at a very sharp moment now in this area and that is why the OGA Andy Samuel's protestations to his industry and therefore to the government as well and to others who can play a role in this to take this incredibly seriously, I think are right and must now happen. The two other aspects to the oil industry that I do think are worthy of mention, the first that was mentioned by others is on decommissioning. I think the issue about decommissioning is actually that if tax relief is going to be applied to decommissioning and that is clearly has become available through government, then that tax relief must mean that the jobs that go with the actual decommissioning work have to a great extent happen either in Scotland or indeed across the UK. That at the moment in one field I know about is not happening, the whole of the decommissioning project is going to Norway. There will be no UK jobs created of that, none in Aberdeen, none anywhere, and I think that is just wrong if UK taxpayers money is being used. If the Conservative colleagues have any influence with their UK counterparts, I think they should press very hard for that system to be made much tighter indeed. The final point is, and I think John Swin, the Deputy First Minister rightly mentioned this and Jackie Baillie made something of engineers, that the developing Scotland young workforce programme is one of the best things that have come out of government in recent times. I believe that it is a very important initiative. Roseanna Cunningham, I was very on to say, came up to Shetland in the summer to talk with local businesses about that, including with engineers, young engineers at the North Atlantic Fisheries College in Lerwick. It is, in Scalloway rather, the way in which we excite and take young people, both young boys and young girls, out of an academic route that we still push too hard in our schools and to instead recognise that the vocational route into work is every bit as valuable as the academic route. We certainly need, as Jackie Baillie rightly said, more engineers. We also need more construction workers and care workers in passing, suddenly in my part, the world as well. But in the context of the oil and gas industry, some more investment in young engineers and giving them a future means talking up this industry and not doing the reverse. Many thanks. Now I call on Jake Grory to be followed by Margaret McCulloch. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome today's debate. Before I get into the meat of my contribution, I might address the commentary this weekend in the business news section of Sunday Herald, where it reflected on the briefing paper produced by Spice's financial scrutiny unit described by the report as a first in-depth analysis of Scotland's economic strategy, which was published by the Government in March. The paper criticises the Government's lack of economic targets. It states, and I quote, given the lack of smart targets and many targets to be developed at a later date, it is not possible to assess whether we will be able to measure success of the new strategy. It calls on such a luminary as Professor Ronald MacDonald, Professor of Economics at Glasgow University, saying that an economic strategy that emitted measurable targets was, quote, really quite bizarre. If you do not have targets, it does not take you anywhere. What does not take us anywhere in the economy as in other areas of public policy is an obsession with targets. It is even included in the Labour Party motion today, targets that are only right at any one moment in time. Had the Spice report and, indeed, Ronald MacDonald focused on outcomes and continuous improvement measurements, then the report and his comments might have had or borne some credibility and acknowledged the substantial economic growth that we have seen under this Government. They and he didn't. To those who have experienced in the real economy, that lack of credibility adds nothing to our pursuit of growth in that real economy. Reductions in inequality, increased economic growth and improved productivity will reflect real outcomes. Even in pursuit of these laudable outcomes, I could invoke no greater advocate than Jackie Baillie, who in May in the Labour Party debate said, and I quote, things have improved. I am thankful that the economy is growing. Employment is increasing and confidence is starting to improve. Of course, she was right. No, I'm sorry, I can't take it now. The Bank of Scotland PMI report of three weeks ago stated, and again I quote, Scottish private sector companies reported further growth of output and new orders at the start of the third quarter. The combined manufacturing and services index was at 52.2 up from 51.2 since June, a very marked rise since last December. Against a furiously challenging international market and an equally challenging and fluctuating currency market, the overall picture of input and output prices of backlog in employment, particularly manufacturing, indicates underlying resilience, strong resilience in the Scottish economy. What cannot be challenged is the outcome, the continued expansion of Scotland's economy, has had since the early 2000s. The quarterly national account for Scotland report showed that the nominal cash value of Scotland's GDP in the onshore economy has increased from around £74 billion in 1998 and by 2014, even after the global recession of 2008-2009, it is estimated to be £140 billion in 2014. GDP has returned to its pre-recession level. That is not just that. We have had 11 consecutive quarterly expansions in the economy at the start of 2015. Productivity rate has increased from 92.7 per cent of the UK levels in 2007 to 97.7 per cent in 2013, and perhaps the Conservatives will accept when they quote these figures that there is a major London effect in these UK numbers. Exports have grown by 40 per cent since 2007. Gross value adds, in the services sector, a loan amounted to £53 billion in 2013. I could go on. The critical SME sector, although still needing some promotion and support, has benefited by the removal or reduction of taxation through the small business bonus scheme. Some 96,000 premises this year alone will benefit. The new £40 million SME holding fund will offer microcredit, equity opportunities and loan facilities to accelerate SME growth. From current personal engagement with foreign investors recently, with substantial funds running into the hundreds of millions of pounds available for onshore fish industry, renewables or social housing, those have all been passed to the agencies. The attraction of Scotland, the skills of its people, its willingness to encourage inward investors and grow an outward-looking economy cannot be underestimated, but that is not being achieved through a spurious target setting, but by establishing outcomes based on continuous improvement, by developing the skills of our people by investing in productive infrastructure, by eliminating inequality of treatment, conditions of employment and remuneration by creating more democracy in the workplace, by establishing fast and clear communication mechanisms such as broadband, all of those and more will underpin the growth of the key focus sectors such as food and drink, tourism, manufacturing and so on. We continue an economic growth predicated on that continuous improvement outcomes. The measurement clearly is this. Are we performing better than we were last year? The key indicators are that we are improving year on year. Current indications underpin that. There is no doubt that we are now seeing growth and recovery in the Scottish economy, but we have to put the welcome signs of progress references in the Government's motion into context. As mentioned earlier by my colleague Jackie Baillie, yesterday the Federation of Small Businesses revealed that confidence in the Scottish economy among the members was faltering. A fall in business revenues and profits has, in their words, served as a timely reminder that a sustained recovery is far from guaranteed. Meanwhile, forecasts for manufacturing growth across the UK have been downgraded. EEF, the manufacturer's organisation, warned that the economy faces a roller coaster of risks, and they are right. Many businesses and investors are still reeling from last month's volatility in Asian markets and fears over a slowdown in China, while even now uncertainty remains over the future of Greece and the Eurozone. Much like the Scottish Government, the Chancellor has been trumpeting his successes, but he too would do well to put the UK's economic performance into context. We all know the importance of boosting productivity to people's wages and conditions, yet productivity has not returned to pre-recession levels and forecasts for productivity growth have been reduced by the OBR for the rest of this decade. The Scottish Government must also be concerned about stagnant productivity growth and what it means for their own productivity targets of ranking in the top quartile of key trading partners in the OECD by 2017. I am not alone in saying that the Government must be far more explicit about how the strategies and policies that it pursues link to its economic objectives. Indeed, we as a Parliament must do more to interrogate the link between the Government's economic strategy and productivity growth. However, today I want to focus on local economies, Scotland's towns and town centres, their place in our national economy and how we can support enterprise and regeneration in our communities. Just as city centres can drive growth in city regions, town centres can contribute to growth in our towns. We do not want to lose economies of scale, which make our city so important, but we want to maximise the contribution of our towns and help local economies to reach their potential. Scottish Labour welcomed the publication of the Government's town centre action plan. It was not just the response to Fraser's review on town centres, but it was a clear, concise set of proposals to help communities to realise the potential of their town centres. Central to that action plan was the town centre first principle, prioritising investment in town centres in support of healthy, vibrant local economies. When Falkirk Council, for example, was considering where to build the new head office, it decided to remain in the town centre because that is where the transport