 The next item of business is a debate on motion 8305 in the name of John Swinney on transition to a well-being economy. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak were to press their request to speak buttons now and I call on John Swinney to speak to and move the motion up to 12 minutes, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The performance of any country's economy is not an abstract concept. The prospects for the economy and the focus of the economy are fundamental to the life chances of every person in our society. They affect the living standards of our people. They affect the ability of people to fulfil their potential. They affect the choices we can make about how we use our resources. At the heart of this debate today, they all on a cumulative basis affect the wellbeing of our people. That is the rationale behind this Government's determination to pursue a wellbeing economy on behalf of the people of Scotland. The cost of living crisis, the obvious and recognised negative consequences of the UK Government's mini-budget last September and the impacts of Brexit are all creating a significant impact on the wellbeing in Scotland of people, businesses, the third sector and our vital public services. The UK budget from last week outlined the gravity of the situation with the Office for Budget Responsibility estimating that the impact on household disposal income over the last year and this year of a fall of 5.7 per cent being the highest in living memory. This represents the largest two-year fall in real living standards since the ONS records began in the 1950s. It means that by 27-28 real living standards in Scotland will still be around 0.5 per cent below pre-pandemic levels. UK inflation has again risen today and although the OBR has forecasted inflation to fall by the end of 2023, the severe impact on households in Scotland of the cost of living crisis brings home the impact on wellbeing and the lack of economic resilience within the UK economy. The other feature that both the OBR and the Scottish Fiscal Commission highlight is the slow long-term growth rate. I believe that the OBR forecasts 1.2 per cent in the Scottish Fiscal Commission 1.1. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could outline what his thoughts are of the relationship because ultimately to have a growing economy not make it easier to deliver a wellbeing economy. There is obviously a significant factor in the performance of the economy, as my opening remarks make clear, that the way in which the size of the economy, the way the economy develops, how it grows, how it has its impact on people, all is relevant to the circumstances and the wellbeing of individuals. One of the key issues—I'll come on to it, so Johnstone will not be surprised by that—is the whole issue of population growth, which is a significant factor in the development of any national economy. I think that Scotland is significantly inhibited, as the Scottish Fiscal Commission report this morning indicates. I'll come on to say a great deal more about that particular point. I'm sure everybody will get a bit teary this afternoon that this is the last contribution of the Deputy First Minister, but I anti-some to make some views known about the various candidates for the leadership and their contribution on the issue of taxation, because I've seen there's some variety of views. I'm sure they'll be keen to hear the Deputy First Minister's advice about what the future policy on taxation should be. I'm sure. I'm always one who wants to keep myself in proper order in Parliament, and I think I might be straying if I moved into the debate. I was actually going to say something kind of at Mr Rennie later on, and I just want to— I'm being encouraged to strike it from the record, but I'm going to be more generous than that in my opinion generosity. Can I just say to Mr Rennie just to get his expectations in the right place? This is not my last speech. I've got another one at the end of this debate, so be careful what he intervenes on me about before we get to that particular point. The budget that was set out by the chancellor last week, and this is where I recognise the scale of challenge facing the chancellor, has often necessity had to act to repair the damage done by the UK mini-budget that crashed pension markets and led to higher borrowing costs. Decisions have consequences, and we are having to live with them, and they will have an impact on the wellbeing of people in Scotland. As we continue to deal with the aftermath, today's debate is focused on how we achieve a more balanced and sustainable approach to the economy, one that prioritises wellbeing across social, economic and environmental dimensions and recognises the interlinkages and the need to address these issues together. That essentially is the point that Mr Johnson invites me to comment upon about the fact that, yes, growth is important in the economy, but the implications and the impact of that growth and how we use resources in achieving that growth are equally significant considerations. Of course. Brian Whittle. I'm very grateful for the chemistry to take an intervention. He'll know my passion around health and the fact that Scotland is the unhealthiest nation in Europe. Would he agree with me that the key battleground is a long-term investment in education? In the broader sense of that education, if we're going to tackle economic growth, it will require investment in education. Cabinet Secretary. Well, yes, and I think a good thing about the investment that this Government makes in education is the fact that we've now got the record levels of young people leaving our education system to go to positive destinations and positive outcomes. And we've got the largest proportion of young people from deprived backgrounds entering higher and further education than we've ever had in our history. So these are just two examples of some of the success that's being delivered in Scotland today. But of course there are cautionary notes, and this morning we saw that in the publication of the fiscal sustainability report from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which provides a 50-year outlook of Scotland's fiscal position, and the stark projections that Scotland's population will age and decline over the longer term, with our working age population also forecast to fall, while a slight increase is forecast for the UK as a whole. Those changes, alongside other factors, are projected to increase pressures on spending, particularly on health. This is where I get to the importance of the point of ensuring that we are able to support and sustain population growth, because these issues are issues which have been... If that fiscal sustainability report had been written 20 years ago, it would have said much the same thing, but in the last 20 years we have been saved from the impact of projections of that type by the effect of EU migration into Scotland and the population growth that has come with it. We are now, I fear, I suspect the report begins to reinforce that point, beginning to see the significant impact of the loss of free movement of EU citizens, being able to choose the jurisdictions in which they are operating, and living and operating, and as a consequence Scotland will suffer more acute pressures as a consequence. I'm very grateful to the Deputy First Minister, and I agree with some of the concerns that he's just cited. Nonetheless, there was a very important study done by the Financial Times just last week, which shows a slightly different picture, namely that some of the migration into Scotland is coming from different destinations, but nonetheless there's a very positive sign when it comes to those who are coming to Scotland for some of the better-paid jobs. Does he acknowledge that? Of course I'm going to take no issue with that, that's very welcome indeed, and that's about ensuring, and our universities are in my view absolutely critical to this whole endeavour of creating the economic opportunities through the research collaborations. I was recently visiting the University of Glasgow and the magnificent Mizzoumbershaw Advanced Research Centre, which has been developed with the incredible generosity of Cairn Mizzoumbershaw and the late John Shaw, which is providing a focal point for investment in advanced research. That will create the type of employment opportunities that Liz Smith highlights, which of course is very significant in relation to the other sectors, including the financial services sector. Of course I'll give way to Mr Epson. Kenneth Gibson very much for accepting an intervention. Just on 6 March I actually awarded an apprenticeship certificate to a young man who three weeks later, i.e. roundabout now, is emigrating to Australia. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it's perhaps a double-edged sort of fact that people who are educated and trained in Scotland are in such demand worldwide that many of them do actually seek pastures new and that more has to be done to try and retain some of the people born, brought and educated here in Scotland? I think that that's an important objective, but we should also recognise that people will want to move to other jurisdictions for wider experience and economic opportunity, but we have to be able to ensure that we can welcome others who come into our society, and that's where Scotland's opportunities have been constrained by the folly of Brexit, which has been undertaken. Of course I'll give way to Mr Epson. I'm grateful to the Deputy First Minister for taking this extra point, and that is that last year the UK had its highest ever net migration in excess of half a million people more came to the UK than left the UK. So what is the Deputy First Minister's analysis as to why perhaps of that half a million we don't get enough people coming to Scotland to live? There's obviously a range of factors that will have an effect on that, but they would certainly be welcome because if we look at the labour market data for Scotland, we now see we have near record lows in unemployment and economic connectivity and very high, almost record levels of employment within Scotland. So we have a very tight and constrained labour market, so the invitation for people to come to Scotland is very clear as a consequence to ensure that they can benefit from and experience the strong public service offering that we have within Scotland, which can make a significant impact on the quality of life of these individuals. So the objectives of the Government in advancing the wellbeing economy strategy demonstrated by the contents of the national strategy on economic transformation are all about ensuring that we take forward a balanced approach to economic opportunity within Scotland. We have got to strike the correct balance between the pursuit of investment in our society, the attraction of international investment, the utilisation of resources and ensuring that we are supporting the enhancement of the wellbeing of individuals within our society. Those interrelated questions lie right at the very heart of the economic strategy that the Government is taking forward. Why is that necessary? Well, it's necessary because of the challenges that face our society, whether we are looking at the question of climate change, whether we are looking at the question of energy sustainability, whether we are looking at the question of wider economic opportunity, all of those factors are relevant in judging the approach that we need to take to ensure that we create the strongest possible economic foundations for our society. So we need to develop an economic model that addresses all of those questions. The underlying causes of the interrelated crises that I've talked about in the course of my speech today, underline the need to strengthen and transform our economy to one that is socially just, that's delivering a better, more prosperous future for everyone in Scotland, one that empowers communities, protects and regenerates our natural environment and builds long-term resilience to future shocks, which inevitably will come our way. The OECD has indicated that this type of economic model, a model which enables us to take a balanced approach, which of course is anathema to what we heard from the mini budget in September, is exactly the right approach to be taken. In 2017, the Scottish Government held a significant conference on inclusive economic growth from that international event, the idea of forming a coalition with other progressive governments to develop an advance and new economic approach emerged. This led to the establishment of the international wellbeing economy governments network, along with New Zealand and Iceland. This group meets regularly to share ideas and good practice and it now includes Finland and Wales. Other countries are also engaging ever more closely with the network. I appreciate that you have taken several interventions but we are tight for time this afternoon. I'll draw my march to close but this network is now bearing significant fruit in the sharing of economic and intellectual thinking between Scotland and other jurisdictions that have a significant role to play. All of this is relevant to ensuring that we create an economy that meets the needs of all of our citizens in Scotland, one that uses our resources wisely and plans and basis on the investment for the