 The next item of business is a debate on motion 14824, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, on Scotland's economic future and economic data. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Gordon Lindhurst to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee. Up to 12 minutes, please, Mr Lindhurst. Pardon my unparliamentary language deputy, Presiding Officer, but I shall be talking statistics. It was Mark Twain who coined the phrase, I've known many terrible things in my life, nine tenths of them never happened. At least that was in the version that I once read. He's also said to have said, facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable. The committee's biggest inquiries this year looked at economic performance and data. My aim is to provide a flavour of both pieces of work, and hopefully it is the facts that will shine through from the committee's work. Doubtless my colleagues will pick up on anything significant that I miss. Professor Graham Roy, director of the Fraser of Allander Institute, advised us on the data inquiry and found the experience so fulfilling he chose to return to the role for economic performance. The committee certainly benefited from his expertise, his rigor and not to be underestimated in these matters, his patience. Let me start with statistics. The president of the Royal Statistical Society, David Spiegelhalter, has spoken of the Groucho principle, my favourite marks. Should you encounter a newsworthy number or a retweeted stat, Mr Spiegelhalter advised, is Mr Finlay wishing to take an intervention or is he allowing me to refocus the chamber's attention to my students? Excuse me, can you turn your member, I'm still here and stop having a private conversation? Are you allowing the intervention, Mr Lindhurst? Well, if he wishes to take one. Neil Findlay. When conveners speak, usually the clerks have a big input into their speeches, but we can be guaranteed that they didn't write those ones. Gordon Lindhurst. Actually, they did, but that is not to take away from the impact of the lines. If I can return to what Mr Spiegelhalter said, he has said, and I quote, that this may apply also to Mr Findlay's intervention. If it's surprising or counterintuitive enough to have been drawn to my attention, it is probably wrong." As a society, the extent of our data literacy is poor, and this may seem a niche subject, but it shapes decision making in so many spheres. Public policy, corporate thinking, journalistic opinion and public perception. The committee drew on the ethos of the BEAN review as a starting point for our inquiry. Professor Sir Charles BEAN of the LSE led an independent review of UK economic statistics and published his final report in 2016. He encouraged a fundamental rethink of how we collect, present and interpret data. In his words, and again I quote, we should not start with the statistic and then ask now what questions can we throw at it. The key is to define the question carefully at the beginning. The committee wanted to examine the accuracy, utility and comprehensibility of Scottish economic statistics. We took evidence from data producers, users, consumers and regulators. The report was detailed and at 90 pages for any of us, rather a doorstep or doorstop. We made 29 recommendations, most of them directed at the Scottish Government, others for the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the Office for National Statistics and HMRC. The work was well received in the statistical community and the Scottish Government accepted the main thrust of our findings. However, there is always a but, is not there? We have three matters outstanding. I begin with the least contentious. We sought a robust and independent analysis of Scotland's particular data needs, the aim being to distinguish the essential from the desirable and the useful from what we may be doing out of mere habit. Our recommendation was directed to the enterprise and skills strategic board. Nor a senior, the board's chair, thought that this might be better suited to the Scottish Economic Statistics Consultation Group. That may be a helpful suggestion. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can tell us if it is doable. The second, and I would hope also non-contentious issue, concerns the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Its role in economic and fiscal forecasting is, as we know, crucial. In the committee's view, its data needs ought to be prioritised for that reason. From the evidence that we heard, this was not necessarily the case. We recommended that the commission annually set out its data needs and that the areas that it had already highlighted, including price and wages data, be prioritised. Accordingly, the commission wrote to us in September with a first annual statement of its data needs. It highlighted which organisations it relied on for such information and where improvements might be made. Again, I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond positively to those requirements. The third area is contentious—at least it has been to the Scottish Government—but it did not remain so. It contains, or concerns rather, pre-release access or PRA. That is the practice of making statistics available to ministers and their advisers prior to publication. The Office for National Statistics ended pre-release last July. The Bank of England followed suit. We recommended the Scottish Government end pre-release for economic statistics of national importance, including GDP. That was the majority view of the committee. The minority opinion, though more circumspect, called for a presumption against pre-release. How is this issue viewed by the statistical community? The Royal Statistical Society supports an end to pre-release. The UK Statistics Authority supports an end to pre-release. The Office for National Statistics supports an end to pre-release. The author of the Bean Review supports an end to pre-release. The UK's national statistician also supports an end to pre-release. In a letter to the UK Statistics Authority in June 2017, John Pullinger said, and I quote, On the basis of all the information now available to me, I consider that the public benefit likely to result from pre-release access is outweighed by the detriment to public trust. Ten years ago, the UK Statistics Authority itself wrote to the Scottish Government to say and again I quote, enabling the administration of the day to discuss and prepare statements whilst not allowing the same access to Parliament where the public is not, in our view, good statistical practice. If added, we believe that our view on this is shared by statistical offices and other authorities around the world. That was ten years ago, ten years in which the direction of travel has moved away from pre-release and toward the principles of equal access and earliest possible release, ten years of the Scottish Government facing in the opposite direction. The cabinet secretary's early comments to the committee were highly encouraging and his tone never less than positive, but so far no actual delivery on pre-release access to follow UK best practice. If he does not take action on this, the committee may need to initiate a bill to deal with this long-standing issue. I turn now to economic performance. Ronald Reagan once remarked, and I quote, and again I can advise Mr Finlay that these lines were drafted by committee clerks, while at the same time I in no way seek to distance myself from them. Ronald Reagan once remarked, and I quote, economists are people who see something that works in practice and wonder if it would work in theory. We wanted to examine what has worked in practice since 2007, the year the national performance framework was launched, and to look forward, assessing the threats and opportunities of the coming decade, focusing on innovation, investment, internationalisation and inclusive growth, as well as broad drivers for economic growth. We consulted extensively with a wide range of businesses, experts, including economists and households. We held eight focus groups, two each in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and, indeed, in Jedburgh. We held formal evidence sessions across 12 committee meetings. We met with the OECD and Sky Scanner among others. We heard incisive evidence of success where Scotland is leading in innovation. While traditional industries had struggles and indeed had struggled, other industries have flourished. It has been good for video games, life sciences, food and drink and tourism, not so good for oil and gas or construction. We sought a consistent definition of inclusive growth and a better focus on reducing the gap between the low-performing and high-performing regions. We also wanted more done to support women in business being able to access funding and advice and greater support with job transitions and reskilling throughout all of our working lives. It appeared that the committee's report had an immediate political impact, a change of cabinet secretary in the very weak that we have published. Coincidence? Who am I to say? I quote from the new cabinet secretary, which is a complex area with interlinking themes and dependencies, and I commend the committee for the thoroughness and breadth of its inquiry. The new cabinet secretary knew to us as a committee anyway. Again, we see in that the positive tone. I want to explore the Scottish Government's response to our findings in a number of areas as I come gradually to close. NPF, growth, economic strategy, enterprise and skills and business to business learning. We had concerns about the ability to measure policy impact under the NPF. The Scottish Government referred to our data inquiry and specifically measures to judge progress toward inclusive growth, including prioritising the data needs of the Scottish Fiscal Commission and renewing the impetus in developing the means of measuring social inclusion. We repeated a call from our gender pay gap inquiry to raise the status of the care sector in Scotland. The Scottish Government has said that an analysis of the growth sectors would be overseen by the chief economic adviser, and that would include the care sector. We pushed for future updates of the economic strategy to be strengthened, accompanied by an implementation policy and supported by an evaluation plan. The Scottish Government has accepted that recommendation. We recommended, among other things, more transparency with the performance targets that are set by the enterprise agencies. The Scottish Government has said that the strategic board is developing a framework, one that would be more consistent with the national performance framework and the economic strategy. In conclusion, we were pleased with the overall response, but we think that calls for more than intentions and harmonious sentiment from the Scottish Government and look forward to progress in those areas in which the Scottish Government has accepted what we recommended. To conclude in the words of our ever-insightful Fraser Vallander's Professor Roy, strategies and advisory groups are no substitute for good policy based on evidence, data and impact. I move the motion. Derek Mackay, eight minutes please, cabinet secretary. I thank you, Presiding Officer. In fairness to Gordon Lindhurst, that was nearly as funny as the Chancellor's jokes from the budget this year, but I have to say far better than what the civil service wrote for me by way of humour. I think that this is a very helpful debate, and it is true to say that there was a change of personnel at the point that the committee's report was published. It was very timely, because, as a cabinet secretary, taking on responsibility for the economy, it was helpful and informative in my thinking as I have tried to find a consensus on the economy. Of course, there was a subsequent change to personnel as well. Just as I was trying to reach out to the economic expert that is Jackie Baillie, Jackie Baillie was then moved as spokesperson that I would have been dealing with. I look forward to Jackie's intervention as well, and I welcome Richard Leonard in this particular position in relation to the economy of Scotland. I would like to commend the committee for the thoroughness again and the breadth of its report into Scotland's economic performance, because I do believe that across the chamber we are all in agreement about Scotland's huge economic potential. I know that the focus of the review is on statistics, data and performance, but I want to build on the recommendations taking that consensual approach on the economy that I have tried to establish over the course of the summer to agree with most of the committee's findings, and I have given that response in writing. I was able to take forward the economic action plan, not another strategy but actions to deliver on the economy. It sets out the range of actions that we are taking forward to address the challenges and recommendations that are highlighted in the report to try and stimulate our economy even further. The action plan builds on the economic strategy that was in existence that focuses on increasing competitiveness and tackling inequality that go hand in hand. They are not separate ambitions. They support one another and we must consider them together. We have had significant progress over the recent period. Unemployment rates are at 3.8 per cent and its joint lowest rate is at 3.8 per cent. Dean Lockhart mentioned the new economic action plan. Can he explain why it does not contain any new economic targets going forward? Is it because the Government missed all seven of its previous economic targets? As we have previously debated, a number of those targets have been affected by things such as financial crash, oil and gas downturns, swannings and so forth. We want to deliver those targets. I did not set new targets because we want to get on with what we have been trying to achieve. However, it did outline new actions that we should take to deliver on the economy. We can argue about the targets. I want to deliver them, but the action plan was about the actions to deliver those targets. On current performance, we have near record low unemployment at this point in time. Surely that is to be welcomed lower than the rest of the UK or on productivity. Growth under devolution has been faster. Do you share my concern that the unemployment figures mask huge numbers of precarious work with people in zero-hours contracts with no guarantee of income with all the stress that involves? Would you look at ways of identifying the scale of that problem within any statistics that you quote? Yes, I share my concern. We have to look at those issues. We have to look at issues of exploitation as well. Under employment, the skills gap—of course, there is a whole host of matters that lie beneath that figure. Surely it is to be welcomed, nonetheless, that unemployment is going down and employment is going up, notwithstanding the challenges that we face coming from Brexit. However, I have agreed with the point that, within that, there are gender issues, poverty issues and skills issues that we need to explore, but we should, at least for a moment, reflect on the falling unemployment