 Felly, byddai nhw i ddwybod y gwaith i'r Gwladau Bwyrrwyng dynnu. Felly, ddaf yn ddwybod i'r Gwladau Bwyrrwyng, Derek Mackay, ddiogel a'r ddwybod i'r Gwladau Bwyrrwyng dynnu. Felly, ddydd hwn ar gyfer Gwladau Bwyrrwyng yng Nghymru yn cyflwyntau a hwnnw i rywunol o'i cyfrifeddau. Rwy'n cael y cyfrifeddau i gael eich cyfrifeddau sydd yn cyfrifeddau o'r cyfrifeddau i gael, erbyn yr cyfrifeddau. The PFG has a strong emphasis on boosting our economy. We will increase investment in Scotland's infrastructure so that it is £1.5 billion per year more by the end of the next Parliament than in 2019-20. That increased investment, the most ambitious long-term level of infrastructure spend that Scotland has ever seen, will drive connectivity, create jobs and deliver a long-term boost to productivity. In total, that means around £7 billion of extra infrastructure investment over the period, and it will help us to support faster broadband, improve transport and more low-carbon energy. In a further transformational move, we will now embark on the legislation and capitalisation of the Scottish National Investment Bank. Today, I launched a consultation on how the bank can support Scotland's economy. We will listen to the views from across Scotland on the bank's objectives, purpose, priorities for investment and governance. I believe that this is a game changer in the provision of patient capital to finance, innovation and growth. It will be pivotal in our ambitions for a future-proofed high-tech and low-carbon Scottish economy. Jackie Baillie I have managed to have a very quick look at his consultation. There seems to be something like £30 million set aside for staffing, and the Scottish Government has not excluded the payment of bonuses. I wonder whether he would like to do so now. I think that it would be wrong to prejudge every element of the consultation. Naturally, we want to hear from stakeholders in that regard, but no, I will not follow the worst practices of the banking sector in that regard. We will build a bank that Scotland will be proud of. This year, we will begin a reaching 100 programme delivering a £600 million investment to make superfast broadband available to every home and business in Scotland. That will ensure that the whole country can reap the benefits of the digital revolution, and on exports, our investment for the future will make Scotland an even better place to live, work and invest—more competitive internationally and attract talent and investment from around the world. Investment at home and a determination to boost export opportunities—that is why we are investing £20 million to help more of Scotland's businesses to engage with e-commerce for export, delivering support to existing exporters to ramp up overseas activity, and setting up a new scheme that will create business-to-business peer mentorships for new exporters to learn from established exporters. Businesses across Scotland told us that they want a more streamlined business support system, and that is why we are developing a single digital point of entry for business support, along with quicker technology-driven decisions on financial support. We are also introducing criteria now to ensure that business support grants such as regional selective assistance deliver on our ambition to be a world-leading, fair work nation. The coming months of our enterprise and skills agencies will also be stepping up their support for businesses to navigate through Brexit. We move swiftly to implement the Barclay rates review recommendations and will now bring forward a non-domestic rates bill to take forward the remaining legislative elements, such as moving to a valuation cycle that better reflects property values and delivers incentives for growth. Our economic actions will touch every part of Scotland. We are committed to investing more than £1 billion in city region deals, creating thousands of jobs and upskilling local labour markets across Scotland. Beyond our cities, we will legislate to establish a south of Scotland enterprise agency that supports a diverse and resilient economy in the region. Despite the UK Government's Brexit bungling, Scotland's economy has proven to be resilient, benefiting from the Scottish Government's progressive initiatives. Economic growth, GDP over the last year, has been higher than in the rest of the UK. I look forward to the Opposition parties welcoming that. Youth unemployment, of course, must be the welcome. On that point, I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. I want to be noticed in the fiscal commission's report that came out this morning, talking about the issue of GDP growth in Scotland. I said, and I quote, those revisions do not, in our view, affect the subdued outlook for trend growth. Maybe he is getting carried away with his enthusiasm just a bit too soon. Derek Mackay I am just enthusiastic because we are outperforming the United Kingdom. I think that one is plenty for the moment. Thank you, Jackie Baillie. Economic growth outperforming the United Kingdom over the last year and the last quarter specifically. Outperforming the UK on youth unemployment in terms of reducing it and women's unemployment is lower than the rest of the United Kingdom as well, and unemployment overall remaining at near record low levels. Scotland has narrowed the productivity gap with the rest of the UK over the past decade and exports are up 12 per cent in the last year. I believe that the measures in this programme for government will deliver a step change in infrastructure and business support, delivering for the economy of today, and laying the foundations for the opportunities of the future. I look forward to that debate ahead. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In our statement to Parliament yesterday, the First Minister started by talking about Scotland's economy. Sadly, there was very little in the programme that would help to grow Scotland's economy, but let's have a look at what is on offer. Rather predictably, we heard all the usual negativity about the likely impacts of Brexit on the Scottish economy. In a statement demonstrating a fairly astonishing lack of self-awareness, even for the current First Minister, she went on to trumpet the increase in the export of goods from Scotland by 12 per cent, a significant figure. However, it does not take an economic genius to understand that a principal reason why exports have grown so dramatically, both in Scotland and across the UK as a whole, has been because of the fall in the value of the pound against other currencies over the past two years. That fall is a direct result of, guess what, the Brexit vote. The very problem area that the First Minister has identified for the economy is delivering the dramatic export growth that she champions. It is not just exports that are doing well. Another sector in Scotland that is booming is tourism. To the extent that, in some parts of the country, we are even talking about the problem of overtourism. Holidaying in the Highlands this summer, I was very pleased to see the very large number of overseas visitors, particularly coming from Europe, coming to enjoy our scenery, our culture and our hospitality, and all benefiting from a very favourable exchange rate. Similarly, more and more UK visitors are stay-cationing, taking advantage of both the good weather that we have had and the more competitive costs of holidaying at home. I accept that the very Brexit that has created boom conditions in industries such as tourism has, of course, presented challenges. There are hospitality providers struggling to recruit staff from European countries because it is no longer so financially attractive for them to come here, and the same applies to other industries such as agriculture. However, it suggests, as the First Minister did, that the impacts of Brexit thus far on our economy have all been negative, is simply dismissing the evidence that we have before us. So what is in the programme for government to help the economy? Well, there is legislation to establish a South of Scotland enterprise agency, a policy we welcome, indeed a policy pinched from our manifesto in 2016. There should be a new bill on non-domestic rates to implement some of the recommendations of the Barclay review. Much of that is welcome—the relief for new-build properties that will help to grow the economy and property improvements, and the exemptions for day nurseries. Some of the process issues that move to a three-year cycle for reevaluations will also be beneficial. However, it remains our view that the Barclay review was a missed opportunity for a more fundamental review of business taxation in Scotland. In particular, retail continues to suffer as a sector with pressure on traditional high streets. The large business supplement set in Scotland at a rate nearly double that applicable in the rest of the United Kingdom continues to be a burden on Scottish retailers and creates a competitive disadvantage for Scottish traders, which needs to be addressed. The non-domestic rates bill will no doubt address the issue of rates on independent schools, with an intention of implementing the SNP's policy objective of removing the current exemption. It has always seemed to me totally illogical that the same Barclay review that proposes a new exemption from business rates for children's nurseries that provide education—many of which charge fees and are profit making—at the same time proposes removing a business rates exemption from independent schools that are charitable institutions, not making a profit. It is an approach as bizarre as it is illogical. An already a real problem has developed in that there are a whole range of independent schools providing specialist support for children with additional support needs, such as the new school at Butterstone in Perthincan Ross, which will be hit with business rates unless a way can be found to exempt them. An undoubtedly it will be a significant challenge to parliamentary draftsmen to draw a distinction in law between independent schools that provide a general education but with some pupils with special needs and for those schools that are set up almost exclusively for pupils with those needs. That is not just an issue about education, it is also an economic one. In Perthincan Ross, there are at least eight independent schools, I am aware of, having a significant economic contribution to the local economy, supporting around 500 direct jobs and many more indirectly in the wider economy. It is a major earner of course of foreign revenue from students coming from overseas. To hit this important economic sector with a new tax burden, flies in the face of everything that we have been told by this SNP Government. To quote directly from the First Minister yesterday, she said this, we will ensure that the business environment in Scotland remains competitive and that we are providing the support that businesses need to thrive. Not these businesses, it sounds like. Derek Mackay Is he aware of the proportion of non-domestic rates relief as a proportion to the overall running costs for an average independent mainstream school? I do not have the tip of my finger. What I can say is that to add an additional burden, I think that we are talking about an aggregate £5 million to a sector that is important, both educationally and economically, flies in the face of everything else that this Government has said about growing the economy. However, it seems that the education secretary, who I am afraid has now left the chamber, does recognise the issue, because he wrote over the summer on behalf of constituents to the finance secretary raising those concerns. What was the finance secretary's response to suggest that the local authority, Perthincan Ross Council, could somehow find the money in their budget, a budget that he and his predecessor have slashed to make up the difference? We have had to sit in this chamber month after month, year after year while SNP ministers complain that they have to use their resources to mitigate the policy choices of a Westminster Government on welfare and elsewhere. Yet here we have SNP ministers having the brass neck to play exactly that same trick on local authorities that they claim Westminster is playing on them. Was there ever anything quite so shameless? In conclusion, I think that this is an ambitious programme for government. It is indicative of party and government running out of ideas, lacking in enthusiasm and short on ambition. It really must do better than this. It has been an interesting opening observation from the Conservative benches. It is the first time I have heard someone like Murdo Fraser boasting that the pound in his pocket is worth less than it was before Conservative policies and actions affected it. I welcome what he