 The next item of business is debate on motion 175.04 in the name of Dean Lockhart on realising Scotland's potential. May I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I call on Dean Lockhart to speak to and move the motion for up to eight minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Scottish Conservatives will use our time today to set out a new direction in economic policy and a comprehensive new approach to skills and training. The need for a new economic model has never been greater. Last week, the SFC forecast that Scotland's economy will continue to underperform for the next four years. As a result, income tax revenues are forecast to be £1 billion lower than expected. While there's no doubt that the outcome of Brexit is creating uncertainty, this economic underperformance stretches back 12 years. According to Spice, had growth in Scotland kept pace with the rest of the UK over the last 12 years, our economy would be £7 billion larger. We agree with the recent comments of the Fraser Valander when it said, Brexit should not be the only focus of attention, there has been little discussion of the structural challenges and opportunities facing Scotland's economy. That's why we will today set out measures to address those challenges and opportunities. Looking first at Scotland's trade, more than 60 per cent of our business is with the rest of the UK. Enterprise policy does not reflect the economic reality. The Scottish Government has set out more than 30 trade offices across the world, but only one trade office in the rest of the UK. No business in the world would neglect its single biggest market in this way. If we could increase our trade with the rest of the UK by just 3 per cent, that would be equivalent to a 10 per cent increase in our trade with the entire European Union. That's why we have announced policies to establish a series of trade hubs across the UK to help Scottish business to become part of the supply chains in the major economic regions of the UK. We also need to equip Scotland's business to expand into new markets, fast-growing economies such as China and Southeast Asia. Those countries are moving their global trade on to e-commerce and other technology platforms. We need to ensure that Scotland keeps pace with those developments. At the moment, only 9 per cent of Scottish business embed digital in their operations. That's why we have proposed the creation of an institute of technology and e-commerce, an agency that would work together with a new Scottish exporting institute to help up to 3,000 firms a year to move their business online to access new markets. We are also proposing the creation of a new Scottish diaspora network. There is a powerful Scottish diaspora across the world ready to help Scottish business to expand into overseas markets. Our proposals would see a new global diaspora network with more than 5,000 active members across the world helping Scottish firms to expand into those new markets. That new network would also tap into the expertise of the Scottish domestic diaspora, Scots with significant overseas contacts and connections who have returned to Scotland. Those proposals would help Scottish business to increase global exports and to turn productivity and wage levels. They can be actioned today. Using the existing powers of the Scottish Government and with no additional funding required to the overall enterprise and skills budget, I will give way to the minister at this stage, if she wants to intervene. Kate Forbes I will do another point, but in the spirit of consensus, the point about attracting skills, particularly on digital, one of the biggest threats to that is the restrictions on freedom of movement, which some businesses have called an obstinate approach and the neglecting business interests. What does the member say to that? Dean Lockhart I think that immigration will continue to play an important part in Scotland's economy, but it is a derogation of duty if any Government ignores the training needs of its young people and instead looks for immigrants trained in other countries to address the skills gap. I would now like to turn to proposals to introduce a comprehensive new approach to skills and lifelong training in Scotland. The need for a new approach is clear. The forecast last week from the SFC showed that Scotland has become a low-growth, low-wage and low-skilled economy. We need a new skills system that values a vocational education every bit as much as an academic one. The first thing that we are proposing is to replace the current school leaving age of 16 and instead introduce a compulsory skills participation age. That would mean that young people would either stay in educational training until the age of 18 or if they want to start work earlier, it would be through a structured apprenticeship or accredited training programme. That will ensure that they are receiving relevant, on-going training for their future needs. That skills participation policy, by focusing on those who leave school, I will, in a second, focus on those who leave school without going into educational or formal training and it would be targeted at those most in need of extra help and support. It is a policy based on an approach that was championed by the IPPR late last year. It would not only transform the number of young people getting the training that they need, it would help to address the skills gap in the economy and it would help to reduce the attainment gap between children from rich and poorer areas. I will give way to the member. Thank you very much for taking the intervention. Given your commitment to keeping people in education and training, can you explain why the UK Government did away with the educational maintenance allowance that we have maintained in Scotland for the very reason of keeping people particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds in education and training? Members should always speak through the chair, please. I will come on to that point later, but what we have announced today is a comprehensive set of new proposals that address the skills gap that the SNP has created. It is not just young people who need a transformation in the level of support for training. We need a comprehensive new system to prepare our workforce for rapid changes in technology and for workers who will have several jobs in their career. To achieve that, we would introduce a new lifelong skills guarantee. A proposal that the Government helped by business would guarantee that anyone who wants to retrain or upskill during their career will get the chance to do so. That would see the introduction of a new scheme where firms and workers can invest in a personal learning account, match-funded by the Government for the lowest paid and lowest skilled, to be used for lifelong retraining and upskilling. That new policy of a lifelong skills guarantee would also include the expansion of lifelong apprenticeships aimed specifically at workers over 25 to ensure that apprenticeships are available to all workers who want one. The increasing emphasis on vocational training and lifelong learning would be supported through a series of additional measures. First, the expansion of vocational focus schools for talented pupils aged between 14 and 16 who are disengaged from traditional education. We want to see the creation of a vocational focus school in every Scottish city, modelled on new lands during your college and aimed at talented pupils who do not benefit from a mainstream education. We would also introduce second chance centres in areas of needs across Scotland to give people another chance at getting the core skills that they really need. Second chance centres would offer basic qualifications in core subjects and could be set up within colleges, job centres or standalone organisations, depending on the approach that is most appropriate for the local area. The measures that I have outlined today would represent a transformation in the training and lifelong learning opportunities across Scotland. Those that are most likely to benefit are the lowest paid and lowest skilled and the most at risk from the changing nature of work. After 12 years in government, the SNP has failed to deliver sustainable economic growth and we have a skills system that is not fit for purpose. It is time for a new approach. We have today announced ambitious proposals that would transform the skills system in Scotland and boost economic growth. In the months to come, the Scottish Conservatives will be announcing further proposals that will grow Scotland's economy and deliver on Scotland's true economic potential. I move the motion in my name. I now call Jamie Hepburn to speak through and move amendment 17504.3. Six minutes please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me move the amendment in my name at the outset, lest I forget at the end of my contribution. I very much welcome the opportunity that this debate provides and affords us to outline the strength of Scotland's economy and its labour market. I also welcome the opportunity to recognise the drive and resilience of Scotland's business community and what I believe are shared ambitions across the chamber for future success. If we know that a strong economy is essential to supporting