 The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the Smith commission. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I call on the Deputy First Minister, around 15 minutes. The Scottish Government believes that decisions affecting the lives of people in Scotland should be taken here in Scotland to reflect the priorities and views of those who choose to live and to work in this country. That is why we campaigned for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, why we voted for the Scotland Act 1998 and why we supported the Scotland Act in 2012. It is why we campaigned for and believe in Scottish independence and it is also why we took part in the process of the Smith commission. In the light of the referendum result, the Government produced proposals for further devolution on 10 October, arguing for a robust package of powers, of further powers for this Parliament. As a participant in the proceedings and on behalf of the Scottish Government, I want to record our thanks to Lord Smith of Kelvin for his clear, focused and neutral direction of the commission's proceedings. I am also grateful to the Secretary of the Commission, made up of officials from the United Kingdom and the Scottish Governments and the Parliament for their hard work in supporting the process. I also thank other members of the commission for the generally good-natured approach taken to the process. The commission had a challenging task. The promises made to the people of Scotland in the lead-up to the referendum of home rule and near-federalism and extensive powers for this Parliament meant that expectations around this process were extremely high. 407 organisations and more than 18,000 individuals in Scotland took the time to write to the Smith commission setting out their views on further devolution. That clearly demonstrates that engagement and interest in politics in Scotland remains as strong as during the referendum. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I welcome the contents of the report, but I regret that a wider range of powers have not been devolved. The report contains a number of recommendations that will enable this Parliament to better serve the people of Scotland. Devolution of air passenger duty in particular is a responsibility for which we have been calling for some time and was first, alongside the devolution of the aggregates levy proposed by the Kalman commission in 2009. It is a tax that impacts on our tourism industry and the wider business sector. More extensive powers over income tax, albeit within the reserve framework set by Westminster, opens up new opportunities to this Parliament and will increase accountability. The flexibility over all rates and bans, except the personal allowance, is an improvement on the narrow and inflexible power for a Scottish rate of income tax that we are in the process of implementing. The devolution of some benefits for disabled people, carers and our elderly will enable us to develop more effective approaches to support the most vulnerable people in our communities. The experience of the bedroom tax has shown us the risks of Westminster taking the decisions for the whole of the UK on a one-size-fits-all basis, ignoring the realities of circumstances here in Scotland. The proposal to vary the housing element of universal credit will enable us to prevent that happening in the future. Subject to this Parliament's ability to find the required resources, we now also have the prospect of being able to create new benefits that could assist our people. The long overdue agreement to transfer to this Parliament responsibilities and revenues of the Crown estate to 200 nautical miles is a proposal that has had long-standing support across the parties. With those powers, we will be able to ensure that Ireland and coastal communities receive 100 per cent of the net income from seabed leasing revenues, ensure that there is a coherent system of support for our renewables industry and enable greater investment in a wide variety of projects ranging from harbour improvements to community tourism projects. The island's minister is beginning discussions on the use of those powers in Orkney today. Finally, and I'm sure everyone in this chamber will welcome the fact that this Parliament will have control over our own elections. This Parliament has more than demonstrated its competence in delivering fair and robust constitutional processes. I'm particularly pleased that we secured agreement on the need for early action to allow us to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the 2016 election. Given the publication of the report, the Government wants to make rapid progress in implementing those recommendations in full and in true to the spirit and the intention of the Smith report. To make that progress successfully, there are a number of principles that should be observed. First, we believe that the UK and Scottish Governments must work jointly in producing the draft clauses due to be published by the end of January. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister on the day the report was published to offer the Scottish Government's full participation. The point about that is that we have just had an experience in the Smith commission, where a joint secretary representing or composed of members of the civil service of the United Kingdom Government, of the Scottish Government and also parliamentary staff from this institution have been able to effectively and properly support the commission. It would seem logical to extend that approach to include also the drafting of the relevant clauses to put into practice the commitments of the Smith commission. The second principle is that, where possible, both Governments should take early action on devolution and on tackling key areas of concern. The most pressing is early action to secure the powers for this Parliament to enfranchise 16 and 17-year-olds, as this Government would like to do, and is supported across the political spectrum in this Parliament in time for the 2016 election. All of us have watched the tremendous success of the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds during the referendum, which was a model of democratic participation and democratic engagement. It is essential that the commitments that were made to 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum are extended to ensure their participation in the elections to this Parliament in 2016. The First Minister repeated the commission's call for early action on the issue of 16 and 17-year-old representation in her letter to the Prime Minister last week, and I am sure that this whole Parliament is hopeful of a positive response to that proposition. Similarly, early legislative action could be taken to devolve air passenger duty. The 2012 Scotland Act provides an order-making power to add new devolved taxes to the land and buildings transaction tax and the landfill tax, which we are now currently implementing. Early action could also be taken on gender quotas. In her previous ministerial role, Shona Robison wrote to the United Kingdom Government outlining the Scottish Government's proposals for a section 30 order to provide this Parliament with the necessary competence. We must make progress down that route. Paragraph 96 of the Smith commission report lists a number of important issues for consideration that do not require an act of devolution. Those include important issues around immigration to support our economy, asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking, retention of fine income in Scotland and also in relation to health and safety. My Cabinet colleagues and I will be writing to our UK counterparts seeking early discussions on those matters over the next few days. Progress on those powers would be an early down payment on the further devolution that we have all been promised and will be a key test of the UK Government's commitment. My third principle is that the UK and Scottish Government should start preparing in good faith for the transfer of the powers identified in Lord Smith's report. In particular, the United Kingdom Government should not take any steps or decisions that would significantly affect the position of this Parliament after devolution or constrain our freedom to come to our own decisions without our express agreement. The most obvious example of that is the move from disability living allowance to personal independence payments that the First Minister mentioned in this chamber last week. The First Minister will be writing to the Prime Minister asking that the roll-out of personal independence payments should be halted in Scotland and that the proposed cuts to disability benefits are not implemented before the responsibility is passed to this Parliament. I hope that all members in the chamber will support that position. Another example is the employment programme such as the work programme. The current contracts for those are approaching their end. It is crucial that the UK and Scottish Governments agree the arrangements that will follow those contracts and we should explore all the options including the devolution of responsibility to this Parliament as soon as it is practical. Of particular importance is agreement that more powers are accompanied by firm financial foundations and a fiscal framework that provides an equitable settlement to both Governments. Experience of the on-going negotiation and implementation around the Scotland Act 2012, which I discussed at length with the Finance Committee yesterday in their evidence hearing session on the Isle of Arran, has shown that implementation of financial agreements is almost as important as the legislation itself. In my letter to the chancellor on the autumn statement, I therefore propose that we meet in short order to start discussions on how the aspects of Lord Smith's recommendations will be implemented. There is a long way to go before the Smith recommendations are delivered for Scotland, but I believe that we will have the best chance of fulfilling its commitments if we follow those principles. Joint working between the UK and Scottish Governments, early actions were possible and both Governments preparing in good faith for the transfer to take place. This is not a process that can or should be confined to Governments. Participation was one of the themes of the First Minister's comments on our programme for government last week and participation and engagement have been watched words for Scottish politics since the extraordinary experience of the referendum. At the start of the Smith process, we engage with groups of stakeholders to shape our proposals for more powers and our approach to the commission's work. The STUC supported devolution of employment law, health and safety, trade union law and a minimum wage. The STUC also advanced amendments to immigration legislation so that the Scottish Government would be able to direct immigration policy as it affects Scotland. The Institute of Directors suggested variable capital allowances to promote localised investment, particularly into businesses in challenged areas. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry called for R&D incentives to improve Scotland's poor industrial record in that area. Children First supported powers over all aspects of employment rights and conditions to create a much more family-friendly employment regime. They also supported devolution of child support. The Scottish Council for voluntary organisations supported devolving the full package of powers over welfare to create a welfare system that puts fairness and supporting people at its heart and the full devolution of equality law. The full devolution of equality legislation was supported by Engender and other equalities groups. It should therefore be of little surprise that, given that none of those responsibilities were devolved, there was such widespread disappointment on the publication of the report last week. The proposals mean that control over 71 per cent of taxes in Scotland remains at Westminster, along with 85 per cent of welfare decisions, including the conditions and the sanctions that are causing so much distress in our country. Those proposals cannot be characterised as home role or as near-federalism as is possible in the United Kingdom. The vow has quite simply not been fulfilled. Whilst the commission may not have given us all the tools that we want and for which we will continue to argue, we in the Scottish Government stand ready to play our part and we now look forward to the next steps in Scotland's journey. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. We will now take questions on issues raised in the statement and tend to allow around 30 minutes for questions after which we move on to next business. Members who wish to ask a question of the Deputy First Minister should press a request to speak but now, and I call Ian Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I want to start by echoing the Deputy First Minister's comments about the good-natured approach to the commission taken by all members, including the Deputy First Minister. What a pity, then, about the grudging nature of his statement. 500 words on powers in the Smith agreement and 2,000 on process pitfalls, powers not there and transitional demands for down payments. What a depressing lack of imagination. With the Smith agreement, we will, if we choose, reintroduce a 50p tax rate for top earners, a 10p rate to help low earners. The Deputy First Minister could even extend the personal allowance that he wants through a zero rate. We can redesign the whole work programme to get people into work more effectively, redeploy hundreds of millions of pounds worth of disability benefits, to re-inject dignity and respect into the system. We can attack child poverty by supplementing child benefit for families under stress. We can reform carers allowance to give carers the rights that they want, and we can finally match attendance allowance and DLA to our own system of care of the elderly. We can construct a whole new Scottish welfare system of new benefits of our own design. We can give coastal communities the benefits from their own shore and seabed. We can use extended borrowing powers to build the tens of thousands of houses that we need. We can decide for ourselves about fracking. We can gender balance the boards of public bodies at our own hand, give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, and we can bring ScotRail back into the public sector. A Parliament entrenched more extensive powers devolved than in federal Germany or federal Australia. This is the bow delivered. Scotland knows it. The Deputy First Minister was part of it. Why will he not just admit it? Iain Gray sat round the Smith commission table, as I did, and he would have witnessed the willingness of the Scottish Government and the representatives of the Scottish National Party to advance the interests and powers of the Scottish Parliament. It is a matter of record because all of the proposals that we set out as a Government were set out in our submission to the Smith commission of 10 October on a whole range of different issues, whether it is about economic responsibilities, whether it is about control over the welfare system, whether it is about ensuring that Scotland has the economic levers at our disposal to generate the revenues that will allow us to create a fair society. All of that is a matter of public record. Iain Gray's rather hysterical tone this morning is an indication of how desperate he is to try to tell the people of Scotland that somehow this is the sum total of the Labour Party's proposals. Iain Gray has to wrestle with the fact that the Scottish Trade Union Congress is at odds with him about many aspects of the Smith agreement, that the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations are underwhelmed by the lack of control over welfare. It is not a surprise that I should point those things out. After all, we as a Government talk to those organisations, we listen to those organisations and we put forward their arguments in the Smith commission as effectively as we possibly can do. When Iain Gray talks about the powers that are contained in the Smith commission about the ability to create new welfare benefits or to enhance existing welfare benefits, those powers are part of the Smith commission. However, this Parliament has to be able to generate the revenues that will enable us to pay for those things. That is where Iain Gray has never been terribly good at working out how he would generate the revenues and how he would pay for things that he would want to take forward. The heart of our proposition was the need for this Parliament to have transformative economic powers that would enable us to create the wealth to invest in a fair and civilised society in our country. For Iain Gray to take comfort from the fact that the Smith commission delivers all those things that he talked about, yet in the welfare system the punitive sanctions at the heart of the DWP regime in Scotland remain reserved to the United Kingdom is a travesty of the position that he can