will say in two years' time when the effect of higher costs for importing components that are required for manufacturing industry in these islands will really hit home. Short-term benefit, long-term much more problematic. Brexit is something that we should talk about in terms of the economy. It is a huge challenge to the Scottish economy, to the economy in these islands, but the one thing that it will not do is to inhibit this Government in taking the actions that will support Scotland's further development from here on. I want to just say a few words about few of the things in the yesterday's statement from the First Minister. Before talking about banking, I remind people of my register of interests in relation to banking. I of course spent 30 years in banking and came into politics to improve my reputation. The Scottish National Investment Bank is something that I very much support. The world of finance and of cash and of the way that it works is fundamentally changing for businesses, but even more so it will for individuals. For example, in Sweden there are now only 25 bank branches in Sweden that deal with cash, because essentially it has become a cashless society. We will get there as well. I think that the Scottish National Investment Bank, primarily focusing on investment in the first instance, could look in the longer term at how we can support communities who are going to lose, as they are already, more and more local branches so that the right kind of financial service is there. That often will be through technology assisted by trained people. I hope that the investment bank might look at that in the long term. I very much welcome the biometrics bill. I encourage the Government to take close attention to what has happened in India with the Aadhar system, which is an identity card system that has 1.22 billion card holders issued since 2009. The important point about it is that 50 per cent of the card holders are functionally illiterate. Therefore, it is an easy access system that has many lessons for the sort of things that we might want to do in relation to biometrics. The Aadhar card is based on retinal scan. We think about electoral reform. I hope that we can persuade the electoral commission when they are doing boundary changes to perhaps give us more granular details so that we can see what houses are at the edge of our constituency—not a big deal. On non-mastic rates, one thing that I would like the Government to work with the assessors on is how they factor in empty premises into the assessment of value of rent. In the north-east of Scotland, fish factories—there are quite a lot of them—are empty, but those that are not empty are taking the actual rents paid. However, no account has been taken of the fact that it is impossible to let other factories at the rate of rent that the ones that are occupied. It should be across the board, and the valueers know about the empty factories because they are looking at them as well. I am going to be talking to the valueers about it, because I realise that the Government does not control that subject, but it provides guidance. On infrastructure, I very much welcome the increased investment that is going to be in infrastructure. I hope that we will think about whether we can support industries that are going to be particularly hard hit by the absence of people from across Europe, because people are going to go back to Europe because of the immigration rules, and perhaps help the fish processing industry to increase its levels of automation, perhaps help the soft fruit industry to develop new technologies for harvesting and, of course, in turn, to create new products that we can sell around the world. I hope that those are things that the infrastructure investments might include in the consideration of things that they want. Of course, it is up to the industry to come forward with proposals, and I have been talking to people in both those industries about what they might do in that regard. That is middle-term to long-term, maybe not immediately short-term, but nonetheless important for that. I want to, if you will allow me, since there is no motion, pick up one thing that is not economy directly, which I am particularly interested in, and that is the announcements in relation to mental health. In 1964, for eight months, I personally worked in mental health as a nurse. My father-in-law is a psychiatric nurse and my sister-in-law is a psychiatric nurse. I am absolutely clear about the value of investing in people's mental health. Diminishing in schools the early signs of mental ill health that might develop into a real cost to the economy, but more fundamentally something that will benefit people in Scotland to improve their lives, not just simply their wallets. I have to confess that the First Minister's programme for government sounded to me like a bit of a shopping list. There was no story, no consistent thread underpinning what the Government was doing. I left not really knowing what the big picture was. Lots of inputs, but very little on outcomes. When you look back at the previous programme for government announcements, the charge that the SNP overpromised, but underdeliver, is absolutely true. Only two bills passed last year. If it was based on performance-related pay, ministers should have their salaries docked. It is not just about legislation, I accept that. It is also what you do with policy and the budget. The problem is that the SNP has been timid on all of those fronts. Every measure, every target that the Government set for itself on the economy has failed. Just look at the seven purpose targets that relate to the economy, not one of them met. Let me welcome the renewed focus on the economy, because I have no doubt that it is badly needed. I particularly welcome the announcement that there will be a new economic strategy and not before time. Scottish Labour has asked for the economic strategy to be reviewed several times. We asked the First Minister, we asked the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, we did so in 2015, in 2016 and in 2017. You would think that Brexit was a sufficiently material and significant change that they would want to make sure that their strategy was fit for purpose. On at least three occasions, the SNP voted against a review. I am really glad that the new cabinet secretary does not have his head in the sand, like his boss or his predecessor. The second issue for me is honesty. Honesty about the state of the economy. Of course, the Government will claim that everything is wonderful and the Opposition will claim that everything is dire. The truth is that our economy is fragile. I think that everyone in this chamber would welcome any rise in GDP. I want our economy to grow. I want us to generate jobs, to generate wealth and then for us to redistribute that wealth to those who most need it. However, do not expect me to jump up and down at rises that are fractions of a percentage point because it is marginal. Forecast by the Fiscal Commission shows growth at less than 1 per cent for a year longer than it originally thought to 2023. That is not a good story, and I want us to do much better than that. Let me say as gently as I can to the cabinet secretary. If the limit of our ambition is to just compare ourselves to the UK when the UK itself is performing badly, that is not very clever, nor is it very ambitious. Let me make progress and then you can come in. Let us compare the state of the Scottish economy to some of our European neighbours. I remember the SNP that used to talk about emulating the Celtic tiger. That was into the Irish economy tanked. From 2015 to the first quarter of 2018, Ireland has outperformed Scottish GDP growth in 11 out of the 12 quarters. How about Spain, where the great research—I hear somebody shouting independence—was about a significant recession, and what they did themselves did not require independence, but required determined effort. Let us talk about Spain and the Great Recession, which lasted until 2015. Unemployment was at 20 per cent. Now, Spain is outperforming Scotland in each and every one of the 12 quarters, and in Portugal, where unemployment reached 18 per cent and the European Central Bank had to intervene their growth. Their growth was higher than Scotland's in each of the last 12 quarters. Now, it is interesting to note that there is a socialist government in Portugal that has explicitly rejected austerity and is turning their country round. I invite the SNP to learn a lesson or two from Portugal. I am encouraged by the new focus on exports. There has been too little done in this area in the past. I would also note that we export more to the rest of the UK than we do to the rest of Europe and, indeed, the world. Strengthening our home market is as important as looking further afield. Where is the focus on productivity? A key driver for economic growth? No mention of it in the First Minister's 45-minute speech. Productivity in Scotland is woeful. The Government had a target of lifting productivity to the top quartile of OECD countries to be achieved by 2017. We started at 18th place in the second quartile, and when we got to 2017, we had slipped to 19th place in the third quartile. Frankly, that is dreadful. Where to is the focus? Absolutely. Derek Mackay. Jackie Baillie rightly said that we should not try and just match ourselves to UK performance. Of course, we are outperforming compared to the rest of the UK, but when we have looked at small, advanced economies that are more successful than Scotland, we have all the economic fundamentals that they have. The one thing that they have got that we have not is independence. Why does Jackie Baillie stand in the way of our economic progress? Jackie Baillie is an interesting thing because your Cuts Commission report actually spelt it out in terms. With independence comes years of austerity, eye-watering cuts to public services, cuts to schools and hospitals. That is why we reject your flawed notion of a thriving economy. Where is the focus on workers? Much of the recent rises in employment have been characterised by temporary working, by low pay, by zero-hours contracts. A report just the other day highlighted the millions that would be injected into the economy in the west of Scotland and Glasgow, in particular, if more people were on the living wage. I welcome to the eighth re-announcement of the Scottish National Investment Bank. I am disappointed that there is a suggestion that they are going to pay bankers' bonuses, and I hope that that is not the case. Of course, under Scottish Labour's plans, we would see £20 billion invested, 10 times the amount that the SNP is proposing because we need to see transformational change. On infrastructure investment, Scottish Labour has been asking for SFT to be reviewed for many years to secure better value for money. We would deliver £20 billion in capital investment from a national transformation fund in contrast to the SNP. Let me finish on this point. The Scottish Government has new borrowing powers of £450 million each year. How much of that will be used to fund the £1.5 billion announced? How much will come from the private sector and how much is assumed investment made by local authorities? We look forward to considering that and the funding model in further detail. I remind members that they should always speak through the chair and not directly to each other. I call Andy Wightman to be followed by Liam McArthur. It is worth reflecting, as Richard Leonard did yesterday, that next year is the 20th anniversary of this Parliament. Despite our political differences, it is worth celebrating the fact that we have the capacity here in Scotland to introduce new laws and policies for the people that we serve. Examples of welcome legislation in the programme for government include bills on consumer protection, electoral reform and family law, as well as the announcement that I welcome that the Government will introduce a bill in this Parliament for reform to the law of defamation. I commend Scottish Pen and others on their campaigning on this matter. In policy terms, we welcome, as many others have, plans for a Scottish national investment bank and the launch of the consultation today. We want something that could have a transformative impact on the economy if designed and implemented appropriately. We welcome to ambitions for infrastructure investment, but we reiterate our previous calls for that to be focused on low carbon projects, public transport and public housing. Today's debate is themed around the economy. As a number of speakers have mentioned, we continue to have fundamental problems with the economy. As Greens, we have fundamental problems with the assumptions underpinning the Government's economic policy. Economic