future. The motion from the Government today indicates the steps that we need to take to ensure that we turn that into a reality in the forthcoming period. I now call on Liz Smith to speak to and move amendment 8305.2 up to 8 minutes. Before I come to the issue in hand, I want to say something about John Swinney. He won't know this but the first time that I knew very much about Mr Swinney when he was part of a poster that was on my classroom wall way back in 1997. A little bit more her suit perhaps than he is today but my S5 modern studies class had been looking at the 1997 general election and of course Mr Swinney was beaming because he had just won the North Tayside seat, something like 4,000 votes. While I hope that my lesson was interesting for my modern studies pupils, it perhaps was not quite so good for me given that 1997 saw Mr Swinney overturn a traditionally powerful Tory seat and of course 1997 was also the occasion where we lost all our seats in Scotland. However, I don't think that the SNP should clap just yet. Once elected myself, I got to know John Swinney pretty well, most especially in the education brief and then laterally in the finance brief. We've probably not agreed on terribly much over the years, in fact I think he might argue very little, but I hope he will agree at least that we have enjoyed some engaging conversations, one of which I actually want to refer to in just a minute. No one could doubt John Swinney's commitment to public service or to government and I'm very grateful for the courteous approach that he's made to me at least most of the time and I want to thank him for that. I will miss him in terms of our front bench engagement and I hope that he will be true to his word in saying that he will be an enthusiastic participant from the back benches, but may I take this opportunity to wish him all the best in the future. The quite unbelievable events that have been taking place inside the SNP in recent weeks, in fact it's quite hard to keep up. I suspect that John Swinney is feeling a bit like I did in 1997 when I was asked on BBC Radio Scotland why my party had suffered such a meltdown. Maybe I could offer him some advice about that interview because it's perhaps just a little ironic that his last debate in this chamber as a senior minister will be on the subject of wellbeing, but that's exactly what is in front of us today. Let me set out my thoughts on wellbeing before coming to our amendment. It's here that I want to refer back to one of the discussions that I had with John Swinney when we were both in the education briefing. He was rightly at the time, he was very exercised about underperforming schools and what to do about them. We were discussing SQA exam grades, we were discussing the numbers that were sitting, the different levels of exams class sizes, teacher numbers, all valid considerations, but we also agreed on the fact that not everything that is important in education is actually measurable. What is really good about education should be about building resilience in our young people, increasing their confidence and their self-esteem, helping them to become much more responsible and understanding what it is to be tolerant and appreciative of a team. For those reasons, I am putting forward my bill on outdoor education because I think that those are some of the things that young people should have and they are not quantifiable. John Swinney said something interesting that day and I very much agreed with him. Of course, none of those qualities can become a reality for our young people unless they are complementary to and build upon the good quality educational experience inside the classroom. So why do I refer back to that conversation? Because it has a relevance to this debate. I understand when people talk about the development of a wellbeing economy that the feel-good factor is vitally important when it comes to delivering better opportunities across the board. It is not measurable, but we know that it matters. To those 100 or so leaders from civic society and faith groups who signed the letter last year to the Scottish Government about the importance of wellbeing, they make it clear that they do not think that the national performance framework does nearly enough to put in place the basic building blocks on which Scotland can build a better society and better environment. I want, if you do not mind, they are also very critical of the focus on GDP as a measure of economic success. The trouble is, of course, that the aspiration to build a wellbeing economy depends on our success and on creating the growth and on widening the tax base. I was very interested in what Kate Forbes said, and I think that she is absolutely correct that this should be the urgent priority of the Scottish Government. It is echoed in today's headlines from the chambers of commerce, and Kate Forbes is also correct to say that continuity just will not cut it. She knows only too well that the focus of the Scottish Government over a long period of time now has been elsewhere. She knows that being tied to the Bute House agreement when the Greens have rejected the concept of economic growth, it is a major problem for the Scottish Government and more importantly for Scotland. Back in April 2017 and again in June 2019, we debated in the chamber via the Conservative motions what we should be doing to deliver economic growth. How we wish that the Scottish Government had listened at that time, because it might just have saved them the embarrassment of Kate Forbes in her very brutally honest way, telling us that the status quo is just not acceptable of where to make the best use of Scotland's undoubted talents. She knows only too well where the SNP economic policy has been failing. I am grateful to Liz Smith for giving me, and I will come back to her other remarks later on. Does Liz Smith not understand that she is on rather thin ice in giving the SNP Government advice on economic policy? When she herself was demanding that I follow the Liz Truss budget in September of last year, and if I had done that, I would have caused absolute mayhem with the public finances of Scotland. Mr Swinney knows that I was not a supporter of the Liz Truss. What I did support were some of the principles of achieving a low-tax economy, and I think that that is something that is extremely important. I also agree with Liz Truss at the time about the importance of economic growth. Mr Swinney cited earlier about the Scottish Fiscal Commission's comments that economic growth is absolutely essential to deal with the problems that the Scottish Fiscal Commission is facing. That is exciting, and that is something else. The other issue that Mr Swinney mentioned about working population size in relation to the dependent population, the other issue is in terms of delivering a wellbeing economy, is the projections about the social security spend. That is to increase from £4.2 billion in this financial year just ending to £7.3 billion in financial year 2027-28, and that is going to be £1.4 billion more than the projected funding received from the UK Government. That is quite a statistic. When it comes to discussions about what we have to do, wellbeing is a concept that is so important, but it cannot be delivered unless we are true to the spirit of developing economic growth and ensuring that we can all benefit for an economy that is far more prosperous. I move the amendment in my name. The last few weeks have been a bit of a parliamentary break, a hiatus, a holiday almost. We all know that feeling when you are coming back from holiday. That family that looked like the model of congeniality when you were checking in are the ones having the biggest falling out of the front of the airplane on your way back. A bit like when you are coming back from holiday, I feel like in Parliament we are being handed out at these Government motions to distract us and keep us busy as the airplanes are being stacked and delayed on landing. As much as I am pleased to be talking about wellbeing, I wonder if we are talking about the economy, why we are not talking about how we get the country off gas, how we deal with the cost of living crisis, how we fill the skills gaps in the key strategic sectors, how we scale up for Scotland, but let's talk about the wellbeing economy instead. It is important, because ultimately we need to ask ourselves, are we measuring what we value? I would be the first to acknowledge that a narrow economic focus on GDP is part of that. I came into politics with the firm belief that we need to tackle inequality, and that inequality is measured and defined by both social and economic injustices. I would also say this, if you look in Scotland, those injustices are not just ethereal, they are regional, they are based in our communities. If you look here in Edinburgh, you just go 30 miles up the road to Dundee, which is a point that I have made before in the chamber, and you see drastic and radical differences in wages, in life opportunities and outcomes. The difference that those communities need is measured in things like housing, public transport, primary healthcare—those are real, tangible and measurable economic inputs with measurable economic outcomes. I think that there is a danger of mistake when we discuss a wellbeing economy, that we somehow think that the economy is not something that is measurable, that growth is incompatible with those things. As the resolution foundation is very clear, it is not either or. Torsten Bell made this point very clearly in a recent blog, that you need to both grow the pie as well as looking at the distribution of the pie. In fact, you cannot easily change the distribution, how the pie is divided if you are not growing it. That is a point that they make very clear in the happy now report. It is about the right kind of growth, not whether or not we have growth. That is why we moved the amendment in our name this afternoon, because I think that that is the mistake that potentially lies at the heart of the Government. Unless you have growth, you cannot deal with the overarching imperatives in front of the economy, technology disruption, delivering net zero demography, because each one of those things actually requires workers to be able to do their jobs better more effectively, to be using technology to do more efficiently and ultimately deliver wage-led growth. We need productivity growth to deliver on those things. I think that the issue that we have now from the Government is that confusion. We have NSET, which has comprehensively expunged growth from its entirety. We have the current Cabinet Secretary for the Economy and Finance saying that we need to reset our thinking on the economy. That is quite an extraordinary statement, but I do not think that it is necessarily a surprise. I think that we need to acknowledge that, when this Government came into power in 2007, it did bring a fresh approach. One that was about ambition, focus and streamlining the machinery of government. That is not what we have seen subsequently, not just about ditching growth. I think that we have seen a changing, switching focus moving from area to area. One moment talking about the Saudi Arabia of Wind, moving on to life sciences technology and never really clear about what their clear focus was. We have gone from a situation where they were determined to streamline agencies to one where we actually have more and with very overlapping purposes and functions. Ultimately, we see a Government now 15 years on, one that is more focused on process than it is on outcomes. One that, when it is an issue presented to it, will point to another working group being created or another report being commissioned. That is an issue. The context that we are faced with is serious. We have an issue with wage and employment growth relative to the rest of the UK, where, once we would be second only to London and the South East, that position is distinctly under threat. The figures from the Scottish Fiscal Commission in its most recent report on fiscal sustainability are a wake-up call. It suggests that there is going to be a long-term funding deficit of almost 2 per cent, driven by the fact—sorry, 1.7 per cent—by the fact that our growth rate in the long-term is projected to be just 1.2. Ultimately, if we are going to deliver a wellbeing economy, we need a plan to put that right. A plan that grows jobs, well-paid jobs and highly productive jobs to grow the economy in the right way. That is what we need to focus on. I am afraid not. In my last minute, I would like to—while I do not believe that John Swinney will agree with any of my critiques of the Government—I do think that, probably, he would agree with some of the analysis. If I could just pay a small, brief tribute to John Swinney, he is a very serious politician. I cannot say that I have always relished facing him in the Chamber, but that is a compliment because he is a formidable person to try to challenge and try to probe. I believe that he is someone who brings focus, purpose and pragmatism to Government, and I think that those are essential qualities. Above all, I do believe that he is a reformer, someone who believes in the power of the Government to do good and someone who I think has applied himself to that purpose. While I have my criticisms of the Government, I do not think that the fault with the Government was John