 ymwneud hynny? Many thanks, and my apologies to the several speakers who have been unable to call this afternoon. We must now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 11993 in the name of John Swinney on boosting the economy. I would invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request of speak buttons now or as soon as possible as I call on Mr Swinney. Cymru, y First Minister, y gwasanaeth aeth mae 13 menys ymryd i ddweud yn ddeg i gael. Sisters Passing new phase in the economic cycle where we must ensure that growth is both balanced and sustainable and that the benefits of economic success are shared by everyone. It is well understood that a strong economy is essential in building a fair and a wealthy society. However, the reverse is also true. A society that is fair and equitable underpins a strong economy into the bargain. A recent OECD working paper estimated that rising inequality in the United Kingdom knocked more than 9 per cent points of total GDP per capita growth between 1990 and 2010. Analysis by the International Monetary Fund has also found that more unequal countries tend to have lower and less durable economic growth. Those studies by respected international agencies suggest that equality and cohesion are good for growth as well as for individuals. The challenge that we face is not simply returning to pre-recession levels of growth but tackling the underlying issues in our economy and labour market, boosting competitiveness and reducing inequality. We want to create a stable and balanced economy, one that is outward looking, confident and based on the core strengths of our people, one that is innovative and supported by investment. We are currently updating the Government's economic strategy, which I intend to publish in the coming months. The strategy will continue to pursue the successful actions that we have already taken, but we will also focus on how we can ensure that recovery is sustainable and of benefit to all. It will combine the three strategic themes that are set out in the programme for government of ensuring sustainable economic growth, building a fairer society and tackling inequality and protecting and reforming our public services. In particular, it will set out an economic approach that is focused on tackling inequality, boosting investment and innovation and maintaining a focus on internationalisation. Scotland's economic recovery is now well established. Our economy has grown continuously for two years, GDP is above pre-recession levels and the economic outlook is the strongest it has been for many years. Independent forecasts indicate that the Scottish economy expanded by 2.8 per cent during 2014, while above its historical average growth rate. The recovery has also been evident in the labour market data. Our inactivity and unemployment rates are lower than in any other country in the United Kingdom, and the employment level in Scotland has been at all-time records in recent months. Longer-term trends in Scotland's economy also show the success of the Government's approach. Since 2007, the value of Scottish international exports has increased by a third, business R&D has increased by 29 per cent, Scotland is ranked in the top two areas outside London for foreign direct investment in every year, and the number of registered businesses in Scotland has grown by 10 per cent. There is much to be positive about and encouraged by the economic data as we see it today. He has rightly identified the growth in the economy in Scotland, which has been matched throughout the rest of the UK and has cited some individual programmes that he has promoted here in Scotland. Which UK programmes would he give credit to for also boosting the economy in Scotland? As Mr Rennie is familiar with, my view is that the recovery in Scotland has been despite the activities and austerity agenda of the United Kingdom Government. If he has not heard me on that point before, I will just repeat it for the sake of absolute consistency and clarity in the debate. Notwithstanding the economic indicators that are positive, the Government is aware that structural challenges remain within the economy. The recovery has brought improvement in headline measures of output and employment, but recessions typically leave a structural legacy. That is particularly true within some segments of the labour market, where challenges have arisen or become amplified during the recovery. For example, under-employment remains a continuing concern. Working hours, levels of full-time employment and real wages also remain below pre-recession norms. That is a legacy of the recession, and tackling those issues will provide key areas of focus for this Government. Those challenges are not unique to Scotland, and it is worth remembering that the Scottish economy has shown resilience in the context of the global recovery. For example, while our youth unemployment rate remains too high at 15.9 per cent, it is lower than in the United Kingdom as a whole and should be viewed in the context of an average youth unemployment rate of around 22 per cent across the European Union and rates of an excess of 40 per cent in southern Europe. In addition to the structural challenges that remain, sectoral specific challenges will also remain within the economy, as is currently the case in the oil and gas industry, as we have just heard in the statement from the energy minister. Recent volatility in low oil prices has helped to reduce costs for some industries and provided a boost to households, but it has also caused uncertainty and challenge for North Sea operators. Although the expectations are for prices to start to rise again, reforms to the North Sea tax regime are required to support long-term growth within the sector. The 2 per cent reduction in the supplementary charge that is announced by the United Kingdom Government does not go far enough in helping the industry that has seen its competitiveness damaged by a historically high tax burden. Today, I am sure that we all agreed that the immediate responsibility of us all is to ensure that jobs in the oil and gas industry are secure, but alongside that there are enormous potentials to exploit marine renewables. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could briefly outline what will be happening in terms of plans to support that going forward for transferable skills. As Claudia Beamish will know, the Government has pursued a consistent approach in relation to the support of renewable energy in Scotland. In recent months, we have seen mixed news on offshore renewables. We have seen the tidal sector gain in strength. We are very confident that the development path of the tidal sector, which is reinforced by some of the support that the Government is making available and the commitments of many companies and investors, is that, with some of the projects that are emerging into much clearer form, particularly the medium project, there will be significant progress in the tidal sector. The wave sector has been more challenging, as Claudia Beamish will know, but the actions that the energy minister has taken to establish wave energy Scotland and to ensure that the intellectual capital and the capability of Scotland to take forward the wave sector and to realise the economic benefits of that will remain a central part to the Government's renewable strategy. The policy framework and the financial support that is available for the Government is designed to do exactly that into the bargain. We will ensure that Parliament is kept up to date on the steps that we take in relation to wave energy Scotland. To return to the point that I was making on the issue of the oil and gas sector, as we look at the challenges that the industry faces, I want to assure Parliament and reinforce what the energy minister has said, that the Scottish Government will do all that we possibly can do within the powers that are available to us, whether it is through the support for innovation or the support for skills or the support for infrastructure or the support for enterprise that the energy minister has set out. The crucial point that needs to be addressed just now is the cost base of the North Sea oil and gas sector, and the principal area of public sector activity that can make a difference in that respect is the taxation and fiscal regime that is presided over by the United Kingdom Government. I hope that, out of the debate that is going on in Scotland at this moment about the oil and gas sector, the United Kingdom Government listens to the very clear call that we make today. First, for the introduction of an investment allowance. Secondly, a planned and phased reversal of the increase supplementary charge. Finally, and probably most crucially in terms of long-term development, the development of an exploration tax credit to encourage and incentivise development in the years to come. Those measures are central to strengthening the oil and gas sector and to meeting the challenges that we face at the present moment. The Government will continue to be supportive of the work of business in our economy and look to work with business to tackle many of our shared challenges and priorities. The Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work will be taking forward the report of Serene Wood on developing Scotland's young workforce, which outlined a range of actions that will be taken forward in conjunction with Skills Development Scotland, local authorities and our delivery partners, and in association with the business community to ensure that we effectively support the development of our young workforce. In addition to that, the Government will maintain a competitive approach on business rates to provide support to now over 90,000 small businesses in our country and to ensure that we have the most competitive framework for business taxation in the United Kingdom. One of the central features of the Government's economic strategy will be the encouragement of the development of innovation in our economy. Last year's research excellent framework found that each of Scotland's 18 higher education institutions undertakes research of world-leading quality. That will be central to developing the focus on innovation that will emerge from the Government's economic strategy. We will also place particular importance on encouraging the internationalisation of the Scottish economy with Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International, supporting up to 10,000 more businesses in developing the skills to go international by 2015. The other element of the Government's economic strategy, which will be fundamental in taking forward our agenda, will be the whole area of activity in tackling inequality. What we have seen emerging out of the recession is the significant challenges that exist in tackling in-work poverty. The Government is working very closely with the poverty alliance to expand and to raise further awareness and commitment to the payment of the living wage by the company base of Scotland. Evidence indicates that around 80 per cent of those in work in Scotland earn more than the living wage, so we owe it to the remainder to ensure that we improve the quality of their remuneration. I am delighted that more than 90 companies across Scotland are now accredited as living wage employers, 32 of which gained accreditation since living wage week in November. We are beginning to see the fruits of the collaboration that exists between the Government and the poverty alliance on raising awareness on this point. I will give way to Mr McNeill. We all welcome the initiatives wherever they come from on the living wage to tackle inequality. Is there clear objectives in this strategy? Do we anticipate a number of employers or a percentage of that remaining people in Scotland who do not receive the living wage? As are targets, will we be able to monitor the progress there and as are linked to other government policies, like the cost of transport or the cost of rent? We have not to date set specific targets about the achievement of the living wage, but what we have committed to is open reporting to Parliament about the success of the partnership that we have with the poverty alliance. I reinforce that commitment that we will do that, but I assure Mr McNeill that the Government will give all energy and put all pace that we can into encouraging and motivating more employers to sign up in this way. We will consider the point that Mr McNeill makes about creating a framework around which we— I am certainly happy to give way to Mr Finlay. I will give way to Mr Finlay in the conclusion of the debate. In taking forward the point that Mr McNeill made, the Government will encourage more and more companies to sign up to the living wage through the Scottish business pledge that we included in the programme for government, which will encourage more and more companies as a consequence of their discussions and work with our enterprise agencies and being in receipt of support from our enterprise agencies to commit to paying the living wage. That will become a more central part of the dialogue that the Government has with business. We are seeing progress being made in the development of the Scottish economy, but the Government is determined to ensure that as we progress along the route to economic recovery, we do that in a sustainable way, but we also do it hand in hand with tackling inequality that exists within our society, and that will be at the heart of the Government's economic strategy that is passed to Parliament in the course of the next few months. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment 11993.3. Ms Baillie, you have up to nine minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. In my new brief, I look forward to working with the Scottish Government and other Opposition parties in the months and years ahead on the challenges and opportunities facing our economy. There is no doubt that recent times have been tough for businesses across the country. Whether you are in a large or small business, in manufacturing or retail, in urban or rural Scotland, the economic downturn has had an impact. Markets were tighter, turnover had declined, the workforce had contracted. In short, the economy struggled, businesses suffered and working people experienced the worst cost of living crisis in decades. However, as John Swinney has highlighted, things have improved. Thankfully, the economy is now growing, employment is increasing, confidence is starting to improve, but there is still a way to go. Although statistics in the Scottish Government motion are a little selective and are not measuring things over the same period, let me be generous and not dwell there. Although overall growth has improved, the economy has continued to recover, and the last quarter shows a marked slowing down. Let us recognise the achievements of our businesses in growing our economy, but equally recognise that we have nothing to be complacent about. Despite that growth, the recovery is not yet shared by all those in work. Too many are caught in one of the worst cost of living crises in decades. There is still continuing uncertainty, zero-hours contracts, low wages and underemployment. If we are to address inequality, then that matters too. It is not just a matter of fairness, it is an economic issue. The OECD, the IMF and others point out that countries with relatively high degrees of wealth and income inequality have lower levels of economic growth, so it is in the interests of us all to address that. I am glad that the Scottish Government recognises that, but actions speak louder than words. I therefore very much regret that the opportunity to secure the living wage and procurement was not taken by the SNP Government. However, there can be no greater danger to our economy just now than the falling price of oil, and I want to spend my remaining time focusing on that. Oil is without doubt crucial to the Scottish economy. The UK is the largest oil producer in the European Union, and the reality is that around 90 per cent of production is here in Scotland. We rely on oil revenues to run our public services, so the price of oil is not something abstract, it is central to our budgets, it is fundamental to how much we have to spend on public services like schools and hospitals. We all spent a lot of time contesting what oil meant for the Scottish economy in the past year. I do not want to rerun the referendum debate, but please let me just make a couple of observations. Firstly, the white paper said that the price of a barrel of oil was estimated at $113 a barrel. As of yesterday, it fell below $50 a barrel, more than half of what was estimated. Let us be clear that oil is not just some optional extra nice to have, we need it to sustain our spending. Let me share a quote with you. Scotland has run a net fiscal deficit in 20 of the past 21 years. There has only been one year since 1990 when tax receipts have exceeded total public spending. That suggests that, over this period, North Sea receipts would have been required to fund public services in Scotland. I hear some SNP-backed benches howling protest. Perhaps Mr Mason would tell me whether those are indeed the words of John Swinney's senior civil servants in a leaked cabinet paper. I wonder if the member would accept that it was a mistake not to have an oil fund, which would have made us therefore less susceptible to ups and downs in the oil price. I can say that you cannot spend the money twice and I will come on to a discussion about the oil fund and the resilience fund. However, it is clear that those words, contrary to the howls of protest from the SNP-backed benches, came from the Government's own civil servants. What would a halving of the oil price mean for Scotland? I will let you in later, but I think that you would do well to listen. $50 a barrel means an 85 per cent decline in revenues. That is almost £6 billion less on an annual basis. Another £500 million every year on top of the Treasury analysis released last week. Remember, that was the analysis that said that there would be a 77 per cent loss in revenue over the first three years of an independent Scotland. I absolutely accept that people might not always trust the Treasury, but it is an analysis that SPICE has today confirmed. I take no pleasure in this, but if we are to be trusted and demonstrate fiscal responsibility, we do absolutely owe it to the people of Scotland to think about this. I am happy to give way. I am grateful for giving way. It is not the key issue now, not to argue about who was right in the past, but about what to do right now. I do not expect Jackie Baillie or the Labour Party to respond to the proposals that we set out in the statement right now, but, since we are planning to attend the summit that they have raised, will she respond to our tax proposals to make it an all-Scotland proposal for the tax measures that are required? I hope that the intrusion in my time will be reflected, but I am happy to give the minister that commitment, because none of the proposals that he has come forward with are actually on you. We need a greater sense of urgency from this Government to protect the North Sea. Can I just talk about the cost to our £6 billion less to spend on our budget? What does that actually mean? That is more than the totality of our school's budget in Scotland. That is the cost of all the nurses and doctors in hospitals and community health settings. That is the entirety of the infrastructure investment programme for next year. How many schools and hospitals would we have needed to close? How many teachers and nurses would we have had to make redundant? It is that serious. For John Swinney to simply dismiss this, as he did earlier, as we would not have been independent by now, is, frankly, just laughable. Having said that, I am pleased that both he and Nicola Sturgeon now seem to recognise the strength of being in the United Kingdom. However, there are significant employment consequences, too. Oil and gas UK suggests that, as many as 35,000 job losses, including jobs supported by employee spending across the UK, would occur. Spice calculates 15,750 of the job losses would be in Scotland. That is one in 12 Scottish jobs in the industry. That does not fully reflect the most recent fall in oil prices, so the lower the price, potentially the greater the job loss. 23 years ago today, the closure of the Ravens Craig steelworks was confirmed by British Steel. The challenge that we face in the oil industry today threatens a larger loss of jobs than Ravens Craig. Given the economic devastation that that would cause, I genuinely do not understand the Scottish Government's reluctance to do anything urgently. That is one of Scotland's most significant industries. Those are exceptional circumstances. The future of families across the north-east and Scotland needs exceptional thinking. To simply say—I have taken enough interventions, I am sorry—that it is reserved demonstrates a Government lacking in ambition. The SNP has been listed, missing in action, not just by me but by the oil industry. I am always happy to make common cause with the Government. Why were the First Minister and Deputy First Minister not at the oil summit in Aberdeen this week? Why have they not yet confirmed that they will join a cross-party delegation to make the case for help to the UK Government? Will they support Labour's call for a resilience fund and work with us to put something in place? Presiding Officer, it is truly depressing that the Government and SNP tweeters deliberately choose to misunderstand a resilience fund and instead talk about an oil fund. I have had this conversation with John Swinney. He knows fine well that these are two different things. Frankly, with almost 16,000 jobs at stake, they should be ashamed of themselves for playing these games. A resilience fund would not just be for the oil industry. It is for times of economic shock, exceptional circumstances, whether there are large-scale redundancies or an unexpected crisis in a particular industrial sector. It is a sensible intervention on the part of a Government that should care about sustaining the Scottish economy. Do not spend all your time blaming people do something. It is not too late for John Swinney and the SNP to work together with us to deliver that. Finally, Presiding Officer, there is the oil and gas bulletin, published by the Scottish Government on a couple of occasions prior to the referendum. We are advised that there are no plans to produce them in the future. Let me ask one simple question. For goodness' sake, why? Forecasting and estimating such a valuable commodity that matters so much to our public finances makes sense. The Scottish Government has to stop hiding. Our oil industry is on the brink of a crisis. You cannot simply say that a big boy did it and then ran away because the people of Scotland deserve better. Thank you very much. Before I call Gavin Brown, who will have up to six minutes, I want to advise other open debate speakers that they will now have their speaking times reduced to five minutes. The open debate speakers who have already been advised that their speeches will be cut to three minutes will remain at three minutes, but other open debate speakers will be reduced to five minutes. Mr Brown, up to six minutes. Thank you. I start by moving the amendment in my name and by welcoming Jackie Baillie to her new role. I look forward to working with and against her in the coming months and years. I enjoyed her contribution, but it certainly is a case of new labour. Even Jackie Baillie says that she cannot spend money twice. I would never hear her utter. I have to say, my goodness, that I am impressed. I welcome Mr Swinney's announcement that there will be an updated economic strategy in the coming months. Obviously, there was one in 2011. Things have changed since then. It is appropriate that we have an updated strategy. I look forward to seeing it. He said that, in the coming months, it would be helpful to be closing if there is any way of being a little clearer on that. I also hope that it is a strategy that has genuinely new initiatives and some genuinely new approaches. It is an updated strategy, not just a fresh cover and a lick of paint, if you like, but a new strategy for how we take forward. I take it on its merits. I welcome the announcement and look forward to hearing more about it. We were able to support, I think, probably the first half to two-thirds of the Government motion. I think that they make some perfectly reasonable points about unemployment, about exports, business research, registered businesses and a number of other points. I think that those items are good news. They should be celebrated, and we should acknowledge where the economy is performing well. I have to say that, over the course of the past year and particularly in the past few months, most of the statistics have been healthy, and they have been positive in their own right, and they are moving in the correct direction. Growth was pretty good for 2014, and it is looking good for 2015, and perhaps a little lower beyond that. Employment is higher than anyone really had anticipated. Unemployment did not grow as much as we thought during the heart of the crisis, but the falls in unemployment are pretty swift now. Although there is still some distance to go, progress has been pretty swift on that. A lot of positive statistics—I think that I have to make this point, and Willie Rennie made the point in his intervention. Ultimately, while the Scottish Government has delivered some good policy objectives with the small business bonus being won, most of the main macroeconomic levers are held at a UK level. Therefore, where we have an upturn, where things are going positively—I think that it is right to give credit to the UK Government as well. I know that Mr Swinney is a fair man, and he is maybe etching to make amends for the comments that he made in his speech, where he refused to acknowledge it, and I will give way to him if that is what he is hoping to do. Mr Swinney is absolutely right. I am a fair man, and I just want to put on record the fact that I deeply appreciated the Chancellor's compliment to Scotland about the fact that we were presiding over the most significant employment growth in the United Kingdom. I thought that that was a very decent compliment that the Chancellor paid to the Scottish Government. Presiding Officer, even when asked to make amends and to say something positive about the UK Government, all he can say is that the UK Government said something positive about him and his Government, but perhaps in his closing speech he will take time. Let's be realistic. I think that the actions of the UK Government have a very significant difference. I think that it was a tough job for the Chancellor to hold the line, but we are seeing the fruits of that line. I think that we will continue to do so in the months and years ahead. My one gripe is that, although a good PR picture is forward and things are going well, they ignore bad news to the extent of ignoring it so much that we do not do anything about it. There are bits of bad news that have come out over the past couple of months, and I think that the Scottish Government really needs to take on board seriously. Its own publication entitled Businesses in Scotland showed that there was a decrease in private sector enterprises between March 2013 and March 2014, a decrease of 2.4 per cent. Its own monthly economic brief showed that the growth gap between the UK and Scotland is probably going to be bigger in 2015 than it was in 2014. 