growth, even inclusive economic growth, is a fundamentally flawed goal, if measured by GDP—the aggregate of monetised transactions in the economy. The founder of GDP in the 1930s was Simon Kuznetz, who became one of its biggest critics. GDP does not measure goods and services produced in the course of daily life. It does not measure the distribution of income or wealth. It says nothing at all about wealth. It ignores environmental services from soils, oceans and forests and says nothing about energy flow. The idea that GDP growth is central to the measurement of the success of an economy is in the words of one of the authors of the 1972 Limits to Growth report, one of the stupidest purposes ever invented by any culture. Yet it persists, since Scotland's economic policy will be deemed a success if, for example, the oil and gas sector continues to extract more hydrocarbons, despite the imperative, to leave the vast majority of known reserves in the ground. The economy of Scotland, like—I will— Who are you taking, Mr Whiteman? Oh, sorry, Mr Arthur. Tom Arthur. I'm very grateful to Mr Whiteman for giving way. I wonder notwithstanding the points that he makes, many of which I'm sympathetic to. He would concede that there is a correlation between per capita GDP and human wellbeing. Andy Wightman There certainly is an indication that there's that correlation, but it's not the basis on which we need to build a sustainable economy, because that correlation is not absolute. The economy of Scotland, like the wider UK economy, is still too heavily weighted in favour of financial services, dangerously dependent on consumption, which continues to be fuelled by high levels of household debt, with a generation of young people facing excessive housing costs, job insecurity and lower living standards. Today, the Institute of Public Policy Research published the final report of its commission on economic justice. It contains some of the ingredients for a successful economy, and I would welcome the Government's response to the recommendations for Scotland. Green politics is based on the four pillars of equality, peace, environmental sustainability and radical democracy. In our view, to secure the changes that the economy and society need, people need the power to make those changes. Across Europe, cities and municipalities are leading the way in sustainable transport, clean air, affordable housing and tackling climate change. They do so by and large because they have the legislative and the fiscal power to do so. They are drivers of economic activity, innovation and sustainable futures. That's why it is so disappointing to see the programme for government perpetuate an unambitious agenda to reform the way Scotland is governed at a local level, to provide a more local and participative local democracy with a commensurate fiscal powers to create genuine local autonomy. Quarter of a page out of 118 on the local government's review with no ambition or ideas about how Scotland can become a normal European country in respect to how we're governed locally. Modest proposals for a tourist tax common place across Europe kicked further down the road, although welcome confirmation from Kate Forbes this morning that such powers will be considered as part of budget negotiations. A critical part of economic policy is taxation, and the programme makes reference to them on page 61. Given the second highest yielding tax in Scotland is non-domestic rates, we welcome the proposal for a bill on this matter. However, the thorough and comprehensive review of the whole business rate system that was promised by Derek Mackay's far back in 2013 was never delivered. Instead, we had the Barclay review, which asked one question and was told to make its recommendations revenue-neutral. That meant in practice that any proposals that were made to reduce liabilities in any sector had to be balanced by measures that would make up for the lost yield, and that's why we have some of the proposals to raise liabilities in those other sectors. That is not the way to do tax reform. Early this week, we lost the Nobel Prize-winner, Professor James Murdley. He was one of the Scottish Government's economic advisers. In his Murdley's review of 2011, a comprehensive look at the tax system, he said among other things that, and I quote, the business rate is not a good tax. Taxing non-domestic property is inefficient and should not be part of the tax system. The economic case for taxing land itself is very strong, however. On stamp duty, he said that there is no sound case for maintaining stamp duty, and we believe that it should be abolished. The Government might ignore those wise words from one of its advisers, but Greens won't. We look forward to working across the chamber to secure some of the changes that he advocated to fiscal policy. We also look forward to working with the Government and other parties to take forward some of the very good ideas in the programme for government. Colleen MacArthur, to be followed by John Mason. It was interesting that the First Minister delivered her statement yesterday partly, and I will come to that in a minute, in terms of what she had to say. Because of the way that it seemed to be received on her own black benches, those of us who have been in this Parliament over the past 11 years have got used to the raucous adulation that normally greets such First Ministerial set pieces. The also spontaneous rounds of applause in response to carefully crafted clap lines, the pantomime of booing of those deemed unworthy of the people of Scotland. Not so yesterday, it was all rather muted, all a bit low-key, all something of an anti-climax. That's not to say. It's all behind me. That's not to say, of course, that there weren't positives in what the First Minister had to say. Things I warmly welcome. Guaranteeing the voting rights of EU citizens in this country was an early and obvious example. So, too, confirmation that the principles of the UNCRC are to be incorporated in the Scottish law. I was on the education committee in the last session when the Government used its parliamentary majority to frustrate any attempts of moving in that direction during consideration of the Children and Young People's Act. However, that rethink by the First Minister is nevertheless welcome, it's significant and it's potentially far-reaching. The same description applies to the additional funding announced yesterday for mental health. Coming on the same day as figures showing the staggering scale of how far we currently are from meeting the needs of those of all ages but particularly of children and young people suffering from poor mental health, only serves to underscore how vital that long overdue investment is. It must now prompt a substantial increase in training of specialists. Practitioners just expecting teaching profession to pick up the pieces they won't do and ensuring improvements and provision are felt across the whole country, including in rural and island areas, will also be essential. However, as I say, the funding announced yesterday lays a good platform and must now pave the way for treatment of mental ill health to be put on the same statutory footing as physical ill health. Positives, Deputy Presiding Officer, and what Nicola Sturgeon had to say yesterday, but sadly, too few in a statement went on for 40 minutes or more. Not that I was desperate to hear her going on any longer, but I was struck by some of the bills that were conspicuous by their absence. The Good Food Nation bill appears to have been boiled down to a mere programme. Richard Lochhead may be back in flavour of the month with the First Minister, but the bill that he has spent so much time evangelising has been dumped in the compost bin. With major challenges in food poverty, child obesity and even biodiversity loss, it is hard to understand why the Government has scaled back its ambitions in this area. No sign, either, of the much-needed crofting reform bill to address growing frustration and anger at current regulation that is not fit for purpose and is actually holding back individuals, businesses and communities, including in places such as Orkney. Missing in action 2 was any mechanism for undoing the mess that the Government has got itself into in dismantling the British Transport Police. Those are just some of the examples of where the First Minister's programme for government fell short and represents a missed opportunity. We did, though, get some signs as to what we might expect from the Government's forthcoming budget bill, though we will have to wait a bit longer for the full reveal. For now, in the remaining time available, let me gently remind the finance secretary of other commitments that he has made and that we will also need to be accommodated when that bill is brought forward. Much was made yesterday of plans for investment in infrastructure, repeated again by Mr Mackay, yet it was difficult to identify much of direct relevance to more rural and island areas. Last year, of course, the Scottish Government finally agreed to begin honouring the promises that it had made through successive transport ministers, including Mr Mackay himself, on funding for Orkney and Shetland's internal ferry services. That principle has now been accepted. There cannot be any rowing back, and any attempt to do so would be seen by those in Orkney and Shetland as an active betrayal on the part of this Government. Stewart Stevenson Will the member agree with me that a huge majority of the £600 million that will be invested in the reaching 100 per cent coverage broadband programme is directed at rural areas? I will be a personal beneficiary. I am looking forward to it. Liam McArthur I absolutely agree, although I think that there are serious questions about the deliverability in parts of my constituency. I appreciate the engagement that has been through the Digital Scotland team in trying to answer those questions, but questions and serious questions still remain. The principle has been accepted. At the same time, however, there was a recognition that the current arrangement for running those ferry services is not sustainable. I was pleased that the finance secretary accepted at the same time the need for urgent action on a longer-term solution. In Orkney, that means replacement vessels. The current fleet is no longer up to the standards of operating many of those routes. The boats cost more to run, more to fix and more to keep at sea. Delays in replacing them are increasingly a false economy, one that comes at a cost to the communities that rely so heavily upon them. The new transport secretary must now get round the tables a matter of urgency with the local council and agree a programme for fleet replacement. That is being done on the west coast, where we see multimillion-pound vessels at least being procured, even if the building and delivery is not necessarily going according to plan. The recent passing of the islands act is not job done. Communities, like the ones that I represent, expect this to be backed by action, including action on infrastructure investment, such as our lifeline at ferry services. In passing, I would also urge the Government to sort out the mess over a road-equivalent tariff on Northern Isles ferry routes. I appreciate the dispute with Pentland ferries, which is not entirely of their making, but the defining silence from ministers over the summer is not encouraging. Those travelling between Orkney and Shetland and the Scottish mainland are still being forced to pay over the odds for using those services. That, Deputy Presiding Officer, cannot be allowed to continue. We will have to be a wee bit stricter with time from now on. John Mason followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was very happy to be speaking in this debate at the start of the new parliamentary year. I just say to Liam McArthur that some of us do not do rockus adulation at all. I have to say that I think that this programme for government looks very positive to me and it seems to me that it is building on last year's plans. Last year, one bill that I was heavily involved in was the islands bill. I think that some opposition members have suggested that we could push through more bills or we could push through bills faster, and perhaps the present system is too slow. However, when we look at that bill, the Government did a lot of work in preparation for it. The Wreck Committee, which I am a member of, spent a huge amount of time here and out visiting on the islands to take that through. We did some of that during recess, and we also did a lot of good input from all six councils that were involved. I have to say that I would be very reluctant for us, as a Parliament, to churn such bills through faster and end up with some more kind of slap-dash