Swinney's presence within it. In some ways, it is that there are not more people like John Swinney on its benches. If that is a backhanded opposition's compliment, believe me, it is a compliment indeed. I look forward to him applying that focus, purpose and pragmatism from the back benches, because it is as needed there as it is anywhere from those in these chambers. I wish him very well in his future endeavours, both within Parliament and out with it. John Swinney, can I ask you to explicitly move your amendment? Move the amendment in my name, just in case that was not caught. It was not explicit enough, but I am very grateful to you. I now call Willie Rennie for up to six minutes. There probably is not sufficient time this afternoon to pay full tribute to John Swinney for all his list of achievements in office, so I am not going to. There also is not a length of time this afternoon to list his catastrophic failures. I am not going to do that either for fear that he might list my catastrophic failures over my time in office. I have been jealous of John Swinney in his time as a minister, because he is so effective at his job. I would regard him as the Government's sweeper. I do not know how many interviews I have heard on Radio Scotland, where I have been none the wiser at the end of the interview about the Government's position at the start. That is a tribute, because sometimes it was better that people did not know the Government's actual position. He has also been generous and kind, but equally could be utterly savage to those who got out of step. He has been confident but never arrogant. I think that we should all recognise the talent that John Swinney is and the contribution that he has made to this Parliament over such a long period of time. I think that the Government benches will miss him. I know that the whole Parliament will miss him and I wish him well in whatever comes next. However, he could not resist putting a little sting in the tail of his motion this afternoon injecting independence, although he did not talk about it an awful lot in his opening contribution. I am sure that he will make up for that in the closing contribution. For me, that highlighted one of the challenges that the Government has faced. It has been attracted to things such as the wellbeing monitor and the wellbeing economy throughout its time in office. It attaches itself to wider movements. Sometimes some people might say that it is only to try to advance the cause of independence. However, there seems to be an attraction, if I can say, to process issues, theories and beliefs rather than a real focus on the delivery. It is important that we have in Government that we deliver and that is why I am attracted to the whole movement of wellbeing. In some ways, it is a bit of a frustrating debate, because both are necessary—economic strength, good GDP and excellent productivity. We need all of that, but in order for people to be happy and have a good life and be well and fit to go to work, we need a fantastic foundation. Both go together. It is not one or the other. It is not the chicken and the egg. It is the actual reality that we need both. We have seen that. It is probably more of a common feature in the past couple of decades, that the quality of life in the local environment is important. That is why Scotland has been attractive to many people who have perhaps come to our universities but have also come to enjoy our fantastic local environment. All of that is in one mix bag. It is important to not really get fixated on one half of the argument and the other. I do get a bit frustrated with the whole wellbeing monitor aspect, because I looked at the latest report in December. Some of the judgments are really quite subjective as to whether they have been passed or not. There is a big debate about whether we are closing the poverty-related detainment gap. If you look at one part of the school population, or certainly not, the gap is just as wide as it has ever been in other parts, perhaps it is closing a little bit. Maybe for school leavers it is slightly better. To claim that we are making improvements as a sum of all that is a bit challenging. Equally, if you look at the share of GDP investment, it is classed as the maintenance or the middle level in terms of performance. It has actually gone down since 2017, so I am not quite sure how that could be described as a steady state. My point is that you could make an argument on both sides as to whether things have improved or not, but I think that it does lend to the argument that what we need is some kind of independent assessment of those measures. Of course there is debate about GDP and productivity and why it has happened, whether it is Westminster's fault or whether it is the Scottish Parliament's fault or whether it is other factors that are considered. Of course there will always be debates about those issues, but we need some independent element to make a judgment to give us a bit more robustness, a bit more confidence that those measures are accurately reflecting our progress on those areas. It is not one or the other, I think that it is both. The work that the Canadian Trust has done has helped in this debate. I think that many other organisations have latched on to this as well. It is important that we have good measures, because if we do not measure it, often it does not count. I want to mention briefly about the immigration debate. I think that we will probably learn through this process of Brexit the real value of being able to have an open society that attracts people from across the globe to come and live and work here and contribute to our public services but also to our strong economy. By being deprived of many of those people through the Brexit process, perhaps we will shift public opinion to be a little bit more in favour of a more open immigration policy. It is something that I would strongly welcome, but there is no doubt that the Scottish economy is partly in trouble because we have not been able to attract enough people. I think that Stephen Kerr makes a not unreasonable point that there have been reasonable numbers of people coming into the UK as a whole, but Scotland has not attracted a disproportionate number of those, even perhaps our population share of those, so that must force us to ask questions about whether we have got the right approach to all of this. I want to commend John Swinney for his contribution to this Parliament, and I wish him well for the future. Thank you very much, Mr Rennie. We move to the open debate. I would advise the chamber that we are running behind times. I will have to ask members to stick to their speaking allocation even if they take an intervention. I call first Paul MacLennan to be followed by Stephen Kerr for up to six minutes, Mr MacLennan. I am delighted to be speaking on this motion today. I am chair of the wellbeing economy cross-party group, and I am proud to be part of a party and a Parliament that is championed in building an economy that is undermined by a wellbeing approach. I strongly believe that GDP is not the only effective indicator of our economy. Focusing policymaking solely in the pursuit of increasing GDP and economic growth is to be to the detriment of other social, environmental and democratic priorities. The wellbeing economy approach allows a holistic view that takes into account social and environmental progress, which is core to building a fairer and more equal society. Our approach must be long-term, because investing in our future in communities now will lead to long-term economic growth and prosperity. Bolder action is needed if we are serious about redesigning our economic system and addressing social and environmental challenges. Our diversion as a country from the UK status quo can allow us to improve our social and environmental outcomes. However, we must acknowledge that the majority of our financial levers are still in the hands of the UK Government, which sees trickle-down economics as a plausible outcome. The wellbeing economy provides a framework for addressing the multiple crisis we are facing, the climate crisis before us, which globally we have only worsened by putting profit before our planet. We are fortunate to have a country rich in renewables, creating green jobs and green investment. The Scottish Government recently published the energy strategy and just transition plan that focuses on renewables revolution. Our green jobs revolution is under way, with low-carbon production jobs estimated to rise from 19,000 in 2019 to 77,000 by 2050. However, we do not hold all the powers to address those issues at their source, which is why the strategy also includes recommended actions for the UK Government to take in reserved policy areas. That includes sufficient borrowing powers. That is part of the combined approach of tackling the climate crisis through a wellbeing approach that seeks to orientate and rewire the economy to embed equality, inclusion and environmental sustainability from the outset. Another aspect of the approach that we have not talked about so far is illuminating structural inequalities around about race, gender, sexual orientation and disabilities and reorganising responsibilities towards future generations. The Scottish Women's Budget Group has been instrumental in pushing for a gendered budgeting approach, which must be considered as we go ahead in a wellbeing economy approach. Working towards equality is an essential part of building a resilient economy. In the first Minister's TED talks in 2019, she said, The goal, the objective of our economic policies should be wellbeing, how happy and how healthy our population is, not just how wealthy it is. The happiest countries in the world tend to be small and dependent nations. Just look at Finland, which has ranked first as the happiest country in the world for six years, which sits alongside us championing the wellbeing economy as members of the wellbeing government partnership. That is an international initiative that we have undertaken with like-minded countries to put the argument for a wellbeing economy on the international stage. At home, we have all been talking about economic growth that the Scottish Government introduced a national strategy for economic transformation, which will drive improvements in Scotland's economy to increase productivity and international competitiveness and deliver fairer, greener and prosperity for all Scotland's people in places. We have already heard about the national performance framework that sets out our wellbeing priorities. In addition, the wellbeing economy monitor provides an important update on our progress. There is growing support for practices such as community wealth building, fair work, purposeful and democratic business models, which I will touch on later on. The just transition agenda and the circular economy. As a wellbeing economy cross-party group, we have met a number of organisations. Willie Rennie mentioned about the Carnegie Trust, which has been an excellent group to work with. Scotland can be in Scotland's mountains budget groups, along with many others. The cross-party group also works very closely with the wellbeing alliance, which has recently published an opening letter that highlighted the five needs that a wellbeing economy should and can meet. That is purpose, dignity, nature, fairness and participation. Core to meeting those needs, we must focus on wealth redistribution, strengthen the public investment and ensure universal basic services and fair wages. We also need to look at a cultural shift. Just last week, I met with Scotland Can Be and they have been championed in the cause of business inclusion and training up our business leaders in order to integrate business into the wellbeing approach. Scotland is a country with strong enterprise heritage, with a progressive economic vision to become a world-during entrepreneurial and innovative nation. We cannot transition to a wellbeing economy with measurement tools and vision alone. A long-term vision requires cultural change and improve understanding about what a wellbeing economy means. Just this morning, I was on turning on beach planting seagrass with WWF in the fourth restoration project, looking to restore seagrass that had over a number of years been disappeared due to overfishing of oysters. We cannot forget the nature emergency that we face here and now. Over 50 people attended the event this morning and was a great example of community action. We need to build in community action as part of building a wellbeing economy. I am delighted that we are debating the wellbeing economy this afternoon, but we must move away from the abstract perception of the wellbeing economy to embedding wellbeing principles into our policy, budgetary, nature and climate-based decisions. I look forward to playing my part. Thank you very much indeed, Mr McLean. I now call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Fiona Hyslop up to six minutes, Mr Kerr. What can I say about this motion? I know that we are all being terribly nice to John Swinney this afternoon, but I have to say that he has put together a collection of words, which is almost wholly meaningless. Let's be frank. This is just a filler debate so that the SNP and the Greens can indulge themselves in some constitutional rants. Paul McLean did not disappoint all about separation and breaking