 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15290, in the name of Alex Rowley, on achieving social and economic success for all of Scotland. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press a request to speak button now, and I'll just give a few moments for people to assume their seats. I now call on Alex Rowley to speak to and move the motion. Mr Rowley, 14 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As the first speaker after Leslie Brennan being sworn in, I would certainly want to welcome Leslie to the chamber today. I was thinking this morning that up until now, I think I was the newest member in this chamber, and now it's Leslie, so congratulations. Presiding Officer, in the weeks and months ahead and the lead-up to the Scottish general election in May, I hope that we can in Scotland have a big debate about the most pressing challenges and issues that we face and Scotland faces moving forward. Today I have tabled a motion that speaks about the social and economic success for all of Scotland. My desire, my ambition throughout my life has been to live in a society where we no longer have the haves and the have-nots, but instead a society where everyone, no matter what family they're born into or what circumstances they're born into, they have an equal chance to achieve their full potential. A society where, if you're unable to work and provide for yourself, there is a social security system to support you with a minimum income. In a society where if you're able to work, you will work and you will earn a fair pay and be treated with dignity and with respect in the workplace. Now I actually don't think that that is an awful lot to ask for, yet in Scotland in 2016 we are far removed from that kind of society, and despite what the Tories say in here today, it is actually getting worse. And that's why we need a more open and honest debate about the state we are in, what needs to be done to bring about a more fair, more just and more equal Scotland. I don't have any objections with what Alex Neil has tabled as an amendment on behalf of the Government for today's debate. Indeed, I remain proud that it was Labour in Fife that brought about the free bus pass for pensioners first of anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it was then a fifer, a Labour chancellor that rolled that policy out across the UK. It was also Labour in Fife that first brought about free nursery education for three and four-year-olds, which is also a massive tool for tackling poverty and inequality, and which the Scottish Government now clearly recognises. So, while not disagreeing with the measures outlined by the Government, some brought about by the SNP and some brought about by Labour, I would have to say that on their own these measures are not going to create that fairer society that we all want. Indeed, despite these measures being in place, there are for many families, particularly for families on lower fixed incomes, things are getting worse. I would say today that there is a very legitimate debate to be had about how we target resources to reach those in the greatest need. The Government's own poverty has flagged up issues around universalism. I would hope that, moving forward in Scotland, we can have a debate and be able to debate such matters in a more open, honest and transparent way. For now, let me give you the example of the Cottage family centre in Kirkcalde. Five years ago at Christmas, the cottage provided Christmas parcels for 100 children. In 2014 it was 500, but this Christmas it had risen to 780 children. Nearly eight times as many children as five years ago needed help at Christmas. In contrast to five years ago, when the need was for extras, for toys, for the kids that families could not afford, this year the urgent need was for the basics, the food that families could not afford to put on their table at Christmas. So the suggestion by the Tories in their amendment today that levels of poverty are at historic low are simply not the case. While I, on the subject of the Tories, the proposal put forward by Prime Minister yesterday that families should be encouraged to save money and abid to tackle poverty shows just how out of touch these people are with real life. That our remarks and in my speech I will say that we recognise the Scottish Government's own poverty and income publications which state that poverty levels are at historic low. Well, just look round Scotland, look round the increases in the food banks, look at the difficulties, look at the case of the family cottage centre in Kirkcalde to see that poverty is not at historic low from from it. As the Trussell Trust said recently, the UK Government are trying to find ways of eating into national debt while many people are just trying to find ways to eat. Last night, I was at a food bank in Coundbyth run by the Dumfemelin Trussell Trust. I met with the volunteers to thank them for the work that they do to help others and heard from them first hand examples of who and how people are accessing emergency food parcels. I say to you today that it cannot be right and it is not right that in 2016 we have men, women and children relying on charity to feed themselves in Scotland. The first time in over half a century that we have absolute poverty in communities up and down this country. Absolute poverty means where people cannot access the very basic needs that are required to live. I suggest that food is a very basic need. We must use the benefit system to help and support people, not to drive them into desperation. You cannot starve people back to work, you must support people. In the Dumfemelin area, which includes food banks in my constituency in Coundbyth, Crushill, Invercaden and Masaith, over 10,000 people have been supported with emergency food parcels over the last three years. The most common reason that people need to turn to emergency food parcels according to the Trussell Trust is benefit sanctions and welfare reform. We need a social security system based on respect for those that aims to help, treating people with dignity, with a focus on increasing people's opportunities and people's choices. I am always reminded that throughout the history of the Labour movement, the Jarl marchers, the upper-clide sit-ins and minor strikes in the 1980s, these people did not march for benefits, they marched for jobs. Today, our ambition must be to use all the powers that our disposal in this Parliament to support people to get the skills and the opportunities to get the jobs. So let us all agree today that full employment must be our goal. For the key issue is jobs, good jobs, jobs for young people, jobs for long-term unemployed, jobs that are quality jobs, jobs that will last, jobs that we can build in our future. That is why we need to set out a strategy for jobs, for the jobs that we need, the education and training that we need, the industrial investment that we need, for the hope and the future that we urgently need to make for a better Scotland where having a decent-paid job is the norm for all of Scotland and for all of Scotland's people. That is the second point from last night in the visit to the food banks. It is that people in work are also accessing food banks. 60 per cent of Scottish children in poverty have a payment in work. So today, let us agree, the living wage across all of Scotland is something that we will work towards achieving in the next five years. Labour are committed to funding the living wage across the care sector. We are committed to using the procurement process to expand the living wage for all public sector contracts. We will work with employers, with trade unions, to make this happen. Action to put an end to poverty pay once and all for all in Scotland is what is needed in this country. We should take that action further. Scotland's job strategy must be driven by a partnership of government, of employers, with trade unions working alongside each other to grow a dynamic economy. We need an industrial strategy for Scotland. We need the conditions and support put in place for new business start-ups and to support and grow existing businesses, all of which must be the backbone of the Scottish economy. The policy priority has to be to develop a dynamic approach to growing Scotland's economy. Most of all, we need a Scotland of high skills, good education, where no one is left behind. It is widely acknowledged that we have a housing crisis in this country and yet we are not building the houses for rent or to buy in the numbers that are needed. To compound that, if we were building the houses that we need to be building, we would find ourselves in a position where there is a skills shortage in the construction sector, a shortage of brickies, of plasterers, of sparkies, of plumbers. We need a national house-build strategy for Scotland, new council houses for rent, sitting alongside a drive for new build to buy. I am grateful for the member for giving way. He says that we need more houses than those that are planned. Given that the Scottish Government has said that it would deliver 30,000 affordable homes and has exceeded that target and has set a target of 50,000 for the next Parliament, what target does Mr Rowley believe needs to be set? What is the figure that he is going to put on what needs to be delivered and what he would consider Labour would pledge to deliver? If we are going to have that debate, it would be worth knowing where Labour's plans are in that. I wrote to the House and Minister who is here today. I wrote to her back in December, and I welcomed the announcement by the First Minister at that point that the SNP was committing to 50,000 houses. I thought that it was 50,000 social rented houses, but it was 50,000 affordable houses. The House and Minister has since written back to me in the last week and confirmed the 50,000 houses. I also confirmed that 35,000 of those will be for social rent. I welcome that. I do not believe that it is enough, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. What I would say to the member is that, back in 2011, I have a nice photo of Alex Neil and John Swinney standing there with her commitment to 30,000 houses for social rent. Once you were back in power, you changed that to affordable houses. While progress is to be made, what I absolutely want to be committed to is to build consensus in this place, whether it is 35,000 houses for council housing association or whether it is 45,000 for council housing association, that we actually do it. We do not just make the promise now and, after the election, revert back to not doing it, because we have a shortage of housing across this country. We need a national house build strategy for Scotland. New council houses for rents sitting alongside a drive for new build to buy. That will not happen by itself. It needs political leadership and drive nationally alongside strategies and planning and a strategic approach and leadership at a regional level right across Scotland. The first Government to show the political leadership necessary to end right to buy is something that the previous administration failed to do. Do you welcome that political leadership? As a member knows, the problem that we write to buy is that there was no replacement to the houses that were there. That is why we have the crisis in place and that is why this party voted with your party to end the right to buy. I suggest to you that we need this national house build strategy developed and put in place now, as well as the skills strategy sitting alongside it to give young people here in this country the apprenticeships and the skills that will set them up for the rest of their life and tackle our house in crisis. Let's be clear in this chamber. We do have a house in crisis. We can and should address it now as the gap between house and need and supply is bad for people but it's also bad for our economy. It drives up prices, inflates, rents and the private sector. There were 150,000 households in local authority house and waiting list earlier this year. There are over 10,000 households in temporary accommodation. Every 18 minutes a household in Scotland is assessed as homeless. That is 81 a day that is assessed as homeless. 940,000 households are in fuel poverty. House and homeless children in temporary accommodation missed on average 55 school days equivalent to a quarter of the school year. We can see that poor housing has a knock-on effect and must be addressed. I say to you today that I do not believe that any of this is rocket science. It just needs political leadership, political will, determination and drive. So let's move beyond the rhetoric of a fairer, more just Scotland and agree what needs to be done to achieve that. I now call on Alex Neil to speak to and move amendment 15290.4. Cabinet Secretary, 10 minutes please. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name and let me also begin by welcoming before she leaves the chamber the new member and say that we look forward to debating with her in the next 10 weeks or so. There is actually very little that I would disagree with Alex Rowley on in terms of his speech. Like him, I come into politics not driven by the need to be a Government minister or driven about in a Government car but by the need to create and maintain full employment in our society. Indeed, when I come into politics, I know that this is hard to believe, Presiding Officer. It was in 1966 that I was just out of nappies. Harold Wilson was the Prime Minister and in those days we had full employment. The level of poverty was genuinely at an historic low both in absolute and relative terms. Then, of course, after 1966, the July measures have been downhill for the last 50 years ever since, starting with Harold Wilson, then going on with Harold Wilson again, Jim Callaghan and Ted Heath and all the rest of it. The fundamental point of principle put forward by Alex Rowley is absolutely right that the best way, the only way to really solve the problems of poverty and inequality is through full employment. Not just in terms of everybody who is fit and able to work actually having a job but having a good, well-paid job as well. That is an ambition that we share with Alex Rowley. That is why so much emphasis of this Government has been to put economic growth and sustainability at the top of our agenda since the day we were elected in 2007. It is quite noticeable, Presiding Officer, on the GDP figures announced this morning, that we are doing against the odds with the difficulties in the oil industry and facing the austerity policies coming from London. We are still able to grow the Scottish economy and the reason we are still able to grow it is that we have deliberately targeted a massive increase in capital investment in Scotland so that we could create and maintain the good job we are doing. If you look at housing, for example, the fact of life is that compared to the first eight years of the Parliament, our housing record in the last nine years has been absolutely outstanding. We are building about 5,000 council houses compared to six in the last year of the previous administration. If you look at the total number of houses completed, we have exceeded the 30,000 figure and we will build another 50,000 at least over the next five years. The reason why housing is so important is not just in relation to the need for housing. We absolutely agree that that has to be a top priority for this Parliament and the next Government as well as this Government. However, as we know, good decent housing is a prerequisite to eliminating and reducing poverty. Good decent housing is essential to achieving educational attainment. Good decent