2014 was 3 per cent versus 2.8 per cent. It is projected, and this is obviously a projection, to be 2.4 per cent versus 2 per cent in 2015, so a gap that is growing. We did see a small drop in manufacturing over the course of the year, whereas the UK saw growth of 3.6 per cent. Of course, we had the retail sales index figures, where volume and value were flat in Scotland over the course of the year. It actually fell whereas the UK grew by 2.9 per cent in volume and 1.9 per cent in value. I do not put those figures forward just to say that the UK is great and just to try and paint a gloomy picture, but I do feel that where there is less positive news, the Scottish Government needs to acknowledge it. Secondly, it needs to explain it. Thirdly, most importantly, it needs to provide some form of response about what we intend to do about it. There may be blips at this stage, but if those blips are ignored and action not taken, they can become problematic for our economy. Let me touch on oil, Deputy Presiding Officer. Much has been said about that already, but I do find it staggering that the energy minister in an eight-minute presentation, a thousand words or so in a speech, does not mention price once. I did not expect him to dwell on it, I did not expect him to make that the key focus of his speech, but I do think that to not mention it at all, I have to say, when it is down at $50 a barrel and potentially going to go lower, is a little bit unusual. I found it also a bit strange as well that he criticised incessantly the fiscal regime, which is the biggest barrier to development, yet only a few months ago the Government policy where we to become independent was to adopt the entirety of the UK fiscal regime on oil and gas and most other things too. I find that strange, Deputy Presiding Officer, we are happy to close there. Thanks very much. We now move to open debate. Speeches of up to five minutes mark McDonald to be followed by Siobhan McMahon. I have said before that the way to address inequality is to create a strong and fair economy, one that businesses perform exceptionally, which leads to job creation and lower unemployment. Moving people into quality, well-paid jobs should be an aspiration both of government and of business alike. I note from information provided to me by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce that their 2014 workforce survey indicated that two thirds of businesses in the north-east expect to grow their workforce over the coming 12 months. That is welcome in the context of the opening that I gave there and also in the remarks that the cabinet secretary has made about the increased confidence in the Scottish economy. I note further that, in its oil and gas survey of 2014, 29 per cent of operators and 55 per cent of contractors anticipated an increase in total employment. Obviously, that was looking ahead to 2015 in November 2014. I am unclear as to whether that has been altered significantly as a result of what has happened in terms of the oil price, but what I would say is that what we have to bear in mind is that the oil and gas industry has been here before in terms of low oil prices, and it has come back strongly. We have to reflect on that. It was only five and a half years ago that the price had dipped below $50 a barrel in 2009, so we have been in this situation previously in the north-east, and the oil and gas industry has come back strongly. I would say that, in terms of the comments that have been made that somehow the Government's approach in looking at the fiscal regime is not the wrong thing to do. I would quote from the opening remarks to the oil and gas survey from Robert Collier, the chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, that the fiscal regime needs to be addressed. Nearly two thirds of respondents told us that immediate action from the Government is required. Further on, in the survey, it states quite clearly that 62 per cent of all firms believe that the Government's top priority should be a revision to the fiscal regime to ensure that it encourages exploration and extraction. That was before the dip in the oil price that we are currently experiencing, so if it was vital for it to happen then, it is surely even more vital for it to happen now. I would say that, in terms of the proposals that the Labour Party has put forward, I am always interested to see what proposals are put forward. In terms of the resilience fund, I am unclear on the total sum that would be—I will have to wait for the closing speeches of Jackie Baillie once they are available. I am unclear on the total amount that is going to be committed. I am unclear on who the beneficiaries of that sum would be and how that would be determined. I am also unclear on whether that is a fund that they are looking to have recur on anio basis and, if so, what the difficulties that may arise from that are if they are basing it purely on consequentials, which, as we know, require for that spending to be recurrent rather than for it to end in a particular financial year. However, I want to focus on the wider north-east economy and some of the challenges and opportunities that present ahead. There is a vibrant economy in the north-east, and we should not get too bogged down in talking simply about the oil and gas industry, because there are other sectors that are performing exceptionally. Life sciences in Aberdeen are performing exceptionally. I have visited a number of life sciences companies in my constituency to see some of the strong work that is being done there. According to the Food and Drink Survey of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 36 per cent of food and drink respondents to their survey are currently exporting, which is up from 29 per cent in 2011, a further 24 per cent looking to export over the next two years. We have a strong story to tell in the economy in the north-east of Scotland, and we should not be afraid to tell it. That said, there have been long-standing challenges in terms of the infrastructure in the area, and I welcome the investment in the western peripheral route and the hardigan improvement, which will take place in my constituency, which will be of enormous benefit to connectivity. I think that the third Don crossing I have always thought was a vital part of the infrastructure in the north-east, and I am glad that Labour and the Administration and the Council are now behind that completely. In terms of Aberdeen airport, the redevelopment of the terminal is a welcome step forward, but there are two key issues that need to be brought forward in which we must continue to press the case on. The first is air passenger duty and the early devolution and action to reduce air passenger duty, which causes difficulty in maintaining some of the routes and attracting new routes to Aberdeen airport, and secondly, ensuring that we continue to have slots at Heathrow for Aberdeen airport, because that is vital for businesses in the north-east, and I hope that that is a case that the Government will continue to press. Many thanks. I welcome the fact that Scotland has the lowest levels of unemployment in the UK. That is, of course, good news. However, it would be wrong to think that having a lower rate of unemployment tells a full story. In fact, the unemployment rate for men in Scotland is higher than the rest of the UK, and those between 50 and 64 are more likely to be unemployed in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. That is just one of the reasons that boosting the Scottish economy is so important. Another key reason is the under-employment rate that we are currently experiencing. According to a space briefing, there are an estimated 58,600 people aged between 16 and 24 who are regarded as under-employed. That equates to around 19 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds who are in employment. That is an extremely important statistic. The fact that we are not utilising our workforce in the best possible way means that our economy is not working to its capacity. Given the importance of that matter and the significance of it, can I ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to solve that particular problem? We also have to have a more concentrated effort on women and employment. It is true that Scotland has a better rate of women and employment than the rest of the UK, and that is to be welcomed, but there is still a lot more to do. Given that, in 2013, it was estimated that there were more women, 119,600, under-employed than men, 114,500, we have to begin to address the type of work that is on offer to women. That, of course, is a historic problem that many Governments have wrestled with, but we are now in 2015 and it is simply not good enough to continue with modern words rather than real action. The fact remains that there is a 17.5 per cent pay gap between men and women in Scotland. That is something that has been highlighted today at the joint UK Government and Scottish Women Convention gender pay gap event. I hope that what comes from that event today is a solution to the unacceptable statistic. According to a spice briefing on the earnings in Scotland in 2014, the difference between men and women's pay is also a complex issue that is difficult to cover using one indicator. However, one measure that they use to provide a useful comparison of male and female pay is hourly pay excluding overtime. That is used because men are more likely to be in full-time employment and work overtime than women. Therefore, annual or weekly pay does not provide a fair comparison. On average, a female earns £10.63 compared to £12.88 for men. Additionally, the medium full-time hourly earnings excluding overtime have increased for both men and women in Scotland. However, only men have seen a real terms increase. That is the situation that women in Scotland are facing today. If they find themselves in work, the majority will find themselves with less pay than their male counterpart, and that might be compounded by a failure to utilise them in the correct way, leading to higher rates of underemployment. As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I heard evidence from a number of women and representative bodies who spoke about the need for more meaningful work for women and for the work that they do currently to be recognised in financial terms. They were quite clear in their view that we need more flexible working patterns in Scotland, but we should not replace the word flexible with part-time. I would urge the Government to come forward with a plan for flexible working for both men and women for the public sector. I believe that if we had such a plan, we would see our underemployment rates fall. We would see that women would be able to receive more hours for the work that they do and not be restricted by part-time hours. We would see earning rise, meaning that the figure of 14 per cent of men and the 20 per cent of women who earned less than the living wage last year would be a thing of the past and, as a result, we would see greater benefits to our economy. It has been widely reported today, although not on the Government's own website, that there was a record underspend of some £440 million by the Scottish Government. That is simply unbelievable, given the challenges that many in Scotland are facing on a day-to-day basis. Of course, having an underspend is not something new. Governments of all natures, local and national, have underspent in their big budgets in the past. People understand that. However, what we do not understand is that when we have people queuing at food banks, people are unable to eat their homes, a crisis in our NHS, our teachers having to pay for their own materials for their classroom whilst paying more in their pension contributions, yet the Government has failed to spend the money that it has and failed to spend it in such a considerable way. All of that has an impact on our economy. That is not the way to achieve the social equality that the Government talks about in the motion today. It is quite clear that the money could have been put to greater use if it had been devolved locally. Given that the Smith agreement recognised the need for greater local devolution to achieve greater empowerment of our communities, can I ask the Government what action it has taken on the recommendation and how it will involve our local authorities in particular and plans that it may have started to work on? When I started my speech, I welcomed the fact that our unemployment rates are falling. I welcome that and wish to see it decrease further, but without the ambitions and plans to do that. Given the other challenges that I mentioned, I feel that that might not be achievable. As a result, our economy cannot reach its full potential, and that is something that the Government must address now. Thank you. Now, Colin Linda Fabiani, to be followed by Willie Rennie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First, I will say that this carry-forward money from the Scottish Government's budget. The Labour group should look to their own time in office, when money was put aside every year, never spent and almost lost back to the UK treasury. I will go back today to the motion that explicitly links the delivery of sustainable economic growth with addressing long-standing social inequalities. That is really welcome, because already in this new year 2015 we have held debates relevant to that very subject, health inequalities, mental and physical wellbeing. Of course, we know that mental and physical wellbeing generally reduces the lower the social economic background. That is why I