up the United Kingdom. That is the theme that Paul McLean said. This is all intended to cheer the SNP up. My goodness, they need a bit of cheering up. This is all about killing time until the stair-heed rami of the SNP leadership contest is finished. Given how well the candidates have been trashing the SNP's record in government, who would still want to leave it? The amendment in my friend Liz Smith's name is a reconnection with reality. The reality is that we need to rescue Scotland's economy from the mediocracy of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. Kate Forbes' words are not mine. It's ironic to see a motion from the acting finance secretary on his last ministerial appearance in this chamber when the actual finance secretary is busy producing his legacy. A wellbeing economy needs to be a prosperous economy. I always had hopes that John Swinney would learn that a nation cannot tax itself to prosperity, but he leaves government, I fear, unrepentant in this matter. Kate Forbes wants to talk about entrepreneurship and jobs. She wants economic growth, but some sitting on the SNP benches may agree with Kate Forbes that Scotland continues to grow at a rate well below the rest of the United Kingdom. Don't tell Patrick Harvie or Lorna Slater that their whole effort in government is targeted at stopping economic growth. To them, economic growth is all about stuff, and I say that they are right. They do a good job. I agree with my friend that there is stuff like jobs, increasing wages, better job security, rising profitability, higher national productivity, a growing tax base and investment in our public services. The very stuff that they are committed to halting, opposing and destroying wellbeing is, in many ways, undefinable. I tend to find that all the things that really matter to me personally in my life and contribute to my personal and family wellbeing are hard or imprecise to measure. Love, contentment, comfort, security, peace of mind, all these things and many other things make people feel happy. Well-being is about much more than happiness. It's about being able to cope when things are not going as well. It is, as Liz Smith said earlier, about resilience. It is about independence, personal independence. While I am not of the view that the Government is the answer to all our problems, there is work that can be done, especially in helping our young people. Young people need skills that lead to personal fulfilment, and that can be learning an instrument, sport, dance, creative writing, drama or art. Too often we think of those subjects like central planners sitting in an office deciding how many bad pipe players or football or Scotland needs, using an equation to balance art against science. This misses the fundamental point about education. Education is not only about employment. It is about learning skills that help young people find fulfilment. Willie Rennie. I commend the member for his glorious attempt to build consensus across the chamber this afternoon. We have been talking about education. I am a strong believer in early years and the opportunity that that provides to turn young people's lives around and give them a good foundation. What more could the two Governments, UK and Scottish, do to try and make that more of a reality today? I agree with Willie Rennie on both the points that he makes. My middle initial is C for consensus, and I do try to build consensus. Secondly, he makes about the importance of early years. Early years is a very important point in the beginning of the education journey of every single soul. I return to my premise about learning skills that help young people find fulfilment. The guitar in the loft or the hung-up football boots are like a fine cheese laid down for a future maturing until they are there to help us through a tough time. Similarly, life skills such as cooking or managing finances help our young people to stand on their own two feet. How does cutting mental health funding for colleges help any of this? How does cutting subject choice help? Edmund Burke said, if we command our wealth, we shall be rich and free. If our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed. Intergenerational poverty is a curse, and I, along with all of you, want to break that cycle. Helping people to access employment and gaining lasting financial security is a way of lifting that curse. The pride that goes with having a good job that allows you to provide for yourself and your family is so important as to override all other considerations when addressing worklessness. Work builds confidence, and when families provide for themselves, they are stronger. Child poverty is solved by addressing the worklessness of households. If I may conclude by simply saying that this motion speaks volume about the SNP attitude to government, because this is a Government of ideologues, they put ideology ahead of wellbeing. We can hope for a future where government enables wellbeing, but with this party, the two parties in charge, it is never going to happen. Fiona Hyslop, to be followed by Michael Marra, up to six minutes. A wellbeing economy is simply, as I appreciate it, a drive and commitment to finding economic growth that recognises the sustainability of the health, happiness of our people and the planet will be far more productive in the long run to our economy, environment and society. In my view, and I said it in the summer of 2020, our economic response to the major disruption of the pandemic needed to be revolutionary, not evolutionary. Renewable net zero for economic growth, use of natural capital and technological disruption. In recent years, there has been competing pressures to return to economic conformity without the energy of destructive change to reset our economy post Covid, but we have also seen step changes in digital take-up and use in businesses and remodelling due to labour shortages. Indeed, the constant crisis that economy and businesses have had to cope with, inflation, supply line disruptions, labour shortages and much besides, has been destructive, but that does not mean that there has been no progress to the wellbeing economy, it has been more embedded than most people realise. Inclusive economic growth is about saying that measuring GDP is not enough. If GDP measures the economic activity of illegal drug dealing, but not the economic benefit of unpaid carers, then that begs serious questions of value. A wellbeing economy demands a GDP plus measure for economic traditionalists, but I recognise such measurement is in its infancy but growing in interest. The groundbreaking approach of a mission-based approach of Mariana Mazzucato, a prehap professor in the economics of innovation and public value at UCL, is steadily gaining traction and her advice to the Government has been invaluable. The work of Scotland's chief economist and counterparts with the wellbeing governments of Iceland, Wales and New Zealand to establish an internationally recognised wellbeing measure is important. I too welcome as the Government motion does the publication of the wellbeing economy monitor, which tracks broader outcomes beyond GDP on issues such as health, equality, fair work and the environment and the wellbeing economy toolkit, which supports place-based economic development. Fair work is now being mainstreamed across government grant conditions and the role that workers in a business or an organisation can play in improving the processes and the productivity in a supportive environment where fair work is not just about conditions but in operation can shift the dial on the comparative poor productivity rates, which have held back both the UK and the Scottish economies. A wellbeing economy approach is increasingly mainstreamed internationally, but we have yet to apply it to our needs and circumstances fully. That is where the national strategy for economic transformation setting foundations of this approach is a prerequisite, but its focus must be on delivery and delivery and delivery. I would guard against the dangers of such a broad brush approach spread too thin of having to appeal to all people, which endangers the deep delivery model at its heart. I do agree with the Deputy First Minister that population growth is absolutely critical to economic growth and I do believe that independence would enable us to do so much more in that area as well as other areas. The motion goes on to agree that the delivery of wellbeing economy requires a worker and a community-led just transition to net zero. On Monday, together with other members of the Parliament's Economy and Fair Work Committee, I visited Ineos Grangewives, where the challenge is how the process to new energies has impact on the workforce and the local community and business. The previous evidence of trade unions was a great advert for the company and the plant and identified the existing skill base with the transferability of skills to work with new energy sources. That will not necessarily be the case to all areas of Scotland. As the committee turns its attention to the north-east of Scotland in Switzerland, a wellbeing economy approach to sustainability and a just transition will be key and accentuates the need for a more cohesive and explicit green industrial strategy for Scotland, which I know is being developed. I want to turn to the Deputy First Minister. The Deputy First Minister has been in government and in the economy and finance brief as a lead or acting for longer than he probably cares to remember. He has always embraced the sustainable economic growth where all of Scotland can flourish. Indeed, it was his mantra in the early days of government and was an early portent of that economic focus, which has now evolved into the wellbeing economic growth model. A student focused, dutiful, but with a relentless and where necessary ruthless focus on advancing Scotland's interest, he has been one of Scotland's finest public servants. Taking no prisoner in debate but prepared to engage, listen and understand to reach compromise with his political opponents is a real masterful skill. His strategic sense and radar to identify issues and opportunities for government policy to attack with creativity and problem solving is definitely one of the arts of government. John Swinney, Deputy First Minister, is the best of tenants this party has ever had and is an example to those who follow. His work over many years in developing Scotland's resilience model is also of lasting significance. Indeed, it could be said that a wellbeing economy is essentially about building resilience for people, business and the environment. For 14 years, I too had the privilege and honour of serving at Cabinet level alongside the Deputy First Minister. As he prepares to join us on the back benches and tell me his interventions on Stephen Care will be wonderful, I would just like to say to him a warm welcome and come on in the water is lovely. I would commend his work and this motion to Parliament. Thank you very much. I add my own short tribute to the Deputy First Minister for his 15 years of public service in government to the sacrifices that he and his family have made to that end. I was genuinely moved to tears during his last appearance at our committee when he discussed and updated us on his work on the redress scheme for historical sexual abuse, which he has a deep understanding of. I wish him and his family the very best. It is in that spirit of reflection that I see the motion today in the long history of economic policy and rhetoric that the Deputy First Minister has fronted now for those 15 years. It calls to my mind Shelly's crumbling epitaph for Ozymandias, look on my work, see mighty and despair. The scale of work required to deliver a true wellbeing economy is huge. Unfortunately, time and again, this government has proven itself incapable of driving the systemic change needed to bring about such a transformation in either services or economics. They lack any coherent economic analysis that is rooted in the relationship between capital and labour. Instead, they have lept on the latest bandwagon, the passing craze pushed by an author, the latest popular economist or the well-intentioned NGO, no matter how contradictory those analyses might be. In 2007, a fresh-faced cabinet secretary called John Swinney called on Scotland to emulate the rock-bottom corporate taxes of the Celtic Tiger, aggressively undercutting competitors to find mobile international capital. In 2008, the same John Swinney believed that we should join the arc of prosperity that surrounds us, including the high taxes of our Nordic neighbours. In 2010, we were to be the world's first hydro-economy. I think Alex Bell had written a book about it, sounded a bit different into the policy pot it went. In 2011, John Swinney embraced Laffer curve economics, returning to the beggar thy neighbour virtue of corporate welfareism, loudly calling, and I quote, for a lower tax rate. That same year, we were to be the Saudi Arabia of Renewables, with John Swinney promising 130,000 jobs by 2020. The year came, 110,000 of the jobs didn't, but back in 2016, and the infamous growth commission that promised to slash public spending deeper than the rest of the UK as an iron fiscal rule. No, thank you, sir. In 2019, it was on to Massicato's mission-orientated framework, inspired by that rock star economist. Good book, terrible