housing is essential to improving the health of the nation. Housing ticks every box in terms of being good policy, which is why we are set aside over £3 billion over the next five years to build at least 50,000 new affordable houses. I was a bit surprised that he was claiming the GDP figures as a success story, because Scotland is lagging behind the rest of the United Kingdom, both in the annual figures and on the period. Would he like to reflect on his claim that that is a great success? I did say that the GDP figures were a success given the state of the oil industry and the impact of the austerity measures that were implemented by a Government that he supported and, more recently, the budget introduced by Osborne last year. Quite frankly, if we had not been here implementing our economic policy and spending the money that we are spending on capital programmes, including through the Scottish Futures Trust, the GDP figures would not have shown any growth at all. If the member cares to look at the analysis within the GDP figures, while there was some growth in most recently, the real growth sector was in construction. That construction growth is coming from our investment in a new bridge over the fourth, our investment in the central Scotland motorway network, our investment in 30,000 new houses, our investment in railway. All that is due to our investment in construction and the jobs that are brought with it. Not only does that contribute to a much higher level of employment and growth than otherwise would be the case, but it also contributes to keeping poverty and inequality at a lower level than it otherwise would be. Alex Rowley is right. The best way to keep people out of poverty or to get them out of poverty is to give them a good, well-paid job, and that is what our capital programme is doing. Most specifically, the very specific measures that we are taking in relation to our limited powers at the moment over social security and other types of benefit, as well as looking to the future. As Alex Rowley's motion says, we will use the powers that we have at any one time to the maximum to help to reduce poverty and inequality in Scotland. That is in the DNA of this Government about reducing poverty and inequality in our society. However, it is rather ridiculous that we are having to spend well over £100 million a year on trying to mitigate the impact of policies such as the bedroom tax that we have voted against in Scotland and yet we are having to fork out money in order to mitigate the impact of the imposition of regressive policies on benefits that have been introduced from south of the border. Cabinet Secretary indicated that he would be in support of using full powers in his party's DNA to act accordingly. Will that include tax increases? John Swinney has already outlined the major taxes that we have got control over, such as the new land and buildings tax. We have used those taxes to raise the upper level, reduce the lower level and make it much fairer than it was under Gordon Brown, under Alistair Darling or under George Osborne. That is just a start. The member will know that, if you look at the powers that we have at the present over income tax, you cannot increase the upper rate without simultaneously increasing the lower rate at the same amount. That changes in 2017. As John Swinney has made it absolutely clear, we will use every opportunity, every opportunity that we get to make the tax system fairer so that those who are in the lower level will be able to do so. We will do that irrespective of what tax we are talking about, because we believe in a fairer society. We believe that people at the bottom end need a better deal. We believe that we should use both the tax system and the benefits system and public spending and the social wage of tools of making a society fairer. That is why we went out since last summer, consulting right across Scotland on our document on a fairer Scotland and the results of which we will be publishing relatively soon. Creating a fairer Scotland is a top priority for this Government. The problem that we have and the limitations on our ability to do so is because the powers that matter over the great swath of tax policy that we do not have control over, over the great swath of social security benefits that we will not have control over, even under the new Scotland bill, if we had control over all of those, even without independence. If we control over all taxation, all spending, all social security in Scotland, we could do much, much more than we have been able to do or will be able to do with our limited powers afforded to us. That is the whole point. If I may say so, I think, hopefully, the tone of this debate because I think that Alec Rowley is basically agreeing with me and I am agreeing with Alec Rowley about full employment, about poverty and deprivation, about creating a fairer Scotland. The fault line between Alec Rowley and me is that I believe that this Parliament should have all those powers to make the big differences and to create the kind of society that Alec Rowley, I believe, really does believe in. With the very limited powers that we are going to have, we can go so far but we will not be able to go any further until we get all those powers because as long as there is a Tory Government or a liberal Tory Government in London, you can bet your bottom dollar will continue to get policies that make a society less fair, that reduce employment opportunities, that treat the regions and the countries outside the south-east as well. There are low priorities for investment and which, quite frankly, means that we will continue not to get our fair share of the national wealth created by the United Kingdom. That is really the fundamental and probably the only major fault line between myself and Alec Rowley. I believe that we have got to get those powers. The Labour Party believes that we should be satisfied with the limitations of what we are getting and what we have got. Fundamentally, this is why I joined the SNP 30-odd years ago, because I believe in all the things that Alec Rowley talked about. When I was growing up in politics, we actually had all of those. We have gone back the way in the last 40 or 50 years under successive UK Administrations. The reason why I changed was because I recognised that getting control over these areas of policy are a fundamental prerequisite to be able to deliver the kind of society that we in this side—and I believe that most people on that side of the chamber want to see. That is why we are happy to support the motion in the name of Alec Rowley, along with our amendment, and I am delighted that Mr Rowley and the Labour Party will be voting for our amendment and for once. The Labour Party and the SNP tonight, at 5 o'clock at decision time, will no doubt be voting the same way. In closing, we should never lose sight of the guilty men and women in London who are doing so much damage not just to poor people north of the border but to poor people throughout the United Kingdom. We should never forget the treacherous Liberals and what they did by putting the Tories back into power and supporting all the right-wing policies that our people are now suffering from as a result of what the Liberals did in making David Cameron Prime Minister in 2010. Presiding Officer, we will march on with implementing our policies for fairness, for full employment, for a fairer society, for a better Scotland, and we will and are using all the powers at our disposal to make it happen. I now call Annette Millan to speak to and to move amendment 15290.3, seven minutes or so. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. Can I too welcome the new Labour member to Parliament and wish her well? Presiding Officer, today we've been presented with a motion about poverty and this Parliament's powers to promote Scotland's social and economic success, and I think that there's actually more commonality between us than Mr Rowley has suggested. The motion is broad and eminently reasonable, almost to the point where parts of it appear to be general statements of common sense. First, let me be clear. Any level of impoverishment in this country should always be a cause of the utmost concern for members in this chamber. The state has always had a special duty to focus on improving the conditions for our worst-off citizens, and it is one that I personally take very seriously. Our amendment seeks not to undermine the Labour Party's motion, but to clarify and balance it against the improvements that are being driven forward. As I said in my earlier intervention, we have recognised the Scottish Government's own poverty and incomes publications, which show that poverty levels are indeed at a historic low. Still, we must drive further. We're certainly not there yet. Still, too many people in our country are socially excluded, feel the blight of long-term unemployment and see little opportunity for improving their lives. Some are trapped by cycles that avail health, by addiction, by debt or lack of skills. For many, that is generational, and those long-standing problems will not be fixed overnight or indeed in one Parliament. As members know, my main involvement in this Parliament has been with health. I am a member of the health and support committee, which carried out a very interesting piece of work on health inequalities, followed by a debate in which the relevant subject committee conveners were asked to give their thoughts on what their committees can do to try to reduce wider inequalities, which will have a corresponding impact on health and wellbeing. The traditional downstream response of the health service in treating established disease or seeking to change behaviours known to give rise to ill health like smoking, alcohol and drug misuse has not led to less inequality but many lifestyle public health campaigns have widened health inequalities. Our inquiry concluded that if real progress is to be made, significant effort will be needed across a raft of policy areas and by different agencies collaborating and working more effectively together. The early years are particularly important and health service initiatives, like the early years collaborative and the work of family nurse partnerships, are helping to make a difference. The announcement by Alex Neil when he was health secretary of 500 extra health visitors was also important and was welcomed by Scottish Conservatives because we think that universal provision of GP practice attached health visitors up to the age of 7 could have a very significant impact on reducing health inequalities. Of course, we must use the full powers that this Parliament possesses to address our social and health problems, while also working in partnership with other areas of government, whether at community, local authority, European or UK level. This view, I do not think, would be disagreed with. What matters, though, is how we use those powers and what their impact will be. For too long, policy makers have applied sticking plaster to poverty, for those at our most difficult help, poverty has become ever more ingrained. One of the core functions of this Parliament should be to consider and tackle the root causes of poverty. We have often spoken on this side of the chamber about work being the best and most sustainable route out of poverty, and the SNP and Labour have said exactly that this afternoon. However, we are not blind to the thousands of people who do work and who still do not find the security that they deserve. That is why Britain needs a pay rise. We welcome the national living wage premium, which will give it unprecedented rise in wages for the lowest paid workers from this year through to 2020. I have only got six minutes, Mr Stewart. I am not giving away. I recognise the impact of changes to the income tax personal allowance, which is taking hundreds of thousands of the lowest earners in Scotland out of paying income tax altogether. As we recognise the achievements of our schools and the dedication of our teachers, there is little doubt that our education system has historically failed some of the worst off people in our society. As a result, we have welcomed the investment in the Scottish Government's attainment fund. However, we must also ensure that it is spent effectively and has real measurable outcomes. It should be effectively targeted and combined with the earliest possible interventions. My colleagues in Parliament have set out examples of success in our reforms introduced in England in this chamber, such as the pupil premium, and giving more autonomy to schools and head teachers. Schools must not only be expected to provide an excellent general education but must provide the skills and support that pupils will need for their future lives. I agree with Mr Rowley that we indeed need those skills. We should also consider that the substantial range of new powers coming to this Parliament will be transformative, giving the Scottish Government a genuine responsibility to raise the money that it spends. That is why I am pleased that the Labour Party's motion makes an explicit link between social and economic success. Regardless of the best intentions of this chamber, it is our economy, the trade and hard work of individuals that provides us with jobs, with stability and with improved living conditions. It is also the hard work of our people and their success that supplies us with the money that we spend here. That is why we should seek to create a Scotland that is an attractive place to live, do business and invest. What that means is that we cannot simply ramp up taxation to fund public services to some indefinite degree. There is a balanced peace check and it is one that recognises that Scotland must remain competitive not only within the UK but internationally too. We must also examine how powers over things such as the work programme can be best used and even how devolution can create opportunities to work better with some of our other devolved services, or even be administered more locally to respond better to the diverse economic circumstances that we find across Scotland. I pay tribute to the serious work of the welfare reform committee in that regard. Poverty is linked not only to a range of poor outcomes for individuals but for society as a whole. It is a blight on the country and it is closely connected with crime, ill health, mental illness, social exclusion and a lack of skills. It must be tackled head on seriously. In a way that reflects reducing poverty as one of our central priorities and realises the often difficult choices that that brings, the rewards not just for individuals but for society are far too great to be overlooked. We now turn to the open debate due to the late withdrawal of speakers who had intimated that they were going to speak. I now have a little bit of time in hand in this debate so I can give members in the open debate up to seven minutes. I call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue today. I share many of the hopes and wishes of Mr Riley. It is rather frustrating to see the gap between the haves and the have-nots increase and continue to increase over the past. As somebody who lives in an area of deprivation and represents areas where people struggle from day to day, it has to be said that the past number of years under the Liberal Tory Government and now a Tory Government have been extremely frustrating to say the least. I too want to see people reach their full potential and I wish that we had all of the levers of powers to ensure that we could create more jobs and even to sustain jobs that are currently there. I cannot stand here today without talking