 That concludes portfolio questions for this afternoon. My apologies to those questioners that I have not been able to take. We now move to the next item of business, which is the continuation of the debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government 2015-16. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Cabinet Secretary Alex Neil as the first speaker in this afternoon's debate. Cabinet Secretary, you have six minutes please. Thank you very much indeed today, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, in delivering the programme for government, the First Minister set out measures that we will introduce over the coming year to ensure a more prosperous Scotland while creating a fairer country, improving public services and empowering our communities. There is or should be a little argument that these four key elements work together to build a better country. It is an opinion shared across civic Scotland, but today I want to give some specific examples of how they do so from my own portfolio. Creating a socially just Scotland is at the heart of what this Government is trying to achieve. The First Minister's words yesterday resonated with my own experience. This summer, I have travelled up and down the country asking people what a fairer Scotland should look like. All over, people have spoken of the unfairness of sanctions, of working full-time hours unable to look after their families without being topped up by the Government due to low pay, of being unable to afford housing, and that cannot be right. There are many other injustices that would be too numerous to mention here. As the First Minister pointed out, our new welfare powers proposed for the UK Government's current Scotland bill fall far short of those that we need to make up the harm caused by the UK Government's policies. We will spend, as a Scottish Government, more than £100 million in the next year, as we have done this year, in mitigating the worst aspects of welfare cuts and so-called reform. Money that could otherwise be free to be spent on making Scotland fairer rather than mitigating the mistakes of others. In the meantime, we will do what we can with the powers that we have, as well as the new powers that we will get. We will work to prepare for a social security bill that is better suited to Scotland's needs, which will be introduced in the first year of the new Parliament. That will include improvements to how the system works for disabled people, people with long-term health conditions and carers, giving new flexibilities within universal credit. We are also committed, as the First Minister said, to abolishing the hated bedroom tax in the first year of the new Parliament. We will go as far as we possibly can in combining our existing powers and new powers to help those who are the most vulnerable members of our society. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Does he envisage with those new powers the amount of money that is spent on welfare in Scotland, going up, going down or remaining roughly the same? If the member had been in for question time, he would have heard me answer the same question from Alex Johnson. The answer to that is very simple. The amount of money that is available will be agreed as part of the fiscal framework, which is to be agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Unfortunately, so far, we have not seen the colour of the UK Treasury's money. We will not end up in the same situation as Northern Ireland, where the Tories have placed responsibilities on that Government and fell short of the funding to the tune of £70 million as a result of which, in Northern Ireland, other services are suffering because the welfare in Northern Ireland has not been properly funded. We are out to consultation—formal consultation—on what will be in our social security bill and how we can make the social security system. Social security is a far better name than welfare, because it sums up our philosophical approach. What will be contained in that will be the result of widespread consultation, not just with those organisations that deliver social security and the third sector, but more importantly with those people who are at the receiving end of the social security system as well. Let me go on to some other aspects of my portfolio in the two minutes that I have left. The introduction of our private tenancies bill will mean that private tenants are more secure in their homes, have more predictable rents and can exert their rights without fear of eviction and limiting local rent increases. The private tenancies bill will build in previous legislation passed by this chamber on the recommendation of this Government to fully protect the rights and aspirations of people living in the private rented sector, which now makes up about 15 per cent of all housing tenure in Scotland. Creating a fairer Scotland goes hand in hand with creating a more prosperous one. In my portfolio, housing is at the heart of our drive to secure economic growth, promote social justice, strengthen communities and tackle inequality. Our investment in affordable housing will exceed £1.7 billion by the end of this Parliament. Housing has been a recurring theme in the fairer Scotland conversations that I have been holding throughout Scotland during the summer. It is very clear that the provision of and access to good housing can empower communities, and established well maintained and warm home can also tackle inequalities and poverty. It benefits health, it benefits wellbeing, it benefits for security for families and individuals and it benefits education and improves educational attainment. In conclusion, that is why, in relation to housing, not only will we deliver the 30,000 new affordable homes, we promised at the start of this Parliament, but by the time of the election next May, we will have exceeded that promise. Finally, I point out that the help to buy scheme itself will create six and a half thousand families in Scotland, and we are orientating the new scheme much more towards helping those on lower incomes. I could say much more, Presiding Officer, but I do not have the time. Thank you very much. We are extraordinarily tight for time today, so speeches up to six minutes, please. Colin Malcolm Chisholm, to be followed by Kenny Gibson. Presiding Officer, I welcome much of the legislation that was announced yesterday on some of the reactive measures in relation to GPs, attainment, police and the private rented sector, but the main point here is not just that they were reactive, but reactive late on issues that Labour MPSPs have been highlighting for a long time. I spoke about GPs yesterday, so I'll spare members that, but rank controls is another good example because no one can dispute that Labour has been pressing for that for many months. Having said that, I welcome the commitment yesterday that we will have, quote, the ability to introduce local rent controls for rent pressure areas, which I assume includes my own area. I just hope that that does have genuine substance, because I heard what the cabinet secretary said just now about the bill more generally, but certainly I was speaking to a housing expert a few weeks ago who said that the actual central plank of that legislation in terms of private tenancy rights will actually not deliver very much in the way of substantial change. I hope that he's wrong about that, but clearly there is much to discuss in relation to that. Well, notwithstanding that, there is little in the legislative programme that is likely to prove controversial, the fiscal commission bill apart, where the SNP-dominated finance committee is leading the critical charge, as the cabinet secretary found at the committee this morning. Quite significant concerns were made in their finance committee's report on the fiscal framework, but the central point for me is that the independence of the Government advisers is absolutely central to this, but it seems to me on the evidence that we've heard from these central commission members that they're acting more like high-level advisers to the Government during the forecasting process rather than scrutineers afterwards. So I think that there are issues there and I know that those concerns are shared by all members of the finance committee irrespective of party. Having said that, on the fiscal framework more generally, I actually do agree with the First Minister who said that the Scottish Parliament would have made this point should only approve the Scotland bill if we have a fair fiscal framework. John Swinney I'm grateful to Mr Chisholm for giving me on the Scottish Fiscal Commission legislative proposals. Could Mr Chisholm confirm to Parliament, does he believe that there are any circumstances in which it is acceptable for the fiscal commission members to have discussions with officials of the Scottish Government? Welcome, Chisholm. Of course that's perfectly acceptable, the point being that they seem to be having discussions as part of the forecasting process and therefore becoming high-level advisers. Of course they need to discuss at various points, particularly when they're critiquing their forecasts at the end of the process. Now moving on, I welcome the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm bill and the particular proposals on revenge, porn and a statutory domestic abuse aggravation, but there is disappointment among NGOs, I know, and I share it that there is not to be a specific domestic abuse offence during this Parliament. There was a good consultation paper proposing a new criminal offence, which would capture patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour between partners or ex-partners, and it is a matter of disappointment that that appears to be something that will not feature in the forthcoming legislation. I also hope that the loop hole in relation to non-harassment orders only being available on conviction, I hope that that loop hole will be closed and we remember the high profile case that was highlighted in the Herald newspaper a few months ago. I also welcome the focus on the attainment gap, last some members on this side might say, but again we have to question on the one hand that we have £25 million a year for that and yet a proposal from the Scottish Government that they want to save £125 million from having air passenger duty. I am not quite sure what the official Labour front bench position is on that, but I certainly totally oppose that proposal on climate change grounds, as well as in terms of the loss in revenue for the Scottish Government. Assessment and testing in schools obviously has been a controversial area, but I have no problem about that in principle, and if done properly, it is a very good thing. I am sure that the Scottish Government is reassured by what the EIS said yesterday—that is my own union, I should declare—when it talked about a Scottish design book of standardised tests to support teachers' professional judgment. I hope that that is what is proposed, but the key questions remain, how will the information be used and who will have access to it. Although I welcome the principle of assessment in primary schools, I, like others, do have concerns that we may have unintended results. We have to clearly watch that very carefully. Finally, I welcome the proposals on the early years, but I would make two points. First, the childcare agenda, which has moved on considerably during this Parliament, still needs to be broadened out more so that it is not just focused on nursery education and that three- to four-year-old cohort, but also crucially highlights the importance of after school care, a big gap that I am sure many of our constituents are often emphasising, too. Secondly, I think that there needs to be more emphasis on quality in early-year services, something that was not highlighted at all in the statement yesterday. In terms of the central concern with the attainment gap, speech and language development in the early years is crucial, and that is highlighted in the read-on-get-on campaign report entitled Ready to Read, Closing the Gap on Children's Early Language Skills in Scotland. My final point is to support three demands from the read-on-get-on campaign for firstly investing further in the early learning and childcare workforce, secondly, strengthening support for parents, and thirdly, introducing a child development measure for preschool children with early language skills as a key priority area within it. That is it. Many thanks. I encourage essential conversations that require to be taken place to take place in the back of the chamber or elsewhere. I call on Kenny Gibson to be followed by Murdo Fraser. I welcome the programme for government that was set out by the First Minister yesterday. Of course, Opposition members would expect me to support the First Minister, but do not take my word for it. Measures in the programme for government have been welcomed by organisations including the Educational Institute for Scotland, Citizen Advice Scotland, the Federacy of Small Businesses, the Scottish Police Federation, Assistant Domestic Abuse Services, Community Safety Glasgow, Rape Crisis Scotland, Gordon's Fightback.com, the Alliance, Lynx Worker programme, Shelter, the Law Society of Scotland and MND Scotland, among others. Since May, we have the dubious benefit of knowing that in the years ahead Scotland will continue to be battered by cuts at the hands of a Tory majority government in Westminster with a four-year spending review scheduled for the end of November. Therefore, a robust programme as announced is an absolute necessity. Over the past five years, the Scottish Parliament's revenue budget has been cut by 10 per cent and capital by my own quarter. Finance Secretary and Deputy First Minister John Swinney must take huge credit for minimising the pain of these cuts and for making the most available resources to grow the Scottish economy. Indeed, at this morning's finance committee, he reminded us that construction employment in Scotland has grown by 21 per cent over the last 12 months as a direct result of Scottish Government decisions to focus where possible on capital investment. Of course, unemployment fell in Scotland by 13,000 in the last quarter while it rose by 25,000 across the UK. We will only need to look at the chief economist's state of the economy report published on 21 August to say that, despite a challenging backdrop, the Scottish economy earlier this year was in its 11th consecutive quarter of growth. It also states that growth has been recorded across all main sectors of the economy, giving the lie to assertion that uncertainty over Scotland's constitutional future was deterring investment here or from overseas. Between 2007 when the Scottish National Party first came to government and 2013, the value of Scotland's international exports increased from 20 billion to 27.9 billion, an increase of 40 per cent. The Scottish Government has made great efforts to sustain our vital small business sector, which I know is delighted that the small business bonus scheme will be extended by another five years, delivering stability to our small businesses and helping them not just to survive but thrive. Our GDP has not only returned to its pre-recession level but surpassed it. Female employment is at a record high of 72.5 per cent, whereas the UK rate is 68.6 per cent. Furthermore, it seems that the Scottish Government's clear commitment to youth employment is paying off, with 360,000 young people in employment at the highest number since 2005. Between April and June of this year, 20,000 people in Scotland aged 16 to 24 were able to move into employment, who did not have jobs before. The rise in youth employment is in stark contrast to the situation across the UK, where, over that same period, youth employment did not increase at all. To Malcolm Chisholm's comments about air passenger duty, I visited Glasgow airport last week. It has increased its workforce over the past three years from 4,300 to over 5,000 and is growing the number of routes by 17 this year. Those 5,000 people include everything from baggage handlers and retail to high-engineering and high-tech employment, so airports are an engine. They say that air passenger duty will allow them to expand much further and employ hundreds if not thousands of more people in the years ahead, bringing into Scotland some of their revenue, misages and fears will be lost. With regard to our NHS, the Scottish Government