jobs, incomes and the quality of life alongside growing competitive and innovative businesses, our economy must also be environmentally sustainable and inclusive, involving and providing benefit and opportunity for all of our people and all of our communities. The value of Scotland's Government's commitment to securing a sustainable and inclusive economy is, I believe, widely recognised both here and beyond in Scotland. A distinctive approach is built into the national performance framework that provides a purpose not just for government but for the whole country. Through the NPF, we measure that performance through a range of outcomes that are consistent with the United Nations sustainable development goals. There is the why that we recognise much still to be done to ensure that our country continues to flourish while increasing wellbeing for all and tackling the global climate emergency. The greatest challenges that we face in being able to deliver the Scotland of our ambitions are the constraints and the powers of this Parliament compounded by the uncertainty currently being created by Brexit and the UK Government. On 30 May, in an open letter to the ever-growing list of candidates seeking to become the next leader of the Conservative party and, thus, the next Prime Minister, Caroline Fairbairn, the director general of the CBI said of where we stand with Brexit, that prolonged uncertainty is damaging our economy now, driving up costs and reducing sales. Stockpiling of raw materials and goods amongst SMEs is at a record high. Billions of pounds in investment are being diverted from the economy, harming future jobs and prosperity. That quote resonates with this Government's analysis and from what we hear from business. I know that Brexit remains a significant and live risk that would impact significantly on the Scottish economy through disruptions to logistics, to supply, to trade, to investment, to migration, to skills and to market confidence. Brexit has already impacted negatively on the confidence and security of our businesses, regions and communities in Scotland. Although we have faced the significant… Yes, briefly. Dean Lockhart Last week, the Fraser Rounder highlighted that Brexit is a UK-wide issue. Why is it then that Scotland's economy is forecast to continue to underperform the rest of the UK? Jamie Hepburn Mr Lockhart says that we underperform the rest of the UK, but let me and I was just about to go on to set the strengths of the Scottish economy. There was a distinct absence of that in his opening remarks and in his emotion, but let me set out for the record that Scotland's economy is growing. Unemployment is at a record low. Exports are growing faster than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and productivity is increasing. Over the past year, we have seen the number of people in employment that has risen by 23,000, or exports of goods grew by 6 per cent faster than any other country in the UK. Productivity has grown by nearly 4 per cent, compared with 0.5 per cent in the UK as a whole. In business, the certain development has increased by almost 14 per cent, exceeding the growth of 2.9 per cent that is experienced in the UK. That is the reality of the Scottish economy, Mr Lockhart, not the doom and gloom that you persist in saying in this chamber. Speaking of doom and gloom, let me give way to Neil Findlay. I wonder whether the minister will reflect on the continued pursuit of economic growth as a Government objective and reflect on what has been done in New Zealand, where it is proposing that budgets are around wellbeing rather than the continued pursuit of economic growth, which clearly runs contradictory to sustainability principles. I do not concur that it contradicts sustainability principles. The record and our ambitions in sustainable and inclusive economic growth are well laid out. I was perhaps uncharitable to the member in terms of intervention, because I think that what is being explored in New Zealand is worthy of our exploration here. I refer him back to my opening remarks when I set out that the issues of wellbeing around economic growth are firmly laid out as part of the national performance framework. It is important for us to lay out what I have laid out a few moments ago. Scotland has the sound economic and labour market foundations to move in a different direction, to move in that inclusive fashion. We have set out a commitment for inclusive growth. That is growth that combines increased prosperity with greater equity that creates opportunities for all and distributes the dividends of increased prosperity fairly. I am sure that Mr Findlay and those on the Labour benches will turn to the issues around the skills system. Let me say again to Mr Lockhart that I do not recognise what he characterises as the Scotland skills system. I am in the fort's position of being able to get out and about across the country to engage with the school environment, the college environment and the young people, and not so young people undertaking a variety of forms of training. I see excellence every single day. I see commitment every single day to ensure that people are equipped with the skills that they need. However, I recognise that we need to do more. We need to ensure that people are equipped for our society and economy of tomorrow, responding to technological disruption and demographic change. In recognition of that, we have committed and will shortly publish our future skills action plan, and we continue to engage the Scottish National Union and the CBI on their proposition for a national retraining partnership. I think that I have to come to close, but let me set out. I think that the title of today's debate is rather more positive than the motion that has been laid before us by the Conservatives. I do believe that Scotland can realise its potential. I believe that it can best do so as an independent country with membership of the European Union, but in advance of that time this Government, as when it is ambitious for Scotland, will continue to work day in, day out tirelessly to ensure that we have a sustainable and inclusive economic future that works for all of the people of this country. I now call on Richard Leonard to speak to and move amendment 1704.4 for five minutes please. The Scottish Labour Party is always happy to take any opportunity to make our case for real and radical economic change, for more investment and less austerity, for more planning and less market, and for more democracy, because too much economic power rests in too few hands. However, I am bound to begin by making a couple of points to the Conservatives who have called this afternoon's debate. Of course, they are right to remind us that, once again, in the last quarter, Scottish GDP growth lagged behind total UK GDP growth, but they should not be supercilious. Output from the manufacturing base in Scotland rose last year by 2.6 per cent for the UK as a whole. It contracted by 1.3 per cent. It was only through a growth in services that the UK rate of output moved marginally above the Scottish rate of output. Secondly, while, of course, it is good to hear Conservative representatives moving a motion in this Parliament in favour of a high-wage economy, it is a pity that, where they are in government, they will not support a real living wage and have presided over the biggest fall in real wages for 200 years, not since the great slump of 1798 to 1822 have we seen a wage squeeze quite like it so that, more than a decade on, the wages of working people are still stuck below the levels that they were before the financial crash and the shameful result is that one in four children in Scotland are living in poverty and two out of three of them are being brought up in poverty in households where at least one adult is in work. To the member for taking an intervention, I do not doubt the seriousness of the comments that he makes, but does he realise that economic growth is absolutely paramount in addressing those concerns and that Labour's policies of high taxation undermine that? The critical issue is the distribution of economic benefit from economic growth, and that is one of the fault lines in our society. To the Scottish Government, we say that the last thing that we need is yet another referendum on the creation of a separate Scottish state. Let me say to the ministers and to their party that the people of Scotland do not want yet another referendum on the creation of a separate Scottish state. The figures that the Scottish Government itself produces tell us that Scottish exports to the European Union were worth £14.9 billion in 2017. The value of our exports to the rest of the UK were worth £48.9 billion in 2017. That is, our exports to the rest of the UK are worth three times more than our exports to the whole of the European Union put together, which is why we want to remain in the European Union but we want to remain in the United Kingdom Union as well, because there are too many national boundaries, not too few. We should be breaking down barriers and not building them up. The long-term structural weaknesses of the Scottish economy, slow growth and poor rates of investment, a narrow export base, too narrow a concentration of research and development spending