implementation, none of the hard stuff, plenty of the spin. In 2021, the SNP's social justice commission backed progressive taxation, and 14 months later, the SNP ran on a platform of regressive tax freezes again, just as they had opposed Labour on progressive taxes election after election. Economic policy by press release following fads cuddling up to commentators, hunting for the headlines year after year. I'm grateful to Mr Marra for giving me one of those latter comments about the chasing of the headline, which could aptly sum up Mr Marra's contribution to every debate. Can I ask Mr Marra for his explanation of why Labour opposed the Government's budget, which included progressive tax changes, when it came to Parliament in February? I'm confused by the great exposition of a consistent principle from Mr Marra who argues for progressivity, and when it's right in front of him, he votes against him. I could certainly point to the regressive pay policy that was within that budget, and one of the red lines that we had set was around how we pay public sector workers in Scotland, as we made it point time and time again in this Parliament. A real wellbeing economy, as defined by Kate Rayworth, Catherine Trebek and others, is based on the political recognition that the resources of this planet and this country are finite, acknowledging that extractive growth has limits, which we must exist within. That's no new observation, Presiding Officer, that gross domestic product, as a solitary goal, sends us in the wrong direction. GDP measures everything except that which is worthwhile, Bobby Kennedy, back in 1968. By Kennedy's account, we better evaluate our economy by the health of our children, the quality of their education, the joy of their play, the beauty of our poetry, the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. Inherently, all of this makes the central challenge on economic management, one of distribution. How are the proceeds of economic activity allocated? Time and again, this Government, for 15 years, has failed on those questions of wealth and distribution, and it's for those reasons as much as any, Presiding Officer, that I am deeply sceptical that we are to believe that a wellbeing economy will amount to anything more than the bandwagon upon which the Deputy First Minister happened to leave town. Left behind are three contenders for First Minister. Two of them falling over each other to ditch the growth commission and to tell the sorry truth about the record of this sorry Government that they have served in for years, and the other is advised on the economy by a man who thinks a central bank is a photocopiar in a portacabin. More of the same is not a manifesto, it is an acceptance of mediocrity. Nothing besides remains round the decay of that colossal wreck boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away. Joe Mason, to be followed by Maggie Chapman up to six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This is a huge subject, the wellbeing economy, and clearly no one speaker can give it justice it deserves, so I'll try to focus my remarks on just a few aspects. Firstly, we cannot and should not ignore gross domestic product or gross national income or any other method of measuring how the economy is doing. These will remain important measures of Scotland's economic success. Clearly, it is because we have a strong economy and are a relatively rich country that we can afford to pay for the quality health, education, transport and other public services we have. We just need to look around the world to see much poorer developing countries who struggle to afford many public services at all. However, as has been said, GDP is a poor metric of human wellbeing. The Tory amendment virtually sidelines the whole concept of wellbeing. They drop out, mention of the socially just, net zero, child poverty, fair work, empowering communities. All of that goes with the Tory amendment. The mental health foundation in its briefing makes the point that in New Zealand they started questioning why, when GDP was rising, the things that citizens valued, like child wellbeing, housing, mental health, were deteriorating. Clearly, GDP can be strong and rising but we as a society can be failing at the same time. So we have the national performance framework and I think we should pay particular tribute to John Swinney for that. It may not be perfect and it is up for review but it has certainly widened out and helped to clarify where we want to go as a country. I have to say that I do not think I or in fact most of us have talked about the NPF as much as we should have. I am wearing my NPF badge today but I do not see many around the chamber. So we still need to do a lot more in talking about it and encouraging more citizens and organisations to engage with it. To take two of the national outcomes, economy and poverty, they include national indicators like tackling income inequalities and wealth inequalities and we have not made as much progress on those as I would like to have seen. Some facts and figures. Scotland's riches 20 families own more wealth than 30 per cent of the poorest families. Scotland's riches 10 per cent of households have 217 times more wealth than the least wealthy 10 per cent of households. These are signs of failure. Yes, we need to create more income and wealth but we also need to distribute what we have better. As the OECD says, we cannot continue with the attitude of grow first, redistribute and clean up later. In an ideal world, we would see better off people exercising more self-restraint, for example by refusing a salary of £300,000 even if it is offered to them. But realistically that is not going to happen in many cases and we have some people in Scotland, as in all countries, who seek more and more for themselves even if it does mean less and less for others. Therefore at least part of the answer needs to be through taxation. That can help more evenly distribute both income and wealth as well as clearly providing the funding for public services and investment. No-one is suggesting that we return to the 98 per cent income tax, which I remember Labour Party imposing in the past, but something is not working at present when some have so much income and some have so little. Income tax is reasonably progressive even in the UK and more so in Scotland, but our wealth and property taxes are not so progressive. Council tax needs reforming and replacing and I very much hope that the new government will be urgent on this. We have had a number of briefings for today's debate and these have been very helpful and I am grateful for them. Some are very aspirational, for example, everyone having enough to live in comfort, safety and happiness with poverty a thing of the past. Yes, I do agree with that as the ultimate aim, but I fear it is some way ahead. The Carnegie UK Trust talked about gross domestic wellbeing and a wellbeing index for Scotland and the UK being delivered later this year. I would say that this looks like the kind of thing that we should be considering very seriously. Oxfam and several other briefings support having a commissioner for the wellbeing of future generations or similar. We discussed this recently at the CPG on international development. I am wary of multiplying the number of commissioners as that can divert resources away from front-line services, but I do agree that each needs to be looked at on its own merits. A key aspect of wellbeing is that we bear in mind the impact on future generations and on other people across the world. There is no success for this country if we only maximise wellbeing for people in Scotland and only for the next 20 years. While we want that, we need to be constantly thinking about what effect our actions are having on our children, our grandchildren, our friends and neighbours in Malawi and elsewhere. Of course, a lot of this agenda would be easier with independence, there would be no nuclear weapons, we could combine income tax and national insurance and make them more progressive, we could control corporate and wealth taxes, but I agree that we do need to do the best we can in the meantime. Finally, we need to be bold enough to take actual practical steps towards a wellbeing economy. One current example should be the deposit return scheme. Of course, I want to see Scottish products like whisky, iron brew, salmon and beef doing well on the world stage, but if iron brew cans and whisky bottles are littering our cities and countryside while the producers are making big profits, something has gone wrong. That is not a wellbeing economy. It is not a question of how councils can pick up all the rubbish. It is about changing the system so that the cans and bottles are not dumped in the first place. So I hope that we can all agree today to change the way we do things. I'm glad that we're talking explicitly about the wellbeing economy and I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to this important motion. Greens used to have to wait for our rare opposition day debate to bring a discussion on the nature of economic growth. Now everyone is doing it. I thank John Swinney for the conversations that we've had on this and many other topics over time and I wish him well and look forward to seeing him cause trouble from the backpences. This motion sets out the vision that we share of a Scotland that works for everyone, that nurtures everyone, a Scotland that creates communities of justice and care and real prosperity, a Scotland that treasures and protects its natural environment, not just for ourselves but for its own sake and for generations. We can agree, at least most of us, that that's what we're setting our sails towards. That's what we mean by wellbeing. But the more contentious question is this, how do we get there? Do we prioritise economic growth with wellbeing as an added extra, something that we hope will come along for the ride, something that we'll encourage with little nudges, some gentle pottering around the edges? Or do we consciously choose wellbeing, choose to prioritise the good of people and planet in all the ways that this motion encompasses? That choice will involve growth for many sectors, those we need for a sustainable, caring and creative future, but not all and rightly so. Growth is a positive word imbued for us with millennia of good associations. We see the growth of a tree, a child, a community and we rejoice. But economic growth, GDP, measures neither health nor development, neither care nor creativity, only the narrowly defined product of economic exchange. GDP increases with disaster and contracts with generosity. It makes no distinction between price and value, between healthy nutrition and catastrophic consumption. It only asks how much, never for whom, why or how. And when we only ask the question how much, those positioned to answer are those who have the most already. Making money out of money isn't hard, unless perhaps you're Liz Truss, especially when you have the right connections. The tough bit is to get it where it's needed. Prioritising economic growth, privileging GDP cannot help but reward the rich and punish the poor. It cannot help but, in its obsession with counting, see the natural world as a warehouse of raw commodities, view ecological destruction as an externality of the edges, regrettable but inevitable. This is where the fixation on GDP, that poultry measure, only ever meant to fill in some statistical gaps, has brought us as a global community, to the overlapping crises of inequality, injustice, ecological and climate breakdown. It's a path that the current Westminster Government is happy to continue along, even after this week's heartbreakingly clear warnings from the IPCC. There is, it seems no other path, they even see, never mind have the integrity to take. Brashley by Johnson, Bizarly by Truss and Blandly by Sunak, they'll keep on singing the only song they know, even as the darkness deepens. But we can do differently and achieve different results, transforming not just our economy but our society, our communities, our families and our futures. And this is not a niche perspective. Just a few months ago, over 100 charities, academics and others, Oxfam, the Scottish Main Shades Association, Scottish Women's Aid, the STUC, the NSPCC and many others wrote to the First Minister calling for an urgent transition to a wellbeing economy. One that, and I quote, delivers good lives for all people and protects the health of our planet. These are people and organisations whose work shows them starkly and brutally, day after day, what good lives would really mean and how far short we are falling. So we must go back to what the economy should really be about, creating a better world. We do this by eliminating the problems beverage identified, want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. And we must build on what we now know, that we must put people at the heart of addressing those challenges. We need to do with people, not do unto people. We've seen the success of community buyouts. We need more of this. We must give workers the right to buy their businesses. We need to transform the processes of government and democracy to put citizens at the heart of those decisions that affect them. We need more participatory budgeting and we need an end to the hegemony of advice from the big consulting firms and vested interests. Let's