allocated a record £12 billion this year, and staffing levels are at a record high with an increase and the equivalent of more than 10,500 full-time NHS workers since the SNP came to office. The Scottish Government has replaced the Tory Labour private finance initiative with a non-profit distribution model and funded investment by traditional means. In my constituency of Cunningham North, on-going capital projects include the new 18 million pound Brodick harbour, the 43 million pound Garnat academy and 12 million pound development at the Sports Scotland national training centre inverclyde larchs, signed off two days ago and to be completed by December of next year. Seventy affordable houses for families, three and four apartment, will be started in Erdrossan in January. One of the two ships announced as part of the £97 million tender won by Ferguson's will apply the Erdrossan to Brodick route, which will soon begin on a new 63 million pound larchs academy campus. Transport Minister Derek Macai confirmed yesterday that, in reference to the £28 million Dorae bypass delayed because of a public looking query, the Scottish Government remains committed to delivering this much-needed infrastructure project. Scotland now has 1,038 more police officers than when the SNP came to office, while England Wales numbers have fallen by more than 17,000 over five years. Indeed, there are fears among police chiefs south of the border over the coming years, and additional 22,000 officers will be lost. The Scottish Government ensures sustainable benefits to the Scottish economy through investing in skills in education and job creation. In that respect, I welcome the Scottish Government's proposal to increase the number of apprentices to 30,000 by 2020. Of course, welfare reform has meant that the Scottish Government has committed resources to mitigate some of the ill-thought-out policies imposed by the UK Government, such as the bedroom tax. That illustrates the need for fuller devolution not only to abolish such impositions but to ensure that they are never again imposed on Scotland. The First Minister set out how the Scottish Government plans to make use of new powers coming our way, but for fiscal devolution to work it is essential that the Scottish Government has flexibility to pursue distinct fiscal policies within an overall UK framework. With regard to additional borrowing powers proposed by the Smith commission, those for current spending need to be significantly increased and should be commensured with the risks that are faced by the Scottish Government post Smith, whilst prudential borrowing over current capital, the departmental expenditure limits is necessary to increase investment. What of the Labour Opposition in all this? As it has decided to furl itself to London, will the UK party stag us from crisis to crisis, incoherent, inept and inward-looking riddled with infighting? It has lost the trust of the people. By contrast, ambition is the ideas of the whole lot of this Scottish Government. With more powers in the year ahead, we will do even more to realise Scotland's potential, which, as members on these benches realise, will only be met with full independence. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is always a pleasure to follow the fair-minded and balanced convener of the Finance Committee. I am sure that he would agree with me that this was a very good week for the Scottish economy. The Chancellor George Osborne was in town with two significant announcements. The first was of a massive investment of some £500 million in fazlain of UK taxpayers' money, safeguarding nearly 7,000 jobs on the Clyde. The second was of a £3 billion investment by the Danish firm MERSC to develop the Calain gasfield in the North Sea, securing 6,000 jobs and creating 400 more. All excellent news for the Scottish economy and for Scottish workers. We might have expected both these announcements to get a warm welcome from the Scottish Government for the jobs that are safeguarded and for the new ones that are created, and for the inward investment that this represents. Instead, what we had was a negative carping response from the First Minister to the investment in fazlain. We can only imagine what the response had been, Presiding Officer, had the Chancellor proposed a cut in investment in the Clyde. So I turned to the programme for government looking for a more constructive approach to the economy. There are some things in what was announced yesterday that we would welcome. The First Minister stated that she wanted to make Scotland the best part of the UK in which to do business, with an ambition for us to be the real Northern powerhouse. That is something that the Scottish Conservatives support. So we welcome, for example, the planned root and branch review of the planning system to see how it can better support the economy. We welcome the extension of the small business bonus scheme, but I would ask why if it is here to stay, it should not now be set in statute. We welcome the pledge on creating a competitive business rates regime. Although that will come as some surprise to those running a sporting business in rural Scotland or farmers with sporting rights over their lands, whether they exercise them or not, they are now facing a new rates bill for the first time in more than 20 years. Despite all the rhetoric about being competitive, what that proposal does in the land reform bill is to put Scottish businesses and farmers at a competitive disadvantage in relation to those in England and Wales. That is not the way to help rural businesses. We welcome the proposals to reduce air passenger duty from April 2018, although we await with interest seeing what replacement tax is being proposed. So far, it is mostly positive, Presiding Officer, but what is equally interesting perhaps is what is missing from the programme. We believe that there is more that can be done on business rates. The UK Government is currently conducting a thorough review of the whole business rates regime, which could come forward with major changes for England and Wales. We know that business rates have a major impact, in particular on high street retailers, struggling with competition from the internet or out of town retail parks. Unlike the other business taxes that the finance minister would like to get his hands on, he has full control over business rates, which indeed have been devolved since 1999, so there is no reason not to act. On the question of income tax, businesses want to know what is coming down the line from the Scottish Government when they have much greater power to vary the rates from next year. We know that the Labour Party would like to see the top rate of tax increased, but there are only some 14,000 higher rate taxpayers in Scotland. Many of them are already doing business part of the time south of the border. The inevitable consequence of a higher top rate of tax in Scotland would simply be a flight of wealth and capital down south, and the reduction in the tax base and in the consequent tax take. Raising the top rate of tax in Scotland would be an entirely self-defeating policy, and it would be good to know whether the SNP agrees. Our view is that the Scottish rate of income tax should be set no higher than the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Scottish Retail Consortium has pointed out in its submission to the finance committee, any variation to income tax rates will have an impact on consumer spend and therefore on the wider economy. I will briefly accept the evidence that we had at the finance committee that it can vary income tax rates by a few per cent, and it does not involve any movement. I am relying on the evidence that was submitted by the Retail Consortium, which, as people in business might know a little bit about what it is talking about, it also made the point that it will impact on the ability of businesses to attract and retain talent. Businesses also need constitutional stability. Over the summer, there was an awful lot being said about the prospects of a second independence referendum by the current First Minister, by the former First Minister, by various SNP MPs at Westminster, by various SNP candidates and even MSPs fighting for reselection—in some cases, fighting each other for reselection. Scottish business needs talk of a second referendum like it needs a hole in the head. What we need is a period of constitutional stability, so businesses know that we are secure within the United Kingdom. Next year, there are more powers coming to this Parliament and more powers coming the year after. The Scottish Government's default excuse for inaction is that it does not have enough control over the levers of power where it is ever thinner. The quote to govern is to choose has been attributed to various politicians in the past, but that does not make it any less true. This Government will soon have to start making choices on spending and on tax. We on those benches would give priority to growing the economy, to expanding the tax base and to improving the tax take. Yesterday's programme for government gives us only a limited vision of how the Scottish Government plans to approach those issues, and we await with interest hearing how it will take them forward. I am pleased to be part of this debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government for the coming year. Of course, as the First Minister stated yesterday, this programme is more ambitious than that. That is setting out our vision for our nation's future for years to come. There is so much in this document that is bold and exciting, but I am aware that I must stay within the parameters of the time allocated, so I will stick to a few that are important to me. The chamber will be aware that Glasgow international airport is in actual fact in Paisley. Although not in my constituency, it is a major economic impact on our community, being one of the main employers in Renfrewshire and bringing much-needed investment. For our business to be competitive, we need to ensure that it has the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. That has been difficult for the aviation industry for some time. I am aware that the Scottish Government has established a forum with membership for the airline industry at Scotland's airports, environmental groups and business organisations and tax professionals. That will help to ensure that the industry continues to contribute to our economy. I, for one, also have faith in our transport minister for some reason or other. It is welcomed that the Scottish Government will reduce the burden of APD by 50 per cent, when Scottish APD is introduced in 2018, with a view to abolishing it completely when resources are allowed. That is helpful, because currently APD is the highest form of aviation tax in the world. After officially depressing demand and dissuading airlines from flying to and from Scotland, even with this major disadvantage, Glasgow international airport has managed to be very successful in the past couple of years. Just imagine what we can achieve after 2018 that can benefit the Renfrewshire economy or, as I like to call it, greater paisley. I would like to at this point talk about some of the issues that the First Minister brought up yesterday regarding education. Scotland's children and our young people are our greatest asset, and investing in their education is essential to achieving their aspirations and ambitions as a country. As I have said before, since becoming a very young grandparent, it has reinforced my belief that we must ensure that our children get the same chances for personal reasons and because it is the right thing to do. The Scottish Government is taking the right steps to improve Scottish education, and we are currently seeing the results. We have a more coherent, flexible and child-focused curriculum that sets higher standards for achievement than ever before, and the development and implementation of the curriculum for excellence. It is also hardening to hear that the next phase of curriculum for excellence the Scottish Government is developing and implementing a national improvement framework for Scottish education, which sets out our vision and priorities for Scotland's children and their progress. For too long, the framework will of course set out the Scottish Government's vision and key priorities, but for too long, Presiding Officer, we have had a situation where it is almost—we have asked our question—why do children and young people from poorer areas not get the opportunities within education that others do? I have said it before within the chamber that, in my constituency, there is an east-west divide on this very situation, where there is Fergusley Park in the west, which is an area of deprivation and Rallston in the east, which is actually a lot more affluent as well. Why, Presiding Officer, my father came from Fergusley Park and the educational attainment gap was there for generations? It is something now that I am glad that, as a Parliament and as the Scottish Government in particular, we are now working towards doing something about this, but not every single child—yes, I will take that. Would the member perhaps agree with me that it was wrong for the Scottish Government not to give Renfrewshire Council any money from its attainment fund last year? Mr Adam. Mr Bibby, what do you say? The reality of the situation is, Presiding Officer, that Paisley, in fact, two schools in Fergusley, in an area that one of the areas of worst deprivation in the whole of Scotland, St Fergus and Glencoats primary, will be part of the attainment fund, so that is about identifying the need and making sure that we can make that difference. That is what the framework will ensure. A forensic focus and data, obviously something, Mr Bibby, is not too interested in. I inform our approach to educational improvement at every single phase of Scottish education. We must ensure that parents and carers get support in their role in their child's education. That, for me, is a crucial area, and we must ensure that parents engage with us, because that is one of the issues that has come up time and again within the education committee. For me, the most important aspects of all of this is that the Scottish Government wants to close the attainment gap completely. That, of course, will not happen overnight. If only it was that easy, Presiding Officer. My old dad, who is no longer with us, used to say who said that it was going to be easy when the family had its latest disasters. But in the real world, Presiding Officer, life is just not like that, but this is more about an economic and social challenge for all of us. It is a moral one as well. We must remain focused on this goal, and this Parliament must come together to see that this is our main goal and challenge for years to come. A child born today in one of our most deprived communities should, by the time he or she leaves school, have the same chance of going to university as a child born in one of our most affluent communities. Progress has been made, and it would be chirlish for Opposition parties to say otherwise. In 2008, just two in 10 students from deprived areas of Scotland obtained at least one higher or equivalent. Last year, that figure was almost four in 10. However, that figure is not far or fast enough. This programme is bold and ambitious, and I believe that it is time to work together to ensure that this ambitious programme can be put forward so that Scotland truly is the best country in the world for children to grow up. I believe that we need to be more ambitious for our health service. The First Minister told us that about 10,000 new staff in the NHS mentioned the £50 million investment in the primary care fund and the £100 million investment in the mental health services. However, what the First Minister did not mention is the number of vacancies in the NHS, such as 447 vacant consultant posts, 2,255 vacant nursing and midwifery posts and a reduction of ambulance staff since 2011 of 1,218. However, yesterday, during my member's business debate on promoting sustainable GP recruitment, I raised the issue of the crisis in our general practices in Scotland. In the words of the Royal College of General Practitioners, such as the current strain on GPs brought on by the demands placed on them and the inadequate resourcing of the service, more than a quarter of Scottish people were unable to book an appointment within a week. 42 per cent of