and over-reliance on foreign direct investment, endemic low pay and low productivity, do not remain unaddressed because we do not hold the powers in this Parliament. They remain unaddressed because the current Scottish Government has failed to use the powers that it has got in this Parliament. We could have a Scottish industrial strategy with a Scottish investment bank, which does not simply respond to market failure but which is a proactive catalyst of economic change led by a Government that is prepared to act and not just react. We could have a properly resourced Scottish economic development agency, as well as one for the Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland. We could have the institutional and investment firepower to diversify our export-based and boost R&D. We could use the powers of public procurement and skills development to better plan our economy in co-operation with trade unions and businesses. We could make a just transition to the sustainable economy that we need to make in the face of the climate emergency, and we could spearhead with an alternative economic strategy, a radical reduction in inequality, which is something that the Government's own poverty and inequality commissioner has today chastised them for failing to do, because in his words, very little has changed to stop the rising tide of in-work poverty. It is time for a wholly new approach, time to end the low-pay economy, the failed policies of neoliberal economics, time in which we developed a policy based instead on economic diversification, economic democracy, which promotes new forms of ownership as part of a new economic strategy and plan, an economic strategy that puts people first and an economic plan for real change. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. I now call Patrick Harvie. Mr Harvie, please. Sorry, Presiding Officer. Timings for this? Sorry, I thought you knew. Four minutes, Patrick Harvie. Four minutes, Mr Rennie, but there's time for interventions and time to be made up. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At one level, I very much welcome the fact that this debate is now beginning to hear a wider range of views on the deep question about economic growth, its meaning, its role and its place in our economy, because for a long, long time it was only the Greens raising a long-standing objection to the fixation on economic growth, or to the primacy that that single GDP metric is given within our economy, that the chasing-after relentless economic growth measured in GDP terms has always prioritised private riches over public wealth. It is inextricably linked not only from climate change, but also from biodiversity loss, from the fragmentation, pollution and degradation of habitats, from the extraction and depletion of finite resources and the exploitation of human beings around the world. It fails to capture inequality, economic justice, people's health, the state of our environment or wellbeing. It fails to recognise the need to share economic benefits or to protect people from the consequences of economic activity. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Conservative Party has not yet joined us on that deep debate about the meaning and role of GDP growth, but more and more people are having that discussion. I was interested that Neil Findlay raised that question as well. Although the Labour motion mentions economic growth, there is much—certainly in the second half of that motion—that amendment that I can agree on. Clearly, we are not going to agree on the independence question, not at this stage. Perhaps one day more people in Labour will come with us on that, but even if they do not come all of their way with us, there is a lot more that we could be doing to address low wages here and now if the Labour Party had backed devolution of employment law during the debates in the Smith commission. We could have repealed anti-trade union legislation to help to restore the balance of power in the workplace. I hope that, even if the Labour Party does not join us in arguing that independence should be the ultimate trajectory for Scotland, I hope that it will come at least that far in saying that we should be seeing control of employment law. The Government amendment that I have mixed feelings on is clearly a significant improvement to the motion. It recognises that we should not just be trumpeting low and high employment rates, because we need to acknowledge that the notion that work is the route out of poverty is broken. That no longer applies. We know that a huge proportion of the poverty in our society is now in-work poverty, so the quality of employment matters as well. In discussing the national performance framework, the motion describes how it should work, not how it does work at the moment. The NPF still prioritises GDP growth and places far too much emphasis on it. The measurements of progress against the NPF also show close to zero progress on issues such as poverty, wages and income inequality. The Green amendment that is not selected for debate would agree that a new policy framework is necessary, a new direction is necessary, but it asks to what end. Just to race ahead with more GDP at any cost, that is not the approach that we should be taking. Instead, we should be learning from the likes of the enough coalition that has been launched recently, questioning the notion of growth, questioning what is real prosperity, how do we create it and share it without continuing today's extractive, polluting and exploitative economy. I look forward to the debate continuing, and I am certain that those questions are the ones that all political parties will have to face up to in the coming years and decades ahead. I was pleased with Richard Leonard's contribution this afternoon. It gave a very unequivocal position on Europe, and I think that that is to be welcomed. I was waiting for the caveat, and I thought that there might be something coming. I hope that the fact that there was no caveat gives us a positive view that it will try to influence Jeremy Corbyn in London to adopt a similar position, because it is coming to a critical point now, where the Labour Party needs to stand up on Brexit. That is critical to the whole debate about skills, economy and the opportunity in the country. I welcome that contribution, and I hope that it has an effect elsewhere as well. Neil Findlay? Can I ask what influence he had over the coalition Government that his party was a member of the cut budgets in all of those sectors across the UK? Willie Rennie? That was a nice try, Neil Findlay, but this is a debate about the economy and about the future of this country, and we can have another debate about that at any time he wishes. I would be delighted to have that debate and about the performance of the Labour opposition within the past three years on Brexit, because it has been woeful in its performance. We need to focus on the big challenges that Scotland faces. I believe that the answer to that is about participation in our economy, because that helps our economy to grow, but it also gives opportunity for individuals to succeed. That is why we are so strongly in favour of early intervention, particularly around about nursery education and the pupil premium or the pupil equity fund, as we call it in Scotland, because it gives people and young people the foundation that they require in order to grow their skills and get work in the future. Participation, I believe, is the answer to the sustainability of our economy but also opportunity for everyone. However, I have to say that the start of the debate this afternoon was a fruitless trading of statistics on performance. There is marginal difference on growth, productivity and unemployment, and to argue over that is if it is significant is pointless, it is fruitless. We need to recognise that there is a massive hurdle, a massive cost, that has been created over our economy just now because of the threat of Brexit and because of the threat of independence. Both there is bad at each other and both Governments and both parties are as bad at each other if they think that those differences are significant. We need to recognise that the constitutional upheaval that has been imposed in our country for the past 10 years has had a significant impact on our economy and we need to make it stop if we are going to give people the opportunity in our country to achieve more. The skills shortages and workforce shortages in this country are at the heart of our problems, too. Today, I was meeting with pharmacists. There is a big shortage of pharmacist GPs. I heard about yesterday, massive shortage of GPs in our country. Nurses processing business are struggling to get the workforce to need the farms, hospitality sector, engineers. There are massive shortages in skills and workers right across the country. Part of that is down to freedom of movement, the inability and the fear that we will be cutting off our opportunity to attract people from other parts of the globe, including Europe as well. However, some of the problems are born here, too. We have heard this morning about the colleges where they are having real problems with their finances. That has gone on for years. We know that the SNP Government cut massive number of places in the colleges year after year, and the effects are still being felt. However, the apprenticeship levy is not working either. The number of businesses that tell me that they are cutting their training budgets rather than increasing their training budgets because of the apprenticeship levy. If that is the effect that it is having on training in our businesses, then it is not working. The final one—I hope that the minister addresses that in his conclusion—is the last time that Jamie Hepburn—I attended the debate here—was talking about the efforts to try to deal with regional selective grants going to businesses. He said that there was going to be immediate action to clamp down on that. I hope that he does include that in his summing up remarks. I have not seen in evidence yet that that policy has been implemented. There was a debate about whether it was a pilot or not, whether I would be interested to get an update on what effect that has actually had. Finally, on his business pledge, 99 per cent of businesses in Scotland have not signed up to his business pledge. Have more of them signed up since the last debate? Thank you very much, Mr Rennie. Open debate, speeches of four minutes, with time for interventions. I call John Mason. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I am very pleased to take part in the Conservative debate on the economy this afternoon. The first part of the motion that I would like to focus on is where it says the need to address the skills gap in the economy. It certainly is true, as others have said, that there are skills shortages, but that is not because we have loads of unemployed people—we are at a record low of 3.2 per cent—or people with the wrong skills. Rather, the biggest problem is that there is a lack of people. When we went into the union in 1707, we had one-fifth of the population of England. Now, it is more like one-tenth. It is very hard to grow an economy if the population is not growing. It is a failure of the British project since 1707 that England's population has grown much more than Scotland's has. Scotland has been let down. Agriculture, construction and tourism are all sectors that are dependent on the EU and other workers coming to Scotland. Tourism specifically is worth some £9.7 billion to the economy, and EU citizens are reckoned to make up 13 per cent of the local tourism workforce, 15 per cent of the accommodation sector and 19 per cent of hotels and restaurants. If boosting Scotland's economy is linked to growing Scotland's population, how can we boost the population? How about one being part of the European Union, as that would allow free movement of workers? How about two relaxing our immigration policy so that more people could come here and be able to work? Of course, the UK is going in exactly the opposite direction. The UK wants to leave the EU and stop free movement and tighten immigration policies. Therefore, it seems that the UK is deliberately following a policy that will damage the Scottish economy. Is the UK consciously following a policy in order to damage Scotland? Even I do not think that it is probably quite as bad as that, but at the very least, it is pursuing policies without considering the negative impact on Scotland. When the economy committee conducted it briefly, it blamed the billion-pound black hole in the Scottish budget on low wages and the fact that there is now a low wage and low-skilled economy. Does the UK not think that the priority is to focus on increasing skills and skills participation in Scotland? John Mason. If the people are not there, I do not know how we can improve the skills, but I am happy to make some comments further on skills training. However, the UK might also note that, bringing it right up to date this afternoon at 2.30pm to approximately, the NFU issued a press release about the lack of people for the agricultural sector. Perhaps its party should be a little bit more worried about that. When the economy committee conducted its inquiry into the Scottish economy a few months ago, we found that we compared very favourably to most of the English regions, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we are always struggling to compete with London and the South East. As I think has been said by the Lib Dems, London is like a black hole sucking life out of the rest of the UK. On the question of the spread of skills available in our society, the economy committee has touched on that as part of our inquiry into the construction sector. That report will, hopefully, be published in the next few weeks, but we have heard of a shortage of several skills, including technical skills. Young people have given us evidence, including that the schools are pushing university far too much and that the schools treat trades as a last resort. That should not be the case. We want able young people to spread across our economy, and it would not be ideal if every young person went to university. If the Conservatives are arguing that more and more should go to university, I, for one, would be questioning that. It is also worth considering the gender stereotypes, which are still impacting the choice of career of many young people—I am sorry, I do not have time. The economy, as a whole, is losing out because women are not setting up their own businesses at the same rate as men nor are they going into STEM subjects and construction trades as much as men are. We have to accept that this is a challenge for business to take up, as well as for schools, colleges, Scottish Enterprise and so on. I was interested in the evidence from City Building in Glasgow that, although it only trained 4 per cent of all craft apprentices in Scotland, it is training 20 per cent of all the female craft apprentices. My key point is that we need more people in this country and we have to allow immigration. Thank you very much. I call Liz Smith, who will be followed by Gordon MacDonald. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that it goes without saying that the ability to harness the vast pool of diverse skills in the working population of any country matters hugely to the likely economic success of that country. It also goes without saying that Scotland has a very proud history when it comes to the mobilisation of our workforce, and we are so lucky in modern times to be sitting on huge potential when it comes to so many different industries, which are at the cutting edge of both enterprise and innovation, whether they are in engineering sectors, food and drink, digital technology or medical science. Just yesterday, Minister, I had the privilege of visiting the maritime department of the City of Glasgow College, and I saw there at first hand the expertise that makes it one of the top five colleges in the world when it comes to marine engineering. Let us be quite clear that the potential for Scotland to lead the world in so many different sectors is immense, but let us also be quite clear about the challenges that we face when it comes to delivering the success. Starting with the recent IPPR Scotland survey, which predicts that by 2030 Scotland will be short of 410,000 skilled workers, a skills gap that is costing Scottish organisations 350 million per year according to the open university. We know, too, that the size of the shortage in Scotland has doubled since 2011. No doubt a reflection of the fact that four-fifths of Scottish businesses are reporting recruitment difficulties in one form or another, but that should not just be a debate about numbers. It is a debate about the right skills and, of course, about tapping into as yet unused or underutilised potential. For example, the oil and gas sector, one of Scotland's best assets, is reporting that just under half its companies are having to deal with shortages in key disciplines for engineers and IT and technical skills. It is no coincidence at all that Holyrood's education committee begins its inquiry into STEM education tomorrow in order to understand better why Scotland is failing to recruit more STEM graduates. The committee will be looking at STEM education in schools, including whether there is any direct correlation with subject availability and choice, what the barriers are to many women entering STEM professions and why key sectors are failing to attract a sufficient number of quality STEM graduates. Those are serious questions about the rich potential of our country. The other worry, however, must be the growth in the number of university graduates who end up in low to medium-skilled jobs, when it is quite clear that Scotland is in greater need of filling higher-skilled jobs with the necessary expertise. Since 2011, we have seen the number of university graduates entering the low and medium-skilled jobs rise from 15 per cent to 19 per cent. We have also seen a rise in the number of pupils leaving school with no qualifications at all. That added to the concerns that we have to take seriously. All of that is just one of the powerful reasons for ensuring that all young people are actively involved in training until they are 18. That is tackling head-on some of the concerns of entrepreneurs, such as Jim McCall, who we believe needs to do so much more to be encouraged by the SNP Government when it comes to encouraging these