rely on our understanding of the world, not rely on those most responsible for getting us into this mess. There is, of course, much valuable work being done by the Scottish Government, by the third sector, by all the signatories of that letter and many more besides. All that work on child poverty, on climate action, on the circular economy, on progressive tax and much more, all of that forms part of the creation of a wellbeing economy. Especially critical at the intersection of social injustice and the climate crisis is the need for a just transition. A radical envisioning of what a post-hydrocarbon, justice-centred, thriving and joyful future looks like for communities across Scotland with practical plans of how to get there and get there fast. All those elements will remain disparate, disconnected, without an overarching priority for wellbeing over economic growth. In conclusion, as long as all we do has to be slotted into the artificial and archaic framework of GDP, it will never be as effective, as revolutionary, as transformative, as human as it urgently needs to be. Now is a time for critical choice. That window will not stay open forever. Thank you, Mr Chapman. I now call Liam Simpson to be followed by Clare Baker. Up to six minutes, Mr Simpson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think we've discovered already that wellbeing economy, a bit like just transition, is one of those phrases that's very hard to define. It can mean different things to different people. But here's how the Scottish Government defines it. It says, wellbeing is at the heart of our national purpose as a country, underpinning our national performance framework and reflected in our national outcomes and indicators. Economic activity should serve that purpose as a means to deliver improved health and wellbeing. Our vision for Scotland is to create a wellbeing economy, an economic system that places the wellbeing of current and future generations at its core. Scotland is already leading the way on this work as a founding member of the international wellbeing economy governments network. Any of the wiser, Deputy Presiding Officer, I thought not. Helpfully, though, we have something called the wellbeing economy monitor launched last year by Kate Forbes. According to the Scottish Government, this will complement traditional metrics like GDP and include measures such as child poverty, levels of greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity and fair work indicators to consider Scotland's economic success. Ms Forbes said at the time, our vision for Scotland's economy is to create a system which prioritises the collective wellbeing of current and future generations while traditional economic metrics such as GDP will remain important measures of Scotland's economic success. This new monitor will ensure we're tracking how to build a fairer, healthier and greener economy. So that's all right then, and Liz Smith is looking suitably confused. And there's a wellbeing economy toolkit as well, just in case you're stuck. And we have a strategy, a 10-year one, and the National Strategy for Economic Transformation published last year, which aims to deliver that wellbeing economy. So, not yet. How are we doing? How are we doing? The wellbeing economy alliance Scotland has pointed out some areas where we're not doing so well. They're right to say that too many people live in cold homes. Decent housing is surely a human right, but what do we have here? A housing crisis not helped by insane green policies, driving landlords out to the rental market, meaning fewer homes for rent, which will ultimately drive up those rents. What about transport? A wellbeing economy would be one where we have world-leading and affordable public transport, including ferries. Instead, we have NAT rail, a disjointed bus system, ferries that don't sail, roads that wouldn't look out of place on the moon. And then we have the DRS scheme, which is meant to increase recycling, but which won't, and as Fergus Ewing has rightfully said, transfers money from the poor to the rich. Is that a wellbeing economy? What about a drugs death record? I will. Paul MacLennan. If he's talking about wellbeing economy monitors, last year a report by Glasgow University in the Glasgow Centre for Population Health said that Tory austerity is linked to almost 20,000 excess deaths in Scotland. Is that a Tory wellbeing monitor? Graham Simpson. Well, speaking about deaths, what about the drug deaths record that is the shame of Europe? That's not a wellbeing economy or record waiting lists in A&E with patients struggling to get appointments to see their GP or dentist. That's not a wellbeing economy or, as Liz Smith said, a scandalous attainment gap in our schools. That's not a wellbeing economy or councils unable to deliver the basics because of years of SNP cuts. Basics like decent roads, that's not a wellbeing economy. It's all very well-banding about such phrases, but at the root of it, and again, we get common sense from Liz Smith, is that we need a strong and growing economy to deliver first-class public services. Kate Forbes seems to get that, but does anyone else in the SNP maybe Michelle Thompson? Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce put it very well in her letter to the three people vying to be first minister. She said that Scotland needs a credible economic growth plan, which must be a top priority for every department in the Scottish Government. That can only be delivered if the next First Minister makes economic growth its driving mission. She's quite right. Now, this debate is the Deputy First Minister's swan song in that role. I look forward to seeing him on the back benches and possibly being on a committee with him. Who knows? He's going to find it difficult to perform in quite the theatrical way that we've become accustomed to seeing. But I do wish him well. There he goes. I've always found him... Deputy First Minister, it may be your swan song, but that doesn't justify the interventions from a sedentary position, Graham Simpson. I've woken him from his slumber, so that's good. I do wish him well. He's always been good to deal with. He's always been good to deal with. He's great to spar with, and I find him hugely entertaining. But speaking of well-being, I have worried about his on occasions, particularly when he's roaring with laughter at one of the First Minister's quips. He throws his arms in, head back and gaffaws with gusto. Or when he's affecting anger at the opposition, we saw a great example of that last week. Do you need to conclude, Mr Simpson? During questioning about berries. I will conclude. I was, of course, interrupted by Mr Sweeney, but I'm going to miss him. I'm going to miss him, and I wish him well for the good of his audience. I'm going to miss him, and I wish him well for the good of his own wellbeing. Thank you, Mr Simpson. I now call Claire Baker to be followed by Emma Roddick up to six minutes, Ms Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. If we want to live in a country that services the wellbeing of people and planet, we need to ensure that each person in Scotland has the means to live in dignity and safety by eliminating structural inequalities and reducing any negative environmental impacts. Scotland aspires to be a wellbeing economy, but if the Government is serious about this, it needs to demonstrate a transformative approach to address the poverty and inequality through a changing economic model. As Maggie Chapman highlighted, last year saw over 100 leaders from Scottish Civic Society supporting a joint statement that called on the Scottish Government to make an order of urgent transition to a wellbeing economy. While we can talk of Scotland's international leadership and initiatives such as the wellbeing economy monitor and its membership of the wellbeing economy government's partnership, it is clear that current actions are not sufficient to achieve the substantial redesign of our economy needs to achieve that vision, and we need to see bolder action. Without addressing the continuing high levels of poverty and inequality, we cannot properly progress the journey to a wellbeing economy. In November 2022 update on wellbeing economy monitoring showed that wealth inequality is worsening. This week, an article by the UN special reporter on extreme poverty and human rights, Oliver Dushutter, addressing why growth is no longer the magic wand to address poverty and why we need to focus on tackling inequality and building an inclusive economy. Wealth and income inequalities largely cancel out any of the positive impacts on wellbeing that are expected to come from increased GDP. During the pandemic, there was a lot of talk of building back better, doing business differently, valuing workers and investing in communities. I have to say that some of this ambition seems to have been lost as we face a cost of living crisis. Recognising the value of working together and promoting models that put people first is more relevant than ever and offers solutions to some of the challenges we face. We can create a more resilient and robust economy and a better place to withstand external pressures and unpredictable events. There are calls for the national performance framework to be transformed until wellbeing framework alongside measures such as investment in social security and universal basic services and a reshaping of the business support environment to prioritise enterprises that enhance collective wellbeing. The review of the national outcomes presents an opportunity to ensure that wellbeing goals are a key part of policy and spending decisions. The finance committee has indicated that national outcomes are currently not driving financial decisions. We need to see better links between the national outcomes and the spending decisions to help to achieve them. The forthcoming wellbeing and sustainable development bill, silver due that Sarah Boyack might beat the government to it, is another opportunity to be bold and take decisions to accelerate the transition. I recently chaired a futures forum seminar on economic transformation and a wellbeing economy. What it should look like in Scotland. Speakers from the wellbeing alliance argued that the economic model based on GDP growth needed updated, saying that it resulted in a lot of resource and effort been put into failure demand, fixing problems created by our current flawed approach instead of reforming the system to prevent these problems. While the government's commitment to a wellbeing economy was welcomed, it argued that the approach that is currently being taken through the NPF and tools like the wellbeing economy monitor were not doing enough to influence decision making or as participatory as they could be. We can learn from partners, so New Zealand has started building its budget around wellbeing priorities and since 2019 has been consistent in these goals. The future generations commissioner in Wales provides additional scrutiny around the wellbeing economy agenda. Here in Scotland, there are also local initiatives to be learned from and expanded on, including innovative community wellbeing approaches in places like North Ayrshire or in Dumfries, where community ownership and engagement models are empowering communities. Tied to the economic model based on GDP is the idea that business success is only demonstrated by high growth, but we know that there are many businesses that do not fit that model. In my role on the cross-party group on creative economies, I have met a great number of those businesses for whom the definition of success is restrictive and has a negative impact on the key to which they are valued and supported by government agencies. The report from the Business Purpose Commission for Scotland showed that almost half of people think the role of business in society is to maximise returns. Looking at a Fraser of Islander Institute recent survey, when asking people what model business should have, almost two thirds think that they should have a role in finding profitable solutions to the problems of people on the planet. Social enterprises and corporatives can make a considerable contribution to the wellbeing agenda and we must be doing much more to promote and grow them. We know that they are often more resilient than other businesses and important consideration as we continue to recover from the pandemic and work towards net zero. There is a real opportunity to grow the number of social enterprises and corporative businesses in Scotland. When we think about the challenges that we face in care, childcare, transport and housing, there are real solutions within the corporative movement. There is a corporative and social enterprise fund in place but the amount of money that it receives is fairly small and it is disappointing that those models continue to have a very low profile in the Scottish Government's economic strategy. The Scottish Government is committed to increasing the number of employee-owned businesses in Scotland to 500 by 2030 but we have to ask ourselves, is this target on track? Redesign that prioritises social, environmental and democratic principles is required to achieving a wellbeing economy. Yes, in Scotland we do have the ambition and we can point to some action and initiatives but a wellbeing economy in Scotland needs to be more than the sum of its parts. Can I ask