about the situation in the north-east of Scotland and beyond where there are difficulties in the oil and gas industry. Really, I would be expecting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come up with a package of measures to ensure job security there, to ensure that we retain the skills, to ensure the future of that industry, but unfortunately that has not happened. I believe that if the Scottish Government had that powers, we would be acting somewhat differently from George Osborne or Amber Rudd. I will take an intervention. I thank the member for taking an intervention. Would the member also agree with me that it is very important that the Scottish Government and the range of agencies, universities and colleges and businesses plan for the transfer to the low carbon economy, which will inevitably come as we gradually move towards that in marine as well as terrestrial energy gaining? I think that if the member was as aware as some of us in the north-east of Scotland about activity that goes on there, we know that many many companies are doing that already, but what we cannot afford is for them to have the rug pulled out of them before transitions can take place. However, we should not forget that the oil and gas industry is still extremely important and there are many more decades of oil and gas to come. If I could move on to social security. I have grown up in a family that has believed in the welfare state, a family that believed that there should be a social security safety net. Fortunately, over the peace, my family haven't had to rely on that social security safety net very often. However, who knows what is around the corner? One of the things that really frustrates me, and Dr Milne came up with it in her speech, is that we have got generational problems to deal with. Generational problems to deal with is if that is something that can never be dealt with at all. What I would ask Dr Milne in the Tories is, is it right that we deal with those problems by sanctioning folk, by swinging benefit cuts or by paying universal credit to the man of the house? Is that the way to tackle those problems? I don't think that it is and I'll take Dr Milne. Dr Milne, you may be interested to know that I joined the Conservative Party because I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves. That is why I have a firm believer in the NHS and that is why I think that we cannot do these things without a thriving economy. We are not miles apart but I firmly believe in that. I think that the phrase helping those who cannot help themselves just adds to the woes here because the reality is that sometimes we just need to do a tiny little thing to get folk on their way. I think that this is where this Government has been really, really proactive in ensuring that we have put in place things to help folk on their way. The social wage is what we called it at the very beginning of the minority term and I kind of like that idea. That includes things like free education, free bus passes, school meals, prescriptions and yet we have seen repetition at this weekend of Johann Lamont, who I don't think is here, again suggesting that the popular policies that are helping people make Scotland a something for nothing. Johann Lamont is something for nothing attack, which has become somewhat infamous on those vital universal services in Scotland, has haunted Labour since the day she made it. She has resurrected this toxic rhetoric just four months from the Scottish Parliament election and I think that is a headache for Mr Rowley and for the Labour Party. One of the things that he didn't spell out today is which of those policies is he going to keep, which of them are the Labour Party going to set aside and does he actually believe in that rhetoric of a something for nothing society or does he share my belief and the belief of the Cabinet Secretary that those policies, those progressive policies ensure that we do much in terms of tackling inequalities and I think that that has got to be spelled out by the Labour Party today and over the next few weeks. I think that my colleague Alex Rowley was very clear when he stated the Labour Party's intention to vote for the Government amendment this evening but I would draw Kevin Stewart's attention to the Scottish Government's own poverty czar and the note that came out to the First Minister through FOI where she in paragraph 5 says that stakeholders have raised contentious issues targeting versus universal approaches. I would ask him how he feels about the poverty czar's questions on this issue. Kevin Stewart, could you be ready to close? I believe in universalism. I make no apology for believing in universalism. What I also believe in is progressive taxation. Unfortunately at this moment in time we don't have all the powers to deal with that aspect. Again, the fact that Ms Marra has come in there questions in my mind what Labour is actually about when it comes to universalism because in my grandfather's day the Labour Party were the party of universalism and fortunately that seems to have gone. No matter what Labour does, people in Scotland can rest assured that the SNP will continue to protect and build on the progress that we have made since coming to office as we use every single lever at our disposal to continue to make Scotland a fairer and more equal country. There is nothing more important than politics than action to tackle poverty and inequality. I think that there are two mindsets in this Parliament to avoid. First, I think that because we can't do everything, therefore we can't do anything significant. I think that there has always been significant things we could do in relation to health, education, housing, skills and many other areas. There will be even more action that we can take on the new tax and social security powers. Second, I think that there is some dichotomy between universalism and targeting because I believe in what somebody else has called progressive universalism. That should be the central principle that we have when we approach this whole controversy about universalism and targeting. Let's give two examples of that. The NHS is a classic example because we all believe in the NHS as a universal service but we also need to have extra resources over and above the average to those areas that are most disadvantaged. The deep end GP practices are the best example of that currently. They need more money in those areas because the shocking fact is that the most deprived fifth of the population of Scotland has a healthy life expectancy that ends more than 20 years before the fifth most prosperous in Scotland. We can't do everything about health inequalities by that method but we should do that because that would be a significant contribution. The same principle applies to educational inequality and particularly the attainment gap. Kevin Stewart wants concrete policies from Labour. Labour has given specific policies on that issue within the last few days from Kezia Dugdale. Clearly, education like health is a universal service but within that extra resources should go to schools and nurseries where we have a significant number of individuals from deprived backgrounds using the free school myth indicator. Mike McKenzie. I'm sure we would all love to devote more resources to many, many things. Would Mr Chisholm say where he would intend to get the funding to pay for those things and what other services he would cut in order to provide them? I'm going to do a section on tax because we need to talk about tax. That was a costed proposal from tax on the very highest earners, which I was going to refer to later on. That proposal in terms of targeting resources to individuals—this is what is crucial in Labour's proposal to individuals and individual nursery schools to do something about the attainment gap—crucially to do it to nurseries too because we need to get in early research for the Scottish Government from York University and Durham University. Last week, I said that children from the least deprived areas had higher scores than those from the most deprived areas on average by around 14 months of development by the time they started school, so we need to get in very early. That's why Labour is saying money to nursery schools as well as schools. That's progressive universalism in action. I give way to Joan McAlpine. Joan McAlpine, thank you very much. I'm very grateful to the member for taking the intervention. In terms of targeting, you'll be aware that the Government has identified money for vulnerable two-year-olds in early years and I'm sure you support that. Were you aware that Labour-controlled Dumfries and Galloway didn't use their grant for getting vulnerable two-year-olds into nursery this year and put it into general funds? How does that tie in with the comments that you made? I apologise for not being familiar with the budgetary details of Dumfries and Galloway, but clearly if that is the case it is not acceptable. The reason why we need to have a more equal society is not just for the obvious social justice reasons but also because it is good for the economy. It's an economic policy as well as a social justice policy. That's obvious in terms of people not realising their educational potential, but it's also important in terms of demand in the economy, people having good incomes and so on. We've talked about jobs and skills and the Parliament has powers that are important and that's why I would repeat what Alex Rowley says about using our procurement powers to insist on the living wage, working towards the living wage particularly we flagged up the social care sector in the first instance and generally of course using the new social security powers that we have for example redesigning the work programme and so on. But I want to move on to tax because we do need to talk about tax. Reform of local government taxation will happen I believe in the next Parliament. Again Labour has given specific pledges on the use of the new tax powers in the next Parliament. I've referred to the very top rate of tax to be used for the educational initiative but in general we've said that those on the higher tax bans will relatively speaking be taxed higher than those in England because we think that is a fair contribution for better off people to make towards a more social justice. None of those things will kick in next year and we have to address and think seriously about the situation in particular that's facing local government in three months time or less. To the welfare reform committee written evidence yesterday children in Scotland said we have serious misgivings about local authorities ability to continue to provide the vital front line services that the poorest and most vulnerable families rely on. We're talking about poverty and inequality today. Closed the gap, flagged up women and children in particular as in that particular category and talked about punishing cuts for vital services. 5 per cent cuts in local government. I don't think the SNP has taken in the scale of this yet. I had a briefing with Edinburgh on Monday, £80 million worth of cuts in Edinburgh in April. Projects closing, thousands of jobs going across Scotland, even education and social work not being protected. I'm not going to advocate a particular tax policy for that in this debate but what I do know is every single member of this Scottish Parliament has to look at the scale of those cuts and look at the revenue raising powers that they have and at least think about the question whether there comes a problem. When you just have to raise more revenue in one way or another, it might not be the council tax, we have income tax powers, let's at least think about it. That's all I'm saying to people today because there comes a point when you are really penalising the poorest and most disadvantage in society by the scale of the local government cuts that are coming down the track in three months time. I regret the loss of some central government funds such as the fairer Scotland fund, which did do good work in disadvantaged communities. They are now subsumed in local authority funds but because of the cuts, of course, they are being dissipated. I haven't got time to speak about housing because my seven minutes is up. All I would say about housing is I applaud the increased target that the Scottish Government has made for housing in the next Parliament but from my conversations with social rented housing providers unless something is done about the housing association grant or HAC level, it will just not be possible to build whatever the number is pledged for the next Parliament. 35,000, I think, Alec Neil said. The member has to close. I have to close. My last word is that we have relatively speaking too much rhetorical commitment to tackling poverty and inequality and not enough practical action. Let's make it the number one objective of the next Parliament. I apologise that I won't be there to tackle poverty and inequality. Thank you very much. I'm allowed to first open debate speakers to go slightly a bit over the seven because of interventions but from now on I'd be grateful if members could keep to their seven minutes. Joan McAlpine to be followed by Willie Rennie. I welcome the chance to speak in this afternoon's important debate. There is nothing natural or inevitable about poverty or inequality while the rhetoric of austerity seeks to scapegoat individuals and a portion blamed to the most vulnerable in society. I'm pleased that in this chamber at least that is not the majority mindset. The Scottish Government has a strong track record on delivering a form of sustainable economic growth which safeguards social justice. Today I want to highlight, as others have, the role of universalism and how it delivers fairness. It's something that I touched on in last week's debate on public services and I think it merits revisiting. I realise that there have been a number of attacks on universalism. Some of them are insidious and come from the right. Others, I believe, are perhaps well intentioned at a time of very restricted resources as a result of austerity. However, I think that they are looking at the wrong solutions and I think that we abandon that principle of universalism at our peril. At its inception, the welfare state was designed to provide a series of social safety nets for people in the famous phrase from the cradle to the grave, meaning that all citizens have a right to a dignified existence free from want. Cradle to the grave, as imagined, in the 1942 beverage report, which laid the foundation of Labour's welfare state, fostered a sense of citizenship and social cohesion that had already been fermented by a very devastating war. The current UK Government is tearing up the beverage report before our eyes and undermining the fundamental rights of everyone in our society and targeting the most vulnerable. Universal services such as the NHS, which is free to all, are at the heart of cradle to the grave. That is why Nye Bevan resigned from the Labour Government when prescriptions introduced charges for prescriptions because he recognised that it was an abandonment of the principles in which the NHS was founded. If you abandon universalism, as the social reformer Richard Titmas observed, you have targeted selective services and services through the poor will always be poor services. Studies have shown that moving from universalism to selectivity increases social and economic inequality. Crucially, the processes and procedures that underpin means testing actively separate benefit recipients from the rest of society. The result is a stigmatisation of benefit claimants. That reduces take-up, creates