approach such as they have at Westminster. I am particularly interested in the economy being— Bruce Crawford. I wonder if the member would remember during the period from 2011 when the SNP, when the majority government, the number of times opposition complained about the amount of legislation that it was pushing through Parliament when it could. John Mason. Yes, that is a fair point. Clearly, the Opposition says one thing, one day, and another thing, another day. I am particularly interested in the economic side of things, and the idea that there is going to be more focus on infrastructure strikes me as extremely good. That can mean more jobs. Just yesterday, at the Economy and Fair Work Committee, for example, we were hearing that GVA in the construction sector was £52,900 per head in 2016, which is higher than from many other sectors, so that is a good place to be investing in. At the same time, I think that we have to accept that there has been a tradition for construction jobs to go to men, and so we do need to continue challenging such gender stereotypes and break down some of those traditional barriers in society. As yet, we have not seen the detail of how all this extra money will be allocated, so as others probably put their bids in, as co-convener of the rail cross-party group, I would just like to say that I would be very happy to see more money spent on rail. For example, the Perthinverness line is an opportunity and also a challenge, duelling the A9 is absolutely great and fabulous, but a side effect could be putting rail travel at a disadvantage, so hopefully that might be one of the kind of areas that the cabinet secretary would look at. Thinking about the economy, we also think about what the other two main parties look at and the way that they view the economy. First of all, we have the Conservatives. They would like us to think that they are the realistic party. They realise that we have to live within our means, expenditure can outstrip income year after year, and they want to see growth and an increase in productivity. Many of those things I can agree with, but there is a problem with the Conservative vision for the economy. They do not seem to care how the growth comes about and they do not seem to care who suffers in the process as long as the economy grows. If the rich gets super rich and the poor gets super poor, that would still be success in the Conservative world as long as the economy is growing. Then, on the other hand, we have Labour. They do not do realism. Richard Leonard and Jeremy Corbyn are probably well-meaning people in a bumbling sort of way. They would just say that we should spend more and more and more. They do not really have a plan as to where that money would come from. Perhaps they will start a new tax tomorrow or raise an old one, but why bother planning about those things? No, I do not think so from Mr Finlay. Yes, absolutely. Or perhaps we could just borrow and borrow and borrow and hopefully one day someone will repay it. In contrast to those two flawed models, we have a party of government, the SNP, whom the people of Scotland clearly trust because we have been here for 11 years. It is a challenge to be in government and to be forced to be realistic but also aspirational at the same time. It seems to me that this programme for government strikes a good balance between being more progressive than the UK has been, raising income taxes a bit more, investing for the future but at the same time being realistic about what we can borrow and afford to pay back in the future. Clearly Brexit is a huge aspect of any programme for the coming year and it has been mentioned by a number of speakers. I think that many of the public and many of us are getting fed up with the endless bickering at Westminster and the myriad of potential scenarios. Perhaps our Conservative colleagues could tell their London masters that it is about time that we had some definite plans and actions and not just contradictions, claims and counterclaims. One of the Conservatives' favourite lines seems to be that Scotland does more trade with the UK than with the EU—perhaps 61 per cent for the UK, 17 per cent for their bouts with the EU—and that is well and good. That is true, but the idea from the Conservatives that we can just forget about that 17 per cent and presumably take a 17 per cent hit on our economy is absolute madness. Scotland cannot afford to lose either of these important markets—the EU or the UK—our farmers, fishing boats or business people need both. We need both the UK market and the EU market, so would the Conservatives please put the country's interests ahead of their narrow party squabbles? On population and immigration, it was Jack McConnell, I think, who really led in a lot of this, that we cannot grow the economy if we are not allowed to have a growing population and that is absolutely key if we want to grow our internal markets, grow our taxpayer base and grow our workforce. On the budget, could I just say that I hope that this is an opportunity for the opposition parties to think about whether they will constructively engage in the budget, whether they will sit down and seek to reach a compromise. This is a minority government in a Parliament with proportional representation. We all need to compromise. No one will get exactly what they want and I would appeal to both Labour and the Tories to think a bit more seriously than they have in previous years. That is fine, Mr Mason. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Emma Harper. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have not had the chance to formally welcome the new cabinet secretary for justice to his role yet and I am pleased to do so both in general and in the context of the programme for government. Some may consider his inheritance as something of a poison chalice with violent crime up, drug crime up, robbery up, detection rate down, and that in a context of police officer numbers, which have been cut to a nine-year low. It would be a big ask for anyone to pick it up cold, let alone someone from a completely separate brief, which is why I want to reiterate Ruth Davidson's point yesterday and encourage the new Justice Department to work with those who do have that experience and the policies. The early signs are promising, unlike his predecessor, who, in the face of repeated criticism from the Scottish Conservatives, the train operating companies, the trade unions, most other opposition parties and the public, railroaded through the unwanted, unnecessary and dangerous BTP merger, but the new cabinet secretary has climbed down, although, oddly, railway policing is not mentioned at all in the programme for government. The programme for government also makes an unequivocal, unambiguous promise to introduce Finslaw, clearly the Finslaw campaigners, a petition with 40,000 signatures, the correspondence from the kids at Mossnuke primary school, a member's business motion with cross-party support, and my demands on Monday that it be included in the programme for government worked. Then there is restorative justice. In this debate last year, I said that the government should introduce a genuine programme of restorative justice to tip the balance back in favour of victims who too often experience a justice system that offers them nothing. Indeed, I led a member's debate on it around six months ago. The result? A commitment to publish a restorative justice action plan by spring 2019. Good. We demanded a commitment to crack down on drug driving, and I welcomed last year's programme for government, which promised to implement this one. Unfortunately, the SNP is still yet to lay the statutory instrument to get it done, but, at least, like many other aspects of last year's programme, the commitment has been reheated, which is welcome. However, there is much in the justice brief, which is less encouraging. I noted the cabinet secretary's recent statement in a magazine that victims' rights will be strengthened. The programme for government does not do it, because the measures for victims announced fall far short of what is required. Bluntly, it offers to ensure that victims and their families have better information and greater support ahead of prison release arrangements, but there is no commitment to give victims and families any meaningful input. Victims and their families have asked that their safety and welfare is explicitly required to be taken into account. They have asked for the increased use of exclusion zones on offenders and that the victim notification scheme is revised so that they are given reasons for release and can make representations in person. That is meaningful input into a process that currently treats victims as little more than an afterthought. That is Michelle's law, and that will form the subject of my member's debate tomorrow, to which I very much look forward. Two final points. Yet again, the ill-thought-through extension to the presumption against custodial sentences from three to 12 months has reared its head. I understand that the SNP wants to save money by emptying our prisons, but compromising the safety of the people of Scotland by allowing serious criminals out onto the streets is not the solution. Last year, 10,000 offenders were sentenced to 12 months or less in prison. That figure includes two convicted of homicide, 99 of serious assault or attempted murder and 60 of robbery. That plan will let some of the most dangerous criminals back out into society and make life even more miserable for victims of crime across Scotland, of course. Cabinet Secretary for Justice is giving way. His UK Government colleague, the minister for prisons, Rory Stewart MP, said just yesterday that, of course, it is true that we have evidence that shows clearly that there is a higher incidence of rear fending from people in short prison sentences than from people who serve community sentences. That is why the example from the Government of Scotland is very relevant. Is he also similarly critical of his UK Government coming to a part? Liam Kerr Presiding Officer, isn't it interesting how the SNP is so focused on what is happening in England and Wales? It is almost as if—it is almost as if—they don't know that we have a separate justice system. I am interested in Scotland's justice system and, from the evidence that we have, it is clear that the SNP's community sentence model, as it is currently constructed, is not working. The cabinet secretary also brought up Rory Stewart. I will take this opportunity to remind him that Rory Stewart also said, if I haven't sorted out the prisons within a year, I will resign. I look forward to a similar promise coming from this cabinet secretary. Presiding Officer, finally prisoner voting. I note that the reference to consulting on this is buried in two separate pages out of 118 comprising eight words each. I am not surprised that the SNP is a bit embarrassed about giving this any profile. The SNP has been criticised for being too distracted by its own troubles to deal with the things that really make a difference to communities. Here is a great example of exactly that. A consultation about a reform that is unworkable, unwanted and not morally justified. A consultation that is a waste of time because, when prisoners are sent to prison, they surrender their right to choose the Government. A consultation that is little more than an insult to victims and their families. The SNP needs to get back to the day job and start putting victims and communities first. I look forward to helping the cabinet secretary to retain that focus. I am pleased to speak in and welcome today's debate on the programme for government. I absolutely endorse the programme set out yesterday by the First Minister and today I would like to focus my comments on two key aspects of the programme, one health and one economy related. The first is the announcement of the additional £250 million for mental health investment. That investment will deliver 350 dedicated counsellors in schools and an additional 250 school nurses. It will also fund an additional 80 counsellors to work in further and higher education as well as there will be extra funding for teachers. The objective of the investment is to provide our young people and their families with a high standard of emotional and mental health support, guidance and advice, which will enable them to effectively and efficiently proceed with their education. I am focusing on the issue of mental health first as a nurse and a former clinical educator but also as a member of the Health and Sport Committee and as new convener of the cross-party group of mental health, along with colleagues James Dornan and Annie Wells. I am extremely proud to support a Government that has not only taken the issue of mental