you to draw your remarks to conclusions? I want the final sentence, Presiding Officer. The Fair Work Convention, the National Strategy for Economic Growth, the Just Transitions Commission and more. All these strands must be governed by the principles of a wellbeing economy if it is to work for everyone. Thank you. Emma Roddick, the final speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I find it very meaningful that we are here today having this debate at a time of great change for the country and for the SNP and the Deputy First Minister himself. A man who has been an incredibly important figure for our party and who manages to radiate both kindness and authority at the same time and who I am looking forward to trying to learn a few things from here on the back benches. If we are sharing stories about the Deputy First Minister, here is mine. It was July 2014, and we were in an Inverness high school ahead of a very independence-focused question time. I didn't get to ask my question, but I did march up to him afterwards and give him a bit of a hard time, much to the amusement of my history teacher, Alison Roddum. He gave me more than a fair bit of his time before his advisers pulled him away, but I'm not going to give him a hard time today. I am going to wholeheartedly support his motion and go into a little bit of why it's important to transition to a wellbeing economy, particularly for the Highlands and Islands. Crisis like Covid and the cost of living have really brought into focus what our priorities are and demonstrate harshly the inequalities that exist in society and how the worst-off will not be rescued or even really affected by economic growth only on the part of the richest. It's exactly in times like this when it's arguably a lot harder to make progress that we must put that little extra fight into doing it. Going through these tough times has also given us an opportunity to highlight, support and progress those things that we know are working well, like community-led resilience efforts through the pandemic. I was privileged to be part of efforts on the part of Inverness foodstuff in delivering hot meals to those who are most in need, who were not at that time allowed to gather in the church for lunch as they usually do. Communities know best what they need and the best way to deliver it in their areas and for their people. We know that resilience in Bray is different to Buley is different to Bute. Last year, when many of my constituents in Shetland faced a number of power outages, I was reminded of how resilient many of the communities in my region already are, how embedded supporting your community, volunteering and looking out for neighbours is in the lives of so many that I come across in my role. It is not enough to say that they can manage to let them get on with it. We need a Government that will empower communities and provide the support that they need to be that financial or advisory to be what they want to be. That is why it is so important that there is a focus on community wealth building, growing the number of people who have a real stake in their community, redirecting wealth control and the benefits of local resources to the local economy. The Highlands and Islands are already leading on community empowerment. 97 per cent of community-owned land in Scotland is in the region. That only represents about 5 per cent of the Highlands and Islands itself, but it is evidence of the interests that we have in having a say in how our land is used, taking ownership of our area and having the freedom to decide our own way forward. I am very hopeful that community wealth building efforts will see more ownership around less tangible assets as well, because so often I talk to constituents and colleagues here about how unfair it is that we can look at all those renewable energy projects that sit in our region. We are sometimes researched and developed and built in our region and for which the effort to bring them into the world came from the people in my region and still know that the figures on our energy bills coming through our doors are higher than those elsewhere. A successful fair green country to me cannot be achieved when this level of systemic unfairness penalties for living in the area that is generating the energy that the sector for remains. Being a successful country has to mean more than having high GDP. GDP tells you nothing about how big inequality is, how much harm we are doing to the environment, how happy or healthy people have been empowered to be. Being a successful country has to mean having people at heart, being climate conscious and ensuring equality, be it for gender, disability, geography or any other characteristic that we know can very seriously impact the chances of avoiding poverty. We cannot just talk about job creation without talking to barriers to work, access to childcare, flexible working arrangements, connectivity, particularly for rural areas. We cannot talk about exports without talking about the environmental impact of business actions or how we can concurrently move towards being a net zero economy. We cannot talk about employment rates without addressing the lack of recognition of unpaid roles, many of which are full-time and skilled. Of course, that is all a lot harder to take a rounded approach to when we do not have powers over energy, over employment or the full fiscal responsibility that many of us here and many organisations who give evidence to our committees here have called for. I will end with this reflection. We know that the attitude of let's just grow wealth will redistribute it later and other brands of trickle-down economics just lead to inequality getting worse. We know that, so I will never understand why people keep proposing it as if it is this brand-new ground-breaking idea or indeed why UK Governments keep proposing it as if it is a ground-breaking new idea. If you are coming to me with policy, don't talk about GDP, don't talk to me about private growth, I want to know that you are going to end homelessness, tackle poverty, particularly rural poverty and uphold basic human rights for everyone. The party that I see doing that is the SNP. We move to closing speeches. I call on Alex Rowley up to six minutes please. Many people have paid tributes to the Deputy First Minister today. I would only say that I have treated the First Minister with respect and kindness every day, so I don't feel the need to term up today just to say something nice about him. Perhaps if we all in this chamber just treated each other a bit kindness, we wouldn't have the deep division that sits in our country right now and needs to be healed if we are going to have a better economy. Could I say also that a well-being economy, what is there not to like about a well-being economy? Yesterday I met a GP practice, a care centre in Lokelley. They were deeply, deeply disappointed at the announcement, despite promise after promise for this Government that there would be a new health centre built in Lokelley. The people of Lokelley are desperate to see that happen. They explained to me yesterday that apart from the waterporn and the roof of this building, the fact that it's not fit for purpose, they explained to me that they can't bring all the different professionals together within a health centre that is so dilapidated as that health centre. I would have to say that they were promised to be at a new centre in 2019 and again in 2024 and then told last week that that wouldn't happen to the latter party this decade. What that means is that it pushes back other health centres that are equally in the queue. It really brings me to my point. If we are going to have a well-being economy, then we have to say that you will not do that if you have a crisis that's getting worse in house and public infrastructure is decaying and crumbling along with public services. So there is a bit about talking about the here and now and what we need to address in order to have a well-being centre and the local health centre is a good example of that, but also housing. I have asked the Government time and time again that we need a national house build programme. Housing needs to be a national priority and I keep getting told it is, but I was really pleased to see the finance secretary recently talk about the need and their task to build more high quality housing for people. She said, housing needs to be regarded as a necessary infrastructure in building a better Scotland and not a privilege outwith the reach of so many in our country. A secure, comfortable, low energy home needs to be accessible to all in a future Scotland. She's absolutely correct. So how can we talk about a well-being economy when we have thousands and thousands of kids that are going to the school every day, not knowing where they're going to be staying in the weeks and the months ahead, living in temporary accommodation, children living in damp condensated houses? How do we expect those kids to go into school and learn at the same pace as other kids who don't have to have those worries and those problems? So if we're going to talk about a well-being society, then we have to surely start to address the housing crisis that we have in Scotland right now. I have also raised with the transport secretary the issue of transport and the barriers to people actually accessing transport. I did hear Emma Ruddup talk earlier about powers. I agree that if we're going to deliver on housing, we would need to have greater capital borrow on powers in this Parliament, and we could fight together to be able to get those powers. But you also have to use the powers that we have right now. A classic example of that is if you look at Andy Burnham, the Mary Greater Manchester, and look at the way that he is using the powers, much less powers than we have in this place, but the way that he is using those powers in order to ensure that he has been able to introduce a permanent cap at £2 for bus journeys across Greater Manchester, and as a result of that usage has gone up by 10%. So it is about recognising that and using those powers and looking at those powers now. Then we look at the economy. It's about, yes, investing in the economy, it's about getting growth in the economy, but there's nothing that says that that excludes tackling the social issues that are there right now. So if we did build a housing programme across Scotland, look at the jobs that would be created, look at the infrastructure that would need to be put in place, look at the skills that would be created. This is not something that a one-term Parliament will do. We would need four or five terms of a Parliament to tackle Scotland's housing crisis. We would need to start by giving local authorities more powers and planning, more powers and being able to take the land that we need in order to build the houses for the social good of people and communities, and we would need to be able to ensure that we gave people then the best opportunities, skilling up over a period of five, ten years so that we have the skills, we have the jobs. I would have to say that that is the type of well-being economy that I want to see, where children are educated to the very best levels, where children have a roof over their head and a house to call their own. So if we are going to come here, we need to move away from the rhetoric of a well-being economy and look at the massive challenges that are in our communities right now, build the houses, invest in education. We can do that right now. Let's move to rhetoric and start talking about people's real life experience right now and address that and by doing that we will build a wealthier and healthier economy. Thank you. I call on Murdo Fraser up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, this has been interesting and in the main a good nature debate and we've heard throughout the debate a number of eulogies to John Swinney from different sides of the chamber. We have heard so many eulogies at one point I thought I'd have to cross the aisle and check his pulse and check he was still with us because everybody was playing such glorious tribute. But Mr Swinney will I hope be with us for some time to come as we are contributing to finance and economy debates, albeit from the back benches. Now it's good that this final debate is leading us on the economy because we've actually had very few debates focused specifically on the economy in recent years and perhaps that's no wonder given this government's poor record on delivering economic growth because since 2014 the Scottish economy has grown on average at one half the rate of growth of the UK economy. On Sunday the current finance secretary Kate Forbes said this the point I make about the recent hike in taxation is of course that the higher tax is the symptom of the fact that our economy is growing so slowly and our tax base is not broad enough. We need to raise the money for our public services because people rely on that but I would far rather we focus on expanding the tax base and growing our economy although say all of us but the problem is that the government of which Kate Forbes and John Swinney form part of has not been delivering that faster economic growth that we all want to see and I suspect part of the problem is because I know there are many people in the SNP benches who do understand us part of the problem is they are shackled