prove for us. On the question of depressing lack of ambition, the Labour Party personifies it. Annabel Goldie. I also echo what the Deputy First Minister and Iain Gray have already said about the process, and I would like to use this opportunity to place on record in this Parliament my thanks to Lord Smith and to the secretariat from both Governments. There cannot be a shadow of a doubt that, in the complex and difficult discussions that we had to have, the quality of the data made available to us was second to none. As a participant, the process was challenging, it was stimulating, it was certainly robust and, at times, fiery, but it was enjoyable, and that was in no small measure due to the sage, the patient and the shrewd chairmanship of Lord Smith. I accept that what is unwelcome to those benches is that the Smith agreement was always going to be about devolution, it was never going to be about independence, and I guess the reaction from those benches is predictable. I suppose that Smith agreement could have delivered a crown for the First Minister, Scottish passports and heaven knows what else, and they still wouldn't be satisfied, it wouldn't be enough. I have to say, I thought the First Minister's reaction to what is the sweeping transfer of new powers to this Parliament was, and it's not a word I would use about her readily, but I thought her reaction was verging on the nebby, and I thought that the Deputy First Minister was, if I may say so, uncharacteristically acidic, as though something very sour had passed his lips. Of course, I think what passed his lips was, the recognition that this is a powerful, effective, implementable package of devolved measures for this Parliament. This agreement is a constitutional development of huge significance, because, with the exception of the SNP by common assaid, the proposed changes are more wide ranging and powerful than I think was expected. Scotland will now raise over 60 per cent of what she spends. She will be amongst the most powerful sub-legislators in the world, and I think the SNP reaction to all of this confirms the reality. I think the SNP knows that the Smith agreement shot their fox. Dealing with the powers, the actual powers, not with the dreams and the aspirations of another party's constitutional future, can I ask the Deputy First Minister two short questions? The First Minister has expressed her enthusiasm for a 50p tax rate, so can I ask the Deputy First Minister is that a floor or a ceiling? Secondly, the Smith agreement identified a specific issue in relation to this Parliament, its ability to hold the Scottish Government to account, and that becomes more pressing with the prospect of such a wide-ranging transfer of further powers to this Parliament. Is he in principle hostile to the proposal that some key committees should be chaired by Opposition MSPs? First Minister, let me deal with Annabelle Goldie's point that somehow the SNP has been alone in its disappointment at the conclusions of the Smith commission. Graham Smith, General Secretary of the Scottish Trade Union Congress, we are underwhelmed by the package as a whole that does not meet our aspirations. John Downey, Scottish Council voluntary organisations, we are disappointed to see that today's offerings fall far short of this, which is the whole-scale devolution of welfare. One parent family is disappointed about the outcome of the process. The Institute for Economic Affairs, the Smith proposals are a dangerous halfway house failing to bring about the benefits that much fuller devolution would have brought to Scotland. In Gender Scotland, this is a complicated division of responsibility. We are concerned about how well the cumulative impact on women of this devolution has been assessed. Bill Scott of Inclusion Scotland, we are disappointed that the Smith commission failed to devolve all welfare and more fiscal powers to Scotland. I am interested in listening to what the people of Scotland have said and the people of Scotland are disappointed by the conclusions of the Smith commission. On the two specific points that Annabelle Goldie raised with me, first of all, on the issue of the £50 tax rate, the First Minister set out the Government's position on the £50 tax rate if we had those powers today. Obviously, we have no sense of when the tax powers will be available to the Scottish Government for us to take decisions on that question. On the second question about chairing of parliamentary committees, it is perhaps territory that I venture into very carefully, since it is about parliamentary governance, but I have always believed, and I believe this about many aspects of local authority business, that it is absurd for Government members, for example, to chair an audit committee. I think that that is absolutely ludicrous, because an audit committee should hold a Government to account and should be chaired by an opposition member. That does not always happen in local authorities. I think that it is ridiculous that that is not the case. Yes, there are certain committees that should be chaired by opposition members. I have never made a secret part of that in my belief in parliamentary democracy. The Deputy First Minister will be aware of press reports that the Chancellor is about to devolve co-operation tax in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that if a scheme to vary co-operation tax were to be available in some of the devolved countries of the UK as a tool of the UK Government's regional economic policy, it should be available as an option for a Scottish Government to use also? Any discussions about that should also involve all the devolved nations. I quote from paragraph 59 of the process party group on the Scotland