social divisions and, of course, it turns the spotlight on the victims of austerity rather than holding to account as politically motivated architects. I do not think that that is the basis of a fair society. Last week, I quoted from a 2012 paper from the Jimmy Reid Foundation called The Case for Universalism. I make no apology in quoting from it again today. It said that the historical and contemporary evidence strongly suggests that the appropriate response to austerity is to increase universal provision and so stimulate economic activity and equalise damaging wealth. I think that that is perhaps one of the reasons why one of the most respected writers on inequality, Joe Stiglitz, has noted that inequality is not as great in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. He commented that tackling inequality is the foremost challenge that many Governments face. Scotland's economic strategy leads the way in identifying the challenges and provides a strong vision for change. On the subject of universalism, we have talked about housing a lot. I wanted to turn to Labour's big policy of the new year. I do not know how much input Mr Rowley had in that policy on housing. I wonder how it can deliver fairness for all. How a policy that hands an additional £3,000 to those who can afford to save towards a quarter of a million pound house be a policy for fairness for all. As the First Minister suggested last week, it will not build a single additional home for those in need of affordable housing. It is certainly not universal. It will inflate house prices and that will make matters more difficult for the poorest first-time buyers who have a lot of sympathy for first-time buyers. However, I want a time of straightened resources on why they are pushing the policy, which will only benefit a select few. Obviously, it is not universal. It is targeted at the better off. In a sense, it is an inverse means test because you have to be able to afford to save in order to qualify for it. It is very strange that a party that many members have attacked, the fully funded council tax, has come up with the inverse means testing. As I said, I do not know what input Mr Rowley had. He is a very reasonable man. Others on this side of the chamber have complimented him and said that they share many of his principles. Perhaps he can use his influence on his party leader to come up with something a little bit more sensible. Turning to the council tax freeze, the council tax is certainly not perfect. It was introduced by the Conservatives in the 1990s after a great deal of pressure in a mass movement such as we have never seen in this country. It was dubbed the son of poll tax when it replaced the poll tax because, of course, it was not a progressive tax. That is why it is absolutely right that, at a time of austerity, the Government has frozen it because it has put more money into the pockets of working families. It is also right that the Government has set up the commission on local taxation to reach a consensus on a fair alternative to the council tax. I welcome the commitment on the other side of the chamber to come up with something better. I do not agree that more pressure should be put on the poorest people by raising the council tax. I just wanted to make a comment about the Conservative policy. Of course, the Conservatives did not join the commission, presumably because they think that the council tax is a fantastic thing. In my area of the country, the Conservatives are going into the current election claiming to be the party of low taxation. This morning, we have learned that the Conservative-controlled Murray council is planning to raise the council tax by 18 per cent. I must come to a close, please. I would just like to reflect on the fact that the Conservatives are claiming to be the party of low taxation. I suggest that that is only for the rich and not for most people who, certainly in Murray, are going to be hammered by a Conservative council raising the council tax. Thank you very much. Willie Rennie, to be followed by Mike McKenzie. Up to seven minutes, please. Absolutely, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thought Malcolm Chisholm's parting comment from his speech summed up the debate so far. The difference, the contrast between rhetorical commitment and practical action is the starkest criticism of the SNP administration. Listening to Alex Neil, you would think that the minute level of increase in GDP was all the responsibility of his Government and everything else that is bad is the responsibility of the UK administration. We know that life is not as simple as that. Alex Neil knows that, too, because what he did not mention in his contribution was that between 2010 and 2015, 174,000 extra jobs were created in Scotland, that GDP was up and that it was vying with the United States of America to be the top in the G8 group of countries. The employment was down, but that also combined with action from the administration that my party was involved in of cutting taxes for those on low and middle incomes. In fact, taking thousands of people out of tax altogether, helping hard-working people on low incomes, that was an administration that he would never describe as progressive but in fact was progressive by helping those on low and middle incomes. That combined with a triple lock on the pension, on the state pension, when the pension was increased. He did not mention that in his contribution either. I would not be so as ungenerous not to give credit to the SNP where they get it right but that seems to elude Alex Neil when he makes contributions in this chamber. However, his dismissal of the GDP figures did not reflect on him well either. 0.1 per cent increase in GDP in Scotland. All he said was that that was all his responsibility from the NPD programme. The NPD programme that he trumpeted could not get the money out the door for the first few years of its operation so I do not think that he can claim it as a great success. The failure to invest in the £20 million planned for rail investment in Scotland will not have helped to grow the economy either in Scotland. I will take an intervention now. The point that I was making was that if it had not been for our heavy concentration on capital spend through the Scottish Future Trust and shifting revenue into capital spend then the GDP figures would not have shown any growth at all. I am not saying or trying to claim credit for every job in the country as other Governments are trying to do. What I am saying is that our intervention did make a substantial difference because if you look at the growth in the construction sector it was nine times the average growth of the manufacturing sector, for example, that would not have been possible without the level of investment that we have made in the construction sector. I am glad that he is not claiming every job in the country because that is a contrast from the rhetoric that we have had in the past. I will give credit for some of the programmes that have been invested in because I think that that helps to create the new schools and hospitals that we are all desperately needing. My comment was that the NPD programme was not very successful in the early years in investing and at that point the Government was claiming all the credit for the job growth at that time as well. The both cannot be true. I thought that Alex Rowley's contribution was that I like Alex Rowley's approach on jobs and welfare, the contrast between the two that the gyro marchers did not actually march for welfare, they marched for jobs. I think that that is something that is common across the chamber. In fact, I have heard all the speakers mentioning that the best route out of poverty is work. I think that that has got to be welcomed, that there is unanimity across the chamber on that. For me, the best route into work is through education, which is what I will return to later on. That is to me a critical investment that we have got to make to give everyone an opportunity to get up and get on. We made some welfare changes when we were at Westminster. Some of them were difficult to do, but I cannot understand how the Conservatives can expect to get £12 billion worth of cuts to the welfare budget. I do not know where they are going to find them. I have already backed off on tax credits. I will be interested to see exactly where they are going to come from. What it really confirms is that the Conservatives, unrestrained by us, are as callous and harsh as they ever were. The sanction regime is a classic example of that. It needs to change, because some people are being penalised far too heavily—not just now, far too heavily. However, there is an artificial debate about universalism. I find it frustrating. I thought that we had got it out of our system about two years ago. Not everything that we provide is universal, and universalism is not necessarily the answer to everything. Sometimes it is the most effective way to invest in Government resources. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not worth doing a means test because the small number of people involved. You could argue that prescription charges were on that basis. To claim that universalism is the way to tackle inequality is an intellectually bankrupt idea. The best way is to work out how you will best use the public resources to tackle inequality. I do not understand how giving subsidies to middle classes on mass is somehow going to deal with inequality. Perhaps it removes stigma from time to time. That is a benefit, but it is not really dealing with inequality. Sometimes it is the best way. For instance, I would support the free school meals initiative, because there were big chunks of kids who were needing a good meal when actually getting it. They were still regarded as poor but not officially by the administration. Free personal care breaks down the barriers between different types of care so that people can get the appropriate care that they need. To claim that universalism is the answer to everything is nonsense, I am about to conclude. For me, education is the biggest investment that we should be making in this Parliament. I think that the disappointing statistics on nursery education are very disappointing. I would hope that the Government would have some kind of action plan to get the rates of two-year-old kids getting their nursery education. We were promised 27 per cent, but the Government's own figures show that it is only at 7 per cent. 20 points of a difference. The Government needs to act on that. We need to invest in a pupil premium, and we need to recognise that the Government is planning a £500 million cut on local government. Half of what we spend on local government is on schools. That needs to change. Mike McKenzie, to be followed by Jane Baxter, up to seven minutes, please. It's difficult to disagree with the principle of Labour's motion this afternoon. Like the cabinet secretary, I agree with most but not all of what Mr Rowley articulated in his speech. This Government, this SNP Government has done much to tackle poverty and, of course, we must do more. Inequality and consequent poverty is a scourge in our society. I can only lament the fact that inequality increased rather than reduced under the last Labour Government in Westminster. Inequality has manifestly accelerated again under both the coalition that Willie Rennie was so proud of and the current Conservative Government. The net millions amendment suggests that with the fastest growing economy in the developed world, she fails to mention that it is growing from a much lower base than many of our competitors. She fails to mention that we are near the top of the league table in inequality and she fails to mention that the fastest growing facilities across the UK are food banks. I repeat that I disagree with only in how we best tackle these problems. We should certainly not seek to tackle inequality by removing universal services or our commitment to the principle of universalism. It's well established that the costs of administering means testing far outweigh any savings. It's well established that means testing discourages many of those most in need of benefits from applying. It's well established that... When the member might consider the abolition of means testing for council tax benefit and housing benefit, when will he support the introduction of universal benefits for those two? I thank the member for making that point. I am against the principle of universalism wherever it can be reasonably applied. It's well established that restricting services only to the very poorest has the effect of reducing the quality of these services and creating poor services for poor people. The idea of universalism was a principle that the Labour Party once proudly stood up for. This is a principle that generations of Labour supporters believed in. This was a principle that I always believed was at the core of Labour beliefs. I suspect that it's because Labour has abandoned this and other core principles that the people of Scotland have abandoned them. I repeat again that I disagree with Labour only in how best we tackle the problems of poverty and inequality. There is no single magic bullet to tackle inequality if it's brief. I thank the member for giving me a way. Do you agree that we have a broad agreement across here? Is the way to tackle inequality and poverty is to give people the opportunity, the skills and the jobs to be able to get out there into the labour market and get themselves out of poverty? I think that it's very unfortunate part of Scotland's history that we've educated generations of young people for whom there have been no opportunities in Scotland and they've left Scotland. So we need to bear in mind we need to provide the jobs and I think that's the single most effective thing, as other speakers have said, that we can do to tackle inequality. The multifaceted approach that the Scottish Government is taking is, I think, the best and only approach possible given the powers that we currently have. Just as we're doing our best to mitigate the destructive policies and our attacks on the poor emanating from Westminster, so we must do our best to grow our economy because we can't help the poor if we become a poorer country. We must do so by incentivising and nurturing areas of our economy where we have a competitive advantage, such as the oil and gas sector that Kevin Stewart mentioned and the renewable energy sector. The Wood report of 2014 indicated just how badly the UK Government has managed the oil and gas sector. No one could prevent the recent decline in oil prices but we can seek to optimise this very important industry, not least in granting proper tax relief for exploration and by providing fiscal relief in these difficult times. The UK Government should have established a stability fund to assist the industry when prices are low. It should have established an oil fund to create a lasting legacy. Successive UK Governments have let down the oil industry and let down the people of Scotland. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Tories have abruptly ended renewable incentives for almost all of Scotland's most promising technologies, wind and wave, tide, hydro and solar. Just at the point where the pioneering technology onshore wind was fast becoming our lowest form of energy. I mention the energy sector in particular, not just because we have a competitive advantage in these areas, not just because we are world leaders in the energy sector, not just because these sectors offer a real opportunity of rebalancing our economy, but because these sectors offer the possibility of a reindustrialisation of Scotland. We need a race to the top, not a race to the bottom, so that ordinary working people can once again find high-paying employment, because this more than anything offers the route out of inequality. When a society is faced with poverty and inequality, tackling the root causes and mitigating the effects should be the foremost concern for any politician anywhere in any Parliament. We live in an unequal world, one where wage disparities are so massive that it is shameful and a problem of global magnitude. We also live in an unequal Scotland, and the current levels of poverty and inequality should be the paramount concern, above all others, for those who want to effect real change where it matters most. Poverty has a devastating effect on families across Scotland. It has massive consequences on both health and educational attainment. Poverty and inequality also have direct correlations on crime and anti-social behaviour. They have effects on the environment and they hit children, single parent families, ethnic minorities and those with a disability the hardest. Scotland is fortunate in that it currently has the lowest percentage of individuals in relative low income compared to the other countries of the UK, and this is something to be welcomed. The Scottish Parliament can be a force for good at tackling the poverty and inequality that is prevalent here in Scotland. We have the means at our disposal to effect real change to people's lives right here in communities the length and breadth of Scotland. However, that does not mean we can rest on our laurels. We must continue to tackle poverty and inequality until the blight that places on people's lives is eradicated. We must, as a Parliament, commit to using the full powers at our disposal to achieve the social and economic success that all of Scotland needs. First and foremost, I believe that it is time that we discuss what we mean by the term economic success. It is frequently used almost interchangeably with a varying degree of indicators. However, what indicators should be used to measure economic success? Can we measure economic success through decreasing numbers of those in poverty? Do we consider our productivity and economic output? Are we achieving economic success through GDP growth? Growth is a factor that time and time again jumps to the forefront as a key measurement of economic success. However, I believe that it is time that we re-evaluated this position by noting that growth alone for the sake of growth is not a good measurement of success. Recently, we must be aware of environmental considerations and the massive impact that those are having on the economy. Sustainability should be at the forefront of the measurement of economic success. Mike McKenzie. The Tory cuts to renewable energy incentives are extremely damaging because they are interfering with our ability to decarbonise our energy supply and that that more than anything else will lead to better environmental outcomes. In a word, yes. In the decades to come, this will be an increasingly important driver of all economies. With no sustainability, we will not have any economic success or certainly none that will last. We must learn the lessons of the past, the credit crunch, the global financial collapse and change the way we model our economy on the current models of resource consumption. Alternative models exist to a varying degree, such as a circular economy, which we debated in this chamber previously, where materials are retained in use for as long as possible with an aim of eliminating waste. This model has seen growing traction in recent years, especially in Scotland, and companies are building very successful business models around it. Vegware, a Scottish company, is the only completely compostable packaging company operating globally and has recently been ranked among the UK's fast-growing businesses in the Sunday Times Fast Track 100. Scotland is leading away in this area and we must continue using the powers that we have to drive further achievements and build on the success that we can already demonstrate. If we frame economic success in terms of sustainability, then it is an absolute necessity to completely eliminate poverty and inequality. With an emphasis on growth, poverty and inequality can be left to develop unchecked. A system based on growth alone does not necessitate the eradication of poverty or inequality. In fact, it could even be argued that it relies on those to propagate expansive economic growth. Poverty and inequality are, however, not sustainable. If we wish to develop a socially progressive Scotland, then we must do all we can to achieve real social and economic success in these terms for all. In practical terms, one of the most useful things we can do is challenge the low-wage economy. I welcome the Scottish Government's support of the living wage campaign and I wish to see this extended further. Increasing wages is one of the key methods of tackling poverty alongside job creation. I have been campaigning on this for a long time now and I also have a petition calling on the Scottish Government to extend the living wage to all-care sector workers. We must use the full powers at our disposal to stimulate economic success. We must expand the living wage and provide the sound economic argument why that is a necessity. We must also support diversification of the economy, championing alternative economic models such as the circular economy and alternative business models such as social enterprises. We must continue to support third sector enterprises and recognise that the impact of such organisations is not limited to economic success alone. We can use the powers that we have in Scotland to build on the record of success that we can see and only rest when poverty and inequality are relics of the past. I now call on Stuart McMillan to be followed by Mark McDonald. Seven minutes are there by please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to highlight to the Alex Rowley's speech in his opening comments. I am sorry that he is leaving the chamber because I am going to give him a bit of praise. I can agree with the vast majority of Mr Rowley's comments. There are some elements that I did, but I can agree with the vast majority of his speech. However, I am really happy that the SNP is in government in this Parliament and is attempting to deal with the Scottish economy. I accept that there have been huge challenges facing Scotland over the past eight years. I know that with John Swinney and the other Scottish Government cabinet secretaries at the helm, every possibility it will have been examined to see if any action that is going to be proposed to see if that action could help and try to progress the Scottish economy. We have heard today from Labour about how they suggest that the economy progresses. Quite rightly, they see education as a key driver in that progress. That is something that I am sure that we can all agree on in the chamber and also I am sure that it is something that not one person in this chamber would divide on. However, when you consider the wider element of what Labour has been talking about, there are some that just do not add up. We have heard about Labour's 50p tax policy. Eiloron, in the debate, Hugh Henry even proposed the question regarding why not introduce the 50p tax policy now to the cabinet secretary. Some are good for that but others are good for it to come in when and if we get the powers to post the current Scotland bill. At the present time, if that 50p tax band were to be introduced, that would have the effect upon the middle and the lower bands also being increased. That would certainly have an adverse effect upon many people in Scotland, particularly those on lower incomes. However, irrespective of what happens regarding the 50p tax band, the money has already been spent on multiple projects despite there being no guarantee that it will actually be a revenue generator. I am not just going to throw this into the debate but this is something that Kezia Dugdale herself has stated in an interview. When she was asked about how much the 50p tax rate would raise, she told the Hollywood magazine up to £100 million, but bluntly it could raise zero because of the mechanisms by which people can avoid paying tax. It is up to the £100 million that we would bring friends purely for school spending. I am sure that the chamber and the electorate will appreciate the frankness with that particular response, i.e. we do not know. Already Labour has made spending pledges for that particular sum of money, totaling over £138 million. When the tax take will be somewhere between zero and £100 million but SPICE reported that the 50p tax band would raise around £34 million and the IFS reported that the figure would be closer to £8 million, then clearly Labour is left with an economic black hole. They have also spoken of the desire not to decrease the APD when we actually get the power. Instead, they have planned to spend the money several times over on ending education inequality, tackling unwork poverty and giving £3,000 to all first-time buyers taking out the mortgage. APD generates an estimated £250 million in taxation, yet the fundamental point remains that by keeping APD as it is now, as Labour proposed, does not provide any extra revenue to the Scottish budget. The situation would actually be the status quo. Therefore, Labour has to explain what it would cut in the Scottish budget to fund its proposals. Instead, the SNP Government proposed having scrapping APD altogether as it can be a driver for economic growth. Only last year, a study carried out on behalf of Edinburgh Airport concluded that by having APD will create nearly 4,000 jobs and add £1 billion to the Scottish economy by 2020. Ultimately, Labour's failings with the 50p tax band and the APD alone prove that it has complete inability to be in opposition, never mind, in government. Clearly, chesonomics are not something to be considered with any great credence and the economic report card must say, must try harder. On the other hand, we have a Scottish Government that is committed to driving Scotland forward to be a more equal nation with more economic activity. Despite the limited powers that we already have and the potential for additional limited powers to come here, the SNP Government does not lack an ambition for the people of Scotland, and the record certainly proves that up to now. As the amendment in the name of Alex Neil highlights, a range of measures have already been introduced or extended by the SNP Government, which have helped the people of Scotland. Free prescriptions, free tuition, concessionary fares for older and disabled people, free personal care, free school meals and the council tax freeze, which has been overfunded according to SPICE. I recognise that the economic conditions are tough, and I am sure that every single member in the chamber will recognise that. As my colleague Mike Mackenzie highlighted earlier, one of the sad increases in recent years has been the increase in the number of food banks across Scotland. I find that absolutely abhorrent, and I am sure that every member in the chamber will, but it is a fact of life that we really have to address. If we did not have the policies of the free prescriptions, free tuition and so on, if we did not have them, how much worse would it be for many people in Scotland today? The Scottish Government has been forced into mitigating against Westminster's austerity cuts. I would argue that, if the SNP Government did not need to mitigate against the bedroom tax, that money could have been invested in doing something else to have a positive outcome. Clearly, mitigation has a positive outcome for those individuals who are affected, but we could probably do more. With more and more cuts coming from the Tory UK Government, the SNP Government might need to spend even more money and time and focus on mitigation rather than delivering new policies to take our economy even further. I am conscious of time. To drive to hammer the less well-off at UK Government level, the toth link adherence from Labour and branch office level, as well as London level, as well as the Tories at UK level, highlights clearly why May is only this SNP Government that will stand up for the people of Scotland and protect the people of Scotland from the worst of Westminster. Mark McDonald, to be followed by Hugh Henry, up to seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have been struck by a couple of things in the debate thus far. The first is that, for a Labour-led debate, how few of their members have actually stayed in the chamber to participate or listened to the debate? One would almost think that they had something else that was preoccupying their time at the moment, some list-ranking event that was taking place, which they required to be out of the chamber in order to take part. Indeed, I would encourage those members who have that list-ranking in mind, who are still in the chamber, that others are out there stealing a march on them and they might wish to get out there and make sure that they can continue their campaign in that respect. The other thing that I was struck by was that I felt during the course of Alex Rowley's speech. Alex Rowley is somebody who I have a great deal of time for. I have served on the local government committee with him. I always find his contributions in this chamber to be interesting and thought-provoking. I think that he has come forward with some very interesting ideas in debates that have often deserved to be considered and not always agreed with, but certainly considered and challenged and often challenged conventional thinking, particularly his views around fiscal autonomy. I think that we were in danger of it becoming an almost entirely philosophical debate in discussion. One of the difficulties that the Labour Party is facing at the moment is that it does not yet have a coherent policy platform to outline and to test against some of the very worthy sentiments and notions that were being expressed during Mr Rowley's speech. I have got some of that thinking in Malcolm Chisholm's speech and I think that there are some areas there that will merit some examination. One of the areas where Mr Chisholm got rather exercised was around the issue of local authority finance. I do not think that anybody would disagree. The cabinet secretary for finance himself has said that this is a challenging settlement for local government, but the challenge is this. The challenge is that we have to look at how we can reform the delivery of public services to ensure that they can weather the storm of austerity, because the storm of austerity is here to stay for the next five years based on the projections from the UK Government and possibly beyond that, depending on whether or not the collective UK Labour Party gets its act together or otherwise. We have to be in a position where we take the opportunity to reform public services into such a way that we either have more sharing of services or different ways of delivering services that enable that storm to be weathered. I look at my own local authority in Aberdeen City Council. I have seen in the press the finance convener of Aberdeen City Council talking about £10 million worth of cuts being to be considered by the council. At present, Aberdeen City Council is sitting on uncommitted cash reserves of £116 million. The Government of Scotland recommends that a buffer of around 2 to 3 per cent should be carried in revenue terms in uncommitted reserves. That £116 million equates to 27 per cent of the council's budget being held in uncommitted cash reserves. The