Scotland—almost half of the population—agree that waiting times to see a GP are a national crisis. The Scottish Government, meanwhile, is putting 20 million per year in the primary care fund before GPs do not see the benefits. Just one example of this is spending is in the GP returner programme. I quote an answer from the health secretary to one of my questions, saying that the number of GPs recruited into the programme has always been low on average between five to six per annum. I then question the Government's wise spending on a programme that, for all intents and purposes, serves the right cause but makes zero progress in solving the crisis. After eight years in power, we need to decide to listen to the last month for the first time to what the people are actually saying and what the experts have been warning. I want to touch on the issue of mental health, which has been a top priority for me for a long time. At the end of July, I held a summit here in this Parliament to explore what it is that really causes thousands of children and adults to wait for months on end for treatment. I wanted to hear why medical trainees are reducing in numbers from mental health specialities such as psychology and psychiatry, and why do health inequalities continue to be so prevalent. What I heard from the experts, the BMA, the Mental Welfare Commission and a number of the Royal Colleges, is that there is not enough support for staff, patients and families of those patients and most of all for resources. I urge the Government in its current programme for government to expedite the publication of the 10-year follow-up to the grant report, which was supposed to be out by the end of this summer. The report may give us an insight into why parents of children with autism are forced to send their children in England for treatment because of a lack of inpatient beds in Scotland, or why are GPs forced to prescribe drugs instead of sending their patients to specialised evidence-based treatments, because they know that those 3,500 patients will wait more than four and a half months to see an expert. I would like to know when the Scottish Government will decide to hear the repeated calls from the Liberal Democrats to establish parity of esteem in law between mental and physical health. The impact on the equality of funding places pressures on other parts of the system that have to do with mental and physical wellbeing. In its report, A Blueprint for Scotland's Future, the commission on housing and wellbeing makes the recommendation that housing should be a full and equal partner in health and social care partnerships. That means allowing every family and household to afford the type of housing that they need when they actually do need it. So there is no doubt that we have heard plans that have been put in place, policies developed and strategies created, but the facts speak for themselves. The number of households turning to the private rented sector has nearly tripled in the last 15 years going to the chronic shortage of affordable homes. The recommendation for shelter Scotland stands at providing 10,000 new homes for social rent each year to meaningfully tackle Scotland's housing crisis. The Government mentioned that it will surpass the building of 30,000 affordable homes, but that is not socially rented homes and that was not what their promise in their manifesto was, it was for socially rented homes. Only about 20,000 of those have been provided in the five years. That is about 40 per cent of what is actually needed. I think that everyone has a right to have a warm, safe, permanent home for themselves. I am looking forward to discussing the Government's plans for the private tenancies bill and how that will bring about positive change for the Scottish housing sector. The Scottish Government must realise what the starting and ending points for the wellbeing of people in Scotland are in doing so. They have to have prioritised the health of the population and the right to a safe, warm and permanent home. We now have Christina McKelvie, followed by Jackie Baillie. Presiding Officer, being a visionary and committed to a stronger fairer Scotland is the keystone of this Government. The legislative programme ahead is ambitious and demanding and I look forward to playing my part in it with colleagues. As the chamber knows, I have been advocating legislative action on domestic violence and revenge porn throughout the life of this Parliament. I am therefore particularly pleased to see this coming into action, as I am sure many of my colleagues across the chamber are too. The fight to ban internet publication of intimate images without the consent of those depicted has been on the Scottish Government's agenda for three years, and I have led two debates on this subject. As a direct result of my close contact and support of women's aid and rape crisis Scotland, I learned just what an extensive important problem revenge porn has grown to become, and I hope that I am able to bring that knowledge to the attention of everyone in this chamber and have helped to raise the awareness of this gross, invasional privacy. Can I pay tribute and thanks to all my colleagues across the chamber who have supported any of the motions that I have put forward and allowed us to debate this important subject in this chamber? I really appreciate that support. Presiding Officer, this is not an issue that should divide political parties. This is about protecting people, especially young people, from having their lives destroyed by the malice of a former partner. Groups such as Women's Aid have already spoken about how the publishing of images and videos that were meant to be private are used as acts of sexual abuse, often alongside intimidation and blackmail. Some victims have felt so threatened and distressed that they have contemplated and actually committed suicide. Police Scotland, I believe, will make a vital contribution to this. It is they who will apply the law and so they need to be certain that it is workable. Their input will be sought and carefully considered, I hope, during the legislative process. Police Scotland has already made clear to the justice secretary that it welcomes the proposed legislation and will work co-operatively to apply it effectively. I welcome that, too. It is clearly crucial that the legislation that we produce is effective and accessible, and, to a certain extent, I imagine that the law will have a very significant deterrent effect that will make current offenders think more carefully. I hope that it will also further raise awareness of the issue. The consultations that will take place as legislation is written will address issues of precisely how best to structure the law alongside existing laws, and that is a practical and effective way to do it. The new legislation also means that we have stronger, more effective powers to eliminate domestic and sexual abuse for far too long men. In most cases, it is men, but I understand that we have abuse across the genders and have been able to abuse our partners with little prospect of their victims ever being able to secure a conviction. I hope that we see the end of that. On a very personal note, I was delighted to see that MND sufferers will get access to voice equipment through an amendment to the health bill. I have lobbied, as have many, including the very inspirational Gordon Aitman and MND Scotland, to build a voice library and provide voice services that make a huge difference to the quality of an MND sufferer. We very kindly, with your participation, hosted the voice bank in this place last year, and I make a plea that the voice bank is currently on tour and that it needs male voices, especially those from the north-east of Scotland, so whether your doric or a healer or whatever, please get along and donate your voice to this extremely worthwhile project. The First Minister has also made it clear that our powers over welfare policy and action are limited, but it is nevertheless clear that the Government intends to take action to mitigate the devastating damage already inflicted by George Osborne's cuts. While the chancellor has slightly increased the tax-free allowance, he cut back the annual income of about £200,000 Scottish households by about £3,000 a year. I greatly welcome a social security bill, and I am glad that it is called a social security bill, because social security is exactly what it is. George Osborne has also tried to rewrite the living wage and reduce it, but we are not that stupid, Presiding Officer, or cynical. In Scotland, we say that the living wage is exactly what it is—a wage that you can live on. As colleagues are aware, I have had a long-standing association with the trade union movement fighting for a living wage, a relationship that I am very proud of. I believe that enhancing the powers of workers has to improve their employment rights in areas such as health, safety, bullying, sexual harassment and the very important issue of blacklisting that we seek to eliminate. That is why I am glad to hear that the fair work convention is to create a new framework that will build strong, sustainable relationships between the stakeholder groups. The Scottish Government will not stand idly by while the UK Government tries to undermine the rights of trade unions. We will oppose it every step of the way. We work from the fundamental principle that employment has to be fair in equal terms, both in gender and pay levels. When workers are not getting a fair deal, they need to have the ability to take their employer to tribunal. Under the UK Government's terms, they will have to pay £250. We do not have the power to stop this at present, but I am very pleased to see that when we do have the power, we will abolish those fees and possibly turn around the 70 per cent plus drop in cases just in the last year. The powers that the Scottish Bill will bring us are intended far more limited than we would have liked to have seen. I want a country that does not turn its back on refugees. I want a country that upholds human rights. I want a country that upholds trade union rights. I want a country that sees a social security system that actually protects our vulnerable. I think that our Government has that in its legislative programme. I welcome the opportunity to debate the programme for government. There are elements of the legislative programme that I support. The Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Bill is one. Private Tenancies Bill, which we have been calling for for the best part of a year, is another. The Fiscal Commission Bill, which I repeatedly asked for last year, makes sure that we get the stewardship of the nation's finances right. Our support for an independent Scottish equivalent of the Office of Budget Responsibility is hardly surprising when we have an SNP Government that got it so badly wrong when making financial projections about oil revenues. We now have a situation where oil is less than $50 a barrel, where revenues are indeed at an all-time low. Recent reports show that tax receipts from the industry were £168 million for the first quarter, compared with a staggering £969 million for the same period the year before. A fraction of what the Scottish Government was relying on to make their sums add up. However, that is not some random debating point. There are very real consequences as a result of that, with the thousands of jobs already lost in the north-east and, indeed, across Scotland. I welcome the fact that the energy jobs task force is to continue for another six months. I am genuinely not sure that that will be enough, because, if I understand it correctly, their record so far of helping 12 apprenticeships, while thousands lose their jobs, is something that we need to push further forward. If Ms Bailey agrees that one of the things that could help job security in the north-east basin is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a tax incentive for exploration, then we could see the likes of what has happened in Norway with much more drilling. I agree with the member, but I am looking at what the Scottish Government can do in the programme for government. If we got both Governments working in concert and focused on the north-sea, then we would see substantial help being put in place. In my view, we need an independent fiscal commission. We need it to have a comprehensive range of powers, but it is more important than ever, because, for the first time in April, we will be able to set a Scottish rate of income tax. We know that, just as important as the laws that you pass are the things that you do in Government, how you spend your money and how that signals your priorities. I join with Christina McKelvie at this point in congratulating Gordon Aitman in securing support from the Government for voice equipment for those with MND. I commend the Government for taking that approach. First Minister, in a statement yesterday, talked about an economic plan, and I welcome the focus on growing our economy, the recognition that the strategy that was set out in March needed much more detail and a clear plan for implementation. We will, of course, be debating that next week. I expect John Swinney to make the case for a greater reliance on onshore tax receipts now that the price of oil has plummeted. Interestingly, the programme for government restated the commitment to full fiscal autonomy as the SNP's preferred position short of independence. Problem is, the sums did not add up when John Swinney first suggested it, and despite all the name changes, it still does not add up now. Whether the SNP likes it or not, it is a fact that public spending is £1,300 higher per person in Scotland than the UK average. That reflects the choices that we make based on our priorities. Let me say as gently as I can to the Deputy First Minister. When Labour started in government in 1999, our spending on health and education as a proportion of our budget was higher than in England. When we left office in 2007, our spending on health and education as a proportion of our budget was higher than in England. The SNP inherited that, but now we spend a smaller proportion of our budget on health and education than it does in England. That is the legacy from the SNP. We now spend less on education and health than even the Tories do. In health, we see that £1 billion has been stripped out of the GP budget. We have a crisis in recruiting GPs and consultants. Vacancies are increasingly hard to fill. For all that, we have integration of health and social care. Our social services are creaking at the seams. Little said about them in the programme for government. I don't have time. The renewed focus on education is welcome, but after eight years, the SNP's record speaks for itself. A 12 per cent gap in reading for P7s between the most and least deprived. A 21 per cent gap in writing. A 24 per cent gap in numeracy. An attainment gap that hasn't changed in eight years. 4,000 fewer teachers. 140,000 fewer college places. That is not investing in our young people or in our economy. Education is to be the new priority for the SNP. If that is the case, they should put their money where their mouth is. The £100 million attainment fund, albeit welcome, has been announced several times. It averages £25 million a year. Yesterday, the SNP said that it would take £250 million away by abolishing air passenger duty. What does that tell you about the SNP's priorities? Surely, Presiding Officer, it is not the case that it would much rather give us cheap holidays abroad than invest in our children's future. The programme for government is a sleight of hand that points towards the election and beyond, hoping that the people of Scotland will not notice your abysmal record. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. There is much to commend and welcome from yesterday's statement by the First Minister. I want to touch upon a couple of them. First of all, I want to thank the First Minister and the Chancellor for the fabulous news on Monday when it was announced that the Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow was a preferred bidder to build anyx to CML ferries worth £97 million. I also want to thank the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, for his pivotal role in saving the yard last year, which has ensured that Monday's fantastic news could have happened. Members of my party will know of my long history of raising the issue of shipbuilding and lobbying to bring work to what was Ferguson's even before it was elected. I have maintained that since I was an MSP because I knew that shipbuilding on the lower Clyde could have a future, and Monday's announcement proves that to be the case. That will take the number of ships awarded to Ferguson's by this Scottish Government to five and show us that the reindustrialisation of the lower Clyde is an SNP commitment being delivered. Monday's announcement is also brilliant news for the lower Clyde. It is also a real vote of confidence in the area and it can give a significant boost to the local economy, create jobs and continue the west of Scotland's justified reputation as a leader in the shipbuilding industry and show us that commercial shipbuilding in Scotland has a bright and prosperous future ahead of it. Since 2007, a key target of this Government has been on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increasing economic growth. A strong, vibrant and diverse economy is essential to our national prosperity and helps to create the wealth needed to support the high-quality public services. It is our commitment to deliver on the NHS budget of more than £12 billion for this particular year. One of the best ways that we can help people to help themselves is through giving them access to the best possible education. Excellence in education is essential to our prosperity, competitiveness and wellbeing to overall success as a nation in the future. In the past eight years, we have been tough with the recession and the financial impact that has had on Scotland's economy and Scotland's budget from Westminster's cuts. However, the fact remains that education in Scotland has actually made progress. There has been the introduction of the curriculum for excellence and that has been a major step forward. 520 schools have been rebuilt or refurbished since 2007 and that is more than one in five of the school premises in the country. It is also 200 more than in the previous eight years. We provided funding to maintain teacher numbers. In 2006, more than 15,000 primary one children were in classes of more than 25. Now, that figure is below 500. As a result of the SNP government's investment in education, we are seeing better outcomes than ever before. School labour destinations are the best on record and of the students who left school last year, more than 9 out of 10, were in employment, education and training nine months later. This year, young people in Scotland gained a higher record number of passes at higher and advanced higher. In every part of the country, Scotland has good schools, good teachers and young people are good learners and standards have risen and are continuing to rise. Although we know that school education in Scotland is getting better, with record exam results and the record number of school leavers in work education and training, we have long recognised attainment as being an important area where improvement is needed and the new Scottish attainment challenge will play a key role in driving that work with a fund of more than £100 million to be invested over four years. From January, an additional 22,016 to 19-year-olds will be eligible for the education maintenance allowance, which is in stark contrast to the Westminster government, who removed EMAs from England only a number of years ago. Also, placing kinship care on the same financial support as foster carers is a welcome announcement. Throughout the process of the Smith commission and the Scotland bill, the SNP has consistently argued that more powers over the economy and social security should be transferred to Scotland in order to allow stronger action to tackle poverty and inequality, including full devolution of the social security system and powers over the minimum wage. Clearly, the Scotland bill does not go as far as I would want it to go or more part of it to go, but nevertheless I welcome the announcement of a new social security bill post the 2016 election if we are re-elected. As co-convener of the cross-party group on Funo's Embryment, I welcome the First Minister's announcement of the burial and cremation bill. Some of the members of the CPE were members of the burial and cremation review group, and they kept us fully informed of the progress of that and also of the Lord Bonomy commission. Another point from yesterday was the asset, the commitment to the small business bonus scheme. The small business bonus scheme has been an essential lifeline to local businesses the length and breadth of Scotland, and the commitment to keep the scheme until the end of the next Parliament will be warmly welcomed by the small business community. I know of a few who have kept their doors open in recent years because of the scheme, and I am sure that they will also be delighted. I also know that the commitment to reduce the APD. For me, as chair of the cross-party group on recognition, voting and marine tourism, I know that this particular sector will benefit from that, because there is a third of the bears in Scotland that has been taken up from people who live in the south-east of England. That might encourage them to come up to Scotland a bit more often and spend even more money when they come here. This Scottish Government ambition for radical reform remains undiminished, and this programme for government for the next year sets out the policies and legislation that will build upon all that we have achieved so far and establish a springboard to the future in education, fairness and industry. I warmly welcome it, and I am sure that the people of Scotland will warmly welcome it also. John Finnie, followed by Chick Brody. There is much to be commended about the Government's programme for the coming year, not least the workers' rights. I very much welcome the abolition of employment tribunal fees. The imposition of those fees had the desired effect, as we have heard, with a 70 per cent reduction. I would agree with the First Minister that that was, and I quote, a very positive early use of powers. Similarly, I welcome the information about the gender gap information and the reduced threshold for that. I commend the fact that the Scottish Government supports the 50-50 by 2020 campaign, but that must apply across the public sector, and it was only yesterday in the Justice Committee that I was raising that issue in relation to the composition of the Scottish Sentencing Council. I commend collaborative work across the chamber and both within and out with the chamber and the Fair Work Convention as an example of that. I also mentioned that the programme is developing our young workforce and the issue of a per head payment for training rather than a payment to providers that reflects the costs incurred must be looked at again. The use of language is very important, and again I commend the use of words partners not opponents. We see an opportunity for unity in a large section of the chamber around the issues of the trade union bill and the lobbying bill, and I welcome the Labour Party's positive approach to that. The private tenancies, the living rank campaign, and many people in the chamber, myself included, have been involved in that to a small extent. That is a significant issue across the country and particularly in the highlands and islands. I welcome the abolition of the bedroom tax, and I am delighted that the Scottish Government included in the programme the comment that greater equality is good for economic growth. That is the case. The rural housing fund is to be commended, but of course that is not without its challenges too, because access to land to build those very houses is a challenge. I took the opportunity to stop and speak out with the Parliament this morning to our land campaign, and they have sent us all a list of what I think are very modest and reasonable requests that we follow. They say that what we are asking you to do is, number one, reinstate the requirement for all land-owning entities, like companies, to be registered in a member state of the EU. I will not go through the full list, but I will go to the fourth one, which says that I acknowledge that this land reform bill will not solve the problem of unaffordable and unavailable land in Scotland and prepare to adopt further measures in the next Parliament to tackle land taxation, lack of information about land ownership, derelict and vacant land, absentee lordism and exorbitant costs of land for housing. I hope that in future we will see some unity about that. The planning review is welcome, but it is not just the review for the sake of it. I am interested to know what consequences there could be, for instance, for the Gypsy Traveller community who have long been neglected in the process, whether there will be issues about their tenancy that we have been assured will be addressed. Similarly, with the investment of £60 million in primary care, is that going to enhance the life expectancy already much lower for the Gypsy Traveller community? I would hope so, but we remain to see the evidence of that. The programme talks about the, or I should say the First Minister's statement said, the success of our economy is essential to all our aims. The real Northern powerhouse is the aspiration. We will do this, not by a race to the bottom. We will continue to support our oil and gas industry. It is certainly the view of members in this area of the chamber that the way that you would support that is a just transition to a low-carbon economy. I would like to commend the jobs in Scotland's new economy report by Mika Munoa-Pwenoela. That outlines the fact that we have 470 platforms in the North Sea, 10,000 kilometres of pipelines, 5,000 wells that will need to be decommissioned over the next 30 years, and the cost over the next decade is estimated at £14.6 billion. That is not an estimate by the Scottish Green Party, but an estimate by Oil and Gas UK. That rises to £40 billion by 2040. Shell's enormous Brent Delta platform is partially being dismantled this year, and shipped to Teaside. 97 per cent of that will be recycled. Indeed, it would take 12 years to dismantle the entire Brent oil field, and that would require 1,000 offshore workers alone. There is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to position Aberdeen as a global centre of decommissioning skulls. That could be a link to the failed climate change targets. I acknowledge the baseline change and the UK Government's cynical policy shift, but keeping doing the same is not going to change things. Air passenger duty is one aspect of that. We heard from Stuart McMillan how he is looking forward to the increased flow of people to be involved in recreational sailing. I, too, would welcome that, but I hope that they would sail here or take the train here. Of course, there will be a modal shift if you reduce the cost, and we must look at it. I thank Mr Finnie for taking intervention. The reason why I said that earlier is because a third of the people who berth in Scotland do live in the south-east of England. Certainly some might want to travel by train, but others might want to fly. John Finnie? Can I commend the very excellent cross-border rail services that do exist, and I would hope that you would commend them, too? There is mention in the programme about investment hubs. I would like to see the investment comment about goods rail hubs. A city the size of Dundee does not have a goods rail hub. If Inver Gordon had one, then the linkage with decommissioning is very clear. In response to our parliamentary question, I was told that this was not a government matter. Of course it is a government matter. We must work together. There is a lot to commend itself—no mention of garlic, no mention of drugs—but, certainly, the mitigation that is going to the UK Government's welfare reform could be much better spent, so there is a lot to commend it. I, too, welcome the programme for government for the coming year. In my first speech in this chamber, I, I suppose, inevitably drew on my own experience in industry and spoke of the need for manufacturing, making products and providing services that the international community needed and wanted. Before I address that specifically, I welcome the Government's reconformation to reduce APD by 50 per cent by April 2018 and to extend the operation of our four enterprise areas. That can only be very good news for Prestwick and Ayrshire. Instructively, I hear all the comments about the APD that Michael O'Leary of Ryanair said that APD is the most insanely stupid tax ever introduced by any Government, and that is probably why Holland and Ireland got rid of it after only one year's implementation. The member would maybe like to tell us a tax that Mr O'Leary does approve of. He certainly does not approve of APD, understandably. That, along with other enterprise initiatives, will spur us on to growth and jobs. The combination of strengthening Scotland's manufacturing base, the support for the innovation challenge fund and the new trading investment strategy focusing on international export aspirations and our inward investment ambitions are and will be the springboard to create the wealth that we wish to see distributed fairly. We will also see the capitalisation of our resources, the greatest of which is the will and the skills of the Scottish people. I do not want to rehearse all the points on education, because a lot of that has been made by several of my colleagues, but the development of skills is definitely a key strategic input to our economy, an important, if not the important, component to our competitiveness and productivity. I make no apology for applauding the proposals to encourage business and commercial growth, to encourage more and growing small and medium-sized businesses to consider internationalisation and innovation and partnership as routes to growth. That will necessitate our agencies, all our agencies and finance institutions, to help such companies to access the seed finance to allow them to grow, to innovate and to internationalise. That growth will be further accommodated by the creation and establishment of new innovation and investment hubs in London, in Brussels and Dublin to augment the work that is already done by SDI in the international community with outposts in the likes of America, Asia and it will also help the platform of the global Scots network. Those linkages will be crucial to build the connectivity and the networks to achieve the programmes that are stated for international growth, as indeed will be plans for our digital infrastructure. We should harness the experience, I believe, of those who have already performed successfully in the role of international marketing, of finance or sales or manufacturing to aid and abet those small and medium-sized businesses that adopt an internationally competitive ethos. The significant programme that is made towards the Scottish Government's target to increase exports by 50 per cent by 2017 is laudable, behind the fact that only around 100 large companies account for 60 per cent of Scottish exports. We have to and I believe that the programme certainly promotes this. We have to ensure that exporting and internationalisation of our businesses is in the DNA of every Scottish manufacturing and service company. There are agencies that can monitor the outcomes within the national performance framework to secure the indication of the number of businesses that are capable of exporting. Innovation is important, partnership is important but, above all, our international competitiveness and importance will depend on our productivity. That means a greater marrying, I believe, of capital and labour. I would seek that in welcoming and proposing the manufacturing action plan that it considers how we can affect greater equity and democratic participation in the workplace to secure the high-wage, high-projectivity economy that we need, where investment and the depreciation of new productive capital equipment is denied because of a lower-wage economy. It was Bill Clinton who said in a run-up to an election that he said that it is the economy that is stupid. Yesterday, the First Minister said that the success of our economy is essential, essential to all of our aims, and so it is. I will obviously comment on the programme for government from the particular aspect of the justice portfolio that I represent, but if I can be allowed to make a more general comment to begin. The First Minister spoke of her desire yesterday to close the attainment gap between children in the most and least deprived areas. I remind Government ministers that, with drugs death trends on the rise and a substantial growth in the numbers of chaotic drug abusers, unless the Government makes progress with substance abuse, whether it be drugs or alcohol, there will still be children who are left behind, children who are living in chaotic households with adults who are abusing drugs and or alcohol. Test children when they get to school but the support families really need in closing attainment gaps can often start even before they arrive at school. This SNP Government has an unenviable record of having lost and some outside this chamber would say abandoned its convener of the Scottish Police Authority, followed by the chief constable in a matter of weeks, while at the same time the policing as an authority has become immersed in controversy. I therefore welcome yesterday's announcement from the First Minister that there is a need to learn from experience and make improvements where necessary, even if that acknowledgement comes after many months and deed years of hostile rejection of any lessons, both from ministers and many SNP-like benchers. The closure of control rooms, the arming of police and retail patrols, and the stop search debacle were all vehemently defended by the Government month after month. It is a relief, quite honestly, to hear what I presume is a shift in position and a change of tone. I take it as a clear acknowledgement that the penny has dropped. I hope that yesterday's speech brings about an end to the hostilities as we move forward to deliver a truly world-class police service, a target that I am sure we all agree with. I therefore welcome the First Minister's announcement of changes in the expectations of the Scottish Police Authority under a new convener. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary has accursed to ensure that the authority stands tall in its role of delivering effect of governance and accountability. It would be helpful if tomorrow the Cabinet Secretary further develops that change in approach in his statement. The Mayor Culpa implicit in the acknowledgement of a need for an enhancement of local community accountability is also welcome. However, I must say that an occasional visit from a chief constable to such events is no replacement for the candid exchange of information at the local level in response to diligent questioning raised from within the communities. Only then will we begin to develop a police service of truly world-class. In addition, I trust that the Cabinet Secretary will deliver on his promise to consider a right of audience for local panel conveners to be heard at the national policing authority when issues are unresolved through the normal channels. The commitment to implement the recommendations from the HMIC reports again are welcome. The move towards a statutory code of practice and stop and search, though inevitable, is the result of the blind commitment from police chiefs to deliver targets and results at odds with community expectations—evidence in itself of the need for effective oversight. It is a pity and perhaps an oversight that the Government did not think to extend the review of policing to encompass also the fire and rescue services—an area of public reform all but overlooked in the scheme of things. All emergency services need not only our support and thanks but also deserve our attention in terms of ensuring that a healthy culture exists within organisations conducive to good public service. The fire service has undergone a tremendous reform in the past couple of years as we have witnessed within the police service. The legislation, in respect of revenge porn, like the enhancements of domestic abuse protections through laws are both timely and welcomed on this side of the chamber, though I do identify with the comments made earlier with Malcolm Chisholm. As is the Government's commitment to the delivery of a lobbying bill, legislation so ably advocated by Neil Findlay on our benches and welcomed the introduction of a commitment to workers' rights in the years ahead. It has been a difficult time for the chamber in dealing with reforms, and I hope that the cabinet secretary, supported by the Government, will move forward on a positive frame in support of all of us who seek to see a fairer Scotland. Thank you, Alex Johnson, to be followed by Willie Coffey. To be finished as quick as I can, Presiding Officer, there is an often-used practice in politics that, if you see a thing often enough, it begins to get perceived as true. Here we are. We have heard the First Minister yesterday and we have had the cabinet secretary, Alex Neil, earlier today, telling us about the fact that this Government is going to hit its target for building affordable housing. We have already had that pointed out by Jim Humane's speech earlier, that, of course, the commitment that was made in the manifesto in advance of the last election was to build 30,000 socially rented houses during the course of this Parliament. That was very quickly revised after the election to be 30,000 affordable homes of which 20,000 would be socially rented. The fact is that, when ministers stand up and claim that they are going to hit that target, if they look very carefully at their own words and commitments, they will discover that they are going to miss that target by a full 10,000. That is only consistent with this Government, given that, during its previous term, from 2007 to 2011, budgets year on year seem to target the housing budget as an area where huge cuts could be made, disproportionate cuts could be made and they hoped that nobody would notice. The result of that practice is that we have become, over the last eight years and more, progressively more dependent on the private rented sector to provide homes for rent in Scotland. It is only to be expected, therefore, that the Government would bring forward a proposal for a private tenancies bill. During the course of the consultation on that bill, I met and spoke to many representative organisations who pursue the interests of landlords, and I reassured them that they should participate in that consultation constructively, because I believed, as I do now, that there are people in this Government who can count. Well, there is the finance minister at least. The effect is that, if you make a reasoned argument, they will understand and they will ensure that the legislation suits purpose. There is no question that there is room for improvement in the private rented sector tenancies, but there is a very real danger that the SNP, invariably a hostage to one pressure group or another, will cause further damage to the private rented sector and its investment levels with rent controls if they are introduced. Rent control, rent ceilings or rent regulation has a long history of being a politically favoured policy and is often championed as a social justice cause at times when we are undergoing financial restraint. Rent control addresses another growing issue that has emerged as a by-product of the end of local council house building, namely the cost of housing benefits. With the end of council house building, the state shifted from bricks and mortar support to financial support and, therefore, increasing the costs in the market have led to increasing housing benefit bills. In Scotland, housing benefit has risen by 20 per cent in real terms from 2003-04 to 2012-13 and now costs £1.8 billion a year. Approximately 21 per cent of those receiving housing benefit live within the private rented sector, almost 100,000 households. The cost of accommodating someone in the private rented sector is approximately 39 per cent higher than in social housing, with average weekly housing benefit awards being £89 a week in the private sector compared with £64 a week in the social rented sector. However, I would like to develop my argument, if you do not mind. The problem is that history tells us that rent controls do not work. Swedish economist Arthur Lindbeck said that in many cases rent control appears to be the most effective technique presently known to destroy a city, except for bombing it. In 1992, a survey of American and Canadian economists found that 93 per cent agreed with the statement that a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. By capping rents, you increase the demand and you can cause divestment by the sector, creating a shortage in the market. This shortage makes it more difficult for renters to find properties in rent controlled areas, often leading to those in rented accommodation staying longer in their property, further reducing the availability of supply. Landlords also become more selective in their choice of tenants, which means that those on lower incomes that rent control was meant to assist are excluded from the market. You need to bring your remarks to the close. The fact is that rent control in any form artificially caps the potential return from an asset, and this restriction can discourage investment into a sector at a time when investment to address housing demand is much needed. You cannot legislate your way out of housing crisis. You can only build your way out of it. Let's build houses. Willie Coffey, followed by Mary Fee. Presiding Officer, thank you very much. Over the summer, I had the privilege of visiting the Lechcurt mission in Kilmarmot to see for myself the good work being done there by the churches in the town to help some of our poorest and disabled citizens. We had the homeless, we had people trying to get them to a recovery programme, people with disabilities, people trying to avoid re-offending and people just dropping in for some support and perhaps a hot meal. Some hadn't eaten a proper meal for days and you could easily tell those who were too proud to even admit that they were in such dire circumstances. They arrive at the mission slightly suspicious about the motives and intent of their hosts and for a while at least kept a safe distance from any close contact or interaction that might expose their plight in front of others whom they didn't know and probably didn't trust. That, Presiding Officer, is a brief glimpse into what is happening in modern Scotland to some of our most vulnerable people. Those people I met didn't choose those outcomes as a career option through a variety of circumstances they have found themselves in need of help. But at the same time, they have become the victims of a callous and uncaring Government whose purpose is to save money at their expense and to balance its books no matter the human cost and no matter the damage that it has done. A Government that deliberately drives more of its poorest citizens further into poverty will surely stand condemned by any reasonable person who aspires to live in a caring society. However, within all that adversity, there are some wonderful people who are helping to turn those lives around. Mainly staffed by volunteers and with the assistance of health professionals and council expertise, there is an incredible range of good work going on. From smoking cessation to housing and tenancy advice, helpful advice and formfilling to cooking demonstrations of the most basic and inexpensive meals that Eve and I could follow, it was a heartening experience to see this and it set the context for what I was hoping I might hear in the First Minister's statement yesterday when she announced her plans to introduce the Scottish Social Security Bill. Of course we need to deal as best we can with the circumstances such as those presented by people coming to that mission for help, but I hope that we would rather intervene earlier and prevent people from falling into poverty in the first place. Surely to goodness, no caring Government would want to engineer the type of conditions that actually drive people into poverty with the consequent damage that this causes. We cannot go on treating the symptoms of poverty if one Government deliberately sets out to make it worse. It was with great pride that I listened to the First Minister when she said that her Government would stand against a Government that imposes austerity in the vulnerable while preparing to spend billions of pounds renewing triadent. Our Social Security Bill, as economist Mike Danson said, can create the basis for addressing some of the evils being inflicted on the poorest in our society. It can be the framework that will allow us to make provision for those early but limited policy changes that are coming down the line. We can set the groundwork to get rid of the bedroom tax, a blatant piece of money grabbing from the poor if ever there was one, not even with the pretence of tying it to wider housing policy or housing supply. The bill hopes to improve how the system will support disabled people in their carers and will change the universal credit arrangements to help people to manage their money better, restoring dignity and respect, where those have been largely abandoned under the current system. The DWP's work programme is not designed to help people to overcome barriers to work. It does nothing to try and prevent people from becoming long-term unemployed, and so it will be replaced by April 2017. There are a number of other important measures in the programme for government that also support those important principles. The £100 million investment in mental health services, particularly for children and adolescents, the commitment to increase financial support for kinship carers to the same level as foster carers is very welcome, and a small but important commitment is in there to assist people with funeral payments that may run into date while organising a funeral for their loved ones. My hope is that the bill can be a model for a society that truly cares about its most disadvantaged citizens. I hope that it embeds at its heart the kind of compassion and respect that in themselves will allow people like those in the mission in Kilmarnock to recover the hope and respectability that have been taken from them. To move forward in their lives and the knowledge that their Government in Scotland cares enough about them to help them through the most challenging times in their lives, I am delighted as the last speaker from my group to commend the First Minister for announcing this bill, and I look forward with eagerness to its early implementation. Thank you so much. I now call on Mary Fee, after which we will move to the closing speeches over this two-day debate and just take this opportunity to remind members that all of those who have taken part in this debate over the preceding two days should be with us for those closing speeches. Mary Fee, up to six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Kezia Dugdale remarked on the positive impact that the three leaders of Scotland's main parties are expected to have on our country, and the duty placed on each to deliver material change and equality for women. I echo those comments by welcoming the announcements made by the First Minister on further childcare to allow both mothers and fathers back to work, on action to tackle domestic abuse, rape and revenge porn, and on tackling unequal pay imposed on women in the workplace. On childcare, the First Minister said that by 2020 her aim is to expand provision to 1,100 hours a year. That is a significant increase, one eye and parents will welcome if it is delivered. Remembering that this is almost double of what was only recently achieved by the Scottish Government, eight years on from their last pledge of 600 hours to Scottish families. In 2013, at the Scottish Women's Conference in Dynamic Earth, the First Minister called on childcare to be viewed as part of our infrastructure, an aspiration that I fully support. To ensure that that is the case, we must look at extending provision, as well as flexibility and additional costs. No woman should live in fear of abuse, rape or, indeed, of intimate moments captured on camera being shared with others. A society that can tackle those abuses is a society that we embrace for all women. We know that more action can be taken, and as Kezia Dugdale said yesterday, we will support the Scottish Government where we can. This is just one example of that co-operation that we can and must offer. Tackling gender inequality in the workplace has long been the ambition of successive Governments, both in Scotland and in the United Kingdom, since Barbara Castle passed the Equal Pay Act of 1970 under Harold Wilson's Labour Government. Yesterday, the