Bill in the last session of Parliament chaired by Wendy Alexander. John Swinney. Yes, I agree with that proposition and I agreed with the recommendation that was brought forward by the committee chaired by Wendy Alexander in the last session of Parliament, because I thought that it was a fair reflection of the way in which the issue had to be handled within the United Kingdom. If we await the outcome of the autumn statement tomorrow, but if that is the proposition that emerges from the Chancellor's statement, then that is a proposition that the Scottish Government will continue to take forward. Will the First Minister follow by Drew Smith? I can thank the Deputy First Minister for her advance notice of his statement. However, it was all too predictable. For the first time ever, all five parties were in the one room to agree our constitutional future here in Scotland, but it only took him five minutes to rubbish the report that he had just signed. Just like today, he started off well in his statement going through all the new powers that are coming to the Scottish Parliament, that they ended with a ridiculous tone claiming that the vow had not been met. Ridiculous! All five parties, not just reunious, on time and a much more substantial package than anybody previously had envisaged. Is this what it's going to be like? The Government could embrace these new powers, those new radical powers for Scotland, or is it just going to forever re-run the referendum that he just lost? Willie Rennie was at the National Museum of Scotland when I spoke following Lord Smith last Thursday morning. In the second paragraph of my comments to that gathering at the National Museum, I said that we welcome the new powers that will come to Scotland. What bit of welcome does Mr Rennie not understand? I am perfectly happy to welcome the contents of the report to welcome the new powers that will come to Scotland. Mr Rennie should not be at all surprised that I believe that Scotland should exercise a full range of economic and social responsibilities. After all, I have believed that all of my adult life, and I will continue to do so for the remainder of my adult life. I was greatly cheered by paragraph 18 of the report that was agreed by all five parties. It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose. I am delighted that all five political parties in the Parliament accept that fundamental proposition. It is a very good one. Drew Smith, followed by Kevin Stewart. Lord Smith reminded Parliament's devolution committee this morning that the Smith agreement was signed up to by all the parties and was bought into line by line in his words. I join others in welcoming the Smith agreement, which delivers this place as one of the most powerful devolved legislators anywhere in the world. Lord Smith has also highlighted that devolution cannot be just about powers to this place. William Gray indicated that we have a broad agreement on the issue of the island's agenda and the crown of states, but why did the Deputy First Minister omit to mention the crucial issue of double devolution, where power is exercised in Scotland, including over the work programme in his statement? What reassurance can he offer that the Scottish Government is committed to powers for Scotland's people as well as just for themselves? Any powers that are exercised in this Parliament, whether by this Government or any other Government, are exercised with the democratic consent of the people of Scotland. It is another fundamental point that I would have thought that Mr Smith might have worked out after three years membership of this institution. The second point that I would make is that the Scottish Government has made very clear our desire. We have also turned it into practice by the removal, for example, of £2 billion worth of ring ffencing that we inherited from the previous Government, to give local authorities much greater scope for discretion and for action in their areas of responsibility. We have also taken forward further propositions on the community empowerment bill, which is designed to enable communities to have greater control and greater influence over their lives in their localities. As we consider the implementation and the roll-out of the Smith commission proposals, we look forward to discussing with local authorities and the communities of Scotland how we can best devolve responsibilities to the localities of Scotland so that policies can be exercised and taken forward in an appropriate way to meet the needs and aspirations of communities in Scotland. That will include the details of the work programme into the bargain, which is why it would be helpful if Mr Smith and his colleagues would support the Government's call for the early devolution of the work programme and certainly not for any forced extension of the work programme by the United Kingdom Government. The Deputy First Minister will be aware of reports that the draft version of the Smith commission document was more radical, but the key recommendations on welfare appear to have been removed in the day that the UK cabinet was briefed on the Smith commission, according to the BBC on 28 November 2014. Does the Deputy First Minister share my concerns that those reports suggest that behind closed doors around the cabinet table, tories with no mandate in Scotland are reported to have taken key welfare decision-making powers for Scotland off the table? Lord Smith said to the devolution powers committee in Parliament this morning that he was conscious of the fact that some party representatives were taking guidance from their superiors. I am not sure that that is quite the way that I would describe it, but I suspect that that answers Mr Stewart's