positive destinations. Jim McCall is someone through Newlands junior college who has done his level best. Against it has to be said some very disappointing opposition to provide much richer training experiences for young people who have become wholly disengaged from school and we believe that his ideas have very considerable merit when it comes to expanding the skills participation programme. We surely need to complement the increased motivation for the majority of young people to stay on at school and training with qualitative opportunities for those who presently leave school with very little to their name and very little opportunity to succeed in the future. That is exactly why the Scottish Conservatives want to increase the training participation rate for those who have not secured an apprenticeship, college place, university place or for those whose circumstances prohibit them from undertaking additional training. I finish on the point that my coleg Dean Locker is absolutely right to talk about the economic policies. What must be at the core is the skills base of our working population. The latest GDP growth rates issued in May for quarter one of 2019 indicates that the UK grew by 1.5 per cent. The economic statistics centre for excellence has estimated in conjunction with the ONS that Scotland's growth was 2 per cent, the third highest out of the 12 regions of the UK. The state of the economy report issued in February 2019 by the chief economist of the Scottish Government opens with, overall, 2018 has been a positive year for the Scottish economy, with growth returning across all sectors of the economy, the labour market delivering record levels of performance and further growth in exports. The House of Commons library briefing published in September 2018 showed average Scottish regional growth between 1999 and 2016 based on annual GVA growth at 1.9 per annum—the same as the UK's 1.9 per cent and only exceeded by London on 3.1 per cent. Growth in Scotland's economy is driven by consumer spending, business investment, government spending and export activity. The lack of confidence saw annual GDP growth in Scotland and across the UK dropped significantly in 2016 and 2017 because of the Brexit referendum, yet there is no mention of that in the Tories motion. The Tories motion highlights productivity and wage growth. On productivity, the latest data for Scotland shows a significant rise in 2018 up 3.8 per cent compared to a UK productivity that rose by only a half of 1 per cent. Since 2007, productivity has increased in Scotland by 10.8 per cent compared to 2.7 per cent in the UK. In 2018, Scotland's productivity was 96 per cent of UK productivity, up from 89 per cent in 2007 and 90 per cent it was performing at when the Scottish Parliament was created. The latest regional productivity analysis, released in February, highlighted that Edinburgh was performing 24 per cent better than the UK average, with Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire performing 13 per cent above the UK level. In terms of international comparison, Scotland has a higher productivity than Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, to name but a few. Regarding the level of wages, over the life of the SNP Government from 2007 to 2018, the House of Commons library highlights that wage growth, using the median weekly pay for full-time employees, rose in Scotland by 28 per cent, four points higher than the UK average of 24 per cent. The increase in median wages over the 11 years of this Government was the highest in Britain, higher than London and all the other eight regions of England controlled by the Tories. Of the 11 regions compared by the SNP, Scotland also had the second lowest percentage of jobs paying below the real living wage in the UK, still too high at 22 per cent, but substantially lower than 29 per cent in the East Midlands or 28 per cent in Wales. However, those improvements in Scotland's economy are now under threat. The chief economist stated that a no-deal Brexit remains a significant risk and would lead to a major dislocation to the Scottish economy. In a report for the GMB by the Fraser of Allander Institute, published in April, it found that the EU is Scotland's principal international trading partner with nearly £15 billion of exports of goods and services. Over 45 per cent of Scotland's international exports are to the EU, with nearly 144,000 jobs linked to EU demand for Scottish exports in 2015. The independent Scottish Fiscal Commission last week reduced its growth forecast for 2019 and 2020 as a direct result of continuing Brexit uncertainty, with a no-deal worse than its current projections. I am afraid that you must conclude. Two seconds. No, you must conclude. When I say that you must conclude, you must conclude. You have had over your time. I now call Alex Rowley to follow by Stuart McMillan. Mr Rowley, in order for Scotland to realise its potential, we must ensure that Scotland's greatest asset is people who are able to achieve and reach their full potential. For far too many in Scotland, that is not happening. In further education, we have seen the massive cuts from the SNP Government that have had a detrimental impact on colleges and college places, particularly college places for adults. We must recognise that, at the heart of any industrial strategy, must be the link to education and skills, and that a modern economy, in a modern economy, skills and reskilling is an essential requirement for good jobs and a highway-sustainable economy. Across Scotland, we are seeing cuts in school budgets as local education authorities struggle to balance their books. The Tory motion talks about a comprehensive new approach to skills and training, but we know that the Tory's plans for Scotland, as they set out in the Scottish budget, would have seen deeper cuts in public services, so it cannot make change and deliver skills on the cheap, and it cannot deliver education on the cheap. From a party that has cut taxes for the better off, given handouts to big businesses, failed to tackle tax avoidance, chosen to force austerity on to the poorest, and a party that created Brexit in order to sort out internal division, it is quite staggering that they come along here today and talk up their economic credentials. I am sorry, I have only got four minutes, you should put in a longer debate. However, in the time that I have left, I want to touch on our amendment, and in particular another independence referendum. My view is that any attempt to hold another independence referendum without knowing the full implications of Brexit would be irresponsible. Even if a Brexit deal is reached this year, which is highly unlikely, we will not know enough to make an informed choice of the Brexit consequences for any independence referendum to take place before 2021. England, after all, is our largest trading partner, so I would ask the SNP Government to think again, take the issue of indiref 2 off the agenda and seek a fresh mandate in 2021 if you still believe at that point that that is the best way forward. I would also make the point that I do not believe any politician can tell the people of Scotland that they cannot have a referendum where there is a clear majority support for one. However, right now, given all the uncertainty, the threat to jobs and the unacceptable cuts that have taken place in public services, there is no appetite for more uncertainty, more disruption and more division. The majority of people in Scotland want us to get on with fixing those issues. I have to say to the SNP that bringing forward another referendum is music to the ears of the Tories. They do not want to talk about failed Tory austerity, failed welfare reform, failed energy policy and so on. They do not want the people of Scotland to know that under the Scottish Tory plans there would be even deeper cuts in public services in Scotland, so they are quite happy to frame the debate around the constitution. The Tories are happy to stoke up division for it, which creates a smokescreen for their failure to the people of Scotland and their failure to the people of the UK. Let us focus on the big issues that impact non-people and communities and get those issues sorted. That is what the people want. When I saw the title of the two debates today, I thought that they might be quite serious in nature, but unfortunately from the Tories' perspective, it was just more of that one of those days of the knock-about politics as compared to that aspect of being serious. We heard the Tory claims earlier about the full-life sentences but all under a Tory-led Scottish Government debate about Scotland's economy. Once again, we have had the Tories talking down Scotland's economy, which is unfortunate to feed into that narrative of the so-called strong and stable Tories. I will take your intervention. We are not talking down Scotland's economy, but the Scottish National Party's performance over the past 12 years. We are seeing now £1 billion whole in public finances, which will have a direct impact on public services here in Scotland. Mr Lockhart wants to forget something. That is forecasts about the future. As we already know, if the Tories were in power, there would be a £500 million cut to Scotland's budget because of the