hubs are, that is where the infrastructure is, and that is where the footfall large employers generate makes the biggest difference on the high street. That is the town centre first principle in practice, yet it is unclear how that principle applies to the roll-out of superfast broadband and the digital towns agenda. The action plan makes specific reference to a future-proof fibre network in our towns, but right now it seems that we are connecting up entire neighbourhoods without identifying where the business needs for superfast broadband are greatest, and I would encourage the Government to look into the matter urgently. I also want to raise the issue of business rates and the need for more flexibility in the system. The community empowerment act gave councils the power to introduce local targeted rates relief, taken together with the Fraser review recommendations that the BRIS scheme should be expanded. Those changes could add a new dimension to the economic regeneration in Scotland and promote genuine localism. Yet the Government has already introduced two forms of rates relief, which are specifically mentioned in the town centre action plan, to help businesses into vacant units. The new start scheme provides relief on vacant new builds. Fresh start applies to businesses taking on existing vacant properties. I had to use the Freedom of Information Act to learn that of Scotland's 32 councils, only six had granted an application under the new start scheme. There had been more applications under fresh start, but those tended to be concentrated in specific local authority areas. That is clearly not what the Government hoped for when the new relief schemes were introduced. You need to have a better understanding of why some relief schemes work while others fail, as councils gain new powers to direct discretionary reliefs of their own. We absolutely need to do something about the cumbersome, time-consuming, costly appeals process that is clogging up local valuation boards and holding small businesses back. The progress that we have seen in recent months is welcome, but it is also fragile and there are significant challenges ahead. Uncertainties in the global economy, the productivity gap, the uneven recovery. It falls to us, all of us, to do what we can in this Parliament to help our workers and our businesses to build a stronger economy on firmer foundations. Prosperity and opportunity, not just for some, but for all. I now call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Mary Scanlon. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I support the motion in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and I welcome this debate this afternoon. It is clear that the SNP Government has a strong economic track record and that this Government is working hard to create a stable and balanced economy. That is certainly outward looking and supported by huge levels of investment. Scottish GDP is above pre-recession levels and the economic outlook is the strongest that has been for many years. Scotland's economy has emerged strongly from the global recession and it will now have lower and higher employment than the UK average. The Scottish Government fundamentally believes that the decisions that affect Scotland should be made by the people of Scotland and the people who live and work here. Even though independence is our goal for the country, we will do what we can in the current constitutional arrangements and achieve the best outcome for the people of Scotland. It is for that reason that, certainly with any additional powers that will come to this Parliament, I am quite sure that any SNP-led Scottish Government will use those powers to make the best of that particular situation. As I said, we have already achieved much in delivering a positive vision for Scotland through such examples as the commitment to fair work and a living wage, mitigating the worst effects of the UK Government's welfare cuts, focusing the efforts on tackling poverty, improving employment opportunities for women and young people and expanding the provision of better housing. A more inclusive economy is critical to boosting productivity. It underpins all the actions and activities such as the living wage and addressing the educational attainment gap. The austerity policies of the UK Government caused the recession to be longer and deeper than necessary and, as a result, many individuals and companies in Scotland have suffered greater hardship than they should. However, with the powers that are available to us, the Scottish Government has worked hard to ease the impacts of the recession and austerity on the country. Scotland has seen 11 consecutive quarters of growth in the longest period since 2001, and the output is now above pre-recession levels, and there are record numbers of people in employment. That is due in large part to the hard work, the talent and entrepreneurial spirit that we see in businesses all across Scotland. I am sure that everyone in the chamber all wants to see Scotland being the most competitive place to do business and invest in all the nations in the UK. I am sure that all members across the chamber will also welcome the introduction of the new £40 million fund to provide investment to small and medium-sized enterprises. A growing part of our economy is that of marine tourism, which members have heard me talk about on more than one occasion in the past. The marine tourism sector has many small businesses who participate in it and lead it in that sector. With the marine tourism strategy that was published earlier this year and with the ambitious targets to grow that sector, I hope that many small businesses in that sector will find the fund to be an opportunity to grow their businesses and create more training opportunities and create more jobs. That is another element of a successful element from the Scottish Government. It is that of the boosting productivity through the new manufacturing action plan. The aim for that is to develop leadership and skills and stimulate innovation and investment in Scottish manufacturing. I continue to support the creation of skilled and well-paid job opportunities, particularly for young people, to ensure that the benefits of economic success are shared by everyone. The plans from the Scottish Government also continue. They include investing in the skills base, to expand opportunities for young people, to prepare for work through developing the youth employment strategy, and to support the hugely successful modern apprenticeship programme. Having exceeded the target of 25,000 apprenticeships each year, that will be increased to 30,000 by 2020. Expanding coverage of the Scottish Business Pledge, almost 100 companies have already signed up to that, committing to improving productivity, innovation and fair work, and continuing to encourage employers in all sectors in Scotland to embrace the value of fair work in paying the living wage and promoting an engaged, motivated and well-rewarded workforce. It was only a few weeks ago that, throughout the summer recess, I visited a small business-based number kip called Kip Patrick Blane. It is based in the construction sector. It was recently accredited as a living wage employer. A colleague, Joan McAllapine, touched upon earlier on the situation, but this year regarding gender stereotypes and working to support more women into the workplace but across all sectors. Last week, we heard the fabulous news of Ferguson's being the preferred bidder for the two new ferries for Seymal, £97 million. That announcement is brilliant news for Inverclyde and the west of Scotland. It is a real vote of confidence in the area. I hope that, when more employment is created, many more local individuals get the opportunity to work in the yard and contribute to the building of the ships and to the success of Ferguson's going forward. However, the wider economic context presents real opportunities for Inverclyde to develop a thriving, competitive economy and to help to improve sustainable local economies. I warmly welcome the motion in front of me from the cabinet secretary. Before starting my speech, I would like to notify the chamber that it is something very unusual, if not rare, to occur this afternoon. That was what I agreed with Joan McAllapine. There you are, only on one small part of our speech. I do not often agree with Joan McAllapine, but on social enterprise, I think that Joan McAllapine would find that there is not a single Conservatives here today or on these benches that would disagree with supporting social enterprise. If I may say apart from the economic point of view, I am particularly attracted to social enterprise because it brings people with mental health issues, it brings people who have drug and alcohol issues back into the world of work and we should not forget it is not all about enterprise. I have been delighted about the way that companies like the Shetland bike company, Shetland Soap, Ragn Targ and I can see the cabinet secretary nodding and I am sure you are familiar but it is what it does to transform people's lives. There you are, I thought I would take up a minute of my speech to mention that because it is such a rare occasion. I ask the cabinet secretary to look again at what Highlands and Islands Enterprise are doing in terms of investing in Lerwick because I know a few years ago when 34 billion price tag was put on to decommissioning that they did see that they were looking at investing in Lerwick and having listened to Tavish Scott today, I would be very concerned that we are missing the opportunity and that decommissioning work is going to Norway and elsewhere. We are very positive indeed about the recent growth in the Scottish economy and the predictions of further growth are welcome and we also acknowledge that these encouraging figures are undoubtedly reflective of the United Kingdom Government's long-term plan for economic growth. With 174,000 more people in work in Scotland, since Conservatives came to power in 2010, an average of 100 more jobs every day in Scotland and more than 38,000 long-term unemployed, often described as the hard to reach, more than 38,000 Scots finding a long-term job through the work programme with the two-year support that comes along with it. No-one has mentioned the personal allowance today and given that we are looking