money is there not necessarily to mitigate those cuts, because I do not think that we should operate on the basis of simply mitigating through the use of reserves, but that money exists there in order to enable that transformation of service delivery should the council choose to do so. That becomes a question of political will and ability of those councillors to put their shoulder to the wheel and ensure that those services can be reformed. In terms of the housing debate, I heard what Alex Rowley said, where he welcomed the commitment in terms of 50,000 houses for the next 50,000 affordable houses with 35,000 of those for social rent. One of the great difficulties that I have is when we get politicians standing up and saying, I welcome it, but it's not enough. We then need to get some kind of idea of what would qualify as enough, because if all we're going to get is the Labour Party saying, it's no bad, but it's no as good as we could have, without demonstrating to us one, what would be enough, two, what they would consider as their target, and three, how they would then deliver that target within the financial envelope, then it doesn't become a debate of ideas. It simply becomes carping from the sidelines, and that's the risk that the Labour Party has to shoulder is that it runs the risk of that being the case. Over the Christmas period, after watching my children performing in the local church nativity, I went out leafletting, not political leafletting. The reality is that in the community in which I live, the community of Dyson Aberdeen, which most people would look at and say was a reasonably prosperous, middle-class suburb, the local church is now operating a food bank because it has identified individuals within our own community who require the support. I was out delivering leaflets, as were a number of other members of the church, around houses identifying to people that that food bank had been established in seeking donations. I think that it drove home to me the very real situation that we can't just simply talk about identifying specific areas that we know suffer from entrenched poverty. We now have individuals living in areas perhaps being lost within certain communities because they wouldn't necessarily be picked up on a kind of broad brush examination of income levels across communities. However, there are individuals within those communities themselves, some communities that you wouldn't necessarily identify as being likely to have individuals suffering from poverty but who are suffering. Some of that will be a consequence of the uncertainties that have been created as a result of redundancies in the offshore sector. Some of that will be a result of some of the welfare changes that are taking place of that, I have no doubt. However, we really do have to look very carefully at what is coming to us in terms of powers in the next Parliament provided the Scotland bill fiscal framework can be agreed. I look at how we will use those. Some of that thinking is being outlined at the moment by the Scottish Government and I welcome some of the direction that is being given there, particularly the early introduction of a social security bill. I have spoken at great length about how we should look not just simply at taking what exists at a UK level and transplanting it into a Scottish context but at how we could improve on what is done, perhaps do it differently, and certainly simplify some of the application and renewal processes, which I think would greatly enhance the ability of individuals to access that to which they are entitled. The key thing in all of this has to be moving towards a situation where those people who require jobs can access those jobs and can access well-paid jobs. On that journey, I think that there is much that unites us in this chamber. The question therefore is, do we have the political will to make it a reality? I recognise the Scottish Government does so. I would be interested to hear the proposals coming forward from other parties in that respect. Thank you so much. I will now call on Hugh Henry to be followed by Linda Fabiani up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Mahatma Gandhi said to be wealthy and honoured in an unjust society is a disgrace and yet in Scotland, which despite what we have heard this afternoon is still a wealthy country, our riches 100 people are worth over £21 billion and yet it is estimated that around 870,000 people live in poverty. Clearly, we have a problem. Yes, as a number of speakers have indicated, once additional powers over benefits and taxation come to this Parliament, there will be more that can be done. Let's not get ourselves on that there is nothing that can be done just now or indeed there is nothing that could have been done since this Parliament was established in 1999. Stuart McMillan said that he wants a more equal nation and I agree. Kevin Stewart said that it is frustrating to see gaps between haves and have-nots increased in the past few years. Well, yes, it's frustrating, it's disappointing and frankly it's downright disgusting some of the things that have been happening in the last few years. It's dead easy for the majority of us to all gang up on the Tories and just say everything is the fault of the uncaring Tories and the stupid Lib Dems that get into bed with them in the last coalition and everything's to blame for that past period. A lot of that is true. We've got a deeper recession than is necessary. We've got harsher cuts than is necessary. Some of them are counterproductive in stopping economic growth. That then just deflects attention away from what we can actually do in this Parliament with the powers that we currently have. Never mind the powers that we are about to get. Now, when Kevin Stewart said that he's frustrated about the gaps between the haves and have-nots increased in the last few years, remember that the SNP Government in Scotland has been in power for nearly nine years now and there's been a lot that could have been done by that Government during that time. In a minute, just let me make a further point or two. Let me just look at Renfrewshire, where I represent and what's happened since the SNP came to power. The number of data zones of people living in poverty has increased. In 2006, there were 36 data zones in the most deprived areas in Scotland. Now, there are 48. The number of data zones in the most deprived 5 per cent has increased from 8 in 2004 to 14 in 2012. In Renfrewshire south, my constituency, there are 18 per cent and 21 per cent data zones were found to be in the 15 most deprived areas in Scotland. Poverty relative to the rest of the country has increased in my area. Renfrewshire has the third busiest food bank in Scotland and yet we have pockets of Renfrewshire. Yes, there are the private pockets of Renfrewshire that are extremely affluent and many people are doing well. One of the things that is depressing in a debate like this, again, will gang up in the evil Tories and then the rest of us will tell us about how much we can agree with each other except for this little point or that little point. Generally, we are all doing the best that we can do to make things better for those that we represent. The truth is that we are not doing everything that we can do for those that we represent. Willie Rennie was right to talk about universalism. Sometimes universalism is effective and sometimes universalism is absolutely the right thing to do, but sometimes universalism does not make sense. For those who say that they believe fundamentally in universalism, come what may. Why not to council tax benefit? Why not to housing benefit, which are means tested? You do not agree with means testing of other benefits, certainly. I think that the point is that in order to ensure that those of us who are contributing more into the system buy into the concept of benefits being paid out, there has to be a degree of universalism there so that those individuals see that they are also getting something back as a consequence of what they are putting in. I would not suggest universalism across the board. I think that targeted universalism is important because it ties people into that social contract. That is not a principle that I would disagree with and it ties into what Malcolm Chisholm said about progressive universalism, but if you listen to some of the contributions of your colleagues that is universalism, it is all cost with no differentiation. One of the things that we are saying is not just the increase in poverty, but we are seeing people like myself doing very well out of the current system. Malcolm Chisholm is right. There are two things that can be done. We either, if we want to extend services and help more people and tackle poverty and do everything that we say that we are going to do, we can either increase taxes and I did not ask about the £50 tax. I asked about taxes generally, local government taxes, taxes in the power of the Scottish Government. Are you prepared to increase taxes to meet your aspirations? That is one way of doing it and the other way of doing it, either if you do not have the power or you do not have the will, is to cut your cloth to suit your means and that means using the money that you have and the resources that you have in a different way. That brings us to a fundamental choice in this country. With the limited resources that we have, if we are not going to increase taxes, we can either help everybody, people like us in here that are doing very well, thank you, or we can choose to target some of our most deprived and poorest constituents, which we are not doing. Despite everything that has been said, in my constituency, my poorest constituents have not received an extra penny from the council tax freeze. My poorest constituents have not received an extra penny from free prescriptions. My poorest constituents have not received an extra penny from free school meals. The rest of us have done very well, yes, but the poorest in our country have not. So let's get a bit of honesty back into this debate. Who is it that we're trying to help? Is it, as Mark McDonald has said, is everybody so we all buy in to the bigger picture? Or are we going to finally do something about those that have been left behind? Now, like Malcolm Chisholm, I won't be here to participate in this debate, but I hope, and I suspect that it's a forlorn hope, that there is some honesty in the debate after next May, because frankly, if we go on as we've been doing in the past, then we are letting everybody down. I'm interested in some of what Hugh Henry has just said. I noted he said that the SNP had been in power for nearly nine years, and there's so much we could have done. I'll put it to Hugh Henry that right across central Scotland, including Glasgow, the Labour Party, were in power for 50 plus, and we've still got great problems of deprivation right now. Perhaps he should look to his own party before he starts in ours, because I think that we really have started to make strides forward in the most difficult of circumstances. That's why I was really pleased that Alec Rowley started out by stating that he agreed with what is the Scottish Government's amendment, and that Alec Neil then, in turn, on behalf of the Scottish Government, confirmed that this Government is hugely concerned about the levels of poverty and inequality, and will always use its powers to achieve success for Scotland. However, Alec Rowley was quite right in noting that what's in Alec Neil's amendment is not enough in itself to close that poverty and inequality gap. Healthcare-free at the point of need, including free personal care, education-based ability to learn, rather than ability to pay, transport to counter social isolation. We had a super report on that from one of our committees last week, the Ecolob's committee, and increased take-up of free school meals by those who most need them because of universalism are bases on which to build. It's my belief that such examples of universalism must be preserved and used as a base from which to tackle poverty and inequality. I'm really pleased that the Deputy Leader of Scottish Labour agrees. I would hope that those who believe in the core principles of a decent society can come together to oppose those who would divide society and further disadvantage those who have been well hammered over the last five years or so. I do believe, contrary to what Hugh Henry said, that there is a basic philosophical fight going on here about what's acceptable and what's not in our society. I think that the mitigation sums expended by the Scottish Government, generally with the agreement of this Parliament and generally with the consent of the people of Scotland shows that we believe that that's a fight worth having and that they wish us to carry on. In the face of on-going cuts in Westminster, I think that we have proved that case. Mitigation, despite having very limited powers over welfare, the Scottish Government is investing over £100 million this year to mitigate the worst of Westminster's welfare cuts, including £35 million to mitigate the bedroom tax. It's all very well for Willie Rennie to get up and try near brush history about the fantastic stuff that the Lib Dems did in government. They agreed with the bedroom tax and it's costing our Government here £35 million this year to mitigate that. £38 million to the Scottish welfare fund, providing support to 100,000 Scottish households. That's on top of the Scottish Government's provision of the council tax reduction scheme, totaling £360 million this year. Carers allowance is increasing too. Again, that's something that's very, very fundamental. As Alex Neil says in his motion, those damaging cuts are being opposed against the stated wishes of the Scottish people. As Alex Rowley said, unfortunately, it's not enough. Mitigation is never enough. You've heard other contributions today about how we can move forward and do it in a way that is sustainable. I believe that the Scottish Government is husbanding resources and targeting those resources with sustainable progress. Let's look at infrastructure. Even in my own area—we can all talk about the Forthbridge and all the other things that are happening—439 million investment in the ME M73 and M74 motorways. The waste water infrastructure investment by Scottish Water that's going on, 4.3 million refurbishment of the treatment works in my own area. In fact, more than that, because there's in addition the pumping station in Thornton Hall and then the school's modernisation programme. As we've heard, those are all things that have wider effects. The figures that came out today—we should never be complacent, of course not. However, when you look at the long-term trend in the construction industry and those figures, it's moving up the way. Part of that is a bit housing. Over the last term, we have met the target and there is a better target for next year. Again, that's all about the investment in people too. Alex Rowley said that he was a bit concerned about some of the skills, and that is a concern, but there's great work going on. South Lanarkshire College in my own area has a fantastic construction skills sector, and they carry on. Again, that rewrite in the history. Labour, in its last term of government, built no council houses in 31 out of 32 local authorities. In South Lanarkshire alone, under this Government, there's been 191 council houses built. We could do a lot more, of course we could. I'll tell you what, 191 is a lot more than none. For all the rhetoric, there was a Labour Party in its Government, with a Lib Dem coalition here, that extended the right to buy to housing associations