Tories and what they planned for the budget this year. Let's have a look at the record. Under the SNP, Scotland's economy is growing faster than the rest of the UK. Under the SNP, unemployment is at a record low. Under the SNP, exports are growing faster than the rest of the UK. Under the SNP, productivity growth is outpacing the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that that is positive, but there is still more to do. It is not a bad record, but nobody can be complacent. I know that the Scottish Government is certainly not complacent. The biggest threat to our economy is Brexit. No matter how many legions of Tory MPs put their name forward to captain the political equivalent of a Titanic, it is clear to almost everyone that Brexit will have economic consequences for all parts of the UK, particularly if it is a no-deal Brexit. On the point of Brexit, I do not know whether the Tories are actually aware of that, but when we had the European elections, Scottish voters last month actually gave the Tories their worst result in a national election since 1865. I think that that tells a story in terms of what the Scottish voters actually think about the Tories. We have already heard from the Tories regarding the Scottish Fiscal Commission report of last week, but the SNP reduced its forecast as a direct result of the continuing Brexit uncertainty with the no-deal option worse than its current projections. The Fraser of Allander institute has also suggested that our no-deal Brexit could push Scotland into a recession and highlighted the challenges to Scotland's economy. I want to quote Brian Roy. On the ITV news website of 18 April, it says that the lack of clarity about the UK's terms of exit from the EU continues to cast a shadow over day-to-day decision-making, with businesses clearly struggling to make long-term plans in such times. The Scottish Government analysis suggests that Scotland will actually go into the recession and for unemployment to increase by up to 100,000 people. Dean Lockhart in his comments earlier spoke about a dereliction of duty of any Government to reduce skills and training of its young people. I hope that that is an admission of guilt from the Tories. I also want to apologise from the Tories for what they did to the population of Scotland. The rest of the UK, when they came into power in 1979, when they cut apprenticeships across the board and introduced a YTS game—sorry, no, I do not have any more time, I have taken one more off you—I am conscious of the time. Scotland does have a good story to tell, but there is still more to do. Liz Smith spoke about skills shortages earlier. Once again, it goes back to that point of when the Tories cut apprenticeships and led to some of the skills shortages that Scotland and the UK have faced over the course of the last 20 to 30 years. There is still more to do, but I encourage colleagues in the chamber to reject the Tories, just like the population of Scotland, but to back their amendment in the name of the Scottish Government. Thank you very much. Deputy Presiding Officer, this debate comes at a critical time for Scotland's economy. As convener of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, I am acutely aware of the challenges facing our economy in the coming years. Representing the capital and the wider Lothian region, we are able to be at the heart of an economic revolution, but that will require a bold economic vision. It is clear that a skills shortage is severely hampering future growth prospects. That is why the Scottish Conservatives are using this debate to outline policy that is led by a focus on technology, innovation, global trade, employment and regional growth. We plan to introduce a new skills participation age so that everyone up to the age of 18 requires to either go to school, college, university or, if they want to start work, do so through a structured apprenticeship or a traineeship. There has been too much focus on pushing our youngsters through to university. Yes, it may be appropriate to go to university and that can work for many, but there needs to be a shift away from seeing vocational education as the poorer relation of the academic route. I am grateful for the member giving way. Given the proposal that he has outlined, would that still allow for 16 and 17-year-olds who wish to start their own business independent of the scheme to do so? Gordon Lindhurst Yes, it would do so. Returning to my thread of thought, with the IPPR in Scotland highlighting Scotland's worker shortage of 410,000 by 2030, we need to give businesses the support that will bolster skills training. The skills shortage has doubled since 2011 on the SNP's watch. Six per cent of employers reported skills shortage vacancies in 2018, with STEM employer's skills shortage vacancies also in the increase. I am pleased that the UK Government has provided £270 million for data skills training over the next decade as part of the Edinburgh and South East Scotland region deal. The data innovation project will train 100,000 Scots and ensure that the country can be at the forefront of exciting technological advancements. That needs to be combined with a boost in productivity, which has been one of the SNP's greatest failures when it comes to our economy. Scotland has not progressed up productivity league tables, despite the hours Scottish workers working being the highest since 1998. It is time that Scotland had an economic plan that gives a lifelong skills guarantee to anyone who wishes to retrain or upskill during their career. Supported by businesses, that will give them confidence that they can provide workers with greater opportunities, especially low-paid and low-skilled, whatever age or whatever stage of their career they may be at. During their 12 years in charge, the SNP Government has presided over many failures when it comes to delivering for Scotland's economy. In 12 out of the last 15 economic quarters, growth across the UK has outpaced that in Scotland, a trend set to continue until 2023. Scotland's economy continues to stagnate under the SNP who continue to create uncertainty with their plans for independence and referenda and make us the highest tax part of the UK and fail to seriously address the major skills shortage facing our economy. That is the challenge for the SNP in the coming years, otherwise Scotland's economy will continue to lag behind not only the UK but other equivalently-sized European nations. Thank you very much. I call Claire Adamson, then we move to closing speeches. Ms Adamson, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have been listening with interest in the chamber this afternoon. It really seems that the Tories want to talk about everything, but Brexit this afternoon has no mention of Brexit in their motion today. They should reflect on their dreadful performance in the EU elections just a week ago. Dean Lockhart said that Brexit is a UK-wide issue. Can you explain why Scotland is under performing the rest of the UK and will do so for the next five years? I do not agree with the member's assertion about that, and I do not agree that we cannot control all the powers that we need to grow Scotland's economy. I will outline reasons why the Westminster Government has failed in that area. We are in a parliamentary chamber and it is not an echo chamber for the Tories' empty rhetoric in this area. If they will not listen to the verdict of the Scottish people, why do they not listen to our universities, our medical staff, our science and technology professionals, who are telling us that the biggest threat for our economy going forward, the biggest threat to the skills gap, is Brexit. The policies adopted by the UK Government are not just about the economy, it is an issue of demography. Scotland is facing a big demographic problem, one that is intrinsically tied to an economic future. Ending the freedom of movement is not going to help. The hostile environment is certainly not going to help. Canceling the post-study work visa for our universities certainly did not help. It has been reintroduced for some of the universities down south. Where is the equity for Scotland in that? I want to say that, as well, Scotland is being disadvantaged again. In the context of Brexit, it is introducing three-year study visas for students, completely ignoring the fact that Scotland is a tradition of a four-year post-an undergraduate degree. The motion mentions growth. In 2018, GDP per person had grown more rapidly in Scotland than in the UK. It mentions productivity. In 2018, Scotland's productivity grew 3.8 per cent compared to 0.5 per cent in the UK as a whole. It mentions wages. In 2018, Scotland had the highest proportion of employees who played the real living wage than the other countries across the UK, a figure of 80.6 per cent. That is a success for Scotland. It mentions skills. Last Friday, I was privileged to witness the prodigious talent on display at the SCDI STEM showcase in Glasgow. Young engineers and science clubs events was a demonstration of the skills of the future. More than 300 young people represented 50 schools in Scotland demonstrating the skills that will take us into the fourth industrial revolution. Supported by business, supported by the Institute of