at inequalities, I think that we have to acknowledge that the personal allowance for paying tax has been raised to 10,600 and next year up to 11,000. There is no doubt about it in relative terms that that benefits the lower paid considerably more and has taken 261,000 Scots out of paying tax altogether. Various speakers have mentioned boosting productivity, which is key to our nation's competitiveness and that Scotland suffers from the persistent productivity gap with the rest of the United Kingdom. Although there was not much in the Government's economic strategy last week, I listened to what the cabinet secretary said. I always think that the first part of addressing a problem is to acknowledge that there is a problem, so I am taking it on trust that he will now come forward with some action to address the productivity gap. The Scottish Government is now championing growth, which it claimed could not happen under UK Government policies. As Murdo Fraser said, any proposals to foster a more competitive economy in Scotland will receive our wholehearted support. However, I notice that the Government claims in the motion that it is investing in skills and raising attainment, yet its decision to drastically cut the funding for further education and science and technology courses in Scotland seriously undermines that claim. The Government's record on further education is something that I have been constantly critical of. Almost 150,000 part-time college places and 74,000 fewer learners aged over 25. The idea that anyone over 25 is less in need of an opportunity at FE is to totally misunderstand the job market today and to assume that part-time courses are hobby courses is a failure in understanding again. However, more than 9 per cent fall in college staff and a 12 per cent cut in the college budget is undoubtedly not equipping young people and people of all ages, indeed, with the skills that they need to compete in our economy. I am not surprised that the business community is talking to John Swinney regarding skills. If I can just look at the STEM subjects, the teacher census of 2014 showed that there are 383 fewer maths teachers, over 4 per cent cut in teachers for biology, chemistry and physics, over 6 per cent cut in computing science, and with the pass rate for higher maths at 34 per cent, there is no doubt that serious challenges are being faced. The science council predict that there will be over 7 million jobs in science and technology across the UK, and unless we change in Scotland and provide people with the skills, we will undoubtedly be left behind. I see that I am running out of time, so I will mention Ian Wood's workforce, which we fully support. Finally, for those of us at the CBI dinner last week, I think that Sir Tom Hunter's advice to John Swinney, which I do not mind repeating today, was to get on with using the powers that you have and stop moaning about the powers that you do not have. I think that that was very good advice. Thank you so much. I now call on Richard Lyle to be followed by Mark Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to open my remarks in this debate by saying loudly and clearly that I believe that the Scottish National Party Government has a strong record on the economy and is doing everything that it can to work hard to create a strong and competitive economy for Scotland. It looks outward, is underpinned by the values of social justice and fairness, and is supported by investment, examples of which can be seen within my own region, and I look forward to sharing those later in my remarks today. It is important, Presiding Officer, to highlight some key facts about where we are currently at in Scotland. Our GDP is above pre-recession levels, economic outlook is the strongest it has been for many years, and this is because this Scottish Government is working and taking forward our nation. Government is working hard to ensure that our economy is resilient, and I am sure that it recognises the pivotal aspect of ensuring that we can build a strong economy and a fairer society that begins with our children and young people. Children and young people are often called the future, but I believe that they are the here and now. That is why the First Minister's programme for government education is at the heart of our efforts to not only ensure that we have children and young people who have the best possible start in life and indeed the support that they need to grow and make a difference to life here in Scotland, but also, crucially, that they will be essential in building the strong economy that we all want to see. I want in my remarks this afternoon to highlight an excellent example to the chamber of where the Scottish Government is playing its part in supporting industries, supporting our economy through support and recognition to enable employment opportunities and development. Biocity, based in Newhouse, just off the M8 motorway in my region, is a prime example of where the Scottish Government is offering its support to ensure the continued success and growth of ambitious life sciences businesses in Scotland. When I visited Biocity, I found that it encompassed 130,000 square feet of state-of-the-art laboratories, access to shared services, business support and investment. It is, in its own words, a hot house for growing life sciences talent in Scotland. I am therefore particularly delighted by the recent announcement made by the SNP Scottish Government that Biocity site will be awarded enterprise status, and I thank the ministers for that. To continue to support and develop a site that is delivering opportunities not only for the local area but for Scotland as a whole. I also want to highlight the Government's support for the industry, and therefore I would hope that the chamber would welcome the announcement of the additional £1.84 million of funding through the city deal for a new medical technical facility called MediCity at Biocity site in Newhouse. Through the investment and recognition of Biocity as an enterprise site, the Scottish Government are putting their money where their mouth is and is investing in people. The contribution that they are making will ensure that investment and delivery, I hope, long-term employment opportunities for the people in my area and across the country. On business under the SNP, Scotland has the most competitive tax, business tax environment across the UK, with a package of relief worth £618 million for 2015-16. That Government is working hard to ensure a supportive business environment by retaining Scotland's enterprise bodies in contrast to the actions of the UK Government, which abolished regional development agencies in 2012. A pillar of our efforts and one that can be seen in communities across Scotland is the introduction of the small business bonus scheme, which has removed the reduced taxation for over, as has been said earlier, 96,000 premises this year alone. That is a huge number, benefiting from actions by the Government. I am sure that the Government will continue to do more to protect small businesses as they add great value to Scotland's economy and our communities. Finally, in business, I want to highlight that the Scottish Government has shown its commitment in creating a greener Scotland and growing a low-carbon economy. According to a Scottish renewable report already in the renewable sector, there is support for more than 11,000 jobs here in Scotland, and we must continue to have no much time to take champion growth in that sector. I also want to highlight in my region a recent planning decision by the Scottish ministers that I cite close to Biocity, which I mentioned earlier. It has the potential not only to reduce carbon remissions through a model shift from road to rail, but also significantly and importantly, even among the most conservative estimates will contribute at least 1,000 extra transport jobs to the local economy. Forecasts for job creation are set around 3,000 jobs. Not only does that truly deliver on employment opportunities for local people, but North Lancer is having the above level of unemployment, indeed youth unemployment. That is an important step to ensuring that people have access to jobs and in turn will create and contribute to economic growth. I am nearing the end of my reflections. I want to highlight some other incredible work, Food and Drink, valued at £1.5 billion. Also, we discussed a couple of weeks ago, the film and production industry in Scotland, £45.2 billion, the enterprise areas, the living ways and the reduction scheme, so much that this Government has done. I want to conclude by highlighting once again that this Government, I believe, has a commitment to ensuring that we have a sustainable and growing economy that delivers the opportunities for investment and development, but one that serves the people of Scotland and offers them the opportunities to shape a better future for us all. I will now go to call Mark Griffin. I just remind backbench members that the speeches are now five minutes, so it is Mark Griffin followed by Dennis Robertson. I think that the key to continuing progress in the Scottish economy is addressing the attainment gap and equipping the future workforce with the skills that they need to succeed in the global economy. We received report after report being published, which point to a shortage of STEM skills and the huge opportunities that will be in those fields. The most recent report, which has been touched on by other speakers in the UK in 2015, the state of engineering, highlighted that, by 2022, there will be an additional 150,000 engineering jobs in Scotland and that have filled the jobs with the potential to generate an additional £1.7 billion per year to the Scottish economy. We know that Scottish engineers are a world-class and world-renowned and engineering makes a vital and valued contribution to the economy. Engineers will be at the forefront of developing solutions to the big global challenges of climate change, ageing populations and supply of food, clean water and energy. That all sounds good, but the report also states that we are falling well short of the numbers needed with the right education and training to fill those highly skilled roles. Those are exactly the types of jobs that we should be giving our young people skills to do. Highly skilled, highly paid jobs where we