question. In relation to fracking and unconventional gas extraction, now that the Scottish Government will have licensing and planning powers, will the Scottish Government commit to my call for no approvals to be granted unless and until we have a clear policy on the climate implications of this new source of gas for Scotland, that regulatory and licensing loopholes have been closed, that both our regulators and planners have the vital knowledge and skills to address the risks of new extraction techniques, and will the Deputy First Minister agree to supply targeted finance to those local authorities on the front line, as they did with renewables in 2012? On the number of issues that Sarah Boyack raised about the handling of any questions in this area of responsibility, I assure Sarah Boyack that the type of questions that she has raised are all absolutely legitimate issues to be in the contents of any policy approach to be taken in that respect. All the points that Sarah Boyack raises are issues that have to be considered. They are why this Government has taken an evidence-based approach, and that includes ensuring that there are satisfactory answers to the points that Sarah Boyack has raised. On our final point about resources to planning authorities, we will give consideration to that point. It is important that, if the first part of my answer is to be delivered by local authorities, those issues are properly and fully scrutinised by the relevant authorities, whether they are regulatory authorities or local authorities. We will certainly consider the issue that Sarah Boyack has raised. Patrick Harvie, Fawr by Chris McElvie. To a large extent, the impact of the recommendations that are included in the Smith report will depend not on the paragraphs on the pages but on the way in which they are implemented, the legislation and the policy and operational changes that flow from that. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the impact that the detailed implementation is going to have to be one where agreement is sought between the two Governments, not least on major issues like the way that the borrowing regime is expected to work? Does he have any clear indication from the UK Government yet that they are prepared to work with them ahead of the drafting of legislation by the end of January? The point that Mr Harvie makes is absolutely fundamental to this discussion. As we saw with the Kalman recommendations and the command paper that was published by the United Kingdom Government, we had to press very hard to secure reforms to the proposals for the implementation of the Kalman recommendations because, in their original form, they would have been financially disadvantageous to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish Government. Mr Harvie is absolutely correct that the translation of the words of the Smith commission into draft clauses and to particular points of legislation is crucial in ensuring that that is translated in a fashion that meets the needs and the expectations of people in Scotland. I think that that is best delivered in an open and transparent fashion where we have joint authorship of the clauses, where many of the issues that are relevant on both sides of the debate are properly considered within that space and Parliament is able to consider the output of a joint process, which is what the Scottish Government has recommended and what the First Minister has raised with the Prime Minister. To date, I have not seen any response to that particular proposal, but I do hope that it is... If we are to be serious, as the Smith commission report is serious about, as Mr Harvie well knows, to strengthen the whole process of intergovernmental discussion between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments, I think that that would be a sensible and practical way to proceed forward. Christina McKelvie, Fyllbad Jackie Baillie. Does the Deputy First Minister share my disappointment that there was no recommendation in the Smith commission report that would allow Scotland to force our own minimum wage, something that a number of organisations across the country call for, including Children First, the child poverty action group and the STUC? Can the Deputy First Minister also provide assurances that he will continue to press for powers over minimum wage to be devolved to Scotland and that Westminster, especially the unelected House of Lords, does not attempt to roll back on what has been agreed in the Smith commission? I do share the disappointment that powers over the minimum wage have not been devolved to Scotland. I think that they would have assisted us in tackling some of the very serious issues of in-work poverty that we wrestle with within Scotland today and give us some practical tools to enable us to do that. On the question of implementation, I can assure Christina McKelvie that the Scottish Government will work assiduously, and I set that out as clearly as I possibly could in my statement to ensure the satisfactory implementation of the Smith commission recommendations, and that will be at the heart of the approach that is taken forward by the Scottish Government. The Spice Briefing on Fiscal Devolution shows that this can be a real powerhouse Parliament. The Smith agreement was, by any reasonable reckoning, a substantial transfer of power. Disability living allowance, personal independence payment, attendance allowance, carers allowance, motability allowance—the list goes on and on and on. This is a set of serious powers, but perhaps the most radical and potentially substantial of all the ability to create our own benefits. Can I, on that basis, ask the Deputy First Minister whether he will set up a cross-party