First Minister rightly announced that, over the next year, she will extend the duty on public authorities to publish information about the gender pay gap by reducing the threshold. That is a further step in the morally right direction, but I know, as well as the First Minister does, that we can go further, and Scottish Labour will help to set the agenda to tackle low pay in all sectors across Scotland. On the living wage, the First Minister aptly referred to it as the real living wage, and what George Orrborn is proposing is a con for people on low pay and discriminatory to younger workers. The living wage rate must be independently set, and the cynical rebranding of the real living wage by the Chancellor is nothing more than a political opportunity. The First Minister also set out her stall on next year's Holyrood elections with her renewed focus on education. Unfortunately, that does come too late for the generation at school now, with literacy and numeracy standards falling. Educational inequality is a shame that stains our nation, but more so this SNP Government, who for over eight years have presided over failing standards in our classrooms, fewer teachers and restricted resources. The records on colleges—no, I would like to make some progress, please—is dismal, and no First Minister should proclaim this to be a record to be proud of, when there are 140,000 fewer college pupils, meaning young people, and those wishing to retrain lose out on opportunities afforded to many when Labour were in power. To tackle the failures and attainment, the First Minister proposes new national assessments, and I wholly welcome reducing the attainment gap, but I share the concerns of education unions that such proposals could lead to the reintroduction of league tables. Jack McConnell deservedly scrapped them before, and the current First Minister must assure this chamber that new national assessments must not be a means to undermine teachers, headteachers and local authorities. As Chris Keats of NASWT said, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with testing. It already takes place in schools across Scotland. It is the use to which the tests will be put that is the problem. We, as a chamber, must work with the Government to ensure that the proposals that were posed by the First Minister are not league tables by the back door. Along with my colleagues in the Scottish Labour Benches, we are proud of our trade unions and the work that they carry out each and every day on behalf of their members. As a trade unionist and former shop steward, who sat on the SNP General Council and the USDO Executive, the attacks on our unions by the Tory Government and an attack on all workers. Our workers need representation, and any attempt to gag the unions must be stopped. I welcome the opposition of the First Minister and the Scottish Government to the anti-trade union proposals of the UK Government, and I can assure this chamber that I will work with all colleagues committed to ensuring that workers' rights are protected, enhanced and promoted. The private tenancies bill is to be welcomed despite the opportunity for action to be taken in previous years and specifically in the recent housing bill. It has been and will remain to be Scottish Labour position that we act to control rent rises and ensure that young people, families, the elderly and tenants of all ages and all walks of life are not ripped off by rogue landlords making unjust increases in the cost of living. Many thanks. As we move to the closing speeches, I would once again invite all those members who took part in this debate over the last two days to join us for the closing speeches. I now call on Alison Johnstone. With my colleague Patrick Harvie, I welcome the Government's intention to invest in measures to tackle inequality and where it opposes Westminster's on-going austerity. A Scottish social security system that helps people cope with life's challenges when they happen is sorely needed. Rent controls are warmly welcomed. This is a cost of living issue that is really important to many of my constituents. Rent controls in areas of extortionate rent and longer and more secure tenancies will help to put people in control of their lives and is an important foundation needed to lead a successful life. People's rented properties need to feel like home. We welcome the proposals on domestic abuse and revenge porn. We welcome the intention to abolish employment tribunal fees. I also welcome the commitment to oppose anti-union legislation. Surely a confident employee-friendly Government would never entertain such an idea. An employment should, at the very least, strive to be a partnership, a fair one where people are fairly paid for the work that they do. Patrick Harvie called George Osborne's so-called living wage, con artistry, that everyone can see. In a fair partnership nobody would be paid a wage that forces them into poverty or hardship. Scotland should have a quality jobs-rich economy built on decent work. Our Jobs in the New Economy report sets out the potential for creating thousands of good jobs with a move from austerity to investment and a focus on the industries of the future. I have always seen micro and small businesses as the resilient foundation of Scotland's creativity and communities. I will follow closely the impact of the Government's proposals in that regard because it is really time to recognise the often overlooked contribution that those businesses make to society and to our high streets to the economy. I welcome the Government's putting kinship carers on a par with foster carers. That will make it far more likely that children can live with grandparents, aunts and uncles who might not have been able to afford to do so even when that was in the best interest of the child. On land reform, we must see the proposed bill strengthened if we really do aspire to a more democratic system of land ownership. When first proposed, many people were hopeful that we'd finally see some genuine positive change, particularly when the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform spoke of a democratically accountable and transparent system of land rights that promotes fairness, social justice, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. The initial consultation included the requirement that any corporate entity who wanted to own land in Scotland was registered in an EU member state. I'd be grateful if we could hear in closing why that has been dropped. I hope, too, that the planning system review gives a voice to the many communities who feel steamrolled by local development plans adopted across Lothian. The Government's programme contains little mention of climate change and no answer for all those who are demanding that underground coal gasification be added to the current moratorium on unconventional gas extraction and that that moratorium be upgraded to a permanent ban, giving communities confidence that the Government is putting their interests above that of oil company shareholders. In closing, I'd be grateful if the Minister could address this issue, and then I and others can then pass on the good news to the tens of hundreds of people who are writing in to ask us all to do just that. The Government will know that the EIS, education leaders and many parents are opposed to a return to high-stakes national testing. I'm sure that the Government is looking at what works, and we'll know that the much-laudied Finnish education system has focused on equity, flexibility, creativity, teacher professionalism and trust. High-stakes testing and externally determined learning standards hasn't been part of that Finnish policy, that success. The EIS tells us its assessment for learning, which has to be central, not to feed the statistics machine that is so beloved of some media and some politicians. Although the issue has been much discussed, we must look at all the issues that affect the attainment gap. Attainment is affected when teachers don't have enough specialist support for learners with additional support needs or on-going access to high-quality CPD and the time to access it. We know from Siobhan McMahon's recent PQ that, while a fifth of the school population is identified as having additional support needs, additional support for learners has dropped markedly by more than 10 per cent. I'm sure that we can only imagine the impact that that is having on attainment and on the wellbeing of pupils, parents and teachers. Parents and carers are our children's first teachers and those early years are recognised as being critical when it comes to attainment. I hope that the national strategic forum for adult learning will result in appropriate investment in this too often overlooked service and look at the calls made in the manifesto for adult learning. We all, I am sure, welcome the increase in the hours of nursery provision for our youngest children, but this isn't only an issue of quantity. This is about the quality of those hours and I support with others save the children's calls for further investment in the early learning and childcare workforce and in strengthening support for parents. All those involved in childcare should be paid the living wage and be supported to maintain quality. All those involved in all sorts of care should be paid the living wage. Investment in primary care and social care are essential to decreasing the strain on our acute services. Presiding Officer, there are too many subjects to cover in-depth in the time that I have, but the Green Group will continue to work constructively with the Government whenever we can and if we are critical our criticism will be constructive. I start with an apology for my late arrival in the chamber this afternoon though. I, looking around, may not be the only one in that position. Presiding Officer, earlier this year, the First Minister made a speech at the LSE in which she argued that the Government's record should be, quote, opened up to proper scrutiny. She meant, of course, the UK Government's record, but the principle has sound particularly with a Government that has been in power now for over eight years. Sadly, too often this Scottish Government eludes such scrutiny. Too often, outlandish promises are made by ministers whose failure then to deliver, as a number of members have observed, is either ignored, rewritten or blamed on someone else. Usually Westminster, though increasingly councils are finding that life after the death of the historic Concordat is pretty unforgiving. Were the First Minister determined to keep out flanking Labour on the left and the Tories heading right, I believe that scrutiny must also reflect the desire of many in Scotland to see politics anchored in the centre, economic discipline allied to social justice creating opportunity for all. That is what Liberal Democrats will provide. With regard to the programme for government, the First Minister invited us to look forward. That is fair, but we also need honesty about where we are now. As Willie Rennie highlighted yesterday, in key areas, that honesty is a willingness to accept that critics are not talking anyone down, but rather pointing out that things are not as they are being portrayed. That is lacking. Of course, there are areas where we fully support what the First Minister had to say yesterday—steps to address failures exposed by the Mortonhall babies' ashes scandal—the establishment of a new right to voice equipment for those who need it, responding to the tireless and dignified campaigning led by Gordon Aikman. The promise of equality and treatment of kinship carers is all worthy of support. I thought that Christina McKelvie, Jackie Baillie, Mary Fee and others spoke passionately about the measures to tackle domestic abuse and revenge porn. Another example is where we will surely find common cause. There are many areas where, even if we agree on the principles, we do not agree with the Government's approach. As Jackson Carlaw observed yesterday, democracy is ill-served when agreement can only be reached on the SNP's terms. In justice, for example, Willie Rennie set out vividly where this Government has got it wrong, badly wrong. Those failings, as Graham Pearson observed this afternoon, have been ignored and dismissed month after month. Even now, Nicola Sturgeon and our Justice Secretary talked about the positive legacy of the departing chief constable and successful implementation of police centralisation. That view is delusional, not for Nigel. It is certainly not one shared by rank-and-file officers, nor, increasingly, by the wider public. I am little wonder. A charged sheet of armed police on our streets, industrial stop-and-search, call centre closures, the recent tragedy on the M9, the allegations of illegal spying, and hardly the positive legacy that the SNP demands we salute. Officers and civilian staff are doing their level best to deliver, but they and the public will be dismayed at the First Minister's failure to face up to the reality of a botched centralisation. They and the public expect better of their Government. Alison McInnes has put forward proposals to address the problems in Police Scotland and the SPA. The SNP's review needs to take these on board, not for now, Similarly, on health, it is not a condemnation of doctors, nurses or other staff working in our NHS to point out to the problems that exist. They are often the ones raising concerns. On mental health, as well as the additional funding, as Jim Hume said, we need to see parity of treatment between mental and physical health. On A and E waiting times, the Government must face the fact that it is not meeting its targets and is going in the wrong direction. On the crisis in GP recruitment, ministers have been warned about the looming problem for years. 99 per cent of GPs who had heard about the Government's plans say that they are insufficient. The Royal College has put forward a blueprint. SNP ministers need to take their head out of the sand and respond positively. Let me turn to the education, which is apparently the flagship for the programme. I do not at all question the sincerity of the First Minister's desire to tackle inequality in education. I have serious questions about the way she is going about it. Like George Adam, Nicola Sturgeon claims that she wants to quote, close the attainment gap completely between children from poorer backgrounds and their more affluent counterparts. She has even asked to be judged on her actions to achieve this goal. That is not just an ambition but a firm, measurable and absolute goal. How can that be achieved when her attainment fund ignores the needs of those in poverty, living in all but half a dozen council areas or attending around 50 schools elsewhere? Unlike the people premium proposed by Liberal Democrats and delivered south of the border, this broad brush approach does not target the individuals who need it. It will do nothing for thousands of individual children from poorer backgrounds across Scotland. It means that there is no prospect of the First Minister honouring her commitment. On standardised testing 2, we have concerns. Liberal Democrats abolished 5-14 testing, teaching to the test and lead tables. Nicola Sturgeon insists that her plans will not take us back to the future. She has even persuaded the EIS to voice conditional support, but there is a reason to the only people who have been calling for standardised testing with the Tories. They have been consistent on this issue and they are delighted, and that at least should give Ms Sturgeon pause for thought. Meanwhile, the higher education bill betrays the SNP's control freakary. We know that the best performing universities globally are those free-to-exercise responsible autonomy, but the SNP cannot resist. Even their message about wanting to meddle is damaging to the reputation of our world-class universities. The role of this Parliament, MSPs and all parties, including the SNP, is to hold Government to account on what it does, not just on what it says it is doing or has done. That is what we on these benches will continue to do. Many thanks. I now call on Animal Goldy. Eight minutes please, Ms Goldy. Deputy Presiding Officer, this lengthy debate commencing yesterday has encompassed many words, opinions and views. Having become something of a fixture here, I have witnessed various programmes for government, so some of this programme was predictable and worthy, to be fair, if not necessarily innovative or radical. The