need to be aiming for, because we know that we cannot compete with emergent economies for those low-pay, low-skilled jobs. There was a similar report published by the Learned Societies Group, which also makes that reading. One of the key points again, and that was touched on by Mary Scanlon, is the expectation that, by 2030, over 7 million jobs in the UK will depend on science skills. Again, those STEM jobs are exactly the kind of jobs. We need high-quality, high-skilled and highly paid jobs, which other emergent economies will struggle to compete with us for. Yet here, where we have that competitive advantage, we are choosing to throw it away. By 2030, the four and five-year-olds who have just started school this summer will already be in work, or possibly the final years of study at university and about to enter the job market. However, those same pupils with the same academic ability and the same aptitude for science in England will have enjoyed over 10 years of state education with 80 per cent more per head spent on science in primary school and 27 per cent more per head spent on science in secondary school if current spending levels continue. A massive head start in building the necessary skills to compete for those 7 million jobs in science. There are two issues that need to be addressed to give young people or those adult learners who want to retrain the skills that they need to compete for those engineering roles. They fit within the Government's four priorities, set out in the Government's economic strategy paper, investment in education, skills and health, and needs to be focused on the areas with the biggest potential for growth. An inclusive growth cannot just be an aspiration. We have to direct funding towards supporting key STEM skills in our schools, colleges and universities and the attainment gap must be addressed. In purely economic terms, the attainment gap is holding this country back. We are wasting the best natural resource we have, failing the country and failing families from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have debated those issues countless times. We have debated the shortfall in funding for science equipment in Scotland's schools. We are spending as low as in Scotland, and 98 per cent of schools rely on external funding for practical science education. We have debated reductions in science technicians in schools, the staff that maintain and repair what actual equipment there is left in schools. We have debated the reduction in computer science teachers and the fact that many high schools do not even have one. We have debated reductions in teacher numbers. We have debated reductions in support staff. We have debated the issues around educational and equality. While the debates have been running, the skills shortages for the high-quality science and engineering jobs of the future have not been addressed and the attainment gap stubbornly persists. Until those are tackled, there will be massive economic opportunities, and any economic growth will fail a basic fairness test. I remind all members that, after you make a speech, you are supposed to be here for at least the two speeches that come after yours, and you are supposed to be here for all of the closing speeches. I notice that Mr Lyle contributed to the debate and immediately left. I now call Dennis Robertson, followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This afternoon, I found some of the contributions quite depressing in that we seem to be saying in areas that we must do better or that we do not have. We have a very vibrant community. We are a very vibrant Scotland. We have demonstrated within many industries that Scotland is on the move. We have a can-do attitude, and the Cabinet Secretary launched the can-do action forum for the entrepreneurs of the future, investing £3 million in that project. When I was listening to the contribution from Jackie Baillie about the north-east and areas such as my constituency, I did not recognise some of the aspects that she was talking about. Yes, there has been a downturn in some of the employment, but that is not just due to the oil price and the fall in the oil price. The industry many months ago, in fact about two years ago, had decided the need to look inwardly at how to be more cost efficient. Yes, the oil price has a factor in this, and it does have a factor to play in the downturn, but the infrastructure programmes within the north-east and certainly my own constituency are creating jobs. If I look at what is happening within the A96 at the Inveramsey bridge, that is on time, on budget and will be completed next year, not at the moment, thank you, Jackie. When we look at the infrastructure in terms of the rail project between Aberdeen and Inverness, that is certainly on track, and we will have the contestation there by 2019. There is jobs within the industry. We have a new campus at Aford in my constituency, again the creation of jobs within the construction industry. Food and drink within my constituency is booming, Presiding Officer, booming. We are actually looking at the increase within the sector. We are looking at increasing the tourism within the Aberdeen to D-side area. We are looking at the continuing of the development and looking forward to the completion of the Aberdeen Airport development. All those are very positive. There are positive things happening within the north-east. One of the most positive things, Presiding Officer, was the acknowledgement with the schools, the north-east college, the universities and the business that they needed to work together. In the past, they worked in isolation. The universities and colleges were turning out people with degrees looking at what do we do. We are going into the oil industry or we are going into food and drink or whatever. Now they are looking at what do we need to produce, what do we need in the north-east and beyond. I want to say to Mark Griffin that we can work together, we are working together and we are creating the people for the future. Engineers, yes, and women in engineering, that has been something of the backbone of what has been happening in the north-east. It is about working together instead of isolation. Instead of making complaints and moaning of things that are not happening, look at what you can do. Look at what is happening. Look at how we take people forward. The negativity of going forward and saying that it is not happening is putting our young people off. We need to encourage our young people back into that industry and not put them off. Small and medium-sized enterprises are extremely important within my constituency. John Swinney recognised that SMEs are the backbone of the continuing development and growth in Scotland. Again, there has been money put aside to try and ensure that SMEs have a way forward, because they have struggled. They have struggled in trying to get money from the banks, but there is a £40 million loan fund there. Creatively, and with the Scottish Development Business Bank, that money will be available for the SMEs. There is, I think, a good story to tell. We should be telling a good story. We should not be talking the Government down in terms of its work, its progress and its commitment to the people of Scotland. We are on the right track. We are developing. We are taking the country forward. We are creating a future for our young people. I was talking with Gordon MacKinnon from Skills Development Scotland. He said to me last week at an oil and gas UK meeting, why did not I bring up the gender question? That was the first time I never brought up the gender question that the oil and gas— You need to close, Mr Robertson. I will, indeed, Presiding Officer. The reason I did not bring it up, Presiding Officer, is because I heard about the magnificent progress that is happening within the oil and gas industry and within Nixon and the development within the fields. It is happening, Presiding Officer, and I will close there. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick Harvie, followed by Stuart Stevenson. One of the little quirks of parliamentary arithmetic in the current session is that, even on those occasions when my amendment is not selected for debate, it is still no less likely to be agreed at decision time than if it was on the business bulletin in front of us. The cabinet secretary, when he spoke about strong economic performance, if he read my amendment, he would not have been a tall surprise that Greens still regard his concept as based on too narrow a metric, both of growth or, indeed, of employment. He also talked about recovery, and he knows well that, since the economic crash, the financial crisis that precipitated the events of the last few years and finally made it impossible to ignore the inevitable failure of the neoliberal economic model, I have long argued that economic recovery cannot simply mean the refloating of a failed model. It has to mean addressing the underlying diseases, but I do not think that this debate should be an opportunity either to crow about a Government that can do no wrong or to condemn a Government for unmitigated failure. Neither would be an honest position. We should reflect carefully on the scale of the challenges that face us if we are remotely serious about having an economy that can meet the real needs of people while still respecting the ecological limits that the planet in a non-negotiable basis sets down for us. In terms of social impact, there is good stuff to talk about in the Scottish Government's agenda from promoting the living wage and some aspects of the business pledge as well. Those demonstrate good intention—both could go further in my view—but let's recognise the scale of the problem. Even the Government's economic strategy at figure 1.3 shows the scale of increased income inequality since 1997, with the wealthiest 17 per cent as the only people whose wealth has increased as a share of the overall national wealth in that time. The top one or two per cent get the lion's share of that. There may be limits at present to what we can do to turn that around, to reverse that growth in inequality, but those limits will reduce in the next parliamentary session and we will have more levers at our disposal. It is going to be important that we use them. In terms of workplace exploitation as well, I will quote from Graham Smith