health seriously but which is the first Government in the UK to have a dedicated mental health minister and I wish clear hockey well in her new role. Additionally, I look forward to seeing the outcome of scrutinising progress of the implementation of the programme. Just before recess I sponsored a Scottish eating disorder interest group reception here in Parliament and we heard many inspiring stories from experts, parents and most important those living with an eating disorder and one of the key messages from those attending the CERIC event was that it is key to receive diagnosis and treatment early so that the most effective management and recovery can occur. I would like to ask the Scottish Government to consider supporting including an approach to addressing eating disorders for the young people who may be experiencing a disorder which might negatively be affecting their health including diabolemia. The second point that I would like to focus on specifically relates to my South Scotland region and that is the creation of the South Scotland economic partnership led by Professor Russell Griggs ahead of the legislation announcement yesterday by the First Minister to create a South Scotland enterprise agency. The South Scotland economic partnership has been operational over the past 12 months and the board members have been holding engagement meetings across South Scotland and there has been strong engagement and interest. The development and ultimate sustainability of the economy and indeed economic development of the South region as I am pleased to report that these meetings have been well received with predominantly positive feedback from the people attending. Whilst the South Scotland enterprise agency is absolutely crucial to support investment to the South's economy, we must also recognise that digital road and rail infrastructure is also key to attracting business, tourism and people to the South. That is why I am happy that in the programme for government there is a commitment to improving infrastructure of the South of Scotland. That includes commitment to carrying out and implementing major infrastructure projects across the region. That includes the Mable Bypass and broadband and also publishing the South Scotland strategic roads and rail review. I look forward to the review, which is currently under way and it will identify, hopefully, infrastructure projects that are required across the South region and inform the projects going forward. I will continue to lobby the Government for investment on the A75, 76 and 77 with my colleagues Jeane Freeman and Joan McAlpine and I look forward to future announcements regarding the major arterial routes that are necessary for business, tourism and daily travel. I would also like to make one final point. While attending the agricultural and cattle shows over recess, I took the baby box on tour. The chance for folks to look inside and get in about the contents proved worthwhile. There were many positive comments and in the south west of Scotland apparently there have been about 4,000 baby boxes that have been delivered already, which means that there have been about 4,000 babies being delivered as well. The feedback that I have received indicated that the baby box has been significantly helping parents, allowing the parents to focus their finances on other necessary products. While the UK Government continues its burrach Brexit bungling or, in John Mason's words, bumbling, I support the Scottish Government, which is getting on with the day job, by delivering and, indeed, standing up for the people of Scotland. I know that my time is done, so you have a wee bit of time in hand, so thank you very much. I am very kind of you, Ms Harper. I do not know whether I will take you with me, but thank you very much. I call James Kelly to be followed by Colin Beattie, Mr Kelly, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Families throughout Scotland are looking at the programme for government announcement yesterday and looking for measures that would provide a much-needed boost to household income, which would have been sadly disappointed. As Jackie Baillie pointed out, the economic outlook is a bleak one. The fiscal commission records that forecasts will not exceed 1 per cent until 2023, and it is not just the figures that that means on the ground. The reality is that far too many people in the economy in Scotland are working in low-paid jobs. We still have 467,000 people earning less than the living wage. That means that, if you are working in a fast food restaurant in Rutherglen on the minimum wage of £7.38, you will only earn £258 a week. That means that, as someone recounted to me earlier in the week, people are doing three jobs in order to make up the gap in their household income. As we move forward, as fuel and food bills increase at a greater rate than inflation, but wages struggle to keep pace with inflation, the fiscal commission points out that household income will continue to be under pressure and that will have a potential detrimental effect on economic growth. Added to that, we have had a sustained programme of SNP cuts to public services, and they have also drained economic growth. If you take education as an example, since 2010, £400 million has been cut from education. That means that there are less teachers, three and a half thousand less since 2007, and less classroom assistance. Ultimately, that does impact on results. The recent batch of results showed that, for the third year in the row hires, which are a key qualification to enter university, the pass rates have declined. Not only that but in some of the key subjects, not enough people are taking the subjects up. There have been serious declines, for example in languages in French and German. I assume that when Brexit happens, we still want people who are qualified and foreign languages in order to be able to interact with companies abroad. The fact that we do not have enough students taking those subjects up and also have declines in the pass rate is something that is a real concern. At the other end, in terms of entrance into university, there are restrictions in places for home-based students. That has resulted in a reduction in key areas. In medicine, for example, the uptake from Scottish students in the year 2000 was 63 per cent of all places, and last year it was down to just over 50 per cent. That comes at a time when the chair of the BMA tells us this morning that the crisis in the NHS is at a tipping point and we are not training the same number. I know that the Opposition is perfectly entitled to give a critique of government performance and policy, and we could argue about it all day, but let us cheer the chamber up. Mr Kelly, what is the big idea, the big single policy idea that is coming from the Labour Party right now? James Kelly. The big idea is to stop the cuts. If you stop draining the £400 million from Scotland's education sector, if you continue to cut Mr Mackay, as you have done repeatedly since 2011, and all the meek-backed benches have pressed their buttons, voting for those budgets, you take the resources out, as I have explained, the results deteriorate and we don't have enough qualified doctors coming out. You end up with the BMA on the radio this morning, telling us that the NHS is at a tipping point. That is a direct result of your policies. Added to that, Mr Mackay, that we have had real inaction from the SNP. You tinkered round the edges on tax powers that you demanded for years and weren't able to use them effectively, doing nothing in terms of targeting top-rate taxpayers. Also, when the out-turn figures were reported, we found out that you had under-spent the budget by £454 million, nearly £0.5 billion, stuck down Derek Mackay's sofa in St Andrew's house, rather than providing help to Scotland's public services. In addition to that, you are not prepared to pass on some much-needed assistance to councils in terms of giving them support for issues such as the tourist tax, which would have raised a lot during the Edinburgh festival. I am delighted that I have cheered the chamber up a bit. We got a bit of atmosphere going. I am delighted to be cheered from those SNP benches, but I am serious about what we need. We need a programme that stops the cuts. We need a proper economic and industrial strategy that has skills at its priority, and we need to prioritise proper and well-paid jobs. That is the difference that we need to make in order to move Scotland's economy forward. I want to halt in the middle, but I remind members not to use the term you when referring to other members. I understand that you were passionate there. I call Mr Beattie, followed by Rachael Hamilton. First, I congratulate the First Minister and our Government for bringing forward the programme for government. A recent analysis of Scotland's economy makes for very encouraging reading. Last month's quarterly national account showed an updated gross domestic product growth estimate of 0.4 per cent for the first quarter in 2018, revised from June's estimate of 0.2 per cent. That compares very well against the equivalent growth rate figure for the whole of the UK, which stands at 0.2 per cent. Output in both the services and production sectors grew in the first quarter by 0.4 per cent and 1 per cent respectively. The construction sector was contracted by 1.4 per cent, but we should remember that the weather, specifically the beast from the east, played a major role in that. When compared to the same quarter last year, the indications are that Scotland's GDP has grown by 1.3 per cent in real terms, revised from a first estimate of 0.8 per cent and very comparable to the equivalent UK growth of 1.2 per cent. That evidence clearly displays that, despite the global financial uncertainties affecting all economies, after a decade of Westminster austerity measures that were supposed to cure the UK's financial loss but have merely 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 rich and successful country with many assets that other countries cover. 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 by 12 per cent over the past year, the fastest growth of any nation in the UK, for the latest EY attractiveness survey showed that Scotland remains the top UK region for foreign direct investment projects outside of London. However, despite this positive background, there are many challenges to be faced in the years to come. Unsurprisingly, for most of this is Brexit. Our export success is directly threatened by the prospect of being removed from access to the single market in customs union, which I am sure I do not need to remind my fellow MSPs is a market around eight times bigger than the UK market alone. As it stands, including the European Economic Area, Scotland's exports to Europe accounted for over 52 per cent of our exported goods in 2016. A major part of those exports is oil and gas, by some margin our largest export. That stands at around 17 per cent of total exports to the EU. In this sector, while it has seen its troubles in the past years, it is beginning to consolidate. Recent analysis by the oil and gas authority shows that production this year is expected to be 18 per cent higher. Meanwhile, the latest Fraser of Allander oil and gas survey shows that the net confidence of oil and gas contractors is at its highest level since spring 2013. Leaving the European Union without any kind of plan in place is almost certain to jeopardise the cautious growth and optimism that the oil and gas sectors reflect. Given that oil represents less than 5 per cent of total UK exports, it is unsurprising that the Conservatives have chosen not to emphasise this sector in the Brexit negotiations, despite its crucial importance to Scotland. If we were free to negotiate our own deals, 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 to hear Scotland's voice. Perhaps that behaviour is to be expected from the Tories. Figures released in May under freedom of information showed that, in my constituency alone, cuts to disability payments saw East Lothian losing out £1 million and Midlothian losing £1.1 million. The sum lost across Scotland's communities came to a staggering £56 million. For many local people in economies, the money is a lifeline, and to have taken it away not only displays a callous attitude towards the people of this country but also a short-sightedness in how to support communities from the ground up. At the same time, Labour cannot get away from accusations of short-term thinking, the morally questionable endeavours known as private finance initiatives have had major financial impacts in my constituencies. Midlothian Council is now spending 11 per cent over £10 million of its annual school budget servicing PFI debts left by the Labour Party