Chemistry, supported by the Royal Society of Chemistry, this was an excellent example of what we are doing to ensure the skills of the future are here in Scotland. Dean Lockhart talked about second chance centres and vocational schools. I have to say to him that all of Scotland's schools are vocational schools because we are implementing the DWYW, the Developing and Young Workforce programme. It still has to run until 2021. Our schools are embracing that, along with curriculum for excellence, so we see our young people being able to take up foundation apprenticeships in school, working colleges in school, do vocational courses, and that is talked down as somehow as disadvantaged are young people by the Tory benches. Let's get behind Scotland. Let's get behind our pupils, let's get behind our teachers, and let's get behind the spirit of the developing the young workforce, which seeks to do exactly what your new ideas suggest, as if we're not doing anything. Excuse me, just a minute, Ms Adamson. I'm listening to you, but two members of the front bench—I won't shame them—are talking across you, which is not polite, and I want them to stop, Ms Adamson. We have a hulking spectre coming to us to haunt our doorsteps in Halloween, and it's Brexit, and it's time the Tories recognise the impact that it's going to have in Scotland's economy. I apologise for having to interrupt you, but they were just getting away with it, and that's not going to happen. Now, closing speeches, I call Rhoda Grant. Four minutes, please. Close for Labour. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In order to protect our citizens and build a fair country, we need to get the economy right, and to coin a phrase, it's the economy stupid. None of our aspirations can be realised without a fair and inclusive economy that meets the needs of our citizens. Without people working and paying taxes, we can't fund an inclusive welfare state. We see the failings of this daily. We also learned last week that there's a black hole in Scottish finances, and the only way to plug that is to build the economy. An economy built on fair pay and on secure employment. There are many opportunities to do that, but instead of capitalising on them, we watch many of those opportunities go abroad, while our Governments cause uncertainty at home with nationalistic constitutional wranglings. It's time the SNP refocused their efforts on domestic issues at hand rather than wasting time on a second independence referendum. We could be building our economy, and instead they wished to cause further chaos and uncertainty. Willie Rennie said that Brexit was as bad as independence, but if Brexit is bad, independence is at least four times worse. Jamie Hepburn talked about the constraints in the powers that he had, but they cannot set up a welfare system in the time allowed, far less the institutions that we would need to run an independent country. They should aspire to use the powers that they have before they ask for more very quickly. I was referred to, of course, was our fair work agenda, our ability to implement the real living wage as a statutory minimum wage, to repeal the trade union act. Does the member regret the fact that the Labour Party opposed the devolution of employment law to this place during the Smith commission process? Rhoda Grant? Had it been devolved, I wonder if the Scottish Government would have been able to implement it. They haven't been able to implement a lot of the powers that they got under the Smith commission, and they have handed them back, so I have no confidence in them being able to implement any powers that they get. Instead, they give us a cuts commission, a decade of austerity under independence, and they cut off their biggest trading partner. Richard Leonard told us that £14.9 billion of trade with the EU is £48.9 million trade with the UK. How can they think that our economy will work when we cut off our nearest neighbours? Richard Leonard talked about the need for an industrial strategy, and the Scottish Labour party is firmly behind that. It should be a top priority for the Scottish Government, and we believe that it is time for a new approach to rebalance and grow our economy differently. Retaining and building on sectors that Scotland once thrived in and was proud of, pursuing opportunities in new technology to broaden our economic base and to help pave the way for a green industrial revolution. It is quite sad that the STUC report has shown how past promises of employment in the low-carbon and renewable energy economy have not been delivered. Sadly, in fact, numbers employed in that area have fallen. Many speakers talked about the skills gap, and I agree with that, because our workforce needs to be skilled. Alex Rowley talked about cuts to FE. It is not only young people who need skills in STEM subjects. It is also people who are working and need to re-skill in order to keep up with new technologies. We cannot afford to leave anyone in our economy behind. Residing officer, to create a fair society, we need to grow our economy. I agree with Patrick Harvie that using GDP to measure that as progress leaves much to be desired. We need to look at what New Zealand is doing in that area and look to see how we can implement something similar. However, we still need secure, well-paid jobs to build our economy and to share wealth and power. The Scottish Government has the levers to do that, if it would only use them. Thank you very much. I call in Kate Forbes, closed with the Government Minister. Five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will start on a point of consensus. I think that there have been some good ideas discussed and debated today. The debate has focused in part on the Scottish Government's responsibilities for the economy. I am happy to concede that, as the Scottish Government has partial responsibility for the economy, we celebrate our role in record low unemployment, in exports growing faster than anywhere else in the UK and productivity increasing. As the EY attractiveness survey published today recognises, Scotland has proven strengths in its record for attracting new investment and the perception of Scotland as an investment destination. Under a year ago, Barclays announced that it was setting up its tech hub in Scotland, creating over 2,500 new jobs. Last week, I welcomed the newest fintechs in Scotland, so there is a lot to celebrate. However, looking at independent research from the Fraser of Allander Institute, or the Scottish Fiscal Commission, or in fact speaking to most businesses right across Scotland, it identifies two key strengths. The first is Brexit, as Stuart McMillan and Gordon MacDonald outlined. However, the second is particularly relevant in the debate, and that is restrictions on freedom of movement. No matter how hard Dean Lockhart tries to spin it or weasel out of it, it is the party who brought this motion today who is responsible for that. Dean Lockhart mentioned the Fraser of Allander Institute last week. Brexit is a UK-wide factor. The cuts to income tax forecasts by the SFC arise because income tax receipts per head in Scotland are growing more slowly than elsewhere in the UK. Is that because the S&P has created a low-skilled and low-wage economy? The fact that the Tories keep talking about a black hole and their misunderstanding of the whole concept of forecasts shows that we should never let them near implementing economic policies. However, the Fraser of Allander also shows that a disorderly no-deal Brexit could push the Scottish economy into recession. No matter how much Dean Lockhart tries to whitewash reality, he cannot get away from that independent analysis. Liz Smyth talked, I thought, quite powerfully about the skills base and the need for STEM skills and the responsibility for digital skills. I take a keen interest in those matters. Tech is forecast to be the fastest growing sector in Scotland by 2024. Last week, I launched the new £1 million fund to re-skill and up-train people who are targeting in particular those in low-wage jobs or no job at all but who have the aptitude so that we actually expand the workforce. The point of all that is that the pace of change and the changing nature of demand for skills means that Government needs to be agile and quick to respond not just to this Government but to all Governments around the world. However, with unemployment at a record low and with our outperformance on the UK on overall unemployment, youth unemployment and women's unemployment, in light of those figures, immigration is important. When I intervened, Dean Lockhart dismissed the need for immigration, which will not reassure the business community who says that the UK Government's immigration policy is obstinate, economically illogical and shows that the UK Government is hell-bent on ignoring the business community. Those are not my words, those are quotes. Briefly, I stressed the importance of immigration going forward. I said that it is the primary responsibility of the UK Government to ensure that young people here in Scotland are fully trained. I do not dismiss the point of adequate training, which is why I talked initially about the need to retrain and reskill. Dean Lockhart cannot dismiss the end of the post-study work visa, the cap