of the STUC, who noted the massive 19 per cent increase in the number of people employed on a zero-hours contract in the last year alone. It is time, he said, for politicians at all levels to quit trumpeting record employment levels and actually start interrogating what is happening in the labour market. That inequality on health and education shows itself as we all know far too well. When Murdo Fraser condemned the cash-grab instincts of the Scottish Government, I do hope that he will equally condemn the cash-grab instincts of the high street restaurant chains, which are happily grabbing as much of their own employees' tips—their own underplayed employees' tips—as they can manage to get at the moment. That is the kind of reality that far too many people are facing in the economy at present. I wonder if the member recalls, because I do not, Murdo Fraser condemning the cash-grab instincts of the Conservatives when they hiked 80 to 20 per cent, which squeezed the margins for many small enterprises in our communities. I am sure that both of us will search in vain for those quotes. As for the ecological impact, the environmental impact, again the Scottish Government is due points for good intentions and it certainly contrasts with the UK Government's attitude on renewable electricity, for example, but there is still a gap between intention and action. We hear about progress on CO2 emissions, but the legislation requires a recognition of consumption-based emissions, and that is where we are still clearly failing. We are not running an economy that is living—I am afraid that I do not have time within ecological limits—as global overshoot day, getting earlier and earlier and earlier every year shows. We are still living as though we have another planet to move to. As for the Scottish Government's strategy again, it talks about a fundamental transition of all sectors of the economy. I agree, and I wish only that that was happening, but the failure to recognise the need for divestment from the fossil fuel industry, I am afraid, belies that. On wider economic factors, there are other things that are not being addressed—a level of debt and specifically private debt, the structure of ownership in our economy. Fundamentally, an assumption that still holds that a deregulated free market model is capable of meeting the needs of our society or of the planet, it was never true and it will not be true. Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the interesting things, whenever Jackie Baillie brings forward amendments to motions, is to look at what she wants to delete from Government motions. The first thing that she wants to delete is celebrating that we are in the longest period of economic growth. Obviously, that is not something that the Labour Party wants to celebrate, and I diverged dramatically from the position that Jackie Baillie takes in that regard. However, I can agree with her that it is important that we look at educational inequality. Investing in people who are not performing so well and who have unrealised potential is a proper, moral and practical thing for us to be doing. It will, of course, create additional jobs in educating people who need additional help—that is good. It will, of course, bring those people to the job market and make them more effective contributors to our economy and society, and that is good. What it will not do in the short term, of course, is improve productivity in our economy, but it is something that we most certainly should do. Presiding Officer, we have got to think about what kind of jobs we are going to have in the future and what kind of future our economy and employment in it can look like. Not just this year, next year and five years, but in 20 years' time. I think that there is a range of things that perhaps have not come up in this debate as yet. I think that there are inhibitors in the way public policy works that, if allowed to continue unchecked, will make things more difficult. For example, many businesses in Scotland find it difficult to get to deliveries via parcel services and others because there is not an adequate universal service provision. I heard of someone who could not get something delivered by Amazon to Aberdeen because the material concern had the potential to be flammable. Amazon said that it would have to cross water to get to Aberdeen. The whole issue of the delivery services that inhibit the receipt of goods and services by areas of Scotland is significant. Indeed, in the opposite direction, the ability for goods and services to have their goods collected from their premises is inhibiting economic growth and development in many areas of Scotland. There are some good and underexploited areas that we might think about. I have a Betamax tape. I cannot read it any more. It is something that is only 25 years old. I still have a piece of family paperwork from over 200 years ago that I can read. The National Library of Scotland is taking a leading role in protecting the records of our country from obsolescence through technological change. It is developing ways in which electronic databases can be migrated over time. Paper has historically looked after itself, but in the modern world, with our storage of information, largely electronic, there is a huge risk that we will lose lots of that information. The Government should be encouraged to support the National Library of Scotland. That will create a specialist skill in Scotland that will be of great benefit all over the country, all over the world and create commercial opportunities. We have to improve the delivery of electronic services to everyone in our country. We have to come up with technological solutions and investment to support the 5 per cent of us. I include myself and speak with a heartfelt plea on exchange only lines that cannot be connected to fibre optic cable. I make a little plea, and I see Mr Johnson's similarly difficulty. Yesterday, I had lunch at Herge's on the Loch in Tweedbank, thank you, Borders rail. I now want to move to our building the case for Bucking rail, because Fraserborough 15,000 population, 37 miles from the nearest railway station. The population is 19,032 miles from the nearest railway station. That is the next big rail project. I hope that the Government looks at that in the early course. As ever, in these economic debates, speakers on different sides of the chamber will trade statistics in order to try to back up their case, which is understandable. You need data, I would point out, to Chick Brody. You need to look at the data to monitor how the economy is growing, whether it is growing or not, as the case might be. I always think that it is interesting when you reflect on your constituency to look at the conversations that you are having locally. Murdo Fraser told us that he was speaking to a gamekeeper yesterday. Unfortunately, there are not any gamekeepers in Canvas, Langan and Rutherglen. That is an economic opportunity. What strikes me is that, particularly to young people who are leaving school or college in university, among some of them there is an element of frustration that the jobs that they do are low-quality, not well-paid and not very fulfilling. At the same time, when you speak to some businesses, there is also frustration that they are not able to recruit people who are sufficiently skilled to fill the roles in order to exploit the economic opportunities that they are looking for to make the best of their businesses. Those conversations play into the points that some in the debate have made about the skills shortage. The point has been well made about the—we need 150,000 engineers by 2022, and we need to do significantly more to get more women engineers and promote women in those positions. It is also true in relation to information technology. There has been a real growth in the app economy. I am sure that members 10 years ago, I certainly would not have known what an app was, but nowadays everybody is into their phones and adding the apps on. There is going to be about 2,018 across Europe there will be 5.8 million jobs in that economy. That is a growth of four times in recent years. I think that there is a real opportunity in Scotland to grasp this, but there needs to be some pace to it, there needs to be some urgency to it. When you look at a situation where teacher numbers are falling, some of the speakers in the debate gave specific examples around maths and physics, and also the numbers studying and passing exams and engineering. We need to look at what is happening in the classrooms and what are the requirements for college and university courses, not only if we are going to fulfil the skills shortage that there is just now, but if we are going to meet that gap that potentially exists by 2022. There is a real job there. I think that the other thing is that on the living wage—I am not going to rerun the debate from last year—what I would like to see the Scottish Government do is demonstrate, as he said at the time, what they are doing to ensure that the £10 billion of spend that they have got in procurement is doing to promote the payment of the living wage and contracts that they influence. Mark McDonald said that he quoted Brian Wilson and said that it was unusual to agree with Mark McDonald. I do not think that I have ever said that before, but he made some good points about payment in the living wage in the private sector. There is a new McDonald's restaurant opening in Rutherglen shortly with creation of 65 jobs. I welcome that development in the Rutherglen constituency, but I want to see McDonald's in Rutherglen paying the living wage because that will not only make a difference to the 65 people that work there, it will make a difference to McDonald's itself because it will ensure that the people there are motivated and they will provide a good-quality service. It will also ensure that people who are being decently paid will then spend well in the local area and that will promote the Rutherglen economy, so I urge McDonald's to listen closely to that play. In summing up, I would urge the Scottish Government to listen to the advice that is happening on the ground, to look to the future opportunities and to promote fairness and to promote people in the economy, because that can make a real difference. I just back up what Dennis Robertson was saying. A personal level at my