a decade ago. East Lothian Council is spending a similar percentage of its school budget, equating to around £8.9 million in PFI debts. In 2016-17 across Scotland, total PFI repayments cost Scotland over £1 billion. That contrasts with the Scottish Government's investing in our local communities. For example, since 2009, the schools for the future programme has invested £9.5 million in East Lothian schools and £50.8 million in schools in Midlothian. Another initiative that is announced as part of the programme for Scotland is the launch of the national investment bank. The programme for government outlined how we will set aside resources of £340 million to fund the bank in the first instance. I will put a plug in here as a convener of the cross-party group on industrial communities. I am pleased to say that this evening's meeting will feature a guest speaker from the Scottish Government who will speak on this topic. The programme for Scotland outlined a wide range of other measures to promote and enhance our economy. For example, the Government will provide £96 million of extra support to deliver the most attractive business package rates in the UK with the increase to the rates poundage that is capped at CPI, rather than RPI inflation. The issue of housing is one that many local economies depend on, and the Government will establish a £150 million building Scotland fund to unlock new house building, develop new carbon commercial property and support research and development. Transport is another sector that strongly ties into the economy. The Government will invest £60 million in the low-carbon innovation fund to deliver innovative low-carbon energy infrastructure solutions, including electric vehicles, while also investing £1.2 billion in the transport infrastructure. I hope that it is clear that, from all that we have heard from the First Minister and the Scottish Government over the last day or so, Scotland is in safe hands. The Tories willingly choose to ignore investment or support local communities, while Labour simply cannot be trusted to get the sums right without landing a future Government with unsustainable levels of debt. I look forward to the implementation of the programme for Scotland. I welcome the cultural and tourism elements of the programme for government today. On our cordial note, I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government recognises the importance of tourism and culture as a force for good. There are several aspects of the programme for government that are positive news for the tourism sector, and I was pleased to have received reassurance from Fiona Hyslop that the so-called tourism tax has been ditched. On 22 June, I received a letter confirming that Scottish ministers are not willing to consider requests to explore a possible tourism levy unless the tourism and hospitality industry are involved from the outset, and their long-term interests are fully recognised, but that seems to be at odds with what Kate Forbes said earlier. I also welcome the fact that there is incentivisation to promote agri-tourism, which will help to work with farms, estates and offices to develop food tourism. We all know that every £1 spent on culture and tourism generates between an extra £4 and £6 for the economy. The tourism industry accounts for one jobs in 12. It is described as the cornerstone of the Scottish economy. It is vital for the economic performance across Scotland, towns, cities and regions. The Tourism Scotland 2020 strategy centres on influencing investment in the sector and supporting infrastructure and on improving the quality of visitor experience across Scotland. That is what I really want to concentrate on today. It is really a no-brainer that investment in culture and heritage sectors boost the economy, tourism and employment, often in areas where those three factors would struggle to perform well. The potential in Scotland for tourism, as we know, is colossal. The exciting and diverse range of attractions that our country has to offer makes it a unique destination not only for domestic travellers but also for international visitors. However, I feel that this S&P Government simply has not grasped the nettle when it comes to maximising Scotland's potential, helping out communities with necessary additional infrastructure. How far will the £6 million that was set aside last year for the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund really go to alleviate the worries of local communities? Take, for example, the world-famous NC500 route, a breathtaking drive through some of Scotland's most awe-inspiring and dramatic natural landscapes. The fact remains that the roads along the north coast are narrow, bumpy and dangerous, motorbikes and fast cars treat the roads like scale-electric tracks. Why was it not mentioned in the programme for government? Where is the Scottish Government's support for local communities who are crying out for this type of investment? I will take an intervention. It sounds as if the member is building to a crescendo of demanding more funds for investment in this particular sector. I understand those appeals, but how does that then match with the only thing that the Conservatives have raised in the Scottish Parliament that has tax cuts for the richest and tax relief for independent schools? Rachael Hamilton I thank Derek Mackay for that intervention. I do not know if you remembered that we had a debate that the Scottish Conservatives were suggesting £100 million pothole fund. It was in our manifesto that in 2016 it was costed. Derek Mackay also promised £10 million, gave £10 million to local authorities to assist with the road maintenance following the beasts from the east. I am sure that you can find something down the back of your sofa again. Another example— Ms Hamilton might find something down the back of your sofa, but please stop using the term you. I have already reprimanded it. I apologise, Presiding Officer. Another example is the Glenfin and Viaduct. This beautiful viaduct used time and time again in film and TV and cannot cope with extra visitors due to the lack of car parking capacity. Tourist turning away from visiting as a result of a lack of infrastructure, Historic Environment Scotland, owned many of Scotland's most famous landmarks and are launching a Robert the Bruce trail to capitalise on the release of Outlaw King. It is all very well applauding the success of tourism, but the Scottish Government needs to commit to supporting the sector too. Rural and remote areas are struggling to cope with this demand, which in turn is discouraging tourists from visiting these busy areas. We do not want that. No one in the chamber wants that. I am calling on the Scottish Government to be ambitious to have an honest and frank conversation with communities and tourist areas, or communities that benefit from tourism areas, to ensure that they all have the necessary tools to ensure that we can take advantage of that tourism potential. That is what I want to reiterate. The programme for government fundamentally misses the lack of sufficient infrastructure that is required and shows a lack of consideration for rural areas. The culture aspect of the programme for government wants to vision for culture that is inclusive. I am pleased that the Scottish Government continues to allow free access to Scotland's museums and galleries. I cannot help to notice, but as no mention of inclusion for those with mental health or dementia, for example, we need to work constructively to ensure that cultural experiences and events are accessible and appropriate for everyone. The programme rehashes old announcements and commitments that offer little for new attractions. It is the same but in a different order as last year. It is the same regurgitated, boring old stuff. Although perhaps vital other projects are missing out on new funding such as concerts, venues, galleries and theatres that can promote inclusive tourism, such as the way that capital theatres, for example, have done, I like many other colleagues are looking forward to the opening of the VNA museum. It will bring many people to Dundee. It is a fantastic example of where the UK and Scottish Governments can pool resources and work together. I am conscious of my time. I want to make the point that the Scottish Government is responding to what is going on now, which is Royal Conservatoire review, especially in the year of young people. It is important that we take a serious look at the provision of music education so that it remains accessible to all. Although there are some announcements in the programme that encourage cultural participation and boost tourism, the bottom line is that the Scottish National Party Government is tired and running out of steam. Frankly, I was really disappointed. I welcome the programme for government and today's focus on the economy, in particular the commitment to increase annual infrastructure investment by £7 billion for hospital schools, housing and a range of other investment projects, which is particularly important for Edinburgh. Edinburgh is one of the economic hot spots of the UK, with many of the largest companies in Scotland having a presence in the city. Just two sectors highlight the success of Edinburgh's booming economy. The financial services sector has grown by 46 per cent over the past five years, and the demand for staff in Edinburgh and Glasgow has resulted in Scotland being the best area of the UK for graduate pay. New company startups in Scotland are growing at a faster rate than the rest of the UK, and it has doubled what it was in 2000. In Edinburgh, the new business start-up five-year survival rate is higher in Edinburgh than any other UK city, including London, Manchester and Liverpool. Tourism is booming in Edinburgh, with record number of visitors coming to the city last year and this year is heading again for record levels. The result is that hotel occupancy rates are higher than most other major European cities. In order to support the growing economy in Edinburgh, we need people. Over the last 10 years, the city has had the highest growth in the number of households among Scottish cities. The 12 per cent increase in population over that period equates to 100 new residents on average a week, every week. The council is pulling out all the stops to address the housing need, and this month we will see the letting of new affordable homes at Ferniflack, Newkin and Calder's area of my constituency and North Sidehill later this year. There is no doubt that we still need more affordable homes, and therefore this increased infrastructure expenditure will support the council to deliver its ambitious programme to build at least 10,000 social and affordable homes over the next five years, with a plan to build 20,000 by 2027. Alongside the new homes being built, we need superfast broadband that allows households to watch television, shop online or pay their bills. Unfortunately, in the semi-rural parts of my constituency, this connectivity has been poor. However, the announcement that reaching 100 per cent contract will be awarded in the coming year will mean that this issue of poor connectivity that concerns some of my constituents will be addressed so that every business and residential property in Scotland will have access to superfast broadband. The families attracted to Edinburgh to take advantage of the work opportunities need good-quality educational facilities. Across Scotland, schools that are good or satisfactory have improved from 61 per cent in 2007 to 86 per cent in 2017. Parents in my constituency are looking forward to the next round of funding for the schools for the future programme, as a number of high schools in my constituency were built in the 1970s and are now in need of refurbishment. We also have to protect the character of Edinburgh, and the investment in our railway network currently under way, especially on the Glasgow-Edinburgh via Shots line, will allow people to come out from further afield where housing costs are substantially cheaper. My constituents, who use Curry Hill, Westerhales and Kingsnow or Slateford railway stations, will also benefit from the investment in our railways due to the new class 385 rolling stock being introduced in the coming months and the most modern trains in the UK. It is not just the investment in railways that is helping the Scottish Government to tackle congestion and air quality issues in Edinburgh, but it is also the investment in other areas of public transport. The Scottish Green Bus Fund has already supported investment by Lothian buses in purchasing 65 low-carbon vehicles, part of a package that invested £16 million towards 360 low-carbon buses into the Scottish bus fleet. The eighth round of the Scottish Green Bus Fund will see