in coalition with the Green Party and it simply doesn't believe in economic growth and its policies whether on infrastructure on housing or on the ruinous deposit return scheme measures that are actively hampering the growth of the economy and who knows perhaps that is a deliberate policy on their part to damage the economy as they don't believe in economic growth and another leadership candidate for the SNP Ash Regan seems to get this she's attacked the Greens malign influence on the SNP and we are likely murky territory at times and we certainly are not reflecting the views the public have so we now have all three SNP leadership candidates including Mr Yousaf who has joined us on the front bench who have attacked the disastrous deposit return scheme a policy which in principle is a great idea in principle everybody should sign up to but in practice has been delivered so disasterously that the policy is having an effect on business now I was talking recently to people in the tourism and hospitality sector and they have a long list of policy failures holding back their ability to grow their businesses the deposit return scheme is top of the list but they also propose restrictions on promotion of alcohol which will have an impact they see short term let regulation overly bureaucratic and driving people out of the market and in the future sector much higher than south of the border where they have been given 75% rates relief for a further year all these matters are under the control of the Scottish Government and all of them can be dealt with by the next First Minister now earlier in the debate my colleague Liz Smith referred to the asks being made of the Scottish Government by the wellbeing economy alliance and she made the point it's a very fair point it's only by growing the economy by creating more wealth are we able to address child poverty effectively pursue net zero unimproved educational standards in that respect I agree with much of what Alec Rowley has just said about getting the basics right now Presiding Officer it would not be a Scottish Government debate or motion without a mention of independence and it's mentioned that Mr Swinney's motion didn't say much about it in his opening speech but I'm sure he'll be referring to it first and it seems that the Scottish Government has not read the latest economic research published by Scottish Business UK just last month on the economic cost of independence and before the SNP French bench scoff scoff at this as they do who was it written by Presiding Officer it was written by the Scottish Government's favourite economist Richard Marsh previously the Fraser of Allander Institute someone who was contracted to produce research on behalf of the First Minister's Sustainable Growth Commission and who's a member of two Scottish Government expert groups hardly a unionist plant and what did he find in this report in this report found the impact of a new currency for Scotland fiscal consolidation to reduce the gap between Government earnings and expenditure and the impact on trade in Scotland disrupting trading arrangements with the rest of the UK our biggest market would come at a cumulative cost in terms of output of £29 billion every year gross value added down £16.3 billion and wages down £9.9 billion the loss in jobs would be 253,000 full time equivalent or nearly 11% of Scotland's economy it's a devastating picture Presiding Officer of what would happen to the Scottish economy in the event of independence and what not produced by the Conservatives not produced by somebody who isn't unknown to the Scottish Government but an economist the Scottish Government themselves actually employ has produced this research and this is the policy that the current finance secretary and every other contender for the SNP leadership have all put front and centre of their policy platform if they had their way the Scottish economy would be devastated so Presiding Officer let me just join with others in commending John Swinney on his contribution to Parliament and his contribution to Government over many years but this next week will bring us a new Government it may well bring us a new finance secretary will it bring us a new approach to the economy that remains to be seen Presiding Officer but on the evidence to date that is badly needed thank you and I call on John Swinney to wind up the debate thank you Presiding Officer Daniel Johnson posed the question at the outset of the debate about the whole question of defining the wellbeing economy formidable amongst them were the contributions of Fiona Hyslop and Maggie Chapman because Fiona Hyslop went through some of the arguments around how over a long period in times she recalled back to my first role in government as Cabinet Secretary for France and sustainable growth that there was an understanding and acceptance that growth had to be developed in a fashion that supported that it couldn't be growth for just the sake of growth and that was very much the argument that I think Maggie Chapman advanced substantially within the debate where Maggie Chapman was making the point that we choose to plan for wellbeing as we plan for growth that would be a fair characterisation of the speech that Maggie Chapman made if you contrast the speeches of Fiona Hyslop and the question of the development of her wellbeing economy with the vacuous contributions of Stephen Kerr and Graham Simpson you see the problem that we have in this Parliament the problem that Mr Rowley alighted on about the nature and the quality of debate at times because these were substantial contributions offered by members these were insulting contributions of bile from the Conservative Party and they should be called out of course I'll give way to Sarah Boyack Sarah Boyack Can we have Ms Boyack's microphone please? You've got my microphone if you want I'll just pretend in voiseal chowdry Thank you for taking an intervention Deputy First Minister In the run up to the 2021 elections we'd over a hundred organisations lobbied us to deliver legislation on wellbeing and sustainable development so we get the joined up decision making we've been hearing about this afternoon so I was wondering as the Deputy First Minister leaves his current post whether he'd be tempted to commit to my members bill on wellbeing and sustainable development so that we can take this debate not just further but actually put it into legislation and get the transformation of future generations need There are important and substantial issues raised by Sarah Boyack's proposed members bill which are very much the consideration of the government in relation to how we take forward the wellbeing economy agenda so Sarah Boyack will understand with her length of experience that I can commit to absolutely nothing this afternoon but I'm quite sure there will be a willing audience on the government benches for those points in the due course I think John Mason also in his usual forensic style actually summed up the contribution of the Conservative Party to this debate because what their amendment successfully does is remove the following concepts and the government's motion socially just, net zero, fair work, community ownership, environmental care and human rights that sums up what the Conservative Party has got to offer to us. Now, a number of very kind things have been said by members and has been acknowledged this is likely to be my final speech to Parliament as a minister in the Scottish Government unless an urgent question is selected for tomorrow which I simply try to lean on the Presiding Officer to ensure it's not the case. I'm grateful to Liz Smith and to Willie Rennie to Daniel Johnson, Fiona Hyslop, Emma Roddick and others for the kind remarks that they've said and I'm very glad that my strategy for handling radio broadcast has been properly interpreted by Willie Rennie for any of the answers on these difficult circumstances but I'd like to make some remarks in closing this debate and in closing the defining chapter of my professional life. I told the First Minister some months ago that I intended to step down at the end of the period in which I had temporarily returned to the France and the economy remit and I fear that I may have prompted the First Minister to do some reflection of her own at the same time. I was struck by the comments of people asking why are you resigning rather than why are you staying. After 16 years in office I have to say I was rather surprised from time to time that more people were not asking why I was still here. The absence of such comments however may tell us all something but having been reminded that I appeared in Emma Roddick's school class in Inverness in 2014 it is perhaps an indication that it is time to move on. As a 15-year-old who joined a party in 1979 my long ministerial career has been something of a surprise. There may be some hope for some in that observation at this moment. Over my period in office I have exercised responsibilities across finance, the economy, the constitution, education skills, covered recovery and a multitude of subjects as Deputy First Minister. Of course I have not achieved all that I would have wanted in my ministerial life. I would have loved Mr Fraser to have done that for Scotland but I am confident that those who follow me will do exactly that. In the spirit and the substance of this debate all of my work has been focused on enhancing the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Amongst the many measures that I believe I have helped to do that they concord that with local government, the expansion of early learning and childcare, the renewal of the school estate, the foreharm's framework for Covid recovery, a fiscal framework that protected our funding, the budgets that prioritised investment and significant moments. For me the policy intervention with which I have been most closely associated and that has had the biggest impact on the wellbeing of some and possibly all in our society has been confronting our country's historic failure to protect children from abuse. The establishment of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, the passage of legislation for a scheme of redress and the successful operation of that scheme are all now assisting some of those in our society who have been most damaged by others to contemplate recovery. Those reforms only came about because of a fair-minded non-tribal spirit in this Parliament. Without wishing to destroy his career, Jamie Greene epitomised that for me on the issue of redress. I have experienced it on other issues on other occasions. Alec Rowley and Willie Rennie can often get the greatest degree of reasonableness out of me. I have experienced it unreservedly in the partnership that we have constructed and I have nurtured with the Scottish Greens. Can I say gently to Parliament that there is not nearly enough of that in the Scottish Parliament today? I think our discourse would be the better for it and I agree very much with Alec Rowley on that point. I know that this will be vigorously disputed by the Opposition and Graham Simpson will probably be at the front of the queue in disputing what I'm about to say but not everything in Scotland today is awful. Yes, there are many challenges. There always will be but there are also many, many, many wonderful things happening. As a tip from an old hand, the Opposition may find that they actually prosper by being just a bit more positive about Scotland and the work of her Government. In conclusion, yes, my ministerial career has been a bit of a surprise to me but it's also been the greatest privilege of my professional life. I'm grateful to the First Minister for giving me the honour of serving as deputy First Minister so that people of Scotland for their kindness and to Parliament for holding me to account. I've done my best. It's now for others to fill this space. Thank you. That concludes the debate on transition to a wellbeing economy and it's now time to move on to the next item of business which is consideration of business motion 8322 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on a stage one timetable. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm moved. Thank you, minister. No member has asked to speak on the motion and the question is that motion 8322 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8323 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on a stage one timetable and I call on George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move motions 8324 to 8327 on approval of SSIs. Thank you, Presiding Officer and I'm all moved. Thank you. The question is on the motion 8323 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of four Parliamentary Bureau motions and I ask George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau Thank you. The question is on the motions will be put at Decision time and there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business and can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Liz Smith has agreed to, the amendment in the name of Daniel Johnston will fall. The first question is the amendment 8305 point 2 in the name of Liz Smith which seeks to amend motion 8305 in the name of Theresa demain on transition to a wellbeing economy be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to a vote and there'll be a short suspension until our members to access digital voting.