granddaughter starts university next Monday and she's going into the earth sciences. I know she's not alone, so it's good to see that women are following in that career path. I'm sure I've known Abigail the way I do. I'm sure she'll be a great example to everybody else who follows in her footsteps. But anyway, going back to the debate, we've heard both sides of the economic debate today. We had, it was the Tories that done it, courtesy of Murdo Fraser. You're rubbish, we'd be better, courtesy of Jackie Baillie and many of the other speakers from the Labour benches, but the cabinet secretary and others have highlighted the benefits of the hard work and policies that have been implemented by the Scottish Government, so I don't feel that I need to go over that. What I would like to do is highlight a few examples from my constituency of how small businesses, organisations and people who have grabbed the opportunities offered to them to grow their business, improve their own lives and therefore improving the economy of the country. We've seen a welcome increase, as was mentioned earlier on, in the number of registered businesses in Scotland now at a record high of 166,014 figures, a national increase of 10 per cent since we came into the office in 2007. Two examples in the constituency are one next door to me, this is about unfortunate for me when I'm starting to lose weight, but next door to me is a company called Beaky Kiki, guess what they do, and this is a woman who was a fairly high-ranking civil servant and decided that what she wanted to do was she wanted to be self-employed, not in Scotland, she was working in Westminster, she came back to make her home again in Scotland and took the opportunity to build this business. I'd love to say that she's rolling in dough, but I can't say that for a certainty, my apologies, but it was there, I had to take it. It seems to be her success, the place seems to be busy and that's great neighbours to have. The other one is a dandelion cafe. This is again two women who decided to take the opportunity, the economic climate and the opportunities in Scotland have given them, to take over a derelict tennis pavilion in a lovely local park in Newland's park and create a small cafe. I opened the Newland's Fet on Saturday where this cafe is and I have to tell you that the queues around, I couldn't even get into it because the queues were so busy, so that was a very, very encouraging to see. Not only have they taken advantage of this to the opportunities that are here but they also assist in providing a vital link in the supply chain of small independent businesses in Glasgow in the surrounding areas. One of the many reasons, for many reasons, not least economic wellbeing of the country, education is at the heart of everything that this government does. It's vital that flexibility is in the system to reach those that traditional methods fail to engage with sufficiently. That's why I'm delighted that Newland's college, junior college in my constituency, the work they are doing, they work with pupils to find mainstream education challenging and unresponsive to their emotional needs. The cost of tail, the academic component focusing on English, maths, sciences and IT, along with vocational training in areas including engineering, music, technology etc. That mix is also tied up with vocational training that is underpinned by motivational coaching such as a jukeveh, Edinburgh training etc. It's been great. Everybody who finishes the course is guaranteed an apprenticeship or a place in college and it's this flexible approach that tells education to the emotional needs of pupils that will help to bridge the attainment gap. Other policies such as curriculum for excellence will help to raise attainment and provide children with the flexibility that they are required. We should congratulate John McAll for his foresight and determination in establishing this new centre of learning. I also think that it's important, and I've got a minute left, but I think that the role of housing associations is vitally important here as a social enterprise. I'll take Castlewood housing association and Castlemall, just one of the number of housing associations in my constituency, who are doing great things in terms of employment and making sure that their areas are better places to live in. They've got the Castleton group, which is from the community woodlands project through the nursery and housing association. They focus on being a thriving social enterprise, providing unemployed graduates with hand-on experience across a range of internships. They've received funding from the people in the community fund for paid positions for three people for six months and Castleton's record is impressive, with 80 per cent of volunteers and interns finding employment after their experience. That is why I'm pleased that this Government is encouraging and nourishing the power of affordable social community-minded landlords and not selling a stock from under the feet, as is proposed by Westminster. There are many challenges facing our country, but when I look at the growth of businesses in the constituency, the following unemployment figures in Cathcart and the new exciting educational opportunities in my constituency. I appreciate the positive changes that the Government and its local partners has made. However, just as important, I look forward to— Thank you. Time has ended. Thank you. Can I now call on Gavin Brown? Mr Brown, you've got six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We've had the usual array of contributions, I have to say, to the economy debate once again with the SNP members blaming everything on the UK Government. We had a first today, one that was uttered by backbench MSP Stuart McMillan. Stuart McMillan, I quote, blamed the recession of 2008-09 on the austerity policies of the Conservative Government from 2010. He may well have been told this in his briefing, but I think that even the most hardened nationalist would struggle to blame the 2008-09 recession on the policies from 2010. Perhaps we will hear the answer, so I will give way to Stuart McMillan. I thank Gavin Brown for taking the intervention. I'm sure that if Gavin Brown tomorrow looks at the official record, he will quote correctly what I said, because it wasn't just that particular point that was something that was after it as well. If he looks at the official record, he will be able to see that as well. Gavin Brown didn't deny saying that the austerity policies caused the recession, Presiding Officer. Of course, I will check the record this afternoon and, indeed, tomorrow morning. We agreed with the first part of the Government motion, perfectly sensible, but thereafter we didn't. They asked us to endorse their economic strategy and support their programme for government. I was interested last week to hear what we were going to get in the programme. The First Minister, with the usual modesty of the Scottish Government, described it as a vision for the coming decade and was quite happy to say that today she was setting out a bold ambition. I was interested to hear what she had to say and indeed to read the document, but I have to say that I think that she was somewhat overselling the case, because there was the usual padding, rehashing of policies, reheating of policies and re-announcements sometimes for the fifth, sixth or, indeed, seventh time. What it lacked, Presiding Officer, was genuine meat. What it lacked were new policy measures that could underpin the ambitions that all of us have for Scotland. There was very little in there. Let me explain a little, because I read through it line by line and we heard that there was going to be a new infrastructure plan. We heard that there is going to be a manufacturing plan in the autumn. There is going to be a social enterprise strategy next year. There is going to be a cyber resilience strategy in November. There is going to be a refresh of the oil and gas strategy at some point. There is going to be a trade and investment strategy later this year. It goes on, Presiding Officer. The Government's strategy appears to be filled with the idea that our strategy should be to have more strategies. That actually does not take us anywhere. The reason why I am so critical here is because, 12 months ago, when the Government announced its programme for government with the appointment of the then new First Minister, it said almost exactly the same thing. We were going to have all those strategies. It repeated it again when it announced its economic strategy and it repeated it again last week. Seeing that it is going to have a plethora of strategies is not the same thing as having a strategy and having some hard policies in place. What about the actual policies that we heard of? I am happy to be with Mr Robertson. I thank the member. With regard to the strategy, the member accepts that the oil and gas authority, led by Andy Samuels, was convened by Westminster Government. It is a question of working with both Governments to ensure the best outcomes for the oil and gas industry for the future. I do not disagree with a single word that Dennis Robertson said. I am not sure why he felt the need to make it at that particular point. I do not think that it defends the Government's strategy in any place, but, for the record, I agree exactly with what he said there. In terms of actual policies that they put forward, what were they actually announcing? Well, they announced that they were going to have a Scottish Business Development Bank. The only problem is that they announced that two and a half years ago. Then they scrapped it, then they re-announced it, then they scrapped it and it has now been re-announced three times in the past 11 months. We hear that we are going to hear more about it by the end of the year. That is woeful. That shows that absolutely no work whatsoever was done before it was first announced. It just sounded like a good idea. Two years on, we are no further forward. We do not have any detail on what it is going to do. We heard about the other flagship policy of the Scottish Business Pledge. A perfectly admirable policy, a policy with which it is difficult to disagree, but if you look at what has actually happened on the ground, it is not quite as impressive as the Government liked to make out. That was given the full authority