would like, first of all, to say in relation to Gavin Brown's amendment, which includes that the UK economy is growing. Yes, but for who? Child poverty and inequality are on their eyes. A recent report by the OECD made it very clear that growing income inequalities have acted as a break on economic growth. That is under Tory and Labour UK Governments. The approach of the Scottish Government to me is much more appropriate on many counts. I suggest not least, for example, the appointment of Harry Burns, former chief medical officer of the Scottish Government, on to the Council of Economic Advisers. The focus on health and wellbeing being given when considering the economy is very welcome. That appointment is excellent because his knowledge and experience and his deep interest in health inequalities will provide valuable input into building a strong and sustainable Scottish economy, which leads to a fairer and more equal society. Neil Findlay. I wonder if the member would agree with Jerry McCartney, who says that the quickest way to deal with health inequalities is to introduce the living wage across the board. I suggest to Mr Findlay that he gets on to his own colleagues who are going to be talking about the Smith commission proposals and gives backing to the minimum wage being devolved to this Parliament, because I tell you that is a way to really start looking at inequalities. As I said, the focus on equality as well as the economy is so important. We have a really good basis in which to build, and what is most important is that we have a Government here in Scotland that has an ethos to deliver. We have increased exports almost a third since 2007, inward investment is at a 16-year high, we have increased productivity, increased business research and development spending and investment in innovation centres. That is, of course, all linked to our communities and what is the mainstay of so many cities, towns, villages and districts right across the country, the mainland and the islands. That is small and medium-sized enterprises, sole traders, entrepreneurs and innovators. The latest figures show that the number of businesses that are created in Scotland is up by almost 50 per cent since 2009 and helped very much by the small business bonus that has been pledged to continue by our First Minister. Those businesses contribute hugely to the Scottish economy, providing services from retail to biosciences and providing employment of all sorts. In my constituency, East Kilbride, we have a plethora of businesses of all types, exporters, importers, manufacturers and distributors. As I said, that is a good basis to build on nationally, but locally for me as well as our town makes the transition from Newtown major industry employer. We have an East Kilbride task force set up to look at this and I am yet again waiting after months and months and months and months to hear how that is going from the local authority. There are many, many ideas. Infrastructure and development working together, not just massive infrastructure projects, the success of which has been shown by this Government, but smaller infrastructure projects, a bit of innovation, looking at development infrastructure together, brownfield sites rather than always looking to the outside of towns, for example, boosting local economies, skills and training. I will go back to the Smith commission on that. I do have concern about what has been given to us in terms of job creation, for example, because we are doing good work with colleges, we are doing good work with skills and training, and whilst we are getting the ability to work fair to put people into jobs, we are not getting the ability to create those jobs. That is what is extremely important. That ties back in with the whole precept that we are talking about here in this motion that I absolutely support. It is about the partnership approach, Government, business, trade unions, third sector and local government, all working together for equality and prosperity, because we should be partners, we should be working together for that and equality and economy should go hand in hand. Thank you very much. Willie Rennie, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. Very strict. Five minute speeches please. The oil industry, of course, is a different beast from what it was years in the past. It is now a global business with connections right across the world. Although we are looking for many of the solutions and the tax base to incentivise exploration in the North Sea and other fields, we have to recognise that the impact will be on other businesses such as FMC and Oceaneering in Dunfermwyn and Rassaith. I welcome the action that the UK Government has taken. I know that Alasdair Carmichael is up in Aberdeen today to meet the industry. I have agreed along with Alasdair Carmichael to attend the oil summit in Aberdeen set up by the council, but we are not just waiting the UK Government for a summit. We are getting on with action now. I know following the wood review that the recommendations on regulation and on tax have been taken forward. Many of the reforms have been announced in terms of base and wide investment allowances, offshore exploration in terms of seismic surveys, cluster area allowances, the reduction in the supplementary charge. All those areas have been explored already, and further discussions are under way with the industry, with a report due in the spring budget. I know, having spoken to Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg in the past few days, that the UK Government is seized of the issue and is keen to make sure that the industry continues with the investment that we need to have to support the jobs that it provides within Scotland. The UK Government is active. I have to find it difficult when John Mason, who is not in his seat any longer, implies that we are all idiots for not recognising that the oil price goes up and down when the fact that they have been denying that for the past three years in the campaign for independence. I know that it is an inconvenient truth, but the reality is that, if the decision had been different in September, today's debate would not just be about the jobs issues that we have with the north-east and the rest of Scotland, we would also be facing a financial crisis that would directly affect the public services that everybody in the chamber wants to support. I am just grateful that we did not vote yes in September. The news on the wider economy is more positive. In the liberal centre ground, we know the value of building a stronger economy alongside a fairer society to create opportunity for everyone, and we are making progress on both. In Scotland, employment is up 168,000 since 2010. In the last year alone, unemployment has fallen by 44,000. The SNP complains that it does not have the economic powers in this Parliament in order to make a difference, but as soon as there is any growth, any improvement in employment, any reduction in unemployment, it is quick to claim the credit. The progress here is matching the progress in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the second quarter of 2014, Scottish GDP grew by 0.9 per cent, matching the growth in the rest of the UK. On the same year, that was up 2.6 per cent, 3.1 per cent in the rest of the UK, broadly similar growth figures. Manufacturing is growing faster than any other sector, and investment is set to increase by 11 per cent this year. Growing faster in the UK than any other major advanced economy. Britain was one of the countries hardest hit by the financial crisis, but now has the strongest recovery in the European Union, the best recovery in the G7, the best job creation in Europe, and more jobs created in the United Kingdom than in the whole of the rest of the European Union combined. The SNP and Labour said that our plan would not work. I am glad that we ignored their advice. It would be to their credit if they were to stand up now and apologise for giving us the wrong advice and admitting that they were wrong. Because they were wrong, we got growth. 168,000 jobs can't be wrong. We have delivered that by making significant investment changes in the UK. 68,000 businesses have got the national insurance allowance, which is a big business boost for small business. Corporation tax down to 20 per cent. We have actually made work pay by cutting tax for 2.2 million people and taken 236,000 Scots out of tax altogether. We have made a big boost in terms of cutting regulation, supplier finance with the green investment bank and the business bank on technology, £1 billion on investing in broadband and mobile infrastructure, the technology strategy board investing in the offshore renewable energy catapult in Glasgow. Those are all significant improvements. It would be good if the Scottish Government were to recognise the progress that the UK Government is making to provide that 168,000 extra jobs in Scotland since 2010. That is progress that it should recognise. As a starting point, I would like to reflect on the chief economist for Scotland's report on the state of the economy that is issued towards the end of the year. The opening statement of that report was hugely encouraging. It stated that against a relatively subdued global economic environment, growth and output in Scotland in 2014 will record its strongest performance since 2007. The same report tells us that during 2014, in many ways, the Scottish economy surpassed pre-decession levels with continued growth, resulting in rising employment, falling unemployment and economic inactivity. The chief economist's report's positive findings were also reflected in recent positive economic reports for 2014 from the Scottish Building Federation, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Bank of Scotland. The chief economist was also right in his report to reflect on the fact that real wages in the economy still remain below pre-decession levels. What that tells us—I think that we all recognise that—is that, while many people and families are prospering in the current economic climate, those others who are in work and working hard feel trapped and frustrated by a life with low income. Some of the other wider reports that I mentioned a few moments ago also tell us about some key skill shortages in areas of construction, retail and tourism. That was the potential to hamper some growth in 2015. The findings of the chief economist's report on real wages in the economy when taken together with the skill shortages outlined in the wider reports presents a real opportunity for the upskilling of our workforce. That is now not all down to gulliment. Companies can help themselves by finding better ways of developing the skills within their own workforces to help their own employees to move into more skilled and better paid jobs. Of course, companies and government can also work together so that Government can tailor interventions that it has at its disposal to best effect. We could hear from the cabinet secretary today about what more the Government can do to better tailor its interventions in that area. I know from my time in gulliment that the cabinet secretary has a strong personal commitment to building a fairer, more sustainable and balanced economy. With that in mind, I want to make a point to him today about how we invest spend in our infrastructure in future. I know that this government will spend around £4.5 billion in infrastructure spend during 2015-16, and that is certainly something to be applauded. I also know that it is important to make the big investments that are necessary to bring about the vital improvements that are required to projects such as the southern general hospital in Glasgow, the new fourth road bridge, or indeed the Aberdeen western peripheral route. The point that I would like to make today comes from my experience and my constituency. I believe that to create the fairer, more sustainable economy that the Government seeks, we could secure greater opportunity by shifting the emphasis from the capital hungry big projects to spending on just as vital but more modest projects. I have seen, at first hand, in my constituency the transformations organisations such as Historic Scotland, Lothlaw Monotrosyck National Park or the Forth Valley College have been able to achieve through much more modest amounts of capital expenditure. Organisations investing in more modest but nonetheless important projects, while I believe that creating more local jobs and resulting significant improvements in the local economy. Organisations in the main employing more locally-based contractors, ensuring that greater added value from the government spending is produced for the local and Scottish economy. I do not have as much time as I thought it would have available, but I want to try to cover two other points quickly. First, in relation to ensuring that rural Scotland benefits in the way it should from the roll-out of faster broadband speeds. The cabinet secretary will wear a written to him expression my concern about those matters, in particular what could be done to improve the situation in my sterling constituency. I look forward to receiving his response. Secondly, the collapse of the price that dairy farmers get per litre per milk, down from about 28 pence per litre now to 18 pence per litre for some milk farmers. I believe that one of the longer-term solutions must be the development of a stronger processing industry in Scotland. That would help to create the more sustainable Scotland that the Government seeks. In this year of food and drink, developing the milk processing sector should be a priority for the Government. Finally, it is fair to say that, from the series of reports, the Government is on the right track and is far