rate. Progress on productivity, progress on GDP as well as outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom, but, again, recognising that that subdued GDP in terms of EU nations is subdued because of the Brexit position that the UK Government has taken at us, too. Within that, despite the narrative that we have had from others, Scotland is outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom on GDP growth over the last 12 months. Inclusive growth is important to John Lamont's point that inclusive growth is about allowing more people to contribute to that economic growth and benefit from it. Another factor within those statistics is that we are performing quite well on the real living wage. We want everyone to be paid at least the real living wage, but we are outperforming all other UK countries in terms of the payment of the real living wage—progress that we must build upon. We know that we can achieve more. That is why we are investing in the National Manufacturing Institute for Scotland. It is one of the examples of how our investment is there to transform skills, productivity, and innovation and commercialisation in Scotland, and on-site work is now under way. A full business case has been approved, and detailed design work will start this year. With the approval of the first seven end-miss industry doctorate projects, industry is also starting to contribute to showing how the institute's national reach and ability will help to develop the skilled workforce, which will enable manufacturing companies to thrive in Scotland. Further commitments to ensure a highly skilled and productive workforce include the establishment of a national retraining partnership with trade unions and business, expanding free childcare, the funds around attainment, giving every child an equal chance to succeed, more around apprenticeship opportunities, taking them to 30,000 per year by 2020, and ensuring that higher education remains free to all students in Scotland. Of course, businesses are essential to delivering that inclusive workforce environment in Scotland. That is why we are doing so much around productivity, performance, innovation and on exports, identifying our growth opportunities, but with a key pillar of our fair work action plan as well to ensure that we can become a fair work nation by 2025. We will continue to work on the Scottish National Investment Bank to be a cornerstone institution in Scotland's economic landscape. That will be underpinned by the legislation. I will introduce, hopefully, to Parliament in 2019, backed up by investment of £2 billion over the 10 years. From 2020, the bank will be investing in businesses and communities across Scotland. Of course, preface to that will be the building Scotland fund. A programme for government commitment to have a national infrastructure mission will mean that annual investment in our hospitals, schools, houses, transport, low-carbon technology and digital connections will be £1.5 billion higher by 2025-26 than in 2019-20. A new infrastructure commission will be established to provide that long-term strategic advice to the Scottish Government on national infrastructure priorities with further details to follow. Our actions have placed us in a stronger position to face the challenges, although, as all members will reflect on, the decision by Michelin to close the Dundee plan is deeply unfortunate, based on extremely challenging market conditions. The company has agreed to consider a repurposing proposition. I have brought together that action group, led by Scottish Enterprise and Dundee City Council, to develop a proposal with a clear aim of retaining a commercial manufacturing operation. We can have plans and actions, but we must also be in the fleet of food. As we have already touched on Brexit, it is a significant challenge to our economy. That is why we need to get the least-worst outcome, but in conclusion, Presiding Officer, I recognise that this is a helpful report, one of many over the course of the summer, to help to calibrate our systems to support economic growth. I genuinely want to, as the relatively new economy secretary, help to find a consensus that exists in the chamber to invest in our economy to deliver fairness at the same time. That is why I welcomed this afternoon's debate. I now call Dean Lockhart to be followed by Richard Leonard. Dean Lockhart, I thank the clerks and advisers to the committee for their invaluable support during the inquiry. Commenting on the committee report on economic data, Gordon Lindhurst, convener, explained the concerns of the committee surrounding the Scottish Government's pre-access to economic data. The committee heard evidence that pre-release access is inconsistent with international best practice, with transparent government and democratic fairness. The reality is that pre-release gives the Scottish Government 24 or 48 hours to spin a positive story around key economic figures, no matter how bad they are, meaning that, as soon as the data is publicly available, the media headlines are already dominated by S&P spin. That is why the director general of the United Kingdom Statistics Authority has called for the reduction and removal of pre-release access for the Scottish Government. I will give way. Can I ask that the same rule applies to UK Government departments that you are suggesting should apply to Scottish Government departments? We are simply recommending that the best practice is followed, which is followed by the ONS and the Bank of England in relation to sensitive economic data. That is what the Scottish Government should be doing as well. As Gordon Lindhurst mentioned, we will keep open the option of a committee bill to address the issue if the Scottish Government fails to adopt best practice. Turning now to the committee report on Scotland's economy, one of the key conclusions reads as follows. Economic growth in Scotland for the past decade is below the performance of the UK economy and historical growth rates for Scotland. Levels of GDP growth are marginal, productivity is low and wages are stagnant. It does not have to be this way. Scotland's economy has strong potential. Long-term economic growth in Scotland was 2.3 per cent before the S&P came to power in 2007, but that has fallen to just 0.7 under the S&P. Where has it all gone wrong? Perhaps the minister is going to explain where it has gone wrong. I wonder if the member thought that Brexit was going to improve those stats or make them worse. I think that that remains to be seen over the medium and longer term, but the point is that this report looked to the past decade and the significant underperformance of Scotland compared to pre-S&P as well as the rest of the UK. In looking at where things have gone wrong, the committee heard evidence of serial policy failures over the past decade and fundamental flaws in the S&P's approach to the economy. Let me help the cabinet secretary, because the list of failures is long, so let me briefly summarise what those issues are. First of all, the committee heard evidence that the S&P's economic strategy itself, the 4i strategy, lacks focus and coherence. Nor a senior chair of the strategic board told the committee that the 4i economic policy is not joined up across ministerial departments and that causes confusion to the enterprise agencies. The S&P's strategy of inclusive growth is also causing confusion. The previous cabinet secretary, Keith Brown, told the committee that inclusive growth means different things to different people. In other words, there is no agreed definition of the S&P's flagship policy and there is no guide to give the multitude of enterprise agencies responsible for delivering this policy. That evidence led the committee to strongly recommend that the Scottish Government's economic strategy be reviewed and updated as a matter of urgency. Here we are five months after the report was published. Despite the new economic action plan, we are still saddled with an economic policy that is not fit for purpose. The committee also heard evidence that there is no framework in place to measure the impact of economic policy in Scotland. We spend over £2 billion a year in skills and enterprise, but the impact of this policy cannot be monitored because there is no framework in place. When the committee asked the previous cabinet secretary for policies that might have worked or could have been put in place differently, he was not able to answer that question. Again, that led the committee to strongly recommend that a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework be introduced to measure the impact of policy. We understand the S&P's reluctance to set new economic targets, having failed to meet every one of the seven previous targets, but our view is that specific economic targets are essential if we are to properly measure the impact of policy. Another weakness identified by the committee was the inconsistent and weak implementation of economic policy. A clear example here is the fact that the enterprise agencies are allowed to set, monitor and measure their own targets without any real input from the Government. I will give it away briefly. John Arthur. I will give a very serious question. I wonder if he thinks that it would be appropriate to launch a new economic strategy with specific targets before we know what the future trading arrangements will be with the European Union, given the significant impact that it could have. Again, the committee looked at the previous impact of policy over the past decade, but I think that the member makes a fair point. We are not calling for a new economic policy right now. We are talking about a new direction, which I will come on to later. To address the issue of implementation and policy, the committee called for more transparency on the performance targets that are set by the enterprise agencies, how those targets are measured and whether they have been achieved. A further barrier to economic growth is the confused and cluttered landscape created by the SNP, which, rather than supporting business growth, is now acting as a barrier to business development. In fact, the Parliament itself, in a motion that was supported by the SNP, acknowledged concerns that a cluttered policy landscape can lead to confusion, a lack of alignment, duplication and weakened accountability. That was a motion here that was agreed by all parties. The committee report also identified that we need to do more to support Scottish business to capitalise on the significant opportunities that are available in our single biggest market, the UK, through the UK industrial strategy. In recent years, the British Business Bank and Innovate UK have been involved in more than £12 billion of investment across the UK. Much more should be done to help Scottish business to access those opportunities. The committee therefore recommended that more meaningful engagement should take place between the Scottish Government and the UK Government in relation to the UK industrial strategy. The committee heard evidence of many more policy failures, but I could list them, but I want to turn to a more general observation, because every one of the policy problems, structural issues that are identified by the committee are within the control and power of the Scottish Government. Those structural problems can be addressed through the introduction of a new coherent economic framework that capitalises on Scotland's economic strengths and our relationship with the rest of the UK. The upcoming budget provides Janet Mackay with a real opportunity to address those issues and to set out a new direction for economic policy in Scotland. He can make a start by reversing the SNP's policy of making Scotland the highest tax part of the UK for skilled workers, for businesses and for our high streets. I welcome this afternoon's debate, particularly on this important report, Scotland's economic performance. I want to begin by paying tribute to Jackie Baillie and Kezia Dugdale, who have done much to shape the report's conclusions, particularly the more radical ones. Let me be clear from the outset that there is much in the committee's report that the Scottish Labour Party welcomes. The recognition that employee and co-operative ownership has, and I quote, the huge potential to improve productivity, facilitate future growth, reduce inequality and retain jobs in Scotland is welcome. Welcome, too, is the recognition that we need positive action to encourage female entrepreneurs who are underrepresented, not just in our corporate boardrooms, but in our start-up businesses, too. The related long-standing challenge of scaling up businesses and the identification by the committee of the so-called missing middle in the Scottish economy because of an investment gap provides vital analysis. Because we know that all too often businesses in Scotland are not scaled up, they are taken over, and the result is that a third of the Scottish economy is overseas owned. That's a level higher than all other parts of the UK, including London and the southeast of England. But there is a deeper-seated problem lying at the heart of the conclusions of this report, which, although we acknowledge, have their roots going back some considerable time, cannot overlook the fact that this Government has been in office for over a decade and has time and time again been economically complacent and industrially inept. Ten years in and with Brexit looming, it has failed to come up with an industrial strategy and it has failed to devise an economic strategy worthy of the name. The result is that all too often, the SNP Government is only reacting to businesses failing rather than acting, planning and investing to ensure that businesses are successful in the first place. I agree with Richard Leonard that both Kezia Dugdale and Jackie Baillie contributed so much to the committee's report and other areas. Why did they lose their jobs? Richard Leonard. I will treat that with the contempt that it deserves. Indeed, in the Scottish Government's response to the committee's report, for which I am assuming that the cabinet secretary takes ownership and full responsibility, we are treated to a new phrase in the lexicon of SNP economic complacency. We are told that the takeover of Scottish companies sometimes hostile is not a takeover at all, it is not even an acquisition or a merger, it is an, I quote, entrepreneurial recycling. Try telling that to the workers up and down the country who have lost their jobs, that they are not victims of a loss of local ownership and control or of a hostile takeover, they are simply being entrepreneurially recycled. Presiding Officer, as the committee report shows, there is no real plan from the SNP for Scotland to face the future. There is no plan to not only tackle the challenges of automation but to seize the opportunities of automation. The impact of the digital revolution is not confined to technology companies, it has been unfolded across all sectors right across the economy. That is why Labour will continue to make the case for increased investment in education and the upskilling of workers. It is why, as well, the committee is right in this