First Minister in her work-in-lite speech laid out her vision for Scotland and announced eight new bills. Few will take issue with measures to address domestic abuse, the conduct of lobbyists to regulate burial and cremation law, or set Scottish Parliament election dates. However, the budget bill, the bankruptcy consolidation bill and the private tenancies bill will all require to be judged on content, not title, before any meaningful comment can be made. As for the Scottish Fiscal Commission bill, unless it separates the Scottish Office of Budget Responsibility from any connection with or tie to government, it will not be worth the paper that it has written on. I am canterlystically generous to the cabinet secretary for finance. Mr Swinney, if you wish to make interventions, please do not do so from a sedentary position. I will give Mr Swinney the opportunity to make one of the standing positions. I am interested to invite Ms Goldie to set out to Parliament what to constructive contribution she has made to the consultation exercise on the contents of the Scottish Fiscal Commission bill. I leave that to my colleagues who know something about it, and I am sure the consultation will be much enhanced by that approach. I have to say, Deputy Presiding Officer, that what was notable about the First Minister's speech was not the lengthy list of proposals, intentions, aspirations and the eight bills, but it was a glaring absence of any analysis and review of our own party's eight years in government, and many members have commented on that. There had she had such courage, it might have led her to exciting and innovative changes to policy, consequent upon such analysis and review, but we waited in vain. There was one exception—an exception, Deputy Presiding Officer, which proves the need for and relevance of determined and competent opposition in this Parliament. The First Minister will reintroduce tests in literacy and numeracy for primary school children. Had it not been for the fearless, relentless and enduring criticism by my colleague Liz Smith of Scottish Government policy, not even that concession would have been made. That is welcome, but it is overdue. Let me assist the First Minister with addressing her omission, and let me offer my own review and analysis. Police Scotland is not working satisfactorily, so the First Minister will hold a review of governance. I do not think that anyone will disagree with that assessment. When a Government decided to create a single police force, my party was clear about and warned repeatedly that it could not vest the control of law enforcement of a country in very few hands without transparent, visible safeguards to protect the public interest. Our entreaties fell in deaf ears, and Labour was unable to offer any coherent analysis of the proposals that fell in with the SNP and supported a single police force, proximate to Government with the public interest protected by a quango. It was always going to end in tears, which is why my party refused to support the measure. From the outset, it was clear that the structure was unstable, and civil servants should have been instructed to work out an alternative so that yesterday, not a review but meaningful proposals could have been announced in order that an incoming chief constable has clarity about the police force and the incoming head of the SPA if it is to continue also knows what is required, because this continuing vacuum is damaging and destabilising and it was avoidable. On the NHS, the First Minister has various ideas, not least some interesting rhetoric about getting to groups with local healthcare, treating people locally, thereby keeping them out of hospital. It may have slipped off our radar screen, but not only are we struggling to recruit GPs to existing practices, but there is evidence that new entrants to the medical profession are not choosing general practice as their future. We have known over the past eight years that our population is proportionately aging faster than the rest of the UK. Our GPs are already seeing that with intensifying demand for services to that cohort of patients. Believe me, I am taking a keen personal interest in all of this, yet not only has the Scottish Government no strategy for dealing with this, the Scottish Government is now proclaiming a new approach to increase the workload of GPs, many of themselves ageing with no clear idea of where their successors are to come from or who is to deal with these new responsibilities. This is after eight years of the SNP being responsible for the health service. I looked again at the programme for government section on health, and what I have are aspirations to increase numbers of medical students, I have aspirations to increase the output from medical schools and not one quit of information about how you do that or how you start the process, what it will cost or what the end point of delivery is to be. There is a total absence of forensic analysis, a Scottish Government complacency to a challenge that was becoming apparent years ago and a deafening silence and a strategy to respond to that challenge. However, there was another area of eery silence. The Scottish Parliament will acquire significant new powers with the passing of the Scotland Bill, and this Parliament will be the third most powerful sub-legislator in the world. We will be raising income tax, we will be responsible for significant welfare payments, we will be having to look at how we cut our quote according to the cloth. So where did this all feature in the First Minister's vision? I heard a lot about expenditure, capital expenditure infrastructure projects, revenue expenditure and a real living wage, money for a housing fund and implicit in all of this, more money to be spent in welfare provision than currently. I heard a great deal about encouraging business, making Scotland the best place in the UK in which to do business. That is a fine aspiration, but as my colleague Murdo Fraser pointed out, what about a review of business rates? That is one of the taxes that this Government has responsibility and that impacts significantly on high street retailers. Murdo Fraser was also right to point out that Scottish business wants to know what is coming down the line in terms of taxation. What is the outline shape of the Scottish economy? How much more will be spent in welfare? Kevin Stewart criticised the reduction in working tax credits. I presume that he supports people earning more than £60,000 being subsidised by the taxpayer. So, when a Scottish Government reinstates working tax credits, how much will that cost and where is the money coming from? Presiding officer, this programme for government would have enjoyed much more credibility if there had been a candid review and assessment of eight years in power, a robust and frank recognition that all has not gone and is not going well, and specific proposals spelled out to deal with these failings. Where there was no silence was in our ritual froth and ffuming about the Westminster Government, whose transgression in the eyes of the SNP is to grow the Scottish economy, increase employment, reduce unemployment, cut taxes for over 2 million people in Scotland and leave working people with more of their own money in their pockets at the end of the month. That the SNP should concentrate on criticising such major improvements for those of us who are in the working population is enough to say about their perversity in terms of their priorities. Deputy Presiding Officer, this Scottish Government is short of innovatory ideas for doing things differently and better. It has become hidebound within a constitutional debate through which it is still captive. It is still in the business of great gun and resentment. While Scotland needs better, Scotland wants to move ahead within the UK, Scotland is waiting for exciting new political thinking. That will not come from the SNP, it will come from the Scottish Conservatives. Thanks very much. I now call on Ian Gray, 12 minutes please, Mr Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have heard many pleas from the Government speakers for Opposition speakers not to be too childish about the programme for government or to be generous, as Mr Swinney was asking from his seat just a moment ago. I was always keen for pointers. I had a look back at how the First Minister used to respond to those debates when she led the SNP opposition here. I particularly liked the response that opened with the unforgettable almost churchillian phrase. I do not know about broccoli curry, but the First Minister certainly likes his mince, so I will try to channel that degree of positivity and generosity, as far as I am able today. Indeed, the programme for government unveiled yesterday is not all mince. It contains many measures that members from across the chamber on all sides have supported. For example, legislation to ensure that the baby ashes scandal can never happen again. The outlawing of revenge porn, which Christina McKelvie thought eloquently described the importance of, a right to voice technology for those who need it, all good. The programme also contains some measures that command our support, as well as the Government, if perhaps not that, of the Tory benches, the abolition of fees for employment tribunals, extending the duty to publish gender gap information, the fair work convention and indeed opposition to the Tory Government's trade union bill, which is Kezia Dugdale, made very clear that we will support too, all good. However, Presiding Officer, there are so many measures here that are really about correcting the mistakes of the Government's last eight years—an inquiry into Police Scotland, of course. However, there is also the announcement of payments to kinship carers so welcome, but so long in the making, first promised in 2007. To paraphrase Jackson Carlaw from yesterday, there are Governments in history who have won a world war, defeated global fascism, created the NHS or negotiated our entry into Europe in less time than it has taken this Government to meet that commitment to kinship carers. Or the extension of EMAs. Very welcome, announced in March, reannounced last week, re-reannounced yesterday and for the most part restoring the cut to the EMA budget previously made. Yet we still have no action on bursaries for college students who have to be bailed out year after year as they fall into crisis. Then there are rent controls, something that this Government has resolutely blocked for years. Now we have a timid, half-hearted admission that they were wrong, but how many Scots have suffered crippling rents in the meantime? What two of the one-time priorities which failed to make the cut at all? I think that Patrick Harvie was right to point out that climate change gets a page in the document but it did not get a word in the statement and Sarah Boyack right to raise fuel poverty due to be abolished by law next year, but that didn't make the programme at all. Now, say what you like about the First Minister's predecessor, but it has programmes for government had a bold sweep on these issues. Who can forget the most ambitious climate change targets in the world? The Saudi Arabia of the Seas. Of course, those things meant little because they had no idea how they were going to deliver on carbon targets and they have failed or on marine energy, but for wild hyperpoly they were top notch. My favourite was Scotland, the first hydro nation on the face of the planet. So bold was this programme for government that none of us really knew what he was on about. As it turned out, neither did he, but my goodness, didn't it sound dramatic. In contrast to these days, yesterday's programme for government is a tired and worn-out programme for government. I choose my words very carefully, but I don't say that it is the programme of a tired and worn-out government because how could that be? We have a First Minister in an unassailable position, fresh from an astonishing victory in the general election. She commands an absolute majority in this chamber and in every committee of this Parliament. She has behind her the most slavishly loyal collection of supine backbenchers. First of all, I am not supine and secondly, the Justice Committee does not have an SNP majority. I can only thank Christine Grahame for that slavishly loyal intervention. In the debate, in eight long years, a rebellious thought has never troubled once the craven collective consciousness of this bunch of parliamentary sheep. Now the First Minister is riding high in the polls such that she tells us things she will do in 2017, 2018 and 2020, untroubled by such trifles as elections, which might intervene. As a First Minister, it would appear that she is one who can do no wrong, and yet she leads a government that seems to do so little right and nothing bold or imaginative. With one exception—if only we had the same slavish loyalty on the benches—with one exception, the First Minister has failed to use that power with any kind of vision. That one exception is closing the attainment gap in her schools, and she has our support on that. Yet how big a priority is it really for her? It was right to invoke the Biden rule. Show me your budget and I will show you your values. Yesterday's statement committed £25 million per year to this educational priority, but it committed £125 million, rising to £250 million to abolishing air passenger duty. Ten times more public money to cut tax than to cut inequality. That speaks of a government that knows the price of an airline ticket but does not really understand the value of educational equality. I heard George Adam argue that the cut in APD would grow airport traffic and help the economy. That may or may not be true, but on those benches, we believe that the greatest boost that we can provide to the economy of this country is to unleash the potential of those young people at the wrong end of that educational attainment gap, and that should be our priority. What is more, the First Minister is in danger of letting the idea become simply a debate about testing. We think that she is doing the right thing, or trying to do the right thing, by correcting the current, inefficient and inconsistent practice and diagnostic testing. It is a year since she told us that she would do that, and the slow progress is fueling concerns that we are returning to the failed system of the past, and in some quarters strengthening demands that we should return to the failed system of the past. The First Minister may think that she is leading this, but she is in real danger of losing control of it. In any case, unless and until we see more teachers, more classroom assistants, more literacy specialists working with families and parents as well as children, and until we see additional resource adequate to the task and see it targeted effectively, and until we see new investment in teachers and their professionalism, then we will not close the gap and testing will only describe our failure. We will support such investment, but we will do it critically when it does not appear and be delivered. It is not just schools that need new vision. The First Minister could have taken the chance to shift the childcare debate into a whole new dimension, not just about free nursery hours but about all-age, year-round, fully flexible provision, affordable for all, whatever their families needs and their children's ages. It could be about quality of provision, as well as quantity. The childcare sector wants that. It has described it in great detail in the McLean commission. In Scandinavia, it already has that. In Scotland, our families need it, and the First Minister could use our unassailable position to begin to move towards providing it here in Scotland. The First Minister had nothing to say about the other great inequality that blights Scotland, the inequality of wellbeing and life expectancy. We have an NHS struggling to cope with 21st century needs, and she boasted of staff numbers on the very day we heard of record vacancies and recruitment crisis. Today, we published wide-ranging proposals for the reform and reinvigoration of primary care and the GP system in order to begin to address some of that crisis. However, where was the vision from the Government for reform instead of the application of sticking plaster to a system? The truth is that this programme lacked vision, and where it has it, the resources and urgency have not followed it. It is a programme of fixing