from complacent in its activities. That is why I warmly welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement today that he intends to bring forward an updated economic strategy for Scotland, and I look forward to the debate on it in this chamber. I welcome the fact that we now have growth in the economy and reducing unemployment, and the fact that more people are in work is a very good thing. However, as always, with this Government, it claims credit when things go in the right direction and blame everyone else—indeed, anyone else—when things go in the wrong direction. Of course, we have come through a period in the last few years when we heard that we could only create growth with independence, we could only create jobs with independence, and that a new oil boom was just round the corner. All would be well in a land where oil would fund the new dawn at $113 a barrel. Of course, today, it is trading around about 50. I think that the cabinet secretary and his predictions and his forecast in May well have listened to the former First Minister, a self-proclaimed expert in the economics of oil a bit too much, with his over-generous estimates. After all, Mr Salmond is a man who never sees a mohaw without proclaiming it to be Ben Nevis. However, I digress, Presiding Officer, that this is an important debate, not least in examining what has happened to the benefits of the growth that we see. We see that the Government congratulates itself on whether it has been passed on to working people as a different matter. One thing is for sure—those benefits are not being shared. Fairly, we see at a UK-level Osborne redistributing cash from the poor to the rich with tax cuts for his city friends and benefit cuts for the poor across the country. We have eye-watering record-breaking levels of wealth being accumulated by the super-rich, yet, at the same time, we see immense pressure on working people. Wedges have fallen in real terms by £1,600 a year since 2010. We have seen the explosion of food banks' health inequalities grow year on year. Youth unemployment, under-employment, insecurity at work, unfairness and low pay are still the hallmarks of our economy for so many of our people. The Scottish Government has failed to take the opportunities available to it to create fairer and more secure work and failed to develop redistributive policies that would help to share our economic growth more equitably. Take last year's rejection of Labour's amendments lodged during the procurement bill. The mask slipped during that bill all right when it had the chance to support our amendments that would have ensured contractors bidding for public contracts paid the living wage. The now First Minister instructed her party to vote it down. When we tried to take action against companies to avoid their corporate taxes, they voted that down too. Even though SNP members in the UK Parliament had demanded just that of the UK Government. The same thing happens to our amendments on ending the exploitation by contractors employing people on zero-hours contracts. Not one of the Government's backbenchers had the backbone to line up with us and vote for amendments that would have helped thousands of ordinary Scottish workers—more faces than Big Ben is what they have. In the past year in Scotland, the number of people earning under the living wage has risen by 32,000 to 427,000. Had the Scottish Government accepted our amendments, many of those people would now be earning more than they are now. The Scottish Government failed those people. The truth is, Presiding Officer, that Government talks about growth but never talks about redistribution. The only redistribution that they have in mind is from the poorer members of society to the already well-off. They showed that with the planned corporation tax cut and they are showing it with their continuing underfunding of the council tax freeze, which disproportionately helps the better off. At the same time as councils are left with no option but to cut services. I wonder if Mr Findlay supports his new leader Jim Murphy's membership of the Henry Jackson Society. I thought that we were discussing the economy, Ms White. I think that that would be a better contribution that he had made to tell us how your Government is going to help the poorest people in our society. That would be a better intervention. The reality is that it is only Labour that is proposing redistribution and growth. We will grow the economy by investing in our people and sharing the benefits in a more equitable way. That is why we will raise the top rate of tax to 50p. That is why we are introducing the mansion tax. That is why we will freeze energy prices and offer tax breaks to those who become living wage employers. That is why we will tax the bankers to create jobs for young people—all policies that the Scottish Government opposes. Chick Brody, we are followed by Graham Pearson. I support the motion. Whatever vision we have for Scotland, whatever hopes we have for people's health, education, social infrastructure or welfare, all roads of course lead to a strong economy. It is the economy, stupid. Some argue for saying that the title of today's debate should have been boosting Scotland's economy further. Despite the limitation of the economic powers of our Government's disposal, one cannot deny the relative strength of Scotland's economic performance, in fact a stark. Even in the current subdued economic political environment, it is reckless not to recognise that growth in output in Scotland in 2014 was its strongest for seven years. That is done with regularly balanced budgets. We have now a labour market drawn by rising employment, where business and consumer confidence is more upbeat and where focused investment offsets much more difficult trading conditions. All that and more immeasurable outcomes married to an environment that has highly skilled people, has a wealth of natural resources, international recognition for our invasion and has an international brand second to none. All of that and more, and yet we still have a situation, a legacy of a recession that has been mentioned, where real wages are still below those of 2008 and where there is spare capacity in the labour market. That provides us with a challenge, but more importantly an opportunity to address an imbalance in the income gap and close the capacity black hole. The OECD report just two months ago indicated that growing income inequalities are a break on economic expansion, so we have to have a seismic shift to move towards a high-wage high productivity economy, where there is a clear alignment of activity in the public and private sectors with the Government's national economic strategy. I, too, welcome the announcement by the cabinet secretary regarding the update of that strategy. We have to consider where employee participation might help that, both not just in financial terms but also in decision-making terms. We know what we want to achieve and answer the question how. Let me briefly dwell, if time allows, on just a few. The SME sector in Scotland is huge—335,000 businesses, 98 per cent of which employ fewer than 50 people, representing 42 per cent of Scotland's private sector employment, and 24 per cent of its tunnel. The 46 per cent increase in business startups, up from 14,725 in 2009, shows that small businesses are rising to the challenge and aided and abetted by the Government's initiative on small business bonus scheme. The FSB confidence index last year showed that the balance of Scottish small businesses had planned in Q4 last year to increase future capital investment over the next 12 months. With existing financial support, with the encouragement to pursue funding opportunities through the European 70 billion horizon 2020 SME engagement scheme, we can support Scotland's SMEs with greater participation and help in research and innovation. That and a further alignment, as I said earlier, to the national economic strategy and the supportive business environment to grow markets, develop sectors, to grow companies and therefore employment makes the SME sector and alongside it the third sector a bedrock for long-term economic and jobs growth. Briefly, other major areas to boost the economy, and we have to do that to be stronger when the current global slowdown reverses, as it will, involves capital investment and exports. On capital, with emphasis on more localised spend, with encouragement for councils to consider their reserves and disposal of non-utilised fixed assets should be used to inject capital and borrowings into localised capital spend projects. Lastly, we have to use this next period to further internationalise Scottish products and services. We can build on, for example, the positive performance in manufacturing exports last year, which is good news for my area of Asia. We have done that, notwithstanding the strength of sterling and the weakness of particular markets, and that does bode well. With the right focus, the right alignment, we can and we will boost Scotland's economy further. Many thanks. I now call Graham Pearson to be followed by Christian Allard. Presiding Officer, for those who are unemployed and on low incomes, the challenges of the economic downturn have been particularly difficult, but it should be remembered that very few families have come through the downturn unscathed. This Government regularly hails the benefits from initiatives such as its small business bonus scheme, as well as those from, for example, new Glasgow city deal, designed to encourage an uplift. Indeed, there are positive aspects arising from such schemes. The truth is, however, that it is not enough. Key economies are in the daldrums. Concerns remain about Greece and the potential impacts on the rest of the EU. Trade hostilities with Russia and a slowdown in China's growth all add to the lack of confidence affecting international trade. One direct result of that for the energy minister's reminder is the plunging value of crude oil. Since July, the value has halved to around $50 a barrel. In terms of public tax revenues, that is a loss of more than £6 billion per year to public finances—nearly a quarter of the cost of running Scotland's public services. On that basis, as well as the appreciation that continued pressure is likely in the longer term owing to the geopolitical tensions that affect so many regions of the world and the reality that America is becoming a net exporter of energy for the first time in decades, we need to ensure that we have new ways to boost the economy. We must involve the private sector in terms of innovation and an application of enterprise, together with the development of new businesses who are ready for the needs of the 21st century. Unfortunately, there are few signs of radical changes that we need to see across the communities, largely due to the Government's failure to boost confidence by creating an environment that enables businesses to develop and grow. For many communities across the country, the notion of an economic upswing is an illusion. Employment in those communities is bad-smodic, low-paid and often subject to zero hours and short-term contracts. The SNP Government must come forward with a plan that first reflects the dire needs of our people to be employed while enabling the very vehicle for employment, the private sector, to benefit. In that context, Mr Ewing may remember that I raised with him nearly two years ago the frustrations that were faced by SMEs navigating the public procurement process in Scotland. With the very many different application processes across the public sector, small businesses lost days and sometimes employed consultants in order to apply. After incurring great expense, they found that they were either not accepted as accredited. I am very grateful to inform Mr Pearson that the vast majority of contracts won in public sector procurement are won by SMEs. I ask for clarity whether the Labour party now supports the small business bonus, and should it be continued to the end of the next parliamentary session. I am afraid that I was making a point about the procurement process. The reality is that many of those contracts are won by companies who are either outwith Scotland and, as a result, use their UK or EU level of support to win those contracts, or that contracts are often won by companies who are ill-supported to delivering the contracts at the one, usually because they are at the lowest level of price. As a result, they leave behind either a contract that has not been completed to a sufficient quality or ends up being fixed by local companies who are legitimate, competent and professional and are left to do difficult work at no profit when, indeed, they should have been given the opportunity to win the contract in the first place. I hope that the minister will assure us that he will give some thought to the procurement process in order that our local companies, our local apprentices and our local communities can benefit from such contracts. Finally, the Government must give thought to the need for capital support for trade across Scotland and across Europe, and should give some serious consideration to a resilient fund for the future. Many thanks, and I now call Christian Allard to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me congratulate the Scottish Government on its ambition to boosting our economy further. I say further because this Government has been working hard for the last eight years and with great successes, Scotland's economy continues to grow and our unemployment rate is the lowest in the UK. Presiding Officer, both successes are the result of a Government understanding businesses and using the economic levers at its disposal. The North East knows it has a great role