report to call for automation to be a cornerstone of the Scottish Government's labour market strategy. We hear much of fair work, but there are 470,000 people across Scotland still earning less than the living wage. Let me cite one real-world example. Let me cite a real-world example, and I direct members to my register of interests. Just this week, self-employed drivers at DPD's depot in Camberslang, who have been getting organised with the support of their union, have been threatened that their union, the GMB, will be sued, that their shifts will be axed or worse, that their livelihoods may be taken away altogether. That is intolerable, and I would urge the cabinet secretary to back my call for this company to meet with unions such as the GMB instead of threatening to sue them. Presiding Officer, what we need is a Government that is prepared to do more than simply correct market failure. We need one that is prepared to help to shape markets, to intervene, to use public procurement, to tackle climate change, to eradicate inequality and to change the balance of power to build a different, better economic future. On export growth 2, we know that we have a long-standing problem of too narrow an export base, so that just 70 businesses account for 50 per cent of all of Scotland's exports. The committee makes the point in this report that the problem with our exports is not our trade strategy, but the level of investment going into it by the Government. Finally, years after it was first announced, reannounced and reannounced again, it now looks like we might get a Scottish national investment bank. It will go some way to helping Scottish businesses in need of investment, but I am bound to say that the £200 million a year offered by the SNP is a long way short of Labour's offer of £2 billion of patient industrial investment capital a year in Scotland. The Scottish Government says that the bank's board will determine what investment products to offer. We do not underestimate the importance of market intelligence and expert advice, but who will be on the board making those decisions? Bankers or trade unionists and industrial representatives, women as well as men. Will the cabinet secretary agree—let me finish on this note—to a 50-50 gender balance on the board of the new investment bank? If we can insist, as we should, on gender balance in the political realm, why should we not insist on it in the economic realm as well? On that and other points, it is time for action. I call Andy Wightman to be full by Willie Rennie. To all the people who gave evidence to the two inquiries, to the clerks and to our special adviser Graeme Roy, I thank the Labour Party for its keen interest in this afternoon's debate, although I see that some people are less interested now. The committee's report on the performance of the Scottish economy is not only a fair reflection of what has happened over the past decade but is also in connection with the equally important data inquiry, a reminder that an assessment of economic performance is only as good as the data that underpins it and that the data that underpins it is only of any utility if it is measuring the right metric in the first place. A good example of where we still have work to do in this regard was highlighted in August this year when Scottish Government statisticians reported that they had adjusted the methodology of measuring activity in the construction sector. That had quite an impact from the end of 2015 to the beginning of 2018. They had previously thought that economic growth had dropped by 12 per cent, but in fact it had grown by nearly 4 per cent. Beyond the normative means of measuring the economy, members will be aware that Greens have substantial and fundamental concerns, questions and criticisms of how we define economic performance. We live in a world that is heating fast, with a trajectory and consequences starkly laid out by the IPCC a few weeks ago. We live in a world, too, where humans have destroyed 60 per cent of the world's animal population since 1960. Our current economic model is destroying the very foundations upon which the health of the planet and the health of humans and other organisms depend. The metrics that we use to assess the health of our economy are still focused on a model of growth that is blind to the contradictions at its heart, that there are constraints and that there are limits posed by our environment. The well-publicised paper on Hot House Earth, called Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene, which was published in August, observed that, and I quote, "...incremental linear changes are not enough to stabilise the earth system. Widespread rapid and fundamental transformations will likely be required to reduce the risk of crossing the threshold." Green economics recognises that the climate crisis is leading to growing instability, unrest and economic decline. Greens also recognise that in order to keep in the Paris climate targets, we need to keep in the ground the majority of the hydrocarbons that other parties in this chamber often tout as being part of Scotland's economic future. As far back as 2015, we commissioned a jobs in Scotland's new economy report, which found that investing in the transferable skills of the offshore workforce who currently are employed in the oil and gas sector could create more than 200,000 jobs in renewables by 2035 against the 156,000 currently provided by fossil fuel extraction. At a human level, the kind of economic performance that is discussed in those two reports ignores very worrying trends for households. Figures for private debt show that households in the United Kingdom owe nearly £1.6 trillion. That is forecast to rise to more than £2.3 trillion by 2022. Those levels of private borrowing and private debt are responsible for some of the better economic figures that are coming out of the UK, but that is a situation that is fundamentally unsustainable. Much of what passes for prosperity in this country is no more than a Ponzi scheme of rising house prices and increasingly unaffordable rents, which is driving the growing inequality in wealth across the UK. That will, and I am sure that members will be aware of that, have substantial political consequences. As younger generations realise that they have a vote, there are choices to be made, and that their interests are not being well served by our current economic model. I know that members have heard Greens before on this topic, but I do not apologise for restating our opposition to GDP—a very poor indicator of a sustainable economy that fails to distinguish between useful economic activity and damaging economic activity. The concept was happy to do so. Murdo Fraser I am grateful to Ms Wightman for giving way. Does the Green Party accept, in principle, that economic growth is a good thing or not? Andy Wightman If one defines it by growth in GDP, no, we do not accept that. We accept that the fundamentals of the economy are a healthy environment and human wellbeing. GDP was, in fact, invented by a US statistician called Simon Cusnets, and he was tasked by the US Congress in 1932 to estimate national income over the preceding four years and responded by aggregating several measures in regard to the value of goods and services. Today, that is what we call GDP. However, despite Cusnets having conceived of the idea, he was one of its fiercest critics. It does not measure goods and services produced in the course of daily life, such as care and education. Murdo Fraser might be interested in that. It does not measure the distribution of income, does not say anything about wealth, ignores environmental services and it says nothing about energy flows. However, GDP persists and is the central goal of Scottish economic policy. The academic Kate Rayworth, among many other economists, has written substantially on that and her book Donut, Economic Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist, highlights the growing recognition that what we measure is of little use if it does not meet the challenges that we face. She recalls classical economics arguments about land, labour and capital, which I have substantially been forgotten about since the late 20th century in favour of arguments about labour and capital alone. However, it is the natural resources of the planet, the water, the land, the soil and the atmosphere that sustain life on earth. If we are a serious debate on our economic future, we need to frame that debate with new economic thinking. Our debate about the committee report should remind us that what we measure is as important as what those measurements tell us. In 10 years' time, we will be two years away from the deadline for taking action to contain global warming to 1.5 degrees. The economic consequences of not doing so are unprecedented, we have been warned. I have huge admiration for the clerks who serve our committees. They provide tremendous expertise and put a large number of hours into production of reports. I can just imagine their joy when the committee decided that we were going to produce a report on statistics. The joy must have been flowing out of the room. I can warn those in the gallery. It is not normally this exciting in the chamber on a Thursday afternoon, but we ration the number of debates that we have on statistics because Gordon Lindhurst cannot contain himself when there is more than one a year. So, however, I want to focus on the performance of this Government is stark. If you take the section of the Scotland's economic performance report that focuses on the 10 purpose targets, only two out of 10 have been passed. Only two out of 10 have failed on GDP, on employment and on life expectancy. There is only a small number that I can see that we have passed. That is a mark of a Government that has been in power for 10 years and has not taken the economy as seriously as I think it should. I would, Willie Rennie, think that the oil and gas downturn or the economic crash had any impact on any of those indicators at all. Willie Rennie? Of course it has, but what that indicates is that we are stronger together as part of the United Kingdom to provide the economic breadth and support that we need during those difficult times. That is why we should also not ignore that, during the period out, we are heading towards what, 10 years of uncertainty through Brexit and through the independence debate. During that time, the amount of investment that has been disincentivised as a result of that constitutional uncertainty has had a direct impact on the economy as well. He should not forget that because that is as much of an impact on the Scottish economy as anything. The Government has not performed particularly well over the past 10 years. Of course there have been challenges, but those challenges should have been foreseen by this Government, who have been so dependent on a small number of industries and should be looking to make it a broader economy and to make it a stronger economy. If you look at the area, for instance, on procurement, I cannot remember the number of debates that we have had in this chamber about the inability of the Scottish Government to use the power, the economic power of its procurement budget to try to drive investment into small and medium-sized enterprises. However, yet again, it comes up in this report about the failure of the Government to try and invest in small and indigenous businesses. There are a number of experts and advisers who recommended ways forward on that, but the Government were deaf to those complaints. The investment bank that we have heard about as well—numerous attempts by this Government—I do not know how many announcements we have had that we are going to have this investment bank. We have still not got it off the ground after 10 years in power. Skills mean that the Government did not, in his introduction, talk about the college cuts. The 150,000 places that have been cut from our colleges have had a direct impact on the skills of our workforce that has fed right through to the performance of our economy. The Government has been too slow and too late on so many of the areas. That is why 8 out of 10 of those purpose targets have been failed by the Government. I was interested in one aspect of the report. It was about the missing middle, talking about the scaling up of Scottish businesses into larger companies that are anchored here. I was interested in the proposals that it had in terms of anchoring businesses here for the longer term. Dr Mawson, I thought, made a particularly powerful comment about the public investment through Scottish Enterprise and other agencies, which was effectively, ultimately, lining the pockets of multinational companies. It is a pretty strong comment from one of the witnesses to the committee. Whether that is true or not, what we need to look at is whether we can do more to anchor those companies here. I was interested, like Richard Leonard in the proposals around employee ownership, as one of the mechanisms to anchor those companies here. John Mason. Will he support or oppose the idea of making trains by a foreign company in Fife? Of course not. We need to recognise whether we will get value for the money that we are investing in the companies. For instance, I would argue that the investments that we made into Amazon perhaps have not secured the return that we would have liked. We need to look at the type of investment that we are making in those companies before we bend over backwards to give them all the investment that they would like. Employee ownership is one of the ways of securing the companies here. We have the intellectual property that we have secured through the university sector, but skills are an important part of it as well. A lot of companies come here because of the expertise that we have in our people, so we should constantly invest in people. However, the final thing that I think is often overlooked, which is the stability, the general stability of our environment here, the fact that you can have companies that can operate here with a secure environment around them, is something that is attractive to many companies from across the world, which we should encourage to. In my final few seconds, I just want to highlight the issue of immigration, because the report does talk about Brexit. One of the biggest pieces of self-harm that we are about to do is our approach to immigration. I have numerous industries in North East Fife, from the fruit and veg sector, through the processing sector, the NHS, the universities, great universities in North East Fife, as well as the tourism industry. All of them are crying out for brilliant workers and we are closing their doors to them as a result of the Brexit vote. We need to change that policy if we are not going to damage our economy further. We turn now to our open debate, and I call Angela Constance to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. I am a new member of the Energy, Economy and Fair Work Committee. It is an interesting but somewhat unique experience for reasons that I am sure the chamber will understand. The committee's report on Scotland's economic performance is, of course, timely, as we are, a