and backing of both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They both put their stamps on this policy. They launched it amid much fanfare back in May. It has a dedicated website, a dedicated phone line, and the Government put a lot of stock into it. Three months later, the Government proudly said that we have 100 businesses signed up to it. 100 businesses might sound depressive initially, but when you hear that there are 80,000 businesses under the small business bonus or indeed 300,000 businesses in Scotland today, the idea of having 100 signed up to it after three months is not quite so impressive. In closing, let me hear from the Government when they close what actual policies are they going to put forward to deliver the ambitions that all of us have for Scotland. Today's debate has been an important one for our Parliament. Like many of my colleagues across the chamber, I would rather focus my contribution today not on how we as a Parliament can foster economic growth as a means to an end in itself, but instead on how we can encourage our constituents to reach their potential and reap the financial rewards. I would like to start my speech on a positive note. I believe that members from all sides of this Parliament accept the principle of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and in this regard, the Government's commitment to promoting the living wage to the private sector is well worthwhile and not to be congratulated. We already know that over 400,000 Scots are paid less in the living wage, with around 51,000 of them residing in the central Scotland region that I represent. A living wage would mean, on average, an annual wage rise of over £2,600 for every one of them working in a full-time position. I know that I am not the only Parliamentarian who has heard from both employees and employers of the benefits of paying the living wage—benefits to the extent not only to the workforce receiving more equitable wages but to employers. Research from the poverty alliance suggests that there is a direct correlation between paying the living wage and a 25 per cent fall in absenteeism, a positive impact in recruitment and retention of staff, and that some 80 per cent of employers believe that paying a living wage has enhanced the quality of work of their staff, as was acknowledged in the cabinet secretary's opening remarks. We know that the economic benefits of the living wage are impressive. Staff receiving the pay increase are likely to spend the money within their communities and on the businesses that we rely on for our economy to prosper. However, the Government's record on this issue is not perfect. True, the Scottish Government is a living wage employer and is rightly praised for it. However, many of the less glamorous jobs in the Scottish Government's offices are outsourced to private sector companies, who are under no obligation to their cleaners, janitors or kitchen staff the living wage, something those they are catering and cleaning for take for granted. The Scottish Labour has brought forward proposals in the past to the Parliament calling the Government to rectify this. Those proposals were supported by trade unions and charities alike from across civic Scotland. They demanded that the Government use their powers over procurement to promote the living wage in the private sector. In contrast to the stated aim of the Government's motion, the desire to build a better fairer Scotland, where our growing economy is used to improve the condition of the low-paid, the Government rejected it. I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment that was put forward by Jackie Baillie today. It reiterates our values and our priorities, none more so than in the last line where it is written. The foundation of Scotland's economic strategy must be a successful education policy and that, therefore, tackling education inequality must not only be a political priority, but also a spending priority. Our new leader, Kezia Dugdale, has spoken eloquently inside and outside of his chamber about the need to make sure that our schools are world-class centres of learning and argue strongly that they should not settle for standards to remain satisfactory. However, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about school leavers and, once again, challenge the position of the Scottish Government on further education. As someone who went from high school to college and went on to university, I can personally attest to the importance of a college sector in preparing young people either for work or, as is my case, higher education. We know that it is predominantly people from less affluent backgrounds who go to colleges. With that in mind, it is difficult to understand how the Government can claim to be pursuing an economic strategy, categorised by inclusive growth and opportunities for all, when we know that we now have 140,000 fewer Scots going to college than we did when they took office. As John Pentland and Mark Griffin said, we need to do more in this area in order to tackle the taming gap that is seen as a priority of this Government. As members in the chamber will know, I am passionate about seeking equality for disabled people in our society. It is because of this that, last month, I submitted a freedom of information request to all 32 of Scotland's local authorities, asking for the number of staff they employed in schools specifically trained to support pupils with additional support needs. It found that the number of those staff members had declined in 22 of the 32 authorities, and overall dropped from 3,363 in 2012 to 2,963 in 2014 across Scotland. I urge the Scottish Government to urgently investigate that matter as part of their overall growth strategy. How can we, as legislators, hope to maximise the economic and societal potential of some of our most vulnerable people when, as the increasing number, we cut the specialist support that is available to them? The Scottish Children and Service Coalition has already warned that the cuts to support staff could lead to the prospect of a lost generation of young people. Add to that the fact that children identified as having additional support needs disproportionately come from lower-income families and areas of high deprivation. Let's remove barriers that do not allow them to keep up. I have previously called on the Government to use the public sector social economic duty to properly scrutinise the legislation that it makes, and I believe that the example that I have highlighted above is the perfect example of where the Government could use it. Before moving to my new position within the Scottish Labour finance team, I was a party spokesperson for women's employment, therefore it would be remiss of me not to at least touch on how we can better encourage growth with the maximum societal benefits by opening up metaphoric doors for women. The fact that 98 per cent of construction apprentices were male and 97 per cent of childcare apprentices were female in the flagship modern apprenticeship programme in 2012 has often been brought up in this chamber, and rightly so, it goes to show what can happen if care is not taken to maximise the potential of everyone in our society. It is little doubt that Scotland's job of the future lies in the science technology, engineering and math sector, as others have mentioned. It is no secret that the levels of occupational segregation in this corner of the economy are staggering. Last year only six to eight engineering apprentices were female. In 2015, the Government's own maximising economic opportunities for women in Scotland report demonstrated that 73 per cent of female STEM graduates did not work in their respective fields after graduation. A few months ago, I said on a speaker's chamber that it used to be the advances in science and technology that liberated women, but now they have the potential to hold them back. However, I never followed up with, but in retrospect, I should have, was that that would also hold back our economic growth and aspirations for inclusive growth and opportunities for all. To conclude, few across this chamber would oppose economic growth, but economic growth for the sake of economic growth is a rather hollow ambition. The Government has taken some encouraging steps within the Scottish economic strategy to broaden the beneficiaries of growth in Scotland, but we believe that they must be bolder. Our Parliament has significant powers over procurement and other areas that have yet to be utilised. We have full control over all matters concerning education and, as the Opposition is our responsibility to say that the Government has thus far failed to use those powers to promote opportunities for all. The Scottish Government should not have to come out and tell us what its political priorities are. They should be evident in their budget and legislation. At the moment, they are simply not. Thank you, Mr McMahon. I now call on John Swinney to wind up the debate depth for First Minister, Tull 5. I do not in any way want to do any damage to Claudia Beamish, but I have to say that I enjoyed her thoughtful speech this afternoon. I think that I probably spent the weekend following her advice of spending time with family and nature in that I had to fulfil a Government commitment in Loch Boysdale on Saturday afternoon and decided that instead of spending the weekend with the Government entourage, I would take my family with me, and it was incredibly better for the prospects. I hope that none of my private office will take unbridge what I have just put on the parliamentary record, but it was indeed a pleasant way to spend a couple of days on Government business. That was one of the points that Claudia Beamish made with which I agreed, because she was making a point about the breadth of the focus of our work, particularly in the assessment of the performance, not just of the Government's delivery of its agenda, but of the impact of the collective activities that the Government, local authorities, public bodies and a whole variety of other players are involved in enhancing the quality of life of people in Scotland. That is the context in which we have to consider many of the issues around the economic performance of Scotland. Claudia Beamish went on to apply that in a number of different areas in relation to the roll-out of the