to play in further boosting Scotland's economy. The multi-award winning Chamber of Commerce, Abernain and Grampian have been leading the way for me in the decades. I would like to thank Richard Heliot, the Chamber's policy executive for sending us a copy of the latest Orlingas survey and Tourist and North East Business week survey. I will have to apologise to Rachel. I had several meetings with Rachel and with her colleagues at the Chamber of Commerce when I always pushed the Chamber of Commerce to try to diversify and not always talk about Orlingas, but because we are quite short of time today, I might only talk about Orlingas. The chief executive of Abernain and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, Bob Corrier, in his comment is very clear regarding the Orlingas sector. I read, all four confidence levels are at a six years' low. The industry has a clear idea of what it needs to do following the studies chaired by Sir Ian Wood and Melford Campbell. I wish the opposition would read those surveys provided to us. I don't know if they got them. I don't know if they read them. The number one recommendation that the industry wants government to act upon is that the members of the Chamber of Commerce who said so, and Mark McDonald spoke about it, but what he didn't say, it was the number one recommendation. And I read it again, we know that the fiscal regime needs to be addressed. Nearly two-third of respondents told us this immediate action from the government is required. Immediate action from the UK government is required. And what do we get instead? A mere 2% increase in the tax rate. Prior to March 24, 2011, the tax rate was at 20%. The story of the coalition increased it to 32%. We heard of that before today, of course, because the minister had in his statement and talked about it, but I think it needs to be repeated, because I don't think the message is going through. They paid the price in the 2011 action. There's two political parties. Would the same UK government reverse the increase? No is the answer. Instead, we took the tax rate to 30%. 10% higher than it was in early 2011. That's not a decrease. That's an increase of 10%. It's not how to boost growth presenting office services. This is how to destroy an industry presenting office services. And because of this, only world democrats will pay the price in the ballot box in a few months' time, just like they did in 2011. Because of this, the Chamber of Commerce survey, the Olinga survey, is telling us that confidence about the UK continental shelf is significantly down in comparison to previous years with 46% of respondents reporting they are less confident. 49% of respondents are reporting that they were working above optimum levels in the UK continental shelf, which is also down in previous years. And of course, business confidence in overseas market is higher than the UK continental shelf outlook, because what the opposition benches first to understand is that we need to be competitive worldwide, whatever the price of oil. And this was alluded to early on in the statement of the minister. We talked about internationalisation. That was the lesson we learned in the 80s when we had a lot bigger crisis than we have today. And now, nowadays, because of the lesson we learned in the 80s, half of the sales in the sector are now abroad. And as Mark McDonald said as well from the report of the Chamber of Commerce, half of the operators are reporting a reduction contract staff with almost two thirds, expecting further reduction in contracts in 2015. That was what they said at the end of the year. But there are two points there that many of the Chamber failed to understand. It's first that we in the North East have had a skilled shortage for many years. Many of us contractors were struggling to find staff anyway to work in the North East. The second point, President of the North East, is that many of the skilled workforce is already working abroad. If the UK government doesn't act immediately, we are going to lose those workforce. Most of them, originally from the North East, will end up settling abroad. So a major company needs to have that investment. We have to make sure that we give that confidence for the oil and gas industry. I share the optimism of the industry and they know what we are facing and we are acting upon it. We just ask the UK Government to do the same. This is why I will be voting with the Government tonight against the Labour-shamful amendment. The North East Sea is open for business. Many thanks. I now call Patrick Harvie to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the chance to participate in this debate, although I fear that I might be painfully predictable today. Not only mentioning climate change during a statement from Fergus Ewing, but it's possible that I'll have something to say about GDP during a debate on the economy. My boring predictability I think will not surprise the cabinet secretary or the Deputy First Minister. I want to open by talking about an argument that he set out in his opening remarks, which is reflected in the motion. The notion that equality and cohesion are good for growth. In fact, sustainable economic growth, as the Government's phrase has it, and tackling inequalities, the Deputy First Minister said, are not opposites. I would like to explore whether that is a useful argument. It's one that has been growing globally. It's one that is certainly a step forward from a central argument that went before in previous generations when the myth of trickle-down economics was still being peddled, the notion that a rising tide lifts all boats. That's clearly been shown to be false, not just in this country but around the world. Far from trickle-down economics, we had hoover-up economics, with a wealthiest, absorbed lion's share of the material and economic proceeds of the economy, but the social and environmental consequences of generating that wealth were heaped on those who didn't enjoy the proceeds. That notion that equality is good for growth, that if we want GDP growth in the future, we need to close the wealth gap, we need to close income and wealth inequality. It's an argument that has been advanced, not least by Thomas Piketty, Joe Stiglitz and other significant global figures. It's interesting that the Government seems to be foregrounding this argument. It's one that we tried to draw out recently in a debate on wealth and income inequality. I'd like to argue that yes, this argument is a step forward, a step advanced from that trickle-down nonsense that we saw before, but it is only one step forward. I would like to encourage the Deputy First Minister once again to complete that journey. It's not just that equality, social justice, well-being and environmental protection don't undermine growth rates. It is in fact that there's no simplistic link between them at all. There have been periods of time when GDP growth has risen and risen and risen relentlessly, which saw growing inequality, widening inequality, worsening health, increased environmental destruction and there have been periods of recession in GDP terms, which saw exactly the same problems continue to get worse. Similarly, there have been periods in which these problems were tackled, reduced by an act of political will in good times and in bad in GDP terms. In good times and in bad in GDP terms, it is possible to overcome, to tackle and to reduce these social problems. What matters most to us? That's the question. Does it matter most to us that we achieve the wellbeing of our society, its people and the ecosystem that sustains us all? Or does it matter most to us to measure the amount of money that's swirling around in the economy? Because that's all GDP does. It doesn't tell us how it's being generated. It doesn't tell us how it's being used. It doesn't tell us in whose interests is the economy functioning. The second weakness in this argument that equality is good for growth is what happens if we do return to a period of lasting economic growth, of strong and lasting economic growth. What happens to that argument? What happens to the case for building a more equal society, for improving environmental protection, for achieving the wellbeing of our society? What happens to that argument if it's predicated on the notion that we need equality in order to achieve greater GDP growth? If we return to growth, we will end up losing that argument once again. The political pendulum would swing back in the other direction. Let's not win the argument for a more equal society, simply in order to suggest that it's the best way of becoming richer. Let's argue that a more equal society is an objective in its own right. It comes down to what we believe in, what kind of society we want to build, and after that we achieve an economy that functions in that interest and does so within ecological limits. I can give our next two open debate speakers four minutes each, and I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Alex Rowley. One of the great achievements of the Scottish economy in recent years has been the dramatic uplift in our exports. Of course, Scotland has been an exporting nation for a very long time. I remember standing on the shores of Lake Titicaca looking at the ferry from Peru across to Bolivia, built on the client. I visited the biggest Buddha in the world, which is just outside Rangoon in Burma. It sits in a frame that proudly says, manufactured in Kilmarnock. Everywhere you go in the world, you find bottles of whiskey waiting an appreciative audience to drink them. Our exporting credentials are long established and continue to be an important part of our economy and to grow. For many of my constituents and colleagues in the north-east, we export our skills based on the experience of the oil and gas industry. Whatever the vicissitudes of short-term difficulties, that will undoubtedly continue. One of the things that I am most delighted of is that we are no longer exporting people in any substantial sense. It is quite ironic that the new memorial to the clearances that is at Hedlansdale, which has the little child holding his mother's hand looking back down the glen to the place that we will never see again, is within sight of the oil field, just off the course of the Beatrice field, which has of course been a pioneer in the offshore wind industry. The wind industry is going to be an important part of our future. Harbors, in my constituency at Bucky, at Fraserborough and at Peterhead, want to get some of the action from the offshore wind, but the UK Government's dithering, delay and damaging changes in the regime put at risk those new jobs, which are long-term sustainable, even when oil has ceased to be part of our economy. They will be important to us. It is worth saying, of course, that I have heard some interesting things in the debate. It is always a great pleasure to hear Neil Finlay speak, if only for the excitement of watching him wrestle with his own internal contradictions in the arguments that he puts forward and wondering which side of him is going to win. When he criticises the suggestions that Scotland should, as Northern Ireland, is going to before the general election, have control over corporation tax, he ignores the fact that Gordon Brown has cut corporation tax more often than anywhere. Clearly, he has been criticising Gordon Brown. Therefore, I can only assume that Mr Finlay is, of course, a Blairite. In my remaining 60 seconds, let me just touch upon also what Mr Finlay was saying about employment. I am delighted to hear him arguing for our having full power over employment law. I will join him campaigning on that on every opportunity. His recent campaigning against that was not too good. Let me just conclude by addressing the issues that Jackie Baillie talked about. She seemed to celebrate the drop in oil prices. Although, of course, the price that we are talking about that UK Government had from the Department of Energy and Climate Change is exactly the same as the one that the Scottish Government used. We hear that, in a year's time, we will be back to the same place. The long-term future for oil is a feedstock for our chemical industries. We have got to get off burning it. That is certainly important. I look forward to future prosperity and growth in our economy. I note that, in a briefing that was given by the MSCVO, it said that we are heartened by the Scottish Government's recent and on-going rhetoric about tackling inequality and appreciating it doing so as part of growing a strong economy. It went on to say that it was keen to hear more practical measures and that it hoped to debate today will highlight some of the ways in which the Scottish Government will look at achieving its aims. Sadly, it will be disappointed because what has not come across today is how we intend to tackle inequality. You would have to say that the track record over the past seven years has not been very good, but I appreciate that John Swinney kicked off the debate by saying that we enter 2015 on a sound economic footing. He recognised that the more unequal an economy is, the less successful that economy will be. There is a real opportunity in 2015 to start to tackle inequality in Scotland. John Swinney talked about the economic strategy that he is bringing forward, and I look forward to that update. I hope that he will involve all parties in this chamber, but he will also talk to local government and all the partners that are out there, including the third sector, SCVO and many, many more. If we are going to create a prosperous and fairer society, we need to start to tackle poverty. It is also worth noting in the short time that I have today that, in terms of the Scottish Government figures that were produced in 2014 with