decade on from the financial crash, the financial crash that unleashed great misery and untold harm, as invariably it is those with least who lose the most. The crash will, of course, have its place in history. I have heard, particularly in recent times, in times of uncertainty that we tend to look more and hang on more to the past. We should always listen to the lessons of the past, and it is a shame that the west and our somewhat complacent financial establishment paid no heed to the Japanese financial crash in 1997. Otherwise, history could have been somewhat different. However, in terms of our experience closer to home, history will record that the powers that be for ideological motivations took full advantage of the crisis to advance austerity. I also hope that we, when we look back, will be able to trace the roots or the re-emergence of inclusive growth, more on economic philosophy than ideology, to our time. It is a powerful affirmation of hope for our future that growing a economy and tackling inequality in all its forms are not mutually exclusive, but they are two sides of the same coin. One feeds the other, tackling poverty, poor pay, health inequalities, widening educational opportunities, addressing the underrepresentation of women and others in key areas of their economy, are all good for business. Similarly, if you want social democracy, you need to be able to pay for it. The committee said rightly that our enterprise and skill agencies should have a common understanding of inclusive growth, but every part of the public sector should certainly have inclusive growth as part of their core purpose. We need to build that consensus across the private and third sectors, too. We need to create a consensus around what is the best dashboard of meaningful measurements that paints a vision of what a well-rounded society and a productive economy looks like. The national performance framework is potentially important in that regard. The economy committee, in my view, undertook a valuable inquiry into how to improve the coverage and the relevance of economic data that also measures impact in a Scottish and devolved context. I note the differences of opinions regarding pre-release access to official statistics. I can see the argument from both sides of the offence and, for the time being anyway, I will just sit on that offence. For me, the bigger prize is coming to a comprehensive shared assessment about the opportunities and, indeed, the challenges that are facing our economy today. We should be able to simply say that, as a rich, successful country, we are not reaching our full potential. Our labour market remains resilient, but we must always scratch beneath the headlines because good employment figures mask insecure low-paid work. We must always widen our horizons, particularly when comparing our performance to others. It is not just about our nearest friends and neighbours in the rest of the UK, because sometimes their performance is not good enough either, for example with respect to productivity. Despite political differences, we need to identify common ground so that we can have the collective courage to take a long-term view and commit to the future. We are beginning to see that with the longer-term investments in infrastructure, the Scottish National Investment Bank and, crucially, investment in housing, we need to recognise that consensus builds confidence in our economy and our economic players and, with Brexit on the horizon, we certainly need to pull together in Scotland's interests. The committee report helpfully listed where specific economic levers rest. It is important to understand where power always lies, but there is a need for a mature discussion and reflection about shared economic space and the potential impact of powers individually and collectively, given that we all know that there is no one silver bullet to our stronger and fairer economy. In looking to the future, we should never take an eye off the ball when it comes to our young people. Youth unemployment is much reduced from its peak in 2011 when it was knocking on 25 per cent and 113,000 young Scots were out of work. However, the committee rightly calls for more apprenticeship opportunities for older people, but not at the expense of our younger people. European countries consistently have lower youth unemployment, consistently invest in high-quality vocational education opportunities for young people in good times and bad. The committee rightly calls for more entrepreneurial thinking within our universities and colleges, but that should run throughout our education system, connecting the world of work with the world of education. We are seeing some fruits of our labour around curriculum for excellence and, in particular, the developing young Scotland's workforce agenda. We need to recognise that, as Chris Van Der Kool said to committee, we have never lived in a period of such fast change as the one that we live in now, and that will never again be that slow. My final point is that, to have come to the other end of the financial crash, only to enter Brexit, it is so tragic. I fear the judgment of history and that that judgment will be harsh on us, but now all of us must work together and work harder to make that vision of inclusive growth a stronger economy and a fairer society a reality. Jamie Halcro Johnston Given that previous attempts at humour seem to have cleared the chamber and almost the public gallery, I will be avoiding them today—you will be delighted to hear that. I am pleased to be able to speak in today's debate on our committee reports on Scotland's economic performance and on data, and I will be focusing on the economic performance inquiry. There will be a number of positive contributions already. I would first like to thank our convener, Gordon Lindhurst, for his excellent summary of the work of the committee and our conclusions. I will also join him in extending my thanks to all those who gave invaluable evidence, both written and during the oral evidence sessions to the inquiry, and to the clerking team, who helped to tie together the significant body of work that has gone into this report. Given the subject matter of the inquiry, it was, by necessity, very wide-ranging. It would be difficult to address its entire scope during a debate of this type. However, there are a number of areas that I would like to consider that emerge from the inquiry. It is clear that Scotland's economy is diverse. In recent years, we have seen considerable divergence in the success of individual sectors of our economy. We have also noted in the report some of the regional challenges that I will come to you later. While Scotland's economy has shown a level of health and resilience in recent years, it still suffers from a degree of fragility. It is against this backdrop that is more important than ever that we look towards the future. We must ensure that our future prospects for growth are sustainable, and that we do some of the heavy lifting now to address the long-term economic problems that have held back our businesses and employers in the past. In that respect, there is much to be welcomed in the report. The committee looked back to consider our previous economic performance, but we also looked forward to examine some of the challenges that we have to overcome and opportunities that we should be bold in harnessing. One area of particular interest to me as a member for the Highlands and Islands was the work around regional growth. We know well that there are significant disparities between Scotland's regions, but those also highlight underlying differences in those regional economies themselves and often quite different priorities they have. While attempting to consider that as a divide between urban and rural, the economic distinctions between the rural borders and the rural Highlands are as at least as wide as they are between urban Edinburgh and urban Dundee. What is stark, however, is that regional disparities can be self-sustaining. Lower growth, lower investment in skills, depopulation, a lack of skilled jobs, and low pay become cyclical problems—problems that become increasingly difficult to escape. In the committee's recommendations, we first outline the need to evaluate and consolidate Scottish Government policies on the regional economies. Steps like that will be important if regions such as the Highlands and Islands are to reach their potential. Above all, we need focus from a Government that recognises that Scotland exists beyond our main central belt population centres. In its response, the Government referenced its work around regional partnerships and the creation of South of Scotland Enterprise Agency. While regional partnerships have the potential to push beneficial change, their success will depend on the position that they are accorded and the ability that they have to unite other stakeholders around a common vision for our regions. The report also recognised the key role of digital infrastructure as a driver of change in regional economies. That is something that I have spoken about at some length, including in this chamber earlier in the week. An important point to draw out of our evidence, however, was that infrastructure must be accompanied by appropriate digital skills. Again, we saw that skills are a key component in investing in and relight is in human potential. As the report points out, the committee have agreed to look at this area in greater depth during a future inquiry. While there are limits on the scope of our consideration of skills in this inquiry, we did draw some useful conclusions. Work-based skills are a foundation on which economic success is built. Our recommendations considered a number of areas, particularly in-work training, reskilling and our performance in matching skills to the needs of business and the wider economy. Those are areas in which the Scottish Government can make real and significant change, however, in-work skills are a responsibility of employers too, and the benefits of good-quality training and development are very well established. Our evidence looked at the need of employers to properly fund and support the skills of their employees. Our findings on apprenticeships will, in the main, be familiar to policymakers, however they certainly weren't repeating. The examples of where apprenticeships are more valued, some of their feedback from young people and the areas that are neglected. We also looked at support for innovation in the economy, while doing well in academic research, some of the wider research and development work lags behind international comparators. We heard, for example, that R&D spending as a share of GDP in Scotland was at just over 1.5 per cent, that is compared to over 1.9 per cent across the EU as a whole and behind the up to 4 per cent seen in some of the fastest-growing and most innovative countries. We noted the high productivity of businesses that are innovation leaders, but also some of the challenges that SMEs to innovate. I would hope that, even beyond the scope of the recommendations in this area, the Scottish Government would reflect on some of the evidence that the committee had reported and consider what more can be done. Interlasalisation and the funding to meet the Scottish Government's exporting targets was also covered in some length. Once again, we came across a common theme that has arisen in our work on Government's interaction with business. As my colleague Dean Lockhart said, the problem of a cluttered landscape and the need for effective signposting of what support is available. There is a range of sections of the report that I have not been able to cover even briefly today, but it has been a serious piece of work. There are positives and negatives to be found in it, but the committee has approached it openly and in the spirit of co-operation. We have found broad agreement on many recommendations that we see as requiring the Scottish Government's attention. I commend the report and that on data, and I hope that it will be useful in the months and years to come. Most people in the chamber this afternoon have already and will in future focus their remarks on the economy. I thank the cabinet secretary and Richard Leonard for their kind remarks at the start of the debate. Long may that continue, Presiding Officer. The Government will, of course, argue that everything is wonderful. It will share with you its set of statistics to prove its case, and then the Opposition parties will rightly tell you how woeful it all is and have its statistics marshaled to support its narrative. The truth is that we could be doing a whole lot better. As we face the Brexit storm, we need our economy to be resilient and we need it to be performing well if we are to stand any chance of mitigating the worst impacts of leaving the EU. The impact on jobs and business is going to be significant, yet I feel that we are sleepwalking into this completely unprepared. I will look at the Scottish European Growth Co-Investment Fund. It is set up by the Scottish Government that £200 million has been announced in the programme for government to extraordinary fanfare, yet it remains largely unallocated, with only £0.5 million spent this year. The upshot is that it is simply not reaching the intended recipients to help them to prepare, and it is another case of SNP rhetoric that is not quite matched by the reality. Very few people today will talk about the committee's other report on data, aside from the convener, and I really do consider that he could fill a slot opening up at the stand comedy club. Many may think it dull, boring, the stuff to cure insomnia, but they would be fundamentally wrong. At the risk of the chamber tuning out, that is what I want to focus on. Collecting the right data at the right time is critical to our understanding of how policies should be developed and is critical to our understanding of their impact. Having confidence in that data and that the people gathering the data are independent and impartial is equally important. Access to data needs to be open and transparent. The Government's record on transparency is not a good one, I will indeed. Jackie Baillie suggests that, for a moment, the statisticians are not independent and do not act impartially. Jackie Baillie. It is not the statisticians that I have concerns about, and when you consider the Government's record on transparency, it is not good. Look at the experience of journalists and FOIs to the Scottish Government and the damning report from the information commissioner. Here was laid bare the culture of secrecy, the lack of transparency at the very heart of government, sanctioned by ministers and their special advisers. Hiding information, delivering what I can only describe as fact-free responses and generally subverting the process and principle of freedom of information. What it amounts to is deliberate obstruction and it is fundamentally dishonest and takes spin to new heights. Let me introduce you to pre-release access to statistics. This is the practice, as the conveners explained, where ministers get privileged access to statistics and days before the rest of us see them. The civil servants will