mistakes, covering up failures and patching up long-ignored problems. It is not that the iniquity of the programme for government offends, it is that its tiredness and timidity so comprehensively disappoints. I now call on John Swinney to wind up the debate, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The debate on an annual basis will bring areas of agreement between political parties and areas of disagreement. I want to start on the areas of agreement, because I think that a number of very thoughtful remarks have been made in the debate over the course of the last two days about some of the provisions that the Government has brought forward, which of course we will expect to be subjected to detailed parliamentary scrutiny, but which in principle commands support across the parliamentary spectrum of opinion. Christina McKelvie has been rightly complimented by a number of members of Parliament about the way in which, over the years, she has pursued the issue of revenge porn, and I am delighted that the Government is able to bring forward legislation to tackle that obscenity within our society. The legislation to strengthen the framework for dealing with domestic abuse has now got much greater priority in our society. To be fair to Police Scotland and the chief constable, Sir Stephen House, it has been a particular priority for which Sir Stephen House is worthy of great admiration in this country for the way in which he has made it absolutely clear that domestic abuse is intolerable in a modern Scotland. The measures that have been taken forward on the baby ashes legislation will similarly command comprehensive support in Parliament and the measures that have been taken on kinship carers. Parliament has warmly welcomed the announcement that the First Minister made yesterday about the access to voice equipment to support those diagnosed with MND. It is so courageously advanced by Gordon Aitman, who deserves our commendation and our support for the way in which he has tenaciously taken forward the issue. We welcome in the Government's benches the support that comes from different shades of parliamentary opinion for some of the measures that we bring forward and we look forward to the discussion and debate of those issues in the course of the remainder of this parliamentary term. There will of course be other issues that are not quite as unifying and we have heard a good measure of that in the course of the debate over the last couple of days. Much of the Opposition criticism of the Government has been focused on the record of the Government and the programme that we bring forward to take forward the agenda within Scotland. I want to address a number of issues as I go through the summing up of this debate on the Government's behalf. First of all, on the economy, the Government is set out in the programme for government, the range of measures that we will take forward to advance the thinking that we published earlier on this year in the economic strategy about encouraging a greater emphasis on innovation, on internationalisation of our business community, about the pursuit of inclusive growth and the necessity of investment in our economy. We believe that those approaches are the right way to take forward the foundations that we have established in the Scottish economy. A Scottish economy, which today has the highest employment rate of any country within the United Kingdom, where economic inactivity in Scotland is now the fourth lowest in the European Union, where we see Scotland having an increase in female employment and the female employment rate in Scotland now being the second highest in Europe. If the Opposition wishes to scrutinise the Government's record on the economy, perhaps it should look at some of the achievements that the Government has delivered in strengthening the economic base of our country and creating opportunity for our people. There was criticism from the Labour Party about the stance that we have set out about air passenger duty. It is hawntonnally familiar to me of the approach that the Labour Party has taken about the small business bonus scheme, which, if you go round the country, you will find countless businesses that are only in operation today because this Government put in place the small business support at a time when individuals required it to continue to contribute to their local economy. That investment has been crucial to stimulating town centre and business activity, the length and breadth of this country. If the Labour Party wants to look at the research studies that have been undertaken in relation to the impact of APD, it will find that a 50 per cent reduction on the cost of APD as currently constituted would generate an additional 3,800 jobs within Scotland and a £200 million per annum gross value added to the Scottish economy. By taking those measures, we can improve and boost the economic performance of our country, create new employment for people and give the opportunities that will allow people to have a greater stake in our society and our economy, and that is why the Government takes decisions of those sort. I wonder how Mr Swinney will comment on how that impacts on climate change targets. However, climate change is one of the issues that I am going to come on to in the course of the speech that I make today, so Mr Swinney can wait for me to get on to those remarks. So air passenger duty is a crucial measure in boosting the economic performance of our country and creating the economic opportunities that people want to see in Scotland. The Government's health record has been subjected to analysis by Parliament today, but what we see is that the share of the Scottish budget taken up by health has increased from when we came to office from 37.4 per cent to 41.2 per cent, so this Government has invested in the health service in a sustained and consistent fashion that the people of Scotland would expect of us to undertake that investment. I will give way to Jackie Baillie. Jackie Baillie, I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. He will, of course, appreciate that, as a proportion of the budget, he is spending, and his Government is spending less than the Tories are in England. That is not the case, I am afraid, Ms Baillie. What the Scottish Government is doing is increasing the share of the budget that is allocated to the health service since we came to office for the first time, a health budget higher than £12 billion invested in the health service in Scotland. What that delivers for us is performance, where, for example, 70 per cent of outpatients were waited less than 12 weeks when we came to office in 2007. That is now 89.7 per cent are waiting less than 12 weeks as an outcome of the performance of the Scottish Government in managing the health service. To look at education, there has been understandable focus on the attention on attainment that has been taken forward by the Scottish Government in the programme that we have set out. That is, of course, to tackle some of the underlying challenges of the education service, but we should also look at the improving performance in the outcomes that are achieved as a consequence of our education service. In 2007, only 87 per cent of school leavers were in positive destinations. By 2015, that had risen to a record high of 92.5 per cent of school leavers in initial positive destinations of work, training or education. Since 2007, awards at higher level have risen by 35 per cent, and awards at advanced higher have risen by 42 per cent, with this year's seeing record higher and advanced higher passes. I would encourage the opposition to reflect on the performance of the education system in Scotland, which is getting better, but this Government is determined to put in place the focus that will ensure that we improve the performance of the system and tackle the attainment gaps that have persisted in Scotland. That is at the heart of the measures that the Government is taking forward. I will give way to Liz Smith. Liz Smith, do you have any comment on the fact that there are 31 per cent of schools that are not achieving good, very good or excellent when it comes to school inspection? What that is a measure of is the assessment that is undertaken by an independent inspectorate, but what we are seeing in the outcome that I am setting out here is the performance that is achieved for individuals that has seen better outcomes achieved for the young people of Scotland and the opposition cannot ignore the fact that we are delivering better performance and better outcomes for the young people of Scotland. Of course, I will give way. That is part of the problem, because that is simply not true. The record higher passes this year is largely a result of there being more children in S5. The individual performance pass rates fell, and last year they fell as well. It is a misuse of numbers, which leads to a lack of trust in the Government. Surely a key factor in the performance of young people in our system is whether they get into positive destinations. We now see 92.5 per cent of school leavers in initial positive destinations of work, training or education, which is something that the Parliament should be proud of as a consequence of the work of our education system in Scotland. We have talked extensively in the course of this debate about climate change, and I want to, as promised to Neil Findlay, address the issues around climate change. On the original proposition that was put forward, the Scottish Government would have had to have achieved a reduction in carbon emissions by 2013 of 31.7 per cent, and we have in fact achieved 38.4 per cent. We have exceeded the original pattern of reduction in carbon that was anticipated when the legislation was passed. The difficulty for the Government has been the changing and shifting sands of the analysis and the data that we have to depend on. However, we remain on track to reduce carbon emissions by 42 per cent, just as the Government is committed to and just as the Government is determined to do, and the measures that are set out in the programme for government on energy efficiency, on fuel poverty and on the investments that the Government takes forward on sustainable transport are designed to support that objective. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Perhaps those shifting sands of analysis are one of the reasons why the environment is the one-police area in which the SNP is not the most trusted party, according to today's opinion poll. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, in order for those commitments to be taken seriously by the public, the SNP is going to have to be clear before the next election whether it is on the side of clough, eneos and the others who want to add to the stocks of fossil fuels, or whether it is on the side of the communities being threatened by them? For a Government that has a moratorium in place on fracking, I am not exactly sure what question Patrick Harvie needs to have answered as a consequence of his intervention. One of the other issues that has been raised in the debate was about one of the major issues that has been around policing. The Justice Secretary will make a statement to Parliament tomorrow that will set out in further detail the announcements that the First Minister made in the course of the debate yesterday. There will be consultation about policing priorities and consultation about local engagement in the work of the police service within Scotland. However, there was much talk about looking at comparative experiences about police services across the United Kingdom. One of the things that we should be mindful of is that, since 2007, there has been a 10 per cent reduction in the number of police officers in the rest of the United Kingdom, and there are 1,000 more police officers in this country. That is the difference of approach that has been taken by this Government, where we have invested in policing in this country and the UK Government has reduced policing expenditure and reduced the number of police officers in the rest of the United Kingdom. The cabinet secretary is not wrong to conflate police numbers, which, as he will know, my party entirely approves of and supported, with the inherent structure of a single police force in Scotland. Those are two quite separate issues. The First Minister is not in the slightest, because we took decisions about creating a single police service so that we could preserve police numbers, not cut them like the last Government did in the United Kingdom. I have taken a number of interventions. One of the comments that has characterised the debate was the response of Annabel Goldie to my intervention in her speech. It was preceded, I would have to say, by some un-gallant behaviour on my part in the chamber. I asked Annabel Goldie to criticise the approach that we were taking on the Scottish Fiscal Commission Bill. When I asked her what contribution she had made to the consultation exercise, Ms Goldie replied, and I will leave that to my colleagues who know something about it. I simply make the point that Ms Goldie made a criticism of our Government and then accepted that she knew absolutely nothing about the subject whatsoever. That rather characterises some of the interventions in this debate today. It was slightly outclassed by Liam McArthur's point, which was to warn the First Minister that, because the Tories supported something, we should give us pause for thought. I bet you there is a lot of Mr McArthur's Liberal Democrat MP colleagues who now wish they did pause for thought about believing the things that the Tories told them back in 2011. Lastly, I have some gentle advice for Ian Gray. Ian Gray used the words tired and worn out. I thought that it was a personal reflection of his contribution to the debate, but he then went on to describe the First Minister as unassailable. If the Opposition wished to try to marshal an argument that they have an alternative to put forward, I would gently suggest to them that that is not the most helpful language to prosecute their arguments. More importantly—it is for us, First Minister, I accept that—they have to come up with a credible alternative to the Government's programme, and we did not see any evidence of that in the course of the debate. This is a programme that is bold in its ambitions for the people of Scotland, and we are determined to pursue it. That concludes the debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government, 2015-16. We now move to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 1.4.1.1.5, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 1.4.1.1.5. Members ask to speak against the motion. Therefore, I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 1.4.1.1.5, 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 five business motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions 1.4.0.4.7, 1.4.0.4.9, to 1.4.0.5.1 and 1.4.0.9.8, setting out stage one timetables for various bills on block. I propose to ask a single question on motions 1.4.0.4.7, 1.4.0.4.9 to 1.4.0.5.1 and 1.4.0.9.8. If any member objects to a single question made put, please say so now. No member has objected to a single question made put. If I now put the question to the chamber, the question is that motions 1.4.0.4.7, 1.4.0.4.9 to 1.4.0.5.1 and 1.4.0.9.8, 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 five Parliamentary Bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motions number 1.4.0.5.3 in the refer of an SSI, motion number 1.4.1.1.2 on committee membership, motions number 1.4.0.5.4 and 1.4.1.1.3 on substitution on committees, and motion number 1.4.1.1.4 on the establishment of a committee. Questions on these motions 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. The first question is that motion number 1.4.0.5.3 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the refer of an SSI be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion number 1.4.1.1.2 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on committee membership, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The next question is that motion number 1.4.0.5.4 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on substitution, On committees be agreed to are we agreed The motion is therefore agreed to On different Parliamenters On the establishment of a committee be agreed to are we agreed The motion is therefore agreed That ends the decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.