the latest figures for relative poverty 2012-13, there were 820,000 individuals living in relative poverty in Scotland. That was a reverse in the reduction that we had seen in recent years with more than 110,000 people living in relative poverty compared to the year before. I suspect that the figures for this year will be even higher, so we see that there is an on-going increase in relative poverty in Scotland. In 2012-13, the rate of people in absolute poverty increased by 17 per cent, some 880,000 people, again an increase of 100,000 people living in absolute poverty. We need to be able to attack that. I suggest to Mr Swinney that, if he, for example, was to start looking at policies like reversing the £61 million real-term cuts that have taken place in colleges over the last few years, that would be a very positive step. If we are serious about tackling inequality and poverty, we need to do a lot more to get people the skills so that they can get the jobs that are available and the jobs that we should be creating. In terms of in-work poverty, we also have a major issue, and the same Scottish Government statistics show that nearly half of households in poverty, 45 per cent of all people in poverty, are in a household where at least one person is working. Over half, 52 per cent of working-age adults in poverty are in working households. Six in 10, 59 per cent of children in poverty in Scotland live in a working household. The increase in in-work poverty in the latest year continues to slow increasing trends in poverty. We need to be able to tackle in-work poverty, raising the minimum wage, something that is a platform that I will be standing on as we go forward to the general election this year. The end is zero hours contracts and being able to raise the living wage so that more workers, more than 400,000 individuals in Scotland, would benefit from a rise in the living wage. I hope that we can start to, yes, grow the economy, celebrate the success of the economy but ensure that more and more people can share in that success by tackling inequality and poverty. We have the power in this Parliament to start to do that and we need to get on with it now. As Gavin Brown said at the start of the debate, there is much in the SNP motion today that we agree with in terms of celebrating the success or some of the successes of the Scottish economy. Those successes, of course, are not limited to Scotland. They apply across the whole of the UK. We are one of the fastest rates of growth in the developed world. We are the fastest growing major economy in the world today. Net employment is up 1.75 million since 2010. There have been 2.2 million new private sector jobs created in that time. Three quarters of them full time. Inflation is coming down and wages are now rising faster than prices. It is a good news story. Of course, the SNP likes to claim all the credit for this good news. In fact, Christian Alr did just that in his contribution a few moments ago. There are at least two reasons why we need to take that with a pinch of salt. Firstly, because the SNP has been telling us for years that it did not have the power to make a difference, it did not have the economic levers, so it could hardly claim all the credit for the success when it has said that it has not been up to them. Secondly, as Willie Rennie reminded us earlier on, the SNP of course opposed the approach that was taken by George Osborne and the UK Government that has delivered the success. The SNP was not alone in that. The SNP stood shoulder to shoulder with the Labour Party in its critique of the coalition government's approach. Mr Swinney and Ed Balls could virtually have been twins. So close was their critique of the coalition government's approach. I remember Mr Swinney's calling for a plan B in saying that the chancellor's plans would never work. He has been proved completely wrong. They have worked and they have delivered success. However, there have been a few flies in the ointment in Scotland. We should not ignore those. Just last year, the retail figures in quarter 2 and quarter 3 for Scotland showed a decrease while going up elsewhere in the UK. In terms of the property market, the RICS residential market survey showed a decline in sales in September due to the quoted market uncertainty. The Federation of Small Business Confidence survey showed a fall in the final quarter of 2014, greater than the UK as a whole, now meaning that Scotland is the third lowest-placed part of the UK in terms of business confidence behind just northeast of England and Northern Ireland. What could be the common factor, Deputy Presiding Officer? Could it be anything to do with September's independence referendum and the impact on business confidence? The SNP should not claim credit for all the good news when their own obsession has potentially set us back. The Mackay consultant's monthly economic report for December concludes that there are increasing signs that growth in 2015 will be significantly lower than in 2014, and we have not even talked yet about the oil price. I want to address, if I can, the issue that the cabinet secretary raised in his contribution and picked up by a number of others, including Alex Rowley just now in relation to the living wage, which is an important area to discuss. We agree with the ambition of raising wages and raising living standards. I do not think that anybody in the chamber will disagree, but that needs to be done in a manner that is affordable. I want to give two examples of where there might be difficulties and where we have low-wage industries. The first is in the hospitality sector, which is in many areas a low-wage industry, where the introduction of the living wage would undoubtedly increase the pay of many of the staff involved. However, if the staff pay goes up, prices will go up. If the prices go up, that will hit people in their pockets, and it will also hit the competitiveness of the tourism offer from Scotland. Scotland is already seen, as we always hear, when we have debates in this chamber on tourism, as a high-cost destination. We need to be careful about that. I happily give way to the member. Do you not agree or do you not think that if you introduced the living wage, hotels and other industries would actually see a more settled staff and less staff moving about? I am not disagreeing with the member that there would not be advantages to bringing in the living wage. All I am saying is to bring it in too rapidly or to bring it in without being aware of some of the consequences might turn out to be disadvantages. I want to move on, because I have another point that I want to make on that. The other industry that I want to give an example of is the care sector. We know in the care sector that there are very many low-paid employees. Care providers, I speak to say, cannot afford to pay more. Already budgets are tight. In many cases, in fact, patients who are paying privately are in effect cross-subsidising those who are local authority funded. If the Government decides that it wants to pay the living wage, it will have to pay more for care. That will mean funding local government more to pay the care providers more. Let us not suggest that this is a cost-free option, either for public spending or for household budget. I think that I am in my last minute. I just want to say in closing what we need is a more competitive Scotland. There is good news out there, but it is more that could be done. We support the small business bonus. That is continuing. We oppose the retail levy. That is now being scrapped and that is good news. There are benefits to retailers south of the border in terms of rates that have not been introduced in Scotland. We are taking a proposal to reintroduce rates on sporting interests, putting Scottish rural businesses at a competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. We are seeing rates of land and buildings transaction tax being imposed in Scotland from the spring, which again will put us at a competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. All those matters are under the control of the Scottish Government and all of them could be dealing with now if they so want to. We have had economic successes. We have had help with security successes by voting no in September in the referendum. Let's not now put them at risk. Thank you very much. The debate has been wide-ranging as a debate on the economy should be, but I want in closing for Labour to come back to the critical issue of the challenges facing our oil and gas industry. The single most urgent immediate issue facing the Scottish economy today and entirely absent from the Scottish Government's motion on boosting the economy. SNP ministers will say that oil is a bonus. It is not the basis of Scotland's economy, as if that made it all right not to talk about it in tough times. I am glad that Mr Ewing came to the chamber earlier this afternoon to make a statement about oil and gas, reflecting at least some degree of recognition that this industry is indeed of fundamental importance to Scotland's economy. I was disappointed that he had so little new to say, but I think that the critical thing is that oil and gas are hardly a bonus when the industry accounts for up to one-sixth of our GDP and an even larger share of our export earnings. Fifty thousand men and women work offshore in what can be one of the toughest working environments in the world, especially on a night like tonight. Many thousands more earn their living in the oil and gas industry, inshore, onshore and tens of thousands of jobs depend indirectly on the boost of the economy from oil and gas. I am very grateful for Lewis MacDonald giving way to make progress. Can I ask, will Labour support the tax reforms that we have brought forward today and which we believe should be implemented in the March UK budget? Lewis MacDonald? Mr Ewing talks about tax reforms that he has brought forward today. Mr Ewing will be aware that the tax reforms that he is lobbying for are tax reforms that we are lobbying for, tax reforms that the industry is lobbying for and tax reforms that are supported by trade unions in the sector as well. The idea is somehow that the proposition that there should be support for development, there should be support for exploration and there should be reform to the field allowances, those are not new things brought forward by Mr Ewing, albeit that I very much welcome his support for them. They are things that have very broad support within the sector and the industry. The point has also been made by Mr Ewing and his colleagues that we have seen low oil prices before, and that is only too true. However, it is too easy to forget just how damaging those faults in the price of oil were for the regional economy of the northeast and for Scotland's industrial health in general. In the oil price recession of 1986-87, for example, houses that had previously gained in value from month to month suddenly became unsellable and thousands of hard work and people learned from themselves the meaning of negative equity. $12 oil in 1999 was damaging too and prompted the then Labour Government to set up pilot recognising the need for industry and government to work together to overcome the potentially damaging effects of a prolonged period of low oil prices. Mr Ewing indeed is vice-chair of pilot and it should be better placed than most to recognise its value. We know that a low price of oil can damage businesses and jobs, and we also know that our responsible government can make a difference if it intervenes effectively to mitigate the effects. That is why we need the Scottish Government to start by assessing the impact of $50 oil on the Scottish economy and what the impact will be if the price continues to fall to $40 or below. It is a pity that the Government has not taken the opportunity that it was offered this afternoon to make such an assessment of that wider economic impact, but perhaps Mr Swinney, in closing the debate, will be able to do precisely that. That is not just another cyclical dip in the world price of oil, like those that the Scottish economy has experienced and survived before. Would Mackenzie made the point clear in her report the other day on UK upstream, a review of 2014 and what to look for in 2015? Like Sir Ian Wood's review last year, he set out clearly the challenges that the sector faces now that it did not face in 1986, 1999 or 2008. He found that future prospects are at risk at a price of $60, and 80 per cent of unsanctioned projects would fail to generate a sufficient return. He said that there is real concern as a result over future investment with $16 billion potentially at risk of cancellation or deferral over the next five years, potentially with new reserves that are not yet sanctioned, which could be put at risk by $60 oil, £220,000 of oil equivalent a day. Those are big numbers of risk, as I am sure that the Government will recognise, even for an industry that routinely invests billions of dollars in order to make big returns in future years. We no longer see a rising graph of production from the North Sea or, indeed, any realistic prospect of net production going up. A whole series of decisions are being made now in boardrooms around the world about whether to continue to produce from fields that are, in any case, in the latter part of their productive life. We know that at least 30 existing fields in the North Sea require an oil price of $50 or more in order to be profitable. If they are not profitable, they will close down, and once a field has been decommissioned, there is no going back. We need to intervene. Of course, it is right to say that part of that intervention has to be fiscal, but we also need to intervene in the economic impact