a further investment of £1.7 million that will add over 100 green buses to the fleet, helping to achieve the 50 per cent reduction contained in the climate change plan by 2032. My constituency is also home to Dregorn barracks and Redford cavalry and infantry barracks, so I welcome the announcement that the veterans commissioner's recommendations will be implemented. Those include providing support for those individuals transitioning from the military to find fulfilling civilian careers and to develop an approach that meets the healthcare needs of veterans. I also welcome the support that will help veterans and military spouses who want to run their own businesses, find space to develop their business ideas at new workspace hubs that will be located near main defence spaces. The programme for government this year is titled, Delivering for Today, Investing for Tomorrow, and for my constituents in Edinburgh, Pentlands, that is exactly what this Government is doing. Thank you very much. Just before recess, the economy committee published a wide-ranging report on the performance of the Scottish economy over the past 10 years. The inquiry lasted six months, and the committee heard evidence from stakeholders across all sectors. The main conclusions of the report include the following. Economic growth in Scotland in the past decade has been significantly below the performance of the UK economy and Scottish Government targets, as well as historical growth rates for Scotland. The report goes on to conclude that levels of GDP growth in Scotland are marginal, productivity is low and wages are stagnant. Those conclusions are supported by what the Scottish Government's own figures tell us about what is happening in the economy. We are seeing the lowest trends in economic growth in Scotland for 60 years, and perhaps now the cabinet secretary can explain why that is the case. That is not the case. That is the point that I was just about to make. Since publication of that report and looking at, say specifically, GDP Scotland is outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom, I have read the economy committee's report and I am sure that Dean Lockhart will welcome that. I will try to implement as much as I possibly can from that very fair report in terms of recommendations. Equally, will Dean Lockhart welcome the fact that Scotland's economy is now performing the rest of the UK? Mr Lockhart. I would welcome any good news on the Scottish economy because it is such a rare event. What I would say to the cabinet secretary is to read page 14 of the economy report. It shows that, for the last 11 years that his party has been in power, the Scottish economy has lagged behind the UK for nine of those 11 years. That is the economic reality. Every leading forecaster between now and the next Hollywood election is forecasting for the Scottish economy to continue to underperform the rest of the UK. That is the economic reality that the cabinet secretary has to realise. Also, wages are falling across the economy. Productivity levels continue to decline. Record numbers of shops are closing on high streets across Scotland. We have heard that the latest GERS numbers show the highest ever gap in the public finances between Scotland and the rest of the UK, resulting in a record union dividend of more than £1,800 per person. Given the unprecedented economic background, the main recommendation of the economy committee, supported by all members, was for the Scottish Government's economic strategy to be reviewed and updated as a matter of urgency. The programme for government was the ideal opportunity for the SNP to do that. To move away from the failed economic agenda of the last 11 years and to set out a new vision for the Scottish economy, but the programme for government fails at every level. First of all, there is no new vision. I need to make a bit of progress. I don't have a lot of time. I might later. There is no new vision. All of the economic measures in the programme of government have practically been announced before. There is nothing new in the south of Scotland Enterprise Board, the Barclay review, the tinkering with business rates, the establishment of trade desks sitting within British embassies and the Scottish National Investment Bank has already been debated in this chamber. The programme for government does set out two new economic measures, but they lack credibility. First, the national export plan to help increase Scotland's exports across the world has funding support of less than £7 million a year. To put that into context, there is an announcement today of £30 million for staffing for the Scottish National Investment Bank. That shows how real the ambitions of the SNP are for growing Scotland's exports. Secondly, perhaps this is what Mr Mackay wants to talk about, the new economic action plan announced as a central part of the programme for government yesterday. However, when you look closer, it is hidden in the programme on page 46. As a footnote, all that shows is that this again is an exercise in spin and no substance from the SNP. The most fundamental problem with this programme for government is that people no longer trust the SNP to run the economy. The people of Scotland have seen promise after promise being broken by the SNP when it comes to the economy. In the programme for government in 2016, the First Minister announced that the Scottish growth scheme has a £0.5 billion vote of confidence in business, but more than two years later, not a single loan has been granted to Scottish business under that scheme. In the 2016 Hollywood manifesto, the SNP promised not to increase the basic rate of income tax. We now have more than 1 million people in Scotland paying more as a result of that broken promise. Yesterday, the First Minister promised that the business environment in Scotland will remain competitive, but the SNP continues to punish business by imposing the large business supplement. The SNP has promised to increase productivity to the first quartile, but figures released just two weeks ago show that we are still in the third division. The list of SNP broken promises on the economy is endless, but that should not surprise us because, in the final analysis, the SNP will always prioritise independence above everything else—above the economy, above the NHS and above the education. No, I am running out of time. It was the First Minister—I will remind the cabinet secretary—who made it clear and I quote, independence transcends the issues of national wealth, oil and balance sheets. It could not be clearer what the priority is. The people of Scotland want real change, they want an end to constitutional politics and a Government focused on the day job. This programme for government is not the answer. It is now clearer than ever that this is a tired Government out of new ideas, out of its depth and running out of time. The economy does not sit separate from public services. Over the summer, I met and dealt with constituents who want and need real change, constituents who are struggling to get by and who feel powerless in their daily lives and who do not see an economy or society working for them. Constitutions such as those families in Livingston who cannot access the children's word at their local hospital, they want a fully funded NHS or like those in Seafield whose countryside is threatened by a housing development outside the development plan, they want equal rights in the planning system or families in Livingston, Addible, Bridgend, Dedridge, Dachman and Stonyburn who are isolated because First Bus withdrew their bus services. They want a bus that takes them to work and keeps them in a job or the businesses and workers who have real and genuine concerns about their jobs and futures in post-Brexit Britain. They want reassurances and confidence that they can plan the way forward or the people in East Calder and Mid Calder who want a new health centre or Mid Lothian who cannot access a GP or in Stonyburn who have lost their GP service altogether. Families in Edinburgh who see so-called market failure in social care leaving their loved ones stuck in hospital instead of being back in their own home or the parents and partners taking to the brink seeing the people they love disappearing before their eyes into a black hole of despair because they cannot get help for their mental health condition or indeed the family and friends of 1,000 people who have died this year from drugs. All of those people need health, social care and a system of public services that supports them and ends their suffering. The public service failures go hand in hand with economic stagnation. People need real change and they need a Government acting indeed for the many, not the few. An economy and a system of social protection that is based on equality and justice. Let me say what Labour would do to address those issues. How will we deliver exactly that? We would introduce a budget to end the cuts and invest in public services with fair and progressive taxation. A planned industrial strategy delivering an economy based on high wages, skills, skilled jobs and a long-term plan for growth and full employment. A national investment bank, not capitalised by £250 million, but capitalised by £20 billion over 10 years, providing finance to develop new innovation and a national infrastructure fund, adding another £20 billion for create infrastructure projects. That is bold and ambitious. A fundamental review of procurement, including NPD and PFI, with projects bought out if financially beneficial to do so, a Brexit strategy that puts jobs, living standards and consumer environmental protection and workers' rights at its heart. Investment in our health and social care system to address staff shortages, end boarding out, end bed blocking and war closures and the crisis in social care that is here and now. In the common sense ownership of rail services, ending the waste and nonsense of privatisation when money seeps out the system. The re-regulation of bus services, investment in green buses is all very well, but in marriage and people just want a bus. Deliver a fair deal for our teachers, classroom assistants and council workers. They are at the cutting edge of delivering public services, the services that civilise us as a society and who have a key role in reducing inequality and providing educational opportunities for all. Let me tell you what they do not want. They do not want a plan for Scotland that is drawn up in the SNP's cuts commissions by the cabinet secretary himself and Kate Forbes and Shirley-Anne Somerville and corporate lobbyist Andrew Wilson, because it proposes a decade of cuts, the continuation of failed ultra free market neoliberal dogma and economy based on so-called flex security. Let me decode flex security for you, an economy where it is easier to sack people. They have proposed nothing to address the hoarding of wealth by the 1 per cent. No, thank you, their plan would see our public services. Their plan would see our public services being subject to more job losses, more cuts and greater decline. Scottish Labour Party is serious about the challenges that we face in a post-Brexit world. Part of the solution is to bring in economic power into the hands of people in communities. We need common sense ownership and power decentralised, so it should be up to the City of Edinburgh Council if it wants to introduce a tourist tax. It should not be up to the Cabinet Secretary for Culture nor the First Minister. The railways should be publicly owned so that they can keep fares affordable and invest in the services without leaking money to shareholders. That is common sense and we should see powers devolved down to allow local models of ownership to flourish. The choice in Scotland is now clear. We can continue with cuts and austerity, championed by the Tories and meekly followed by the SNP, or we can choose a different path—one championed by Scottish Labour, a programme based on hope and ambition that will deliver a progressive agenda to revitalise communities and end the attacks on the living standards of working people. It is time for real change, not another year of tinkering around the edges. Michael Matheson, please. This is a programme for government that is a contrast of two governments. A government is committed to taking Scotland forward, modernising its infrastructure, investing in its economy and making it a modern, vibrant nation. To a Government at Westminster that is an utter chaos and goes from one day's crisis to the next day's crisis, I want to touch on a number of points that have been raised during the course of this debate. A number of members have made reference to the number of bills that are contained in this particular legislative programme. I want to deal with