in Scotland before the Tories ever thought of it down south. I sat there and fought it, and I think that there's people on those benches that don't even realise that ever happened. They also did away with community empowerment by taking away fully mutual co-ops, where people and tenants were truly in control. So, to use the hackneyed phrase, I'll take no lessons from Labour on how to move forward with either empowering people or in the housing sector and housing supply. I think that they have to remember that it is people that count. As your daughter has closed. It's investment in people that counts. I believe that the policies of this Government are showing that through their fair work agenda, and indeed the Scottish business pledge, which incorporates a lot that is fair in moving forward like the living wage. So I think that there's a lot to do, but I think that we're on the way, and I think that this Government should be supported. Thank you. Thank you so much. I now call on Christiane Allard after which to move to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was thinking about this debate and with the new member coming in, a new member from the North East of Scotland, which are welcome and we're all welcome. I thought about it. Why not trying to change the tone and trying thinking about what kind of advice we could give Leslie Brennan for a maiden speech? How to talk up the North East of Scotland as opposed to maybe what the predecessors and the existing Labour member of the North East of Scotland have failed to do over the years? Because of course, social and economic success for Scotland is achievable and we show what's the North East. First of all, Presiding Officer, I would like to point out to Hugh Henry what he said about universalism. He said that some of us in our benches say universalism is we want universalism for everything. I think he's mistaken. I don't think if you heard what Alex Neil said, he said that not only what he said but what he wrote in his amendment. I believe that Labour is supporting that amendment. We've been very, very clear on what part of universalism we are supporting. We don't encourage him to vote tonight, having the honesty to vote tonight with the SNP. Because it's writing black and white free prescriptions, free tuition, concessionary affairs for older and disabled people, free personal care and free school meals. It's very, very clear. Here we are. We are defining it. So you just have to follow our leadership and I will encourage the new member to do just that to follow our leadership. Because powers are the disposable of the disabled parliament can really only help to achieve the social and economic success that all Scotland needs if we have more of these powers. Because the question remains, are reserve powers to Westminster the real barriers to reducing inequality and poverty in Scotland? I think the new member will agree on that, that we need more of these powers because we are a wealthy country. Yes, still we know that around six people are currently living in poverty, presenting that it's completely unacceptable and we all agree on that on both our mentions. We need to acknowledge that levels of poverty are decreasing across Scotland and faster than those across the UK. But why child poverty are decreasing in Scotland? It has increased in the UK. One of the reasons, of course, is the language that we use and I was delighted that Kevin Stewart repeated some of what the Scottish government tried to push out is to replace the dreadful word of welfare. We don't see it very well with me with social security. This is very, very important to use a different language and I will encourage everybody to try to replace the word benefit with entertainment because it's what it is about. It could happen to any one of us to be on needs of this entitlements. I thank the Scottish government for its progress in tackling poverty and reducing inequality and we need to do a lot more. I think again, the new member will agree on that. I know that Jenny Mada is closing and she is. Maybe the only Labour North East MSP this afternoon needs a debate. I don't know if the person who's not decided to speak in this debate was one of his Labour North East MSP. But I would like to encourage you as well to take on my example and to promote as much as possible the North East of Scotland because Scotland is much an economic success, a wealthy country. And the North East has been a driver of his wealth for a very long time. We talked a lot about what the public sector can do and we talked a lot about what the government can do. But let's not forget the private sector. The private sector is really very, very important in the condition to create jobs. Historically, the food and drink sector in the North East has been at the heart of the North East economic drive. Let's remember that back in 2007, the Scottish Government set a very challenging target for Scotland food and drink export at £5.1 billion. We exceeded this in 2007 target and in 2012, Presiding Officer, and does the Scottish Government rest on its lower role? Certainly not. £7.1 billion is a new food and drink export target for 2017. We can do even better. And the private sector is very much responding to this strategy, to this food strategy, notwithstanding seafood, of course, is so important. Presiding Officer will not only know the North East, but the rest of Scotland is a great export that we have. And the Scottish beef and Scottish lamb, which everybody in the world loves to have on their plates. And the strategy that this government is really paying off, Scotland is a brand as a mark of quality in every food and drink produced that we export. And that's the jobs, that create employment, that sometimes we do not realise the impact of it. We may be used to it over the years, but it's so important that it is there. So again, I will encourage the new member to use always, and I know Labour members are not always used to talk about what's happening in our rural areas, but maybe she should break up the habit and maybe try to promote a little bit more what's happening across Scotland across our region and particularly in our rural communities. The Scottish government has done a lot for their smaller and medium businesses. We have reduced around 46% of all rates built by up to 100% benefitting around 100,000 businesses in 2015, 2016. And it saved business around 174 million in this year. So it's so important to see that it does create employment sustainability with small and medium businesses. And I very much welcome that the Scottish government has enabled council to further reduce rates under the community employment act like to October. I urge local authorities and office, particularly in the city of Aberdeen, to help small businesses. And I hope the new member will do so as well because to help food manufacturers and others to grow and prosper in some of the most expensive streets of the Granite City where business rates do not reflect the traditional activities of many working here. We need to have these changes. The leader of Aberdeen city council this morning on the radio. I am delighted but at least one Labour politician shares our optimism. I am delighted to be here today for the economic future of the North East of Scotland. With the new regional MSP for our example, we should join the ranks of doom and gloom North East Labour MSP who never have anything positive to say about our great region. The question needs to be answered. I hope it's going to be answered very soon. We are very proud of our region and very proud of what is going to do. I shall remind, Presiding Officer, about reserve powers at Westminster at today's still the real bias to reduce inequality and poverty in Scotland. I now move to close the speeches and call Cameron Buchanan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this opportunity to discuss what can be done to address the social and economic problems facing Scotland, including the need to help people into well-paid work. Discussions on a broad general economic and social policy strikes at the very heart of political beliefs that each of us hold, so it is hardly surprising that they have raised such a robust political debate. Such a sweeping topic obviously touches on a wide range of issues and my colleague Nanette Milne has already highlighted a number of issues around poverty and inequality. I therefore think it would be best for me to use this time to narrow our focus onto one key aspect of economic life, which is ensuring that people in work get the take-home pay that they deserve. This is actually a positive story of improvements in this area, which is certainly worth examining as we debate wider and social economic policies. On top of this, from next April, the introduction of a national living wage will mean approximately £900 a year pay rise for someone working full-time on the minimum wage. By 2020, this will reach more than £9 an hour, which is worth at least an extra £4,800 a year in extra cash terms. Taking tax-benefit changes into account, it means a renting family with two children where both parents work 35 hours a week on the minimum wage will see their income increase in cash terms by more than £5,500. A key point to make here is that this government policy has not been announced in isolation, but rather in the context of increased growth and business confidence that is needed to make the reform stick. As well as this good news, it is worth looking at how people's incomes can be improved beyond the headline rates of pay. We Conservatives therefore recognise that the importance of supporting people to keep more of what they earn by targeting take-home rates of pay. Back in 2010, the personal allowance was £6,475, but in the coming year this will have risen to £10,600, which makes a substantial difference to how much pay stays in your own pocket rather than in the tax match. At the time when the threshold for income tax was raised, value-added tax was increased to 20 per cent, and there was a substantial increase as there has been almost every year in other indirect taxes. You give with one hand, you take it all away and more with the other. Working people are no better off. The SNP is a great example of taking with one hand and giving back with the other. The main point to underline is that policy decisions cannot be reassessed in isolation. Time again has been shown that policies must take into account the context in which they will be applied, including social, economic and political factors. This applies on two levels. Firstly, it has to be a full understanding of how the problem to be fixed or benefit to be gained by a policy fits in with other priorities. Secondly, all direct and indirect consequences have to be weighed up. After all, experiences have shown that behavioural responses to government policies do not necessarily match policy makers' intentions all of the time. This ties in with Alex Rowley's statement about using the full powers of the current and future disposal of the Scottish Parliament. Whilst it is tempting to use the powers that this Parliament has and to legislate for every issue, spending decisions must be balanced by fiscal restraint. Such decision-making and trade-offs are after all the difficult business on accountable policies. The point here is that, as we strive to achieve social and economic success, we have to ensure that social goals are achieved and we maintain the economic competitiveness that drives unemployment. That is not to say that the two are somehow a trade-off. A competitive economy is a fundamental driver of both social and economic progress. To retain a successful economy and the high levels of employment, it is vital that Scotland remains competitive, both within the UK and internationally. We have to underpin our policy aims for Scotland with an overreaching objective to making it an attractive place to live, work and invest in. Despite the rhetoric that often surrounds debates about tax, the aim of a low-tax approach to direct taxes is to foster the conditions where jobs are created, so that economic opportunities are as widely available as possible. I do not think that I have got the time, thank you. Economic opportunities are as widely available as possible, which allows social aims to be met. I mention rhetoric as well as the policy because it can play a large role in shaping the investment climate that underpins our economy. I say this because it is particularly important in the run-up to more tax powers being devolved through the Scotland Bill that the political debate in Scotland is not centered on a competition to tax the most. To create a fair and prosperous country, which we all want to see, a nuanced approach to policymaking is required that understands when the government should step back as when it should step in. I think today's debate highlighted where social and economic challenges may lie ahead for Scotland, as well as pointing towards what can be done to address them. I also hope that we can draw on areas where there has been substantial positive news, such as increasing pay. However, we must recognise that more needs to be done. Our approach, as more powers come to the Scottish Parliament, should be to understand the context in which policies are made so that economic and social aims can be achieved not just because we legislate but because we create the underlying conditions that allow them to be achieved. As Willie Rennie has said and others, the best way out of poverty is work. I think that there is quite a considerable bit of agreement across the chamber, particularly on the will and the desire to reduce inequalities and create a fairer and most prosperous country. What I would say is that that is a key priority for this Scottish Government and we will always do what we can within the powers that we have to reduce inequality and we will do it with powers that are coming as well. In fact, when Alex Rowley opened the debate today, his remarks to me were an endorsement of our programme for government because it was very little I could disagree with in what Alex Rowley said in his opening remarks. I'll give way briefly. The minister said that she'd use all the powers that are going to be coming available to the Scottish Government. Does that mean that she's going to increase income tax? What I said was that we will always do everything that we can with the powers that we have to continue to address inequality. I think that the cabinet secretary answered that question as well earlier on. What we have said is that this current year, and it might answer Hugh Henry's point, the powers that we have to increase income tax has to be across all the bans. The Government is very much of the view that we do not wish to increase income tax for those in the lower paid or the lower end of the market. That is why we have said that. We will continue to say that we are not going to increase the tax burden on the poorest paid in our country. Hugh Henry also made a couple of points about universalism. Of course it is not universalism across everything at all costs. Mark McDonald made that very clear what he was talking about. Hugh Henry also said a couple of things that I absolutely disagree with. He said that people in his constituency are not benefiting from free prescriptions and some of the measures that the Scottish Government has taken. I can say him quite categorically in my constituency, which is a very deprived area in my constituency. I know that many people in a very low income are benefiting from that policy of free prescriptions. Those in benefit were always getting free prescriptions. I know that, but people in