argue that they need time to explain to ministers what they actually mean, so that they are more likely to get a measured response and be able to explain what they mean to journalists in turn. I do not have such a low opinion of the intelligence of ministers or maybe not all of the time. However, it is that privileged access that undermines public trust in official statistics. It creates opportunities for it to be spun or buried beneath an avalanche of other announcements. The economy recommended that pre-release access should end, including Scottish GDP, the Scottish Retail Sales Index, quarterly national accounts and government expenditure and revenues. ONS has stopped the practice, the Bank of England has stopped the practice, the Scottish Government is so keen to crow about being world leaders in all sorts of things, our content to follow far behind best practice and our ignoring the committee's recommendation. That is both disappointing and also very surprising. Derek Mackay hit the ground running as the new cabinet secretary. A flurry of activity, engagement with businesses, the mood music had changed. Here was a listening and responsive minister. I have taken one already. Just listen. Curiously, curiously, in the area of pre-release access to statistics, he has been the exact opposite. He has been slightly hostile. He has been uncharacteristically deaf to reason and sense. What is being suggested is not some radical left-wing notion nor is it some new liberal right-wing idea. It is not rocket science. Goodness me, the ONS does it, the Bank of England does it, the Scottish Government should really do it too. The time has come to end pre-release access to statistics. I know that the cabinet secretary might not always listen to me, but here is what other people had to say about it. Sir Charles Beam, former deputy governor for monetary policy at the Bank of England, said that pre-release access to economic data should end. Jonathan Arthur, director general of economic statistics at the Office for National Statistics, said that pre-release access to economic data should end. Ed Humpherson, director general for regulation at the UK statistics authority, said that pre-release access to economic data should end. Derek Mackay seems to know better. He says that he wants to work in consensus. He wants to listen. Here is the first test of him of that, so I urge him to listen, to act, to be open and transparent, and today to end pre-release access to statistics and instead of shouting from a sedentary position. Perhaps I can't, I'm 10 seconds over time, but can I suggest that the minister puts as much energy into ending pre-release access to statistics as he does to shouting at me across the chamber. The health of the Scottish economy underpins the prosperity of Scotland. Since 2007, when the Scottish Government set its target to raise Scotland's GDP growth to UK levels, Scottish output grew more slowly than the UK's in 30 out of the subsequent 41 quarters. However, over the past six months, the Scottish economy is beginning to show signs of outpacing the UK's across various indicators. For example, figures published recently show that Scotland's unemployment rate is lower than the UK's as a whole. Contemporary analysis of Scotland's economy makes for encouraging reading. Recent GDP figures show faster growth for Scotland in the first half of 2018. Our economy grew 0.5 per cent in the second quarter of 2018, faster than the UK at 0.4 per cent, while our 0.9 per cent growth in the first six months of this year exceeded the Scottish Fiscal Commission's forecast of 0.7 per cent growth for the full year. There is much more to Scotland's economy than GDP and jobs. Issues such as equality, job quality, household income debt ratios come into play. We must also understand what aspects of the economy are the most important to ordinary people throughout Scotland. In terms of jobs and job creation, Scotland's employment rate increased from 73.8 per cent in 2014 to 75.1 per cent in May to July 2018. The unemployment rate decreased from 6.1 per cent in 2014 to 3.8 per cent in July to September 2018. With fully devolved powers or independence, we can implement further economic policies that continue to reflect a strengthening economy. This evidence clearly displays that despite the global financial uncertainties affecting all economies and after a decade of Westminster's austerity measures that were supposed to cure the UK's financial ills but instead have promoted poverty and hardships, the measures that the Scottish Government is taking to protect and promote the Scottish economy are fundamentally the right ones. There should be no doubt that Scotland is a successful country with assets that other countries covet. We stand in the top 25 global economies in terms of income per head and ranked behind only London and the south-east of England in terms of most long-term indicators. Our exports of goods have increased 12 per cent over the past year, the largest growth of any nation in the UK. However, despite the positive background, there are challenges that will face in the years to come. The threat of Brexit looms large on the economic horizon. The Scottish Government analysis shows that a hard Brexit could cost our economy £12.7 billion a year by 2030 compared to remaining in the EU, a figure that breaks down to a staggering £2,300 per person. The Bank of England has indicated that, to date, Brexit has reduced household incomes by up to £900, and the Fraser of Allander economic commentary states that a hard Brexit would act as a significant drag on Scotland's and the UK's economic potential. Sleepwalking into a no-deal outcome cannot be viewed as an effective economic plan. More locally, in September, when I spoke in the debate on bank closures, I highlighted the serious effect on local communities when such closures happen. Throughout Scotland and within my Midlothian North and Musselburgh constituency, there have been a number of closures, and the inconvenience to local businesses and personal customers, many of whom are vulnerable and elderly, was considerable. Bank closures continue the pernicious hollowing out of our communities as libraries and other local facilities that form the heart of communities are closed or run down. Bonnerig is one of the largest towns in my constituency and contains a large number of small businesses whose turnover is mostly cash. They need to be able to bank those takings, but without a local bank or adequate arrangements through the post office, the businessman needs to take time out of his busy day to travel to the nearest bank branch or instead pay for the money to be uplifted. With the closure of Bonnerig and Pinnacook branches of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Midlothian is left with only one RBS branch in Dalkeith, and while the RBS have a need to maximise their profit, it should not be at the expense of local services that support the local economy. Although the RBS's most recent round of closures has brought the issue of branch banking to the fore, it is an issue that affects all banks and any solution must involve all banks. The worst impact of bank closures is felt by the most vulnerable members of our society, for many of whom going into a branch remains the only feasible way to conduct their banking. It is high time that Tory Westminster Government stepped in to save local banking services, that in action to date has been appalling. Of course, as I have mentioned, one of the biggest challenges that Scotland and the UK faces over the next few years is Brexit. On the point about banking, does he support the effort by my Conservative colleague, the MP Colin Clark, in the House of Commons with his private members' bill on banking issues? Unfortunately, I have very little information on that myself, but now that the member has mentioned it, I shall certainly find out more details. The ultimate economic impact of Brexit is not yet known, but it will affect every business and family in Scotland, and it will exacerbate labour shortages and impede economic growth. Our export success is directly threatened by the prospect of removal of access to the single market and customs union. If we were an independent nation and free to take our own decisions, we would have the opportunity to focus on what truly matters to our economy and not have to rely on others who do not care for a Scottish voice. I hope that it has been made clear that Scotland is currently in safe hands, for Westminster and the Tories willingly choose to ignore investment and support for local communities. The Scottish Government is taking forward actions to enhance and boost our economy, and those proposals include increasing the annual infrastructure investment year on year so that by 2025-26, it is £1.5 billion per year higher than in 2019-20, meaning that investment will be around £7 billion higher than current spending projections. Investing in our digital infrastructure will award £600 million of contracts to ensure superfast broadband to every business in home in Scotland, and to introduce legislation that will formally underpin our Scottish National Investment Bank. Those examples have already been welcomed by businesses and industry. With those and other actions that the Scottish Government is implementing, point the way to long-term economic growth and our further proof of how we are taking a wide view as to how we secure the country's future in the years and decades to come. As a member of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, I am certain that I and my fellow members will continue our examination of the issues that are related to Scotland's economy and the data and criteria that are used, and I look forward to debating this topic in the chamber in the months to come. I thank the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee for publishing their report on Scotland's economic performance. Economic growth in Scotland for the period of 2017 is significantly below Scottish Government targets, as we have already heard from many of the members today. The performance of the UK economy as a whole is historical trend growth, which is against the UK Government and historical trend growth for Scotland and small EU countries. Is it really a damning indictment for this Scottish National Party Government spelled out in black and white clearly within the committee's report? We heard from Derek Mackay earlier on today about some of the reasons over the past 10 years why that could be, but surely not all of those targets can have been missed because of those very reasons. There are other ways and policies that Derek Mackay might consider to boost the economy. In fact, over the 11 years of this SNP Government, we have seen them fail repeatedly to reach other economic performance targets. To top this all off, the high tax agenda pursued by the Government continues to damage our high streets and local communities and curtail the creation of jobs. That ultimately impacts tax revenue and spending on services. I want to move on to a point that was made in the evidence sessions about large business supplement. It implies very much about scaling up businesses. It is a deliberately misleading name that is dreamt up by someone within the SNP. In reality, it is a tax on small family-owned local businesses that are having to cough up additional taxes. Businesses in Scotland have been hit by an additional £190 million thanks to the doubling of the rates by the SNP. Across Scotland as a whole, it is estimated that the total bill for big companies will be circa £129 million for this financial year. Had that rate been kept on par with the rest of the UK, businesses would only have to pay circa £64 million. It has almost doubled the large business supplement within my constituency, but to add insult to injury, the Government has forced the highest business rates in Europe on to Scottish companies. Scottish businesses are paying currently 2 per cent of GDP on business rates higher than elsewhere in Europe and also half a per cent higher than in the UK. Committee notes that the scale-up of companies has been a long-standing challenge in Scotland, noting that there is a lack of business confidence to do so. It is unsurprising that it has included that. When Scottish businesses have been forced to withstand the policy decisions of this Government, I will give way to John Mason. John Mason? I thank the member for giving way. Would you confirm that, along with a reduction in taxes that should be paid into the public purse, there should be a reduction in expenditure and she would support a matching cut in either the health service, colleges or universities? Rachel Hamilton? I thank John Mason for that intervention. Obviously, the Chancellor has promised more money, £950 million in the autumn budget to the Government for health spending. It is a ironic point that John Mason makes. The SNP tax plans hit family businesses, as I have just set out. Individuals are set to continue to pay for SNP fiscal decisions through their income tax. The Chancellor brought about a tax cut for 32 million people. He bought it forward by one year, which will deliver for workers across the United Kingdom, including here in Scotland. He is going to raise the personal allowance and the higher-rate threshold. He did that while passing on that extra funding to Scotland for the NHS. We hope that it will be used in the way that will benefit people of Scotland. The finance secretary must follow a similar suit, or we will see private and public sector struggling to compete with other nations in the United Kingdom. That tax gap will continue to grow. I will make a little bit of progress if you do not mind. Willie McLeod stated in the evidence given to the committee that, regarding the differential rates of income tax in Scotland compared with the rest of the UK, the issues are rising in relation to hospitality. He had spoken to a managing director of a large Scottish-based company that operates throughout the UK, and he has concern about the impact of those differential rates of income tax on bringing staff from England to positions in Scotland. They are thinking about how they can reward them appropriately when they relocate and how they can encourage them to relocate. That is not just about highly-paid chief executives and the like. Last year's Scottish budget put income tax up for those earning over £26,000. It is clear that the recommendations that have been set out in the report are a wake-up call for the Government to act upon. They are an achievable and positive set of recommendations that the Government can work towards to help to improve economic growth, notwithstanding what I have just discussed regarding the issues that affect high streets and the differential in wages throughout the UK—sorry, the personal allowance and the higher-rate threshold in the country. However, the committee was unequivocal in recommending that the economic strategy is reviewed and updated as a matter of urgency. Regarding the skills and enterprise agencies, in particular the South of Scotland enterprise agency, I agree with the committee that a clear focus on delivering the strategy