of changes in the oil industry of the type that we are looking at today. That is why Scottish Labour has proposed a resilience fund, not just for the oil industry, as has been implied, but for one that would operate for any key sector of the economy, facing the risks that the energy sector faces today. I just wanted to know, as Jim Murphy asked Diane Abbott about the new proposal, because we would not want to study a proposal that some of MPs in London would not agree with. Mr Lallard, although he is clearly an avid watcher of social media, has confused two quite different stories, but I am pleased to tell him that Jim Murphy requires permission from him to bring forward important proposals for the Scottish economy. What I want to know today is whether John Swinney has, in the last couple of hours, secured permission from Nicola Sturgeon to agree to the proposal for a resilience fund to support sectors of the Scottish economy under pressure, because if he does so, then we will be very happy to hear that assurance from him today. However, our challenge to the Scottish Government is to begin to take this crisis seriously, to recognise the fundamental importance of oil to the Scottish economy, and to get on board with all those who are calling for urgent action to save businesses and jobs. It means being serious about being prepared to work with other parties, not just talking the talk, but walking the walk, and they need to get on and do that now. Thank you very much. I now call on John Swinney to wind up the debate. Deputy First Minister, you have not told just before 5 p.m. Presiding Officer, one of the obligations on the minister is when our minister gives incorrect information to the Parliament, they should correct it at the first available opportunity. Duncan McNeill is not here to witness a moment where I will have to do it in relation to his intervention to me earlier on, where I said to Mr McNeill that we had not fixed a target for the number of accredited employers paying the living wage that we wished to secure. However, I am advised that buried in the programme for government is the target of 150 companies by the end of 2015, but we will of course endeavour to exceed that. I am sorry that Mr McNeill is not here to witness that beautiful moment. I am sure that he will be watching it on the video player endlessly to appreciate the moment. Mr Brown asked about the Government economic strategy, and I can confirm what will be published in March. What I would say to Mr Brown about the Government economic strategy is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with putting in material that we are already doing because it is the sound and correct things to be doing in the economy. However, what we will be doing is updating the Government economic strategy to reflect some of the challenges that we face and some of the developments in our own thinking, particularly on the issues around the tackling of in-work poverty, which is a more significant issue within the economy. Murdo Fraser trusts me for not being generous in applauding the success of the UK Government's plan. Murdo Fraser reminds me that the chancellor is borrowing £100 billion more than is set out in the fiscal plans in 2010. Net debt is continuing to grow and is forecast to peak at 81 per cent of GDP next year. It is funny that none of that was mentioned by either Murdo Fraser or the other fanzine for the United Kingdom Government, Willie Rennie, because it does indicate the fact that the chancellor's plan far from working is actually delayed economic recovery significantly and growth that we are experiencing now, the chancellor predicted in 2010, we should have been experiencing in 2012 and in fact did not do so at that time. Siobhan McMahon raised an issue about the underspend and the discussion that has taken place about that. I made a full parliamentary statement on the end of year financial position in June to Parliament in which I made clear that the fiscal dell underspend of the Government was £145 million, which represents half a per cent of our fiscal dell budget. The fiscal dell budget is the budget that we have available to spend. It is the cash that we can spend on public service projects. Some of the other components of the underspend are unannually managed expenditure, which is not budget that I control but which tends to be, for example, some of the budget cover that is provided for student loans. That is entirely demand-led and when it is not spent on student loans cover it cannot be spent on other wider public expenditure. I would finally reassure Siobhan McMahon that every part of that £145 million of the fiscal dell underspend was earmarked to be utilised to support our spending plans in 2014-15, and I can confirm that that is being taken forward as part of the Government's budget in this current financial year. My friend and colleague Bruce Crawford made a very substantial speech to Parliament today in which he considered the analysis undertaken by the chief economist in his most recent report. Weave together the issue of the performance on a reduction in skill shortages, the real wage crisis that exists within our society and made it clear that we had an opportunity in the economy to upskill employment and to upskill the quality of employment in Scotland. However, Mr Crawford made the essential connection that not all that can be delivered by the Government on its own. That is essentially something that can be delivered only as a product of a partnership between business and government, which is what the Scottish Business Pledge is designed to do. It is designed to say to the business community in Scotland that there are elements of improvement in the quality and the sustainability of employment that we wish to undertake and to achieve as a Government in Scotland, but we can only do it if businesses work with us to achieve that objective. I am indebted to Mr Crawford for highlighting the importance of ensuring that business pledge is successful as an element of the Government's economic strategy. I will give further consideration to the point that Mr Crawford made about decreasing the size and scale of our capital projects to provide a broader range of capital projects around the country. He will appreciate the challenge that there is in the capital programme about undertaking major capital projects such as the South Glasgow hospital or the Queensferry crossing, which are fundamental parts of our capital programme, which makes the achievement of the objective that he set out rather more difficult. My colleague Frenland Fabiani also made the point that is similar to the point that Mr Crawford was making about the partnership that is necessary in our economy between Government, trade unions and business to achieve shared objectives. I want to say that one of the important elements of the Government's policy-making framework is the way in which we regularly are in dialogue with the trade union movement through the biannual meetings between the First Minister and the trade union movement, which have been consistent since 2007 in the election of this Government, and the regular dialogue that takes place with business organisations in Scotland to try to encourage the creation of a shared agenda between the Government, trade unions and the business community to achieve our objectives. That will be essential in achieving some of the points on the Scottish business pledge to which I referred earlier. That is material to securing business support for delivering the living wage, a point that was made by Mr Rowley and, in a different way, by Murdo Fraser, who highlighted that the living wage will be a major challenge for some parts of our economy. I accept that there will be parts of the economy that will really struggle to deliver the living wage, but I do not think that we should particularly compartmentalise sectors of the economy that will find that difficult. Mr Fraser made the point that the hospitality industry would find that difficult. This morning, I visited the rabies travel company in Edinburgh, who is a very successful travel business in Scotland and a very successful hospitality business, who decided to pay the living wage to all of their staff. The productivity improvements and performance improvements that they have had as a consequence have justified absolutely every bit of the investment that they made. The time remaining available to me, I want to talk about the oil and gas sector. Where the debate has turned, and what is important, is to question what is the intervention that will truly make a difference in challenging the oil price difficulties that exist within the North Sea oil and gas sector today. Mark McDonald and Christian Allard I thought very powerfully in the debate that set out the contribution from the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, who said that, we know that the fiscal regime needs to be addressed, nearly two-thirds of respondents to their survey told the Chamber of Commerce that was the issue that had to give. When you look through the four key priorities that Mr Collier, the chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, highlights, all of those relate to the costs and the fiscal regime that are taking forward, the importance also of collaboration and the maximisation of economic recovery. If we look at what Malcolm Webb, the chief executive of oil and gas UK, has said, he has indicated that the two major challenges are industry inefficiency and United Kingdom Government economic energy policy. The need to improve the fiscal regime is fundamental to achieving a better future for the oil and gas industry. Of course, I will give way. I am very grateful to Mr Swinney, because he also acknowledged that what Malcolm said this week was that, given the need for the industry to urgently reduce its own costs and increase its efficiency, Jim Murphy's proposal to introduce a resilient fund that can be used by local authorities to help those affected by adverse conditions, economic conditions, seems sensible. Malcolm Webb thinks that that seems sensible. Can the Scottish Government not at least agree to assess its potential impact? John Swinney, you must draw to a close, please. I will draw to a close simply by saying that Jackie Baillie has indicated to us that setting up an oil fund will take money from public services. It is a rather remarkable change in position that we have had from the Labour Party. The Scottish Government recognises the significance and the importance of the oil and gas industry to Scotland. We will take forward all the interventions that we can within our powers, which Mr Ewing has stewed, which puts in a power of effort to take forward dialogue with the oil and gas industry. However, the key difference that will make all the impact for the oil and gas industry is an improvement in the fiscal regime of the United Kingdom Government, and we ask it to take that forward now. That concludes the debate on boosting economy. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. I remind members that a revised version of section A of today's business bulletin was issued earlier today, and it includes parliamentary bureau motions on committee membership and substitution on committees. The next item of business is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions, and I ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motions number 12011 and 12012 on committee membership and motions number 12013 and 12014 on substitution on committees. On block, please. Many thanks. The question on those motions will be put at decision time to which we now come. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business, and I would wish to remind members that, in relation to the debate on boosting the economy, if the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Gavin Brown falls. The first question, then, is that amendment 11993.3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion number 11993, in the name of John Swinney, on boosting the economy, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, and therefore we will move to a vote. Members should please cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 11993.3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is yes, 31, no, 64. There were 15 abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is the amendment 11993.4, in the name of Gavin Brown, which seeks to amend motion number 11993, in the name of John Swinney, on boosting the economy, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, and therefore we will move to a vote. Members should please cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11993.4, in the name of Gavin Brown, is yes, 15, no, 95. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. That brings us to the next question, which is that motion 11993, in the name of John Swinney, on boosting the economy, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, and therefore we will now move to a vote. Please cast your votes now. Order, please. The result of the vote on motion number 11993, in the name of John Swinney, is yes, 58, no, 52. There were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed to. That brings us to the fourth question, and I propose to ask a single question on motion number 12011 to 12014 on committee membership and substitution on committees. If any member objects to a single question being put, could you please say so now? Since no member has objected, the next question then is that motions 12011 to 12014, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on committee membership and substitution on committees, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed, and that therefore concludes decision time. I now close this meeting.