a low income benefit very much and appreciate very much the policy of free prescriptions. I think that she is misquoting me. I did not say that people in low incomes did not get any benefit. I did not say that there was no one in my constituency to get any benefit. What I have said is that the very poorest people in my constituency have not received a single extra penny. That is true. It will be as true for the same people in her constituency. I was saying a number of things to talk about measures, and I will take that point up. For example, the bedroom tax is very poor as people in my constituency. I am sure that, in his constituency, he benefited from our policy in the bedroom tax, the council tax reduction scheme, where in terms of charges and that, they benefit as well. I am not going to debate who is poorer and who is poorer. I think that the policies that we are taking are helping to reduce inequality across Scotland, and we will continue to promote policies like that. I would say another point that has been raised by Nanette Macmillan and Cameron Buchanan in winding up when they talk about supporting people into work. We all want to support people into work. It is an absolute priority. There is no disagreement from me that work is the best way to get people out of poverty, but we need to support people into work in many cases. We are getting from the UK Government, and we should all be outraged at that. That is where our cabinet secretary for where work is involved in discussions today. What we are getting devolved in 2017 is a reduction of 87 per cent in the funding for the work programme. I think that that is something that should worry all of us who want to support people into work. I hope that I will support the Labour Party in saying that that is an absolute outrage. If Nanette Macmillan has any influence at all with George Osborne, I would certainly take that to him because I think that that is an absolute outrage. To carry on from what I was saying about the living way about fair work and work practices, absolutely work is the best way out of poverty. The real concern is what we are seeing now is people in work who are in poverty as well. That is a concern. I think that that answered the point that the cabinet secretary of when he intervened in Cameron Buchanan, that people in work are getting poorer because of policies of Westminster in many cases and that they cannot hide from that. Through our fairer discussions throughout Scotland, that is what we heard from across Scotland. Income and wages are what is important to people and the practices in the workplace. We believe that it makes sense both economically and socially. It is critical to the inclusive growth agenda that is clearly set out in our economic strategy. While we welcome the UK Government's commitment to increasing the national minimum wage, let me be clear that it is not a living wage and it should not be called so. A living wage is a wage that is based on the cost of living and people can actually live off it. A national minimum wage, they cannot. The UK Government is trying to say that what it is proposing is a living wage. It is not. It is an increase to the minimum wage, but we welcome any increase to wages from anyone across Scotland across the country. Since 2013-14, we have invested around £1.6 million a year in the living wage rate across the part of the public sector where the Scottish Government controls the pay bill. That has benefited around 3,000 workers. We are continuing to work towards encouraging more and more employers to sign up to the living wage. Recently, I attended an event in my constituency where an employer was announcing becoming a living wage. The announcement was to the employees and the difference that that made. To see the employees working out the difference that could make to their lifestyle was quite encouraging. Alex Rowley. If in the social care sector something like 90 per cent of the money that is going in is public sector money for public sector contracts, then the only way that we are going to achieve the living wage across the care sector is by the Government putting the money in to make it happen. The Government is working with COSLA and the care sector. We are committed to encouraging and promoting and seeing the living wage across the care sector. We have provided £12.5 million in 2015-16 as part of a tripartite arrangement with local authorities and care providers. That is worth £25 million to improve the quality of care provided by the sector and to living wage. It is part of our plans to retain and recruit into the care sector. Also, in terms of the integration of health and social care, part of the money set aside for that is to encourage local authorities and care sector to work towards and provide the living wage. Yes, we very much want to see every employer in Scotland provide and pay the living wage. I am going to wind up now. We have heard on housing that we have had a great endorsement for our housing policy from Alex Rowley at the start of the debate, so I do not need to say that. I wind up with simply saying what I started by saying that we will always use the powers that we have to reduce inequality across Scotland. Our policy is absolutely at the heart of what we do. That is why we are working as a Government. It is the core of what we are doing, and we will continue to do that both with our current powers and with any new powers that come to this Parliament. I call now on Jenny Marra to wind up the debate, Ms Marra. I can give you 10 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is my great pleasure to support the motion in Alex Rowley's name this afternoon and close this debate on behalf of the Labour Party. Can I start by welcoming my newest colleague Leslie Brennan to the chamber? It is a great privilege to represent North East Scotland, and I am sure that she will feel that privilege and that joy as much as I do. This is a debate that should unite everyone in this chamber—an opportunity to put on record our shared ambition to use our Parliament to reduce poverty and inequality and our desire to work together to achieve it. While there might be some disagreement on which policies we should prioritise to meet this goal, I do not doubt for one second the intentions of a single member of this Parliament with regard to our hopes of making life better for people in our communities whose lives are blighted by economic poverty and the poverty of hope. Together, we cannot and should not accept the inappropriate housing that many families have to make do with the deep-rooted health inequalities, which means that some people will die years before others just because of their postcode and a system that fails to realise the potential of so many young people on the basis of their family income and living circumstances. We should be united in striving to create better jobs and opportunities for those reliant on insecure and low-paid work and ready to mould a compassionate and generous social security system for those who cannot work. We have debated this afternoon work and the importance of work. I am so committed to this as the name of this party. We believe and always have done for the hundreds of years since we were founded in the dignity of work and the dignity that that affords people and their families. It has been interesting to hear the contributions on work this afternoon. Stuart McMillan talked about re-industrialising Scotland. That is an ambition that I share, but how about the reality of what has gone on over the last nine years? How about the 750 renewables jobs that Alex Salmond promised to Dundee and not one has been delivered? How about the 65,000 job losses in oil and gas, which Dennis Robertson does not see as a crisis, and the SNP denied that there would be a problem in oil and gas throughout the two years that we had our referendum? How about, in my community, the civil service jobs promise to Dundee, not one delivered by Shona Robison, who made great play of this in opposition, not one delivered in government? How about the potential job losses by Mr Swinney's local authority cuts, estimated by my newest colleague Leslie Brennan at 750 in Dundee alone? As a Parliament, we can build a society that ensures those who can afford to pay their fair share do just that, and those who need it most get the helping hand that they need. If poverty and inequality could be eradicated so easily by our debates, it would have been abolished long ago. Sadly, overturning deep-rooted poverty and inequalities that exist in our communities will take much, much more. Let there be no doubt that today in Scotland they do exist. The Government's own poverty adviser, Naomi Ninestack, who the First Minister had her picture taken with just a few months ago, has told us that living standards in our own country remain flat and material child deprivation is increasing today in Scotland. So why I ask, with a Parliament united in our disgust at Scotland's poverty, have we not been able to do more to help those living with it? I agree that the UK Government must shoulder some of the blame. Their ideological pursuit of cuts in a smaller state and a harsh benefits regime has undone much of the progress on child and pensioner poverty made by the last Labour Government. I think Cameron talks of us all being in this together, yet his political priority is to cut inheritance tax for the wealthiest while the victims of welfare reform queue in food banks. His strategy for tackling child poverty is to alter the targets and not to change lives. No-one believes that humiliating poverty exists in our communities as a recent development or that any First Minister could reverse decades of decline and deep-rooted inequality with one swish of their hands. With the power over education, health, housing and job creation, this SNP Government should not be content just to blame the UK Government or accept the inevitability of unequal communities. You have the power, they have the power to change things for the better and they are responsible for the choices made within the Scottish budget and now also the scope of that budget. Malcolm Chisholm made a powerful plea to the SNP this afternoon to consider their revenue powers. He pointed to the devastating cuts in local authorities, £80 million in Edinburgh and £28 million in Dundee. Every council worker, apart from teachers in my home city, thousands of council workers have been sent a letter offering them voluntary redundancy. I know that Mr McMillan will want to hear this in his own region. This Government told council workers at the last election that there would be no compulsory redundancies in local authorities. What they did not tell council workers was that they would receive a polite letter on their desks asking them to go quietly. Alex Neil says that the cuts to council budgets is 2 per cent. The reality is that it is over double that. As SNP MP colleagues are saying today that there is nothing to do with them. Alex Neil will tell us if the Labour Party had been in power, which taxes would it now be raising or which other budgets would be the cutting so that local government could get more money as allegedly wanted by Ms Marr? I am agast that Alex Neil has asked this question. We are the only party in this Parliament that has put on record that we will raise tax to create more revenue for a fairer Scotland. Order. Settle down. The Scottish Government has shied away from using the taxation system to fund a point of order. Sorry, I did not quite catch what the member said. Did the member say that they were going to raise taxes this year? Which ones? The minister heard exactly what I said. Can you advise me how much time I have left? The First Minister has unprecedented power. She likes to boast about her approval ratings but does not have a single redistributive policy to boast of. A First Minister who enjoys unwielded unprecedented power in this country but becomes powerless when she is required to act instead of blaming Scotland's problems on other people. The Government achieved a huge victory in 2011 and with it came the power to reshape this country as they wished. What an opportunity and a privilege. We now have a First Minister with enough political capital to take the hard decisions needed to tackle poverty. As this five-year term draws to a close, those on the Government benches should have caused to reflect on how they have used that mandate. They may think on whether they could have done more and spent more time on tackling poverty and inequality in Scotland. The past cannot be undone but we can look ahead to the next Parliament and the opportunity of a new Scottish Government with even more power to bring about change. My hope, Presiding Officer, of a First Minister after May, who is brave enough to commit to tackling poverty and inequality that shames Scotland, makes the case why it is in all of our interests to build a fairer and more equal society and gains a mandate for real action to end poverty and equality. As Parliament, Presiding Officer, has presided for too long over poverty in our communities, yes, but even worse, a poverty of ambition and courage to change it. I hope that that changes next term. That concludes the debate on achieving social and economic success for all of Scotland. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 15298, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request but now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15298. The next item of business is consideration of five business motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move motion number 15293 to 15297, setting out timetables for various bills on block. I propose to ask a single question on those motions. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. No member has objected to a single question being put, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motions number 15293 to 15297, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are there for agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motions number 15299 and 15300 on approval of SSIs. The questions on those motions will be put decision time to which we now come. There are five questions as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 15290.4, in the name of Alex Neil, which seeks to amend motion number 15290, in the name of Alex Rowley, on achieving social and economic success for all of Scotland, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? If the Parliament is not agreed, we move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15290.4, in the name of Alex Neil, is as follows, yes, 94, no, 18. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is amendment number 15290.3, in the name of Nanette Milne, which seeks to amend motion number 15290, in the name of Alex Rowley, on achieving social and economic success for all of Scotland, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? If the Parliament is not agreed, we move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15290.3, in the name of Nanette Milne, is as follows, yes, 13. No, 99, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is motion number 15290, in the name of Alex Rowley, as amended, on achieving social and economic success for all of Scotland, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15290, in the name of Alex Rowley, as amended, is as follows, Yes, 94. No, 18. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 15299, in the name of Dolfitt's Particle and Approve of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 15300, in the name of Dolfitt's Particle and Approve of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.