common agricultural policy, the importance of land reform, which I saw vividly in the western Isles on Saturday, because I was visiting a venture taken forward by the community ownership company, the community interest company, Storace-Ust, at Loch Boysdale, where a £10 million project, which I think most dispassant observers would have thought was pretty unlikely to get off the ground, has actually been successfully delivered to create new harbour and marina infrastructure, which will create significant foundations to economic recovery in what is a very fragile part of the western Isles. It is correct to look at the issue, and Patrick Harvie, of course, raises those issues about the breadth of the economic impact and the breadth of economic analysis that has to be considered into the bargain. It is right to look at those questions in that way. I thought that Claudia Beamish made that point very powerfully in the speech that she delivered in Parliament today. I thought that it was also made very powerfully by my colleague Joan McAlpine in relation to the example that she cited of the specific venture of the cafe project, The Usual Place, in her constituency, which served two purposes. One added another cafe to my encyclopaedic knowledge of cafes in Scotland, which I must visit and pledge to do so, but also about the fact that many social enterprises—and Mary Scanlon made this point as well—many social enterprises, while running profitable businesses, make a profound impact on the lives and the wellbeing of individuals who many mainstream businesses find it rather difficult to reach. That has been a particular element of the direction that I have given to economic policy in Scotland over the past eight years, where one of our priorities was to expand significantly the social enterprise sector. The analysis that Joan McAlpine talked about was about the social enterprise census, which gives us a fantastic analysis about the strength of the social enterprise sector in Scotland. The fact that the social enterprise sector is viewed as being world-leading here in Scotland and the world social enterprise congress this year again has focused on the leading work that is undertaken here in Scotland, which is something that we should very much welcome. It illustrates perfectly the example of the usual place that Joan McAlpine raised. It illustrates perfectly the point that the Government is making about the emphasis on inclusive growth within the Scottish economic strategy. A lot of the debate has concentrated around the areas of engineering and oil and gas activity. I thought that among some of the commentary about the performance of the engineering sector and the manufacturing base of Scotland's Stuart McMillan's points, the welcome news of additional orders in Ferguson is an illustration of the success that we can deliver in improving the depth of the school-based Scotland and the economic performance of Scotland as a consequence. Of course, Ferguson's is only in place because of very concerted and focused activity by ministers ably responded to by Jim McAlpine in making sure that we still have in Scotland on the Clyde engineering capability that can build ships of the scale and the magnitude that we can now contemplate at Ferguson's shipyard. That is an illustration of active Government economic policy that has brought that about. There are a number of comments made about the oil and gas sector. I think that Tavish Scott contributed significantly to the debate on the role of the oil and gas authority. I had a very constructive meeting with the oil and gas authority just last week. Some of the suggestions that Tavish Scott made about the fiscal regime to encourage exploration and development, particularly through the use of capital allowances, are suggestions that we welcome and that we will advance in our wider discussion on the future of the sector. I wonder if, in those discussions, I had some conversations with the employers about potential impending industrial action in the North Sea. I did because I was anxious to avoid such industrial action taking place. I was anxious to encourage the type of climate that is embodied in the fair work agenda that is taken forward by the Scottish Government, which is about encouraging employers and employees to focus on the shared interests that they have in guaranteeing progress. If there is ever a sector that needs everybody to be rowing in the same direction, it is the oil and gas sector today. I will come to Mr Scott's point about a point that is well-made. It is a siren warning to everybody that if there is premature withdrawal of activity in certain areas, that will jeopardise central infrastructure in the North Sea, and that will be to the detriment of everybody. Therefore, we need to have a cohesive approach in this respect. I will give way to Mr Harvie. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. He may not be surprised that we are not in fact all rowing in the same direction. The previous climate change minister in the Scottish Government had at least finally accepted the scientific reality that the world has to leave most of its fossil fuels unburned. Is that still the view of the Scottish Government and what proportion does he think is responsible to extract? Mr Harvie knows that the Government is committed to responsible and sustainable extraction of oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, because what that enables us to do is to anchor many of the sophisticated engineering opportunities of which many of my colleagues have talked about earlier on. As part of the discussion on oil and gas, Rob Gibson raised the issue of the alternatives, the developments that address the issues that Mr Harvie was raising, and the point that Jackie Baillie made about the post-oil economy. One of the difficulties—this is not about blaming somebody else—is just a statement of fact. The prospects of securing greater opportunities for the renewable energy industry in Scotland are now, today, more difficult because of the actions of the United Kingdom Government than they were before the United Kingdom Government was elected in May of this year. That is something that the Minister for Energy, Energy and Energy will pursue with Amber Rudd the UK energy minister when he meets her in due course to address some of those points. The debate has been characterised, I would have to say, by a number of thoughtful contributions but an awful lot of negativity from the Labour Party. We had six minutes and 57 seconds from Jackie Baillie before she said, we must now think about the future and being positive and then went back into being negative again. If we could get to a position where the director of the CBI in Scotland, Mr Hugh Aitken, can say that the Government's economic strategy rightly prioritised making Scotland more competitive by investing in infrastructure, education and apprenticeships. Graham Smith, the STUC general secretary, can say that the STUC enthusiastically welcomes a strong commitment to tackling inequality, which infuses the refreshed Government economic strategy. The Government economic strategy is improved and strengthened by the introduction of fair work as a key priority. If we can get both the director of the CBI in Scotland to be positive about the Scottish economic strategy and the secretary general of the STUC to be positive about the economic strategy, then I remain optimistic that one day, somewhere over to my left, somebody may be able to say something positive. The Labour Party even wanted to remove the statement that we welcomed the fact that the Scottish economy has experienced its longest period of uninterrupted economic growth since 2001. Can the Labour Party not just accept the fact that the Government's economic strategy is delivering positive returns for the people of Scotland and to get behind us in our efforts? Thank you. That concludes the debate on progress in the Scottish economy. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 14171, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting it a revision to business programme for weddings through the 9th of September. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request to speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14171. No member has asked to speak against the motion, so I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14171, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. Can I ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14163 on substitution on committees, and motion number 14172 on referral of an SSI? The question is on these. Most will be put at decision time to which we now come. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that in relation to today's debate on progress in the Scottish economy, if the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie is agreed, the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser falls. The first question, then, is that amendment number 14156.3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion number 14156, in the name of John Swinney on progress in the Scottish economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members who cast their votes now. The vote on amendment number 14156.3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is as follows. Yes, 33. No, 77. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that amendment number 144156.2, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion number 144156, in the name of John Swinney on progress in the Scottish economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members who cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 144156.2, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is as follows. Yes, 12. No, 98. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion number 14156, in the name of John Swinney, on progress in the Scottish economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members who cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 144156, in the name of John Swinney, is as follows. Yes, 60. No, 50. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion number 14163, in the name of Joffix Patrick, on substitution and committees, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion number 14172, in the name of Joffix Patrick, on refer for an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.