is required. I am glad that the committee believes that there is an opportunity for the South of Scotland enterprise agency to build transparent measurement and evaluation in its activities from the outset. Moreover, I agree that there has to be a consistent, commonly held and settled definition of inclusive growth, and that that should be reflected within the enterprise and skills agency's operational plans. We know that we are stuck in a cycle of low growth, weak investment and fragile confidence that is hitting our local communities in high streets hard. I just hope that, within the decisions that Derek Mackay makes, he makes sensible one. I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I had the great pleasure and privilege of being a member of the economy committee earlier this year, and I had an opportunity to participate in the inquiry on Scotland's economic performance. I would like to join former committee colleagues in paying tribute to the work of the clerks and to my fellow former committee members for all their hard work and endeavour in producing what is quite extensive and by its very wide-ranging report. The wide-ranging nature of the report has been reflected in much of the debate this afternoon. One of the first things that I would like to pick up on is the narrative that some opposition members seek to construct, which is of 10 or 11 years of SNP Government that has failed to address matters of economic growth. I appreciate why the Opposition does that. We see that as their job and anything in the nature of a zero-sum game of political debate is that parties do not want to admit that the other party has a point. However, if we had any reasonable consideration of where Scotland was in 2007 and where we found ourselves as we entered 2019, there has really been considerable change for the better, just taking infrastructure alone. When I come from the west of Scotland to Edinburgh for my weekend Parliament, I now travel on an electrified railway line. I can certainly... Willie Rennie. I did acknowledge that the oil industry downturn has had an impact. Does he, in the spirit that he was talking about, acknowledge any of the points that we are making about the performance of the Scottish Government? The Scottish Government, when it came to power, was within 18 months faced with the greatest fiscal crisis since the Wall Street crash in 1929. It was doing so within a Parliament with a limited suite of powers. It was also doing so in a minority Parliament. I would remind members very gently that, for the majority of the time that this Government has been in power, it has been as a majority Government. Therefore, there is a collective responsibility in this Parliament for decisions that have been taken. However, just as I say, I can now go on an electrified railway line from Glasgow to Edinburgh. I can drive the length of the M8, which is completed. Very short, the AWPR will open. The M80 has been completed, the M74. If we think about those projects, they are projects that were first mooted as far back as the 40s, 50s and 60s. It took an SNP Government for them to be delivered. I think that that is a testament to the record of this Government in getting on with the job. Had there not been an SNP Government, we would still be waiting for many of those important measures to have been undertaken. There have been some very important points made for this debate regarding skills. I think that Jamie Halcro Johnston might have been not in his place at the moment, but he spoke about the need for a pairing up between the demands of business and what we deliver in terms of education. I draw the chamber's attention, as I have previously, to the work of A.C. White, a construction company based in my constituency of Renfrewshire South in my hometown of Barhead, who has partnered up with West College Scotland to deliver a training course, a one-year course, with a guaranteed employment at the end of it. I very much welcome the work that A.C. White has undertaken in this regard in their partnership with West College Scotland. It is a model that can be expanded on and developed. Clearly, the elephant in the room in much of this debate has been Brexit, when the report was published, it predated the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, which is only hours old. I think that what we can already deduce and understand from the UK Government's proposed deal is that it does not deliver in either the desires of remain voters or leave voters beyond ending freedom of movement. As the report alludes to, we face significant demographic pressures in Scotland. We know that, over the next 25 years, our pension age population will increase by 25 per cent. Our over-75 population will increase by 80 per cent. All the while, our working-age population will only increase by 1 per cent. As the work, the Finance and Constitution Committee has undertaken on the fiscal framework that demonstrates, that poses significant challenges and a significant threat to Scotland. The ending of freedom of movement would be a catastrophe. It will be a catastrophe for Scotland. Not only does it deny us that engagement and that enriching experience that freedom of movement brings, but it could have a devastating impact on Scotland's music sector, which I take a keen interest in as someone with a musical background and as a convener of the cross-party group in music. Fundamentally, it poses a threat to our public services, health and social care, to many of our industries and agriculture, for example, which members have alluded to. Fundamentally, it denies the working-age population of taxpayers. We need, yes, to fund our public services, but also to work in our private sector. We know the contribution that EU nationals make. We are highly qualified, hard-working and diligent individuals who make a huge contribution. For some areas of Scotland, the end of freedom of movement is an existential threat. I know that the minister Kate Forbes will be very much aware of in the constituency that she represents. While it is important that we have these debates, we always look for ways in which we can improve. As Jackie Baillie rightly said, we can always do things better. If we did not believe that we could do things better, we would not bother running to be members of this Parliament in the first place. The biggest threat that we face right now is Brexit. The only solution and the only response that we can make to that, short of staying within the European Union, is continued membership of the single market and customs union, and continuing within that freedom of movement. I call James Kelly, to be followed by Gordon MacDonald and Mr MacDonald's last speaker in the open debate. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The chamber will be glad to know that I am not going to try to tell any jokes. I do not think that I could compete at all with Mr Lindhurst. The debate has raised some interesting issues. Clearly, there has been a lot of coverage in relation to statistics and data, which has been part of the inquiries that the committee has looked into. We all agree on the importance of good quality and consistent data to ensure that we can then inform policy choices, even if we disagree as to what the policy choices are. It is important that the data is accurate. Moving on from the statistics, listening to Derek Mackay, he spoke up for the Government's record in terms of delivery on the real living wage. We heard from Richard Leonard, a statistic that there were 470,000 people in Scotland not being paid the real living wage. It is important to try to draw underneath the statistic to see what that actually means. Speaking to some young people in my local area recently, what that actually meant was that, because they were not being paid a proper wage, some of them had three jobs in order to make ends meet, to be able to pay bills and to stay in a house that was wind and water tight. That is the reality that far too many people, particularly young people, are facing in Scotland. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Does he agree that we should end the national minimum wage and that it should be a national living wage for all workers? We should end this iniquitous pay discrimination against 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24-year-olds. James Kelly I think what I'll do is I'll jump on. To answer that, I'll jump on to another bit of my speech because I was going to talk about procurement and the importance of procurement in order to be able to mandate the real living wage. It's all very well having guidance and good practice as we do currently in public procurement projects. However, when the issue was brought to the floor of this Parliament in 2014, the SNP in five occasions voted against mandating the living wage in public sector projects. The reason for that was that it was going to be against EU law. Where as we all regret the onset of Brexit, perhaps one of the aspects of Brexit that come to pass will be that we are not subject to that EU law then. I look forward to the SNP then bringing forward the appropriate changes to procurement legislation to mandate the payment of the living wage in all public projects. That would go a long way to addressing the concerns of the young people. I was talking to in my local area recently that, as I said, we are having to do three different jobs. I think that some of the other areas that we can look at, I think that Willie Rennie made a good point in relation to grant assistance. I made the case today at First Minister's questions in relation to the Two Sisters plant at Canvas line. It has been revealed earlier this week under freedom of information that Scottish Enterprise paid the Two Sisters group £0.5 million in 2013. It did so on the basis that the company would keep the plant open until 2020. Sadly, the plant closed earlier this year with a loss of 450 jobs. That is a real devastating impact on Canvas line. I think that it is an absolute scandal that the Two Sisters group has still retained that £0.5 million within their company. I know that Nicola Sturgeon said at First Minister's questions that Scottish Enterprise was undertaking to recover the money. You have got to wonder why, months after the plants closed, they have still got the money if the legal agreement was tied up properly. I repeat my call that £0.5 million when it comes back should be reinvested in Canvas line in order to alleviate the economic vandalism that the Two Sisters group has wrecked on the local community. I think that some of the other important areas that we could look at in terms of improving the economy is the use of the co-operative model. I do not think that the Government has done enough to promote that. The cross-party group and co-operatives are running an inquiry, currently looking at that model in relation to housing. In a recent presentation from a student co-op demonstrated how rents were, they were able to deliver rents of about £350, actually less than half of the rent level for the rest of the city Edinburgh. That showed a real benefit not only to those students but a benefit to the economy if people can save money on their rents. The Government should look at that and look more at the area of technology, particularly improving the number of women who hold positions in the technology sector, because that currently runs at less than 20 per cent. There are some interesting areas that we need to pick up on if we are going to move Scotland forward to be a driving force on the economy in the 21st century. The Committee's economic performance report opens with the words. It has now been a decade since the beginning of the financial crash and its subsequent great recession, and this 10-year milestone marked a timely opportunity to look at the performance of the economy. So how is Scotland's economy performing? A number of witnesses, for example Professor John McLaren, Graham Jones and Professor Sarah Carter, highlighted the impact of the financial and oil price crisis on two of our most productive sectors, and therefore the economy as a whole. Despite that, the Committee heard that, compared to other countries and regions of the UK, Scotland is performing well. Even without the oil and gas extraction, Scotland is still the third most productive of the 12 regions of the UK, with productivity sitting just below the UK average. Indeed, only London in the south-east of England is more productive than Scotland. Furthermore, Scotland's productivity grew by 7.8 per cent between 2007 and 2016 in real terms, a growth rate higher than that seen in any other country or region of the UK. Research conducted by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre highlighted that three of Scotland's four nuts-2 regions all displayed above average EU productivity levels, with the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire area ranking 19th of the 266 EU regions in 2015. When comparing the percentage change in productivity over the period from 2007 to 2016, it shows that of the 23 Scottish nuts-3 areas, 19 grew faster than the UK average growth rate. That improved productivity is important if we want to trade with countries across the world. As a result, between 2010 and 2016, the value of Scotland's international exports grew by 24 per cent. In 2016, exports to EU destinations totaled 12.7 billion, an increase of 19 per cent, and exports to non-EU destinations were 17.1 billion, up to 28 per cent. Our increased sales to the world have helped to support the growth in new businesses in Scotland that has increased dramatically post-evolution with 100,000 more businesses now than in 2000, the highest level of private sector businesses since records began. Those businesses get better support than elsewhere in the UK, and that is one of the reasons why the Scottish five-year survival rate is higher than the UK average. Better employment prospects over the 11 years is reflected in the latest labour market update that highlights that 3.8 per cent Scotland is the lowest unemployment levels in the UK and that we met our target to reduce youth unemployment by 40 per cent four years early. On the living wage, Scotland remains the best-performing of all four UK countries with the highest proportion of employees, 81.6 per cent paid the living wage or more, and that Scotland is the highest pay anywhere in the UK outside of London in the south east, with ONS figures showing median full-time gross annual pay has grown 21 per cent in the last 10 years. With a highly skilled workforce, we continue to be the top destination for foreign direct investment outside of London. Business research and development spend in Scotland grow by over £1 billion for the first time in 2016, representing a 69 per cent real-terms increase since 2007, compared to a 22 per cent increase in UK spend over the same period. Scotland has changed for the better over the last 11 years under this Government, but there is more that can be done. We require better stats on the Scottish economy. Our conclusions on our inquiry on how to make data count highlighted a number of points that need to be addressed. Although Scotland is now much better served in Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions in terms of data, we still lack many of the statistical measures produced routinely at a UK level and in other countries. The Government needs to discuss with the ONS, HMRC and others how those gaps can be filled. They also have to introduce more data sharing agreements to improve coverage and quality of data. Importantly, we need to address the matter of UK-wide companies not having to report specifically on their activities in Scotland. In Scotland's economic performance report, the committee welcomed the enterprise strategic boards' focus on decluttering and streamlining of the enterprise and skills support landscape. However, one area that needs to be examined is how businesses are supported from start-up to high growth. As witnesses highlighted, that despite the Scottish Government spending £2 billion a year on economic development, there is a divide when businesses separate from business gateway and look to move to Scottish enterprise. There is not a smooth transition from one to the other agency. On apprenticeships, I welcome the Scottish Government's target of 30,000 modern apprenticeships by 2020. However, we have to ensure that we are supporting the learning and upskilling of all our people, including those citizens who are disabled, care leavers and those from black and ethnic minority communities. Scotland has changed for the better over the past 11 years. Yes, we can do better, but we also need the tools to do so. Maybe the parties who highlight the deficiencies in Scotland's economic performance should think about how they voted over the past 11 years when there was an opportunity to devolve more powers to this place. I thank the committee for its reports and shining a light on why our economy has grown so slowly. I think that there are some strong practical recommendations in those reports that should be considered by the Government. James Kelly talked about the co-operative model, which was mentioned in the report, and that is something that is close to my heart as a co-op party member. Richard Leonard talked about both employee-owned and co-op models, because they boost productivity and economic growth. That was highlighted in the report. They provide better conditions and security for workers. Precarious work has come up in this debate a couple of times in Johann Lamont's intervention. Later on, James Kelly spoke about the issues that young people face when working three jobs to try to make a living. Some of those jobs will be zero-hour contracts and others will be precarious, because young people have very few rights in the labour market. That is something that we have to address. We also need to address our indigenous businesses and how we support them. I have had companies come to me, local companies that have built up a trade locally, and maybe looking to retire and looking for models to make sure that business stays in local hands with local people and that that continues to make an input to their local economy. Too often, businesses are picked off and assets are stripped for their contracts, and then the local workforce is left on their own. We need to make sure that those indigenous businesses get as much support as others. A rather shocking statistic that was brought out in the debate was that a third of the Scottish economy is overseas-owned. Willie Rennie also pointed out that that means that much of the financial incentives that we give to companies go to those overseas companies. Surely, we should be looking to hold some of that at home to support our own businesses, because it is very clear that, when times get tough, if you are rooted to where you are working, you are much more likely to try to stay and weather the storm, rather than move away. James Kelly highlighted that in the debate and, indeed, earlier in question time, about the two sisters' organisations that have £0.5 million of Government funding. I thank Rhoda Grant for taking the intervention. I am just suddenly mindful that there is a 32-page response to the committee report that I have sent to the committee on 3 September. Can Rhoda Grant say what was standing in the comments that she is making, which recommendation that I have responded to, does she think that I failed to deliver on, in terms of the 32-page response to the committee report? There are many, and I am hoping that I will touch on them as I go through responding to the debate, because, indeed, they were raised here in the debate today. Can I finish the point that I was making about James Kelly's intervention, about the two sisters, because the Government has given them £0.5 million? Could that money not have been given to the workforce to try and save that business or, indeed, grow another business in its place? Would that not have been better spent and they would have been able to stay in their own communities? James also spoke about procurement, and I think that we need to use that to support some of those local companies, but also to promote a real living wage, because one of the other shocking statistics that came out in the debate was that 470,000 people are receiving less than the real living wage. The real living wage is what it has been proven that people need in order for them to be able to live to a reasonable standard, so that those people are living below a standard that we would deem to be acceptable, and I do not think that that is right in a modern Scotland. Angela Constance talked about inclusive growth, and I think that it is very important that we look at how women are treated within the workforce and, indeed, the value given to female entrepreneurs was something else that was talked about in the report. I was at a Commonwealth parliamentary association conference, a women's conference, where women entrepreneurs were making presentations to the group. What was really stark about what they were saying was that most of them could not find work that would fit with their caring responsibilities, so they set up their own companies in order that they could make a living. They, in turn, employed other women and made sure that their conditions were flexible. I think that there is a lot to be done, but setting up your own business should not be seen as the last resort that should be seen as something that we would encourage people to do, because it creates wealth in our communities. The other issue that was touched upon in the report and, indeed, in the debate was automation and the challenges and, indeed, the opportunities that automation can bring to build a high-wage, high-skilled economy, and it can boost productivity as well. The report says that skills are crucial for the capitalisation of those developments, but we are seeing that companies do not have the skills to use either digital or automation. We need to be reskilling our whole workforce. I was quite concerned. I met with Scottish Retail Consortium this morning, and we were talking about apprenticeships and apprenticeship levy. They were quite clear that that was not working properly. Certainly for the retail sector, they said that the average age of a start in that sector was 27 years of age, usually because their hours were more family-friendly. Those people could not access apprenticeships because of their age, and I do not think that that is right. We really need to look at reskilling and making sure that our workforce is ready for the future. I am seeing the Presiding Officer looking at me as if I should be winding up. I have to emphasise that the economy is hugely important. Without a vibrant economy, we cannot do the things that we want to do by tackling poverty, health and equality, and by creating a country that we can all be proud of. I will close on Murdo Fraser to close with the Conservatives. The debate started with the convener, Gordon Lindhurst, with his trademarks, washbuckling style. In delivering the committee's views, we were tantalised by Angela Constance, telling us that it was a unique experience being on the committee but not elaborating. In what respect, it was unique. I do not know whether it was having to listen to the convener's jokes or quite what it was, and perhaps she will tell us later and privately what was so unique about it. I want to pick up a few issues that come up in the debate and say some things about aspects of the report that I think are important. A number of members, the convener himself and Dean Lockhart and Jackie Baillie talked about the issue of pre-release of data. It was clear from what was said that statistical bodies all support an end to the pre-release of data, and I have all said that it is not good practice. The only people who seem to take a contrary view are the Scottish Government. I will ask them to reflect upon that particular issue and consider whether, in fact, it is time to change practice. Is Murdo Fraser aware that this is primarily a decision for the chief statistician who makes his own judgment on that rather than ministers, therefore it would be for him to decide whether to propose a change or not? It is not actually a ministerial decision. I am sure that such is the weight and influence of the economy and finance secretary. If he were to have a gentle word in the ear of the chief statistician, that might have some bearing on his decision-making in that respect. Well, I will, if it is very brief. That is getting interesting. Presiding Officer, would that not constitute, some would argue, interference, which is a very accusation that the Opposition is suggesting that we would want to avoid? Murdo Fraser. Perhaps the answer to this, Deputy Presiding Officer, is for Parliament to express a view on the matter, so there is no question of undue influence on that way that could be addressed. Well, I would love to take that. I will give you time, if you want to take Mr Litterst. I have not found a good way, yes, come on, convener. Just to correct the cabinet secretary, the point is that under current legislation that is the position, but it is the current regulations and legislation the way it has set up that is the issue and the problem. Mr Fraser. Thank you. Well, I am grateful to the convener for clarifying that matter. Perhaps I will move on quickly to other matters. A number of members talked about Scotland's economic performance more generally and we had an exchange between Willie Rennie and Tom Arthur on that particular issue. I understand the point that Mr Arthur was making in relation to headwinds around Scottish economic performance and he talked about the financial crash and he talked about Brexit, which of course has not yet happened. However, surely the issue is the relative performance of the Scottish economy compared to the UK as a whole. Here Fraser of Allander, who is the closest we have to a gospel when it comes to these issues, has pronounced that they believe that there has been a decade of underperformance for the Scottish economy relative to the UK. Indeed, they have said that for that period the Scottish economy has grown at a third of the UK rate in the last decade, so I think that we should reflect on that. When it comes to Brexit, we now have a very clear choice. We have the Prime Minister's deal on Brexit or no deal, and I would encourage members and indeed the Scottish Government to do what—I have taken three interventions already, Mr Arthur. I will have no time to make all the very important points that I want to make if I take another intervention, so I am sorry about that. I think that members should listen to what industry bodies like the CBI and the National Farmers Union of Scotland are saying and sign up to the Prime Minister's deal. In relation to other points in the report, one of the things that somewhat depressed me about this debate and the report is that it could have taken place really any time over the past decade. I served on the economy committee or its equivalent in two previous sessions of this Parliament, and the work that the committee has now done in this session has some depressingly familiar themes. Looking at how we improve productivity, how we enhance exports, how we commercialise research from our universities are all issues that we have been talking about for the past 10 or 15 years. That is not to say that there are not some valuable points made in this report, and some of the conclusions need to be highlighted. In relation to economic strategy, I have lost count of the number of new economic strategies that we have had over the past two decades. We have had individual strategies across a whole range of sectors. As the Fraser of Ireland has pointed out in a recent report, a very cluttered landscape in relation to what those strategies are intended to deliver. Dean Lockhart made that point in his contribution. The committee recommended that the Scottish Government produces an action and implementation plan for its economic strategy, backed up with a monitoring and evaluation plan. That is two more plans, I appreciate, Deputy Presiding Officer, but it seems to me that getting things done is now more important than producing yet more strategies. I am delighted that the cabinet secretary would agree with that. The economy only exists because we have businesses. We know from recent figures that there have been a fall in the number of enterprises that we have in Scotland, and historically we have had lower levels of entrepreneurship in Scotland compared to the UK as a whole. The committee noted the evidence on the need to ensure that Scotland is a good place to do business. Rachel Hamilton and her contribution touched on that particular point. We hear again and again from business representative organisations that we must keep Scotland competitive in terms of tax with the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that that is something that the cabinet secretary will address in his budget next month. I was pleased to see the committee address the issue of the missing middle in terms of Scottish business, and Willie Rennie touched on that in his contribution. That is an issue that has long been identified. We have a good number of large, secure businesses and a wide range of SMEs, but what has always been missing in the Scottish economy, compared with comparators, particularly Germany, are those substantial middle-range businesses. It is those missing middle businesses that the committee heard that perhaps struggle to access the support that they need to grow. They fall between two schools. They are too large for start-up support, yet too small to benefit from Scottish enterprise account management, and that is an area where there needs to be greater focus. I want to make some comments in closing on the question of the Scottish national investment bank, because I think that that is important. It is a welcome initiative and it fulfills an unmet need, but it will not achieve much, as the committee has said, if it is not sufficiently focused. I think that there is a concern. When we hear calls—and we heard them from Mr Leonard earlier in this debate—for too much direction to be given to that investment bank and for political interference in terms of how it might lend money. I have a concern that every time we get a business