this misleading narrative that some members want to create around how they measure a programme for government that is based on the number of bills that has been progressed through Parliament. In particular, the point that was made by Jackie Baillie on the number of bills that have gone through Parliament over the course of the year. Jackie Baillie has been in this place for as long as I have been here since 1999 as a former minister. She knows very well that there are a variety of reasons as to why the pace of bills goes through Parliament at a particular point due to committee and parliamentary processes. Equally, she also knows that the measure of a Government's activity is not just about legislation, it is about its wider policy agenda as well, and this programme for government is committed to a range of ambitious policy initiatives that we will take forward over the course of the next year. I will give way to Jackie Baillie. Jackie Baillie, I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. He has indeed been here as long as he knows me, and I do not think that in any of those 19 years the Government has produced as few as two bills, but he would also acknowledge that I recognise that it was also about policy and resources. You are failing on those counts, too. Michael Matheson is wrong on that matter, because if she goes back to the beginning of the Scottish Parliament, there was a real lack of legislation at that point from her own Government—the Government that she was a member of at that particular point. However, it is a narrative that the member knows is clearly not accurate, but I want to turn to some of the points that are raised regarding bills in this Parliament. Stuart Stevenson, in the course of his contribution, raised issues of concern around matters relating to non-domestic rates and how they apply to former fish factories in his constituency. As he is aware, there is a bill coming before Parliament that will give an opportunity for those matters to be debated and to be considered. Alongside that, there is the South of Scotland Enterprise Agency Bill, which will be introduced in order to make sure that we are strengthening the economy in the south of Scotland. When I was in Stranwrac a couple of weeks ago at the invitation of Emma Harper, there is a clear desire there to make sure that we do everything that we can to strengthen the economy in the south of Scotland, and that this Government is bringing forward legislation to help to facilitate that. The biometrics bill that was referred to by Stuart Stevenson, I cannot say that I know much about the Indian Government's ID card system that the member made reference to, but the biometrics bill is about modernising your legislative structure for dealing with the ever-emerging new way in which biometrics data is progressing and making sure that we future-proof our approach to how that is managed in the future. I want to finally turn to the issue of our justice system here in Scotland. We should always be minded to look about how we can improve and develop our justice system in Scotland and look for new ideas and approaches that can enhance how we deal with our justice system and the matters within our Scottish justice system. I will tell you one thing, Presiding Officer. For my party that has cut 20,000 police officers, crime up right across the board, prisons in a meltdown and a Government that has no idea on its justice policy at Westminster, the Conservative Party is not the party that we will listen to when it comes to justice matters in Scotland. A key part of the programme for government is to make sure that we invest in our economy and that we make sure that we create inclusive growth as part of our economic drive. A key part of the programme for government is our investment in national infrastructure, because there is absolutely no doubt that national infrastructure plays a key part to delivering that inclusive growth. We will only have to look at the history, particularly of UK governments, where infrastructure investment has lagged behind that of OECD countries and G7 countries. We are leaving the UK to lag behind. We are setting out a national infrastructure mission, one that will see an increase of some £7 billion being invested within our infrastructure here in Scotland by 2025-26. I listened to Rachael Hamilton in her contribution, complaining that the programme for government says nothing about investing in our national infrastructure. At the very heart of our programme for government is the record increase in investment in our national infrastructure. That would lead to a real change, a real change to communities across Scotland, local, regional and national, from the health service to our education system to our transport system and to our other public services. That will make a real change and it will do itself to demonstrate the ambition that we have to grow the economy here in Scotland. I will give way to Rachael Hamilton. Rachael Hamilton In the programme for government it specifically didn't list its very woolly statement. I am hoping that you will commit to some of the tourism problems that are happening within the communities with regard to the NC500, for example, the car parking at Glenfinn. Those are the things that the Government needs to be looking at. I know that the member has an interest in these matters. I think that the member will recognise that it is important that we look at all aspects of our economy, including the tourism economy, to make sure that we are getting the right investment to deliver the maximum economic benefit that can come from that. By increasing our infrastructure spend, it gives us the opportunity to take that forward. As the First Minister said yesterday, I will set out in the months ahead how we will take that programme of work forward right across government. I recognise the significant level of infrastructure investment that has already taken place here in Scotland and is still on-going. We have just passed the first anniversary of the fantastic Queensbury crossing, creating greater connectivity between Fife and the Lothians, and greater reliability in that crossing from what we had before. The delivery of Aberdeen at western peripheral route is expected to generate £6 billion of additional income into the north-east of Scotland's economy, creating some 14,000 jobs in its first 30 years of operation. That is investing in infrastructure that will drive the economy forward in the north-east of Scotland. £3 billion of investment in the drilling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness, again the biggest infrastructure project in Scotland's history, delivering economic benefits right across the highlands as a result of that major investment. Since 2007, £8 billion of investment in our rail infrastructure and services increased searing capacity and the number of services running, including the delivery of the Borders railway, which has been a real success to the Borders economy and the people who live there. I want to touch upon the other major change that we have made to support some of our more vulnerable communities through the introduction of RET on our ferries, creating a real boost to our local economies right across the highlands and in our rural communities. Alongside that, with the investment in digital, the record investment that has been so far into digital and the £600 million of investment in the R100 programme will make a real difference in connecting communities right across the country through superfast broadband. That is a programme for government that is delivering for us today, and it will invest in Scotland for tomorrow. Thank you very much. We move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 13747, in the name of Graham Day, setting out a business programme. Members may recall that, following the recommendation of the commission on parliamentary reform, yesterday the Parliament agreed to vary the rule on business motions to allow any members to speak on the motion at my discretion, although no member has indicated the wish to do so. I call on Graham Day, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion. The next item of business is consideration of business motions 13745, on extension of a stage 1 timetable and 13746, on a stage 2 timetable. Does any member object to either of his motions? No. I call on Graham Day, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motions. No one wishes to speak against the motions. The question is that motions 13745 and 13746 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. Can I ask Graham Day, on behalf of the Bureau, to move motion 13744, on designation of a lead committee, and motion 13748, on parliamentary recess dates? I wish to speak against the motion on parliamentary recess dates. I do not wish to speak against the motion, but I do wish to speak on the motion, and I seek some clarification from the Minister for Parliamentary Business, if that is acceptable. Since its inception, the Scottish Parliament has taken a family-friendly approach to the conduct of parliamentary business, including ensuring that our recess dates take cognisance of Scottish school holidays. That applies not only to elected members, but it also applies to MSP staff and to all of the Scottish Parliament staff. Indeed, our standing orders rule 2.3.2 says, in considering dates of any parliamentary recess, the parliamentary bureau shall have regard to the dates when schools in any part of Scotland are to be on holiday. The Parliamentary recess dates for 2019 were agreed by this Scottish Parliament when we met in June. That motion before us seeks to change the agreed and publicly advertised Easter recess dates, which, for the past number of years, have been set as the first two weeks in April. I believe that that is due to Brexit, but perhaps the minister could clarify that in summing up. If that is the case, then the Brexit date is not a surprise. It was known when this Parliament agreed those dates in June, and it had been known for some time before that. What was a surprise was the Minister for Parliamentary Business's intention to seek to overturn the previous decision of the Parliament on that issue. As far as I am aware, no advance notice was given to allow discussion of that decision by MSPs, staff trade unions or others with an interest in the matter. On a decision of yesterday's bureau, it is proposed that our Parliament's Easter recess dates will now coincide with the English school holidays and the city of Edinburgh, but the majority of Scottish schools—which members may wish to listen to this because it covers their areas—the majority of Scottish school holidays are scheduled as usual for the first two weeks in April 2019. Specifically, can I ask what consultation the Minister for Parliamentary Business undertook with staff-side trade unions before proposing that change to the bureau? Although I do not intend at this late stage to vote against this, I want assurances that, in future, no decisions are taken that impact on the family-friendly framework of this Parliament without full consultation and enough time to fully consult. Thank you, and could I call on Graham Day to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau? Thank you, Presiding Officer. This was a unanimous decision of the bureau, which reflects the huge significance of Brexit for Scotland and this Parliament. Brexit will weigh heavily on the deliberations and actions of the Scottish Parliament over the next six months and beyond. Given that, it was, from the perspective of business managers, inappropriate for this Parliament to rise for the Easter recess on the eve of Brexit day, especially given the unfolding and still uncertain nature of Brexit. I note the point that Elaine Smith makes about having regard to school holidays, but it is of course a situation that Scottish Easter school holidays are variable across the country. We took that decision now, in part, to avoid inconvenience to members and staff, giving ample notice of when the Easter recess will begin to minimise the risk to colleagues finding themselves having to cancel arrangements. Thank you very much, and I thank the member for the advance notice of the question. We turn now to decision time when there are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 13744, in the name of Graham Day, on designation of a lead committee, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. The second question is that motion 13748, in the name of Graham Day, on parliamentary recess dates, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move on now to members' business. Business is in the name of Keith Brown on the University of Stirling. We will just take a few moments for members to and the ministers to change their seats.