mechanism to consider how to implement those new powers to benefit some of the most vulnerable people in our communities? The Scottish Government is always keen to work collaboratively across the political spectrum on issues of joint interest, and this is, of course, wonderful. In the spirit of trying to advance the implementation of the agreement, we have to ensure that the manner and the form of its implementation is appropriate for Scotland's needs and circumstances. That is why I answered Patrick Harvie in the way that I just answered him on a joint approach to the drafting of the clauses between the Scottish and the United Kingdom Governments. That is our first priority to ensure that we actually secure the translation of the Smith commission recommendations into practical and useful powers for the Parliament, because I am sure that Jackie Baillie will understand my concern that the powers could be interpreted and they could be defined in a more restrictive way than perhaps the Smith commission viewed them to be the case, and we want to ensure that they are implemented to the full. However, on the issue of wider dialogue and co-operation around what we may do on welfare issues, I am sure that that is the type of area where we can have joint work within the Parliament. Can I ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government's response will now be to the failure to include in the Heads of Agreement the view of NUS Scotland, Universities Scotland, Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Director Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and Unison Scotland's view that there should be partial devolution of immigration to enable the reintroduction of a two-year post-study work visa for international students graduating from Scottish universities, as that would have done much to maximise our human capital and promote economic growth in the key industrial sectors of the future, such as life sciences and renewable energy. The point that Mr Edie makes is a very serious point, which has been well made by the range of organisations to which he referred, including Universities Scotland and the National Union of Students. It is a very common theme in my discussions with universities that are raised with me about the limitations that the current regime applies in terms of the ability to recruit students and personnel as a consequence. A number of issues were left requiring further development as a consequence of the Smith commission. I raised a number of them in my earlier statement, and I can assure the Paragraph 96 of the agreement that makes particular reference to those points where the parties raised a number of additional policy matters that could be taken forward by joint work between the Scottish and the United Kingdom Governments. I can assure Mr Edie that that is exactly what the Scottish Government will do on that important question, and we will aim to make as much progress as we possibly can do to effect the implementation of some form of mechanism to ensure that we can attract the talent that Scotland requires at this time. The commission proposes devolving income tax on an allocation of some VAT, but vows to keep the Barnett formula in place. Can the Government tell us how the Barnett allocation will be calculated? In particular, if future Scottish Governments are successful in stimulating the economy and gaining additional revenue from those taxes, will those Scottish Governments, and by extension the Scottish people, be able to keep that additional revenue, hence ensuring a link between Government policy and financial reward? Can the Deputy First Minister confirm whether an agreement has been reached with the United Kingdom Government on what impact the Scotland Act 2012 taxes will have on the Scottish block grant? On the last point that Joe McAlpine makes—this was the substance of my conversation with the French Committee in Arran yesterday—it remains an outstanding issue that we have not secured agreement with the United Kingdom Government on the block grant adjustment for the land and buildings transaction tax and the landfill tax. That was something that I was keen to secure agreement upon before I set out the budget to Parliament on 9 October. I was unfortunately unable to get that agreement and only on Friday I received some communication from the chief secretary to the Treasury, setting out some further proposals in that respect to which I am currently giving consideration. Those issues that were raised in 2012 still remain outstanding and need to be resolved. In relation to the wider questions raised by the Smith commission, the Barnett formula will continue to apply, but there will be a block grant adjustment that will take into account the transfer of greater responsibility over income tax powers. As Lord Smith confirmed to the parliamentary committee this morning, if the Scottish Government is successful in delivering higher tax receipts on income tax, for example, beyond the block grant adjustment, those receipts can be retained by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government for use in relation to our wider responsibilities. It is essential, as we have always argued, that if the Scottish Parliament is to be successful in the implementation of any of its policy agenda, it has to be able to bear the rewards of all that, because on the other side of the coin we will be carrying the risks of exercising those responsibilities into the bargain. Presiding Officer, figures from the international labour organisations show unemployment in Dundee at nearly 14 per cent, double the general rate. Dundee has come bottom of tables on the success of the UK work programme. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will agree with me that we need more than powers to get the long-term unemployed in Scotland into work. The Deputy First Minister says that he wants the work programme devolved quickly, so what ideas does he have to make the work programme work better in Scotland? First of all, I think that many of the Scottish Government is taking to support investment in Dundee. Every time I travel through the city of Dundee, which I do frequently, I see the fruits of the Scottish Government's extensive investment programme, particularly around the waterfront area, which is a remarkable piece of strategic investment. I hear the usual unanimity in the Labour benches about where the money has been spent. More than likely, the Labour Party will want to spend the money twice—it is a familiar refrain. On the question that Jenny Marra raised about the work programme, I think that the UK work programme has been a failure. I do not think that it has delivered results in any respect. If I was presiding over that programme, I would be horrified at its poor performance. It is an expensive programme, and the resources that are deployed there should be used to support the type of employability schemes that are now commonplace, taken forward as partnerships between third sector organisations in Scotland and local authorities around the country, where we tailor them to the needs of people who have been long-term unemployed in the city of Dundee, will be different to the needs of people who have been out of the labour market for a shorter period of time than in other parts of the country, but they are no less valid than in other parts of the country. We need to tailor our response to meet the particular needs and circumstances and localities in the country, and we can best do that in consort with the third sector and local authority employability schemes that we have in Scotland. Today, the work programme operates in a fashion that is not consistent with that regime, so that is how I would take it forward. I would caution the consideration at this point to consider the fact that we will still face the interaction with the sanctions regime of the United Kingdom benefits regime, which is a severe limitation on some of the issues that I think need to be considered in trying to support people out of economic connectivity and employment. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that a Westminster Government retaining control of around 70 per cent of tax-raising powers and around 85 per cent of welfare powers falls far short of the promises of home rule and maximum devolution when compared to the levels of autonomy afforded elsewhere, particularly in the likes of Switzerland, Canada or the Basque country and Navarre? Clearly, Mr McMillan will appreciate that I would have liked the Smith commission to come up with a broader range of responsibilities to enable the Scottish Government to exercise greater control through Parliament of the lives of people in Scotland and to create the economic opportunities that are so vital to the prosperity of Scotland. The Smith commission had in front of it from both political parties and from wider Scotland a range of proposals that would enable that to have been the case and I regret the fact that we did not manage to secure agreement on those points. The Deputy First Minister will be aware that there have been different interpretations of what the Smith commission proposal would mean for tax and expenditure levels here in Scotland. Can I therefore provide clarity today on the proportion of taxes raised in Scotland and expenditure that the Scottish Parliament would have power over if the Smith commission proposals are fully implemented? Under the Smith commission proposals, devolved taxes as a percentage of total Scottish tax revenues will be 29 per cent and devolved and assigned taxes as a percentage of the devolved expenditure as it would be post Smith would be 48 per cent. I am afraid that I took you out of order, Mr Rowley, but you do get the last word, Alex Rowley. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Now that the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament will have more powers over spending than most federal or devolved regimes across the world, will this Government move beyond talking about inequality to a radical agenda for social and economic change that puts the eradication of poverty within a generation at the heart of all government policy and action? Will the Government move beyond the politics of grievance and embrace the politics of change? What I would say to Mr Rowley is that many of the important powers that would enable us to tackle the issues of inequality and to eradicate poverty will remain after the Smith commission reserved to the United Kingdom Government. The sanctions on welfare will remain the exclusive preserve of the United Kingdom Government. It is one of the key powers and responsibilities and our ability to tackle inequality. I have just recounted to Parliament that 85 per cent of control of welfare spending will remain reserved to the United Kingdom Government. Mr Rowley knows me well enough to know that I will use the powers available to the Scottish Parliament to deliver as much opportunity to tackle as much inequality as I possibly can do, but we have to be straight with the people of Scotland that the Smith commission means that significant areas of responsibility remain reserved to the United Kingdom Government, and that is a matter of regret from the Smith commission's position. That ends the statement from the Deputy First Minister on the Smith commission. We move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 11756, in the name of Fergus Ewing on tourism.