failure—whether it is Michelin—we are hearing about in Dundee at the moment or wherever else, there will be calls for SNP to use its resources to invest. Whatever the merits of those calls in a general sense, that is not what a Scottish national investment bank should be about. I believe that it is going to be successful. Ministers need to appoint good people to run it and then get out of the way and let them take decisions themselves. I think that there is a very worthwhile report that I commend it to the chamber. Thank you very much. I call on Derek Mackay to close with the Government. Surprisingly, I agree with much of the report as well. I said so in my 32-page response to the committee to say that there is a lot of consensus in that. I welcomed much of it, which is why I said what did members feel was missing from the recommendations, notwithstanding the genuine difference of opinion on pre-release access to data that I will return to. Let us reflect on that. One of the recommendations is that we should establish an economic consensus in Scotland. I genuinely think that this debate was an argument of some of us, some of the time, arguably including me, relying on the lines that we believe in but need to work a wee bit harder on finding the economic consensus. It is the only way that we will make progress and deliver the actions on which we appear to agree. Certainly Gordon Lindhurst was a champion of the committee report, but I hope that we will equally reflect on what I felt was a very constructive response to the committee's recommendations. In that sense, I agree with Murdo Fraser—not often I say that—on the actions that are required. I thought that Jamie Halcro Johnston gave a very fair and considered speech. I thought that Angela Constance—that is your career knackered—gave a very powerful and articulate speech about how growing the economy and tackling inequality go hand in hand. I believe in economic growth, because I think that through economic growth we can tackle inequality in our society, and that is what drives me. It is true that our economic indicators are strengthening in terms of GDP growth, outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom over the past 12 months, or unemployment at near record low at 3.8 per cent, or things such as foreign direct investment in a stronger position, second only to London in the south-east of England, or exports growing. I have spent the last few months listening to business, and I have to say that pre-release access to data has not been the number one issue that they have been raising with me on the things that we need to do to grow our economy. It is not a ministerial decision, and I have to say to the Tories, particularly and to those who used to be in power, that it is more a question of do as we say, not as we do, whereas in Whitehall pre-release access still exists. I am convinced that some members of the Opposition—just some members—no matter how much time you give them to look at the evidence, they still will not look at the facts to come to the right decision. A case in point of that has to be Brexit. I will not take any lectures from the Tory party on economic planning. When you look at the madness, that is Brexit right now, totally mismanaged by the Tory party. For Dean Lockhart to say, let's see how it pans out, how reckless can you be with people's jobs and people's lives? We already know that the Tories have adopted austerity as an ideology. That, in itself, has harmed our economy. It has not supported our economy, it has harmed our business growth and our economy. I have a choice. I will have a choice. Who should I take? Dean Lockhart is still standing, I should take my phraser. The policies of the UK Government apply across the UK, so why has the rest of the UK economy, since the financial crisis, grown by 1.2 per cent, but under your Government, only by 0.7 per cent? There is only one explanation, it is the input and policies of your Government. Scotland is more dependent on the oil and gas supply chain than the rest of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is an explanation as to why we have been impacted by the downturn. In terms of the new Scottish Tory economic strategy, you said that our strategy was not good enough, and we had too many strategies. So did you hear what the new Tory idea was, apart from cut taxes for the richest in society? The new big idea was a new framework. That was the big idea from Dean Lockhart. We are getting on with the actions to grow our economy, and that is why GDP in Scotland over the last 12 months is now outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom. To be fair to Willie Rennie, I thought he was quite a considerate, if he may not best informed speech that he has ever made to the chamber, I would say that. But he made the case about the Scottish economy underperforming as part of the union, then he said that we are still better together to then go on and say that immigration policies will adversely impact Scotland's economy, the UK's economy, but Scotland's economy disproportionately, and he is 100 per cent right. We should have powers over immigration so that we can make the right choices to support our society and our economy as well as doing the right thing. Then we turn to another friend of better together, the Labour Party, who wants us to take more actions around the living wage and employability, but does not want to give us the powers to do so. They would rather have that in the hands of the Conservatives as well. Then I heard about Labour's industrial strategy. Not only do we have policies to support the industries in Scotland and the emerging industries of Scotland, we have intervened to save jobs and, unapologetically, it will continue to do so to protect industrial jobs in Scotland. If you want to look what interventions look like under the SNP, liberty steel, we are making steel again, we are building ships and we did intervene on BiFab, so we will take the right actions to support our economy. Oh yes, you should maybe hold off on that particular one. I only have about a minute or so left, Presiding Officer. I do think that our economic interventions are right around investing more in our infrastructure and inclusive growth on innovation, so we are the creators of our economic success and not just the consumers. Also tackling more around internationalisation and exports, NMIS, a future industrial growth opportunity from advanced technology, more around, as I say, our export strategy. The national investment bank will be transformational, the enterprise agency supporting start-ups and scale-ups, the south of Scotland enterprise agency supporting that part of the country, city deals stimulating our regional economies, innovation centres to work with the public and the private sector, rates reform to ensure that we have the best package of rates anywhere in the United Kingdom, working with the UK Government on the industrial strategy to make sure that we maximise the funds from that particular channel, stimulating our economy, providing stability and stimulus as well. It is so important to support entrepreneurship at this point in time, as well as a real focus on digital, women and enterprise 2 and fairness as part of our economic strategy. I have set out some of the actions that we will take to stimulate our economy, while the Tories try and wreck the economy with their ideological approach to Brexit, which has put us in such a precarious position. I call on John Mason to close for the committee. Mr Mason, till decision time, please. Thank you very much, convener. I was about to start off by mentioning the convener, and I commend him for the very collegiate approach that I think we have on the committee. I think that there was a lot of agreement on the committee identifying issues, and many of those issues have come up this afternoon in the debate, but I think that the reality is that none of us have a magic wand and can always clearly see what is the way to solve some of those challenges that we have been facing and that we are facing. If I can just reiterate a couple of points that the convener made at the beginning. First, I very much thank Graham Roy for his input into both the reports. Each report runs to some 100 pages, so there is a lot of material in there. Graham Roy was extremely helpful to the committee. I think that it is worth reiterating that the convener made that data and statistics are there to serve the users and not vice versa. I think that there is room for movement from where we have been on that. If I start, as some others have done on the data side, there was actually quite a lot in the data report other than just pre-release access, which I will come to. However, I think that there were some very positive points. I think that the fact that ONS said that they were extremely willing to engage and wanted to engage more with the Scottish Parliament was very positive, and the committee will be keen to develop that. The fact that we need to prioritise getting data on earnings, on trade, on Scottish prices, on regional figures was very much agreed as well. I think that there was a positive reaction to the Digital Economy Act of 2017 and the fact that we should now have more access to HMRC data and the question of how the gaps can be filled, which Gordon MacDonald mentioned. The barriers that we still face, the cost of getting data, the lack of power that we have in certain sectors and the fact that there is no disaggregation either for many companies or other organisations. I think that Gordon Lindhurst also touched on the requirements of the Scottish Fiscal Commission and having been involved in the Finance Committee, which, when it was set up, I think that that has to be our priority for all of us. One thing that has not been mentioned was the link that we made in the report to the gender pay gap, which we had previously studied, and the fact that there is a need for gender-disaggregated data, which largely we do not have. I think that both Kezia Dugdale and Gillian Martin were on the committee when we did the report but are no longer there. Clearly, in the data side, while most of it was collegiate, we divided on the question of pre-release access. There were three positions before this afternoon, although I think that Angela Constance has added a fourth, which is sitting on the fence. I maintain that the minority view in the committee is still the best one. Although the committee went strongly for pre-release of everything and although the Government has stood by its position of not changing anything, the minority view on the committee was that there should be a presumption against pre-release access and inviting the Government to put forward arguments on a case-by-case basis. I still think that that is a good way forward. Next, if I could just touch on one or two issues that I think have hardly been mentioned this afternoon or not mentioned at all. Productivity, we spent quite a lot of time discussing and came up with a lot of the witnesses. There has been the assumption that increasing productivity is going to automatically be good, although the question did come up that, in fact, in some sectors, like in a restaurant, you want more staff and more productivity is not necessarily a great thing. I think that technology and automation have not been mentioned too much, although Rhoda Grant did mention them in her closing speech. We did feel that the enterprise and skill agencies need to really focus in on that. Again, the care sector has hardly been mentioned, but this is nowadays clearly a huge part of the Scottish economy. While it does not export and it does not attract tourists, it is a growing sector and it is a sector where the pay is very poor and one that we need to take seriously. Another issue is entrepreneurial thinking. Particularly, we were focusing on colleges and universities where that is much more part of the thinking. At schools now, I think that there is more emphasis on that as well, which is a good thing. We saw that very much at the recent business and parliament conference in which the economy committee was involved in sponsoring. Procurement, as well, has not been mentioned. We did feel that many SMEs are still not achieving the share of public expenditure that they could be and perhaps they are in other countries. Growth sectors were not mentioned to a great extent, although Willie Rennie talked about needing to broaden the economy. I think that we did wonder if the past system has been too rigid in the way that Scottish Enterprise in particular has focused on what it helps. We did wonder if improving low productivity sectors would be something else that would make an impact on the economy. The Scottish National Convention has been mentioned as a very positive step forward. We agreed that all investment decisions should have equality impact assessments, but at the same time I agree with Murdo Fraser that it is not there to bail out struggling companies. That is not its main aim. Decluttering has been mentioned a few times and we saw the strategic board as a positive way forward in seeking to declutter some areas. To touch on other areas that particularly have been mentioned a fair bit, what is called the fear of heights or scaling up or the middle sector that is missing was something that we looked at and certainly concerns me quite a lot. We seem to be good at starting companies and growing relatively small companies, but I think that the question comes as to whether some of them are sold too soon. We had a very useful meeting with Sky Scanner who may have sold at the right time. Time will tell about that, but at least they waited a lot longer than a lot of other companies have done to sell off. We still face the fact that the financial press or the financial pages often rejoice when a small company is sold for a sizeable sum, even if it might have grown. There are points about ownership. We have not spent very much time on social enterprises as an option. We felt that Scottish Enterprise and HIE might need to focus on that more and that potential entrepreneurs should think about that when they are starting up their companies. Ownership is very important to employ ownership, embedding companies in Scotland, and Michelin and others have been mentioned where an overseas branch might be more easily closed than one that is based here, although clearly Scottish-based companies have struggled as well. Inclusive growth, too. I do not have time to re-look at that, but it has been mentioned by a number of members and we really felt jointly that that was really important. I thank members for their interest in taking part in this debate this afternoon. The committee will note the points that have been made and we will certainly continue to focus on those issues. Thank you very much, Mr Mason. That concludes our debate on Scotland's economic future and economic data. We are going to turn straight to decision time. There is one question today. The question is that motion 14824, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, on Scotland's economic future and economic data, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. I close this meeting.