on earnings at £30,000 and the hostile environment, although that does not have a current and a present impact on our skills base, as Clare Adamson powerfully set out. Although we can dwell on the negatives, we are getting on with supporting the economy. Last month, we published a trading nation with a plan for growing Scotland's exports, which sets out how we will grow the value of Scotland's exports as a percentage of GDP from 20 per cent to 25 per cent over the next 10 years. Over the next year, we will establish a Scottish National Investment Bank with funds for precursor activities of £130 million. We will continue to support the building Scotland fund, which supports the Scottish economy through loans and equity investments. We have established the national retraining partnership. We have invested £6.3 million of capital to continue the delivery of the National Manufacturing Institute for Scotland. As I close, the Tories came today with a wish list for a strong economy, but it is a wish list, because it utterly ignores its role right now in jeopardising the economy and the well-articulated views of the business community. We do not have a wish list, we have an action plan, an action plan that is upskilling and retraining the workforce, that is boosting exports and that is supporting innovation. We have had a number of debates in recent months looking at aspects of Scotland's economy. We have looked at trade, we have looked at specific sectors such as energy, and we have looked all too briefly, unfortunately, at entrepreneurship. However, all of those are only small parts of a far larger overall picture. In bringing forward today's debate, we wanted to consider the deeper structural challenges that are facing our economy, as well as the need for a fresh approach from government. Many of the problems are easy to identify. Scotland's predicted growth is set to lag behind that of the rest of the UK. Many employers report skill shortages in their sectors and have real concerns for the future, too. While we look to address the real issues Brexit undoubtedly forces us to face, we have a Scottish Government obsessed, despite the minister's rosy appraisal of Scotland's economy, with adding to that uncertainty by pushing a damaging second referendum and building barriers with the UK, our largest trading partner. We know that Scotland must strive for economic growth, yet business confidence is low, and the various strategies that the Scottish Government has produced have resulted in little real progress, just a far more cluttered landscape than now. We hear again and again from businesses that the most important requirements for investment are the skilled workforce. I am sure that many of us from across the chamber can agree on at least some of the principles that we need to value vocational education, at least as much as we value the more academic routes, that there must be a real recognition that the labour market is changing, that there are a few jobs for life and that, over their working age, most people will change jobs and even sector a number of times. That is why we have established the development young workforce to tackle the misperceptions about vocational education as opposed to academic education, and why, in terms of the wider challenges around having a skilled population, we have committed to the skills action plan and the national retraining partnership. Jamie Halcro Johnston I am happy to look at where the Scottish Government has taken action and prepared that up, but you have had 12 years to get this right, and we are still in the situation that we are in now. The problem is that business does not think that it is going to get better in the future, and that is what you should be hearing. There must be a real recognition that the labour market is changing, that there are a few jobs for life. That is why we believe that a lifelong skills guarantee is so important. It will acknowledge that many people will have more than one career in their lifetime, and the ability for all to re-skill is becoming increasingly essential. As Dean Lockhart spoke about, we want to see a new skills participation age, ensuring that everybody under 18 is in school, college, university or receiving structured training while in work, that no young person is left behind. In several speeches in the chamber, I have emphasised the need for both a national and a local approach. While our economic statistics are generally national, they often neglect, as we heard in the economy committee, the underlying problem in Scotland's regions. For too many parts of Scotland, the experience of the last decade has been of being left behind. UK-wide measures such as building a national living wage have had an effect of making truly national impact, but the reach of many initiatives heralded in this chamber are often slow to reach. Foundation apprenticeships, for example, begin with a poor level of choice for pupils in many parts of Scotland outside of the central belt. Still today, there are shortcomings, with some frameworks simply unavailable in certain regions. More than ever, improving skills is an essential step forward towards solving our productively challenge, raising incomes and building a strong economy here in Scotland and across Scotland for future generations. There have been some insightful and some less insightful contributions today, and I am sorry that I will not have time to cover all of them. Dean Lockhart spoke about how, with Scottish growth, has even kept pace with the rest of the UK over the last 12 years, that our economy would be £7 billion larger. He highlighted the staggering figure that, while 43 per cent of businesses in our competitor countries embed digital in their operations, only 9 per cent of Scottish businesses do. He laid out why we are proposing an institute of technology in e-commerce with the aim of supporting between 2,000 and 3,000 businesses every year. No, please sit down, Mr Halcro Johnston, you are not at fault. It is the usual warning at this time from the Presiding Officers. Strolling into a lot of your pals is not on. I want to hear the closing speeches and members who have been in the debate want to hear the closing speeches, so just wait until 5 o'clock. I was just going to get louder and louder, Deputy Presiding Officer. We are the aim of supporting between 2,000 and 3,000 businesses every year to access new markets by moving their businesses onto a dedicated e-commerce platform. Gordon Lindhurst highlighted the need to boost productivity. He acknowledged that, despite the hours that Scottish workers work being the highest since 1998, there has been no progression up the productivity league tables. Liz Smith spoke about the immense potential for Scotland to lead the world in many different sectors, but he also highlighted the challenges that we face. She and Gordon Lindhurst both referred to the recent IPPR Scotland survey, which warns that, by 2030, in Scotland we risk being short of 410,000 skilled workers, a skills gap that the open university estimates costing Scottish organisations £350 million every year. That is why it is so disappointing that, at a time when we need young people to engage in more vocational courses, when we want to promote the crucial and rewarding route and when we should be looking to create a parity of esteem between education and vocational paths, the Scottish Government has failed to properly support an initiative like Newlands junior college. Liz Smith is quite right that initiatives like Jim McColls must be a crucial part of our skills offering in the future, particularly engaging with those currently disengaged from our schools. Presiding officer, economy policy is about facing into the future and seizing opportunities, rather than being overwhelmed by new challenges. In Scotland we have many strengths, but we must not ignore our weaknesses either. In every generation, since the industrial revolution, the speed of economic change has accelerated. It seems more than ever that the Scottish Government is simply failing to keep pace. As Rhoda Grant suggested, it is not just about the economy. Many of the privileges that we enjoy as a society depend on our economic success. We can look starkly at recent forecasts from the Scottish Fish School Commission about the impact that weak growth in income tax revenues will have on Scottish budget. For many years, the devolution settlement has almost completely sheltered administrations in this chamber from the impact of their economic decisions. That time has passed and we now have a very immediate, very real need to invest in our economy. If the Government does not get it right, then the stark truth is that the Government will not be able to do or provide the things that it currently does. Trying to squeeze the same out of our devolved revenue powers will require more and more pain. That is why we need a workforce that has the skills to participate in current and emerging sectors. We need the support in place to ensure that workers can retrain when required, whatever the stage of their working career. Why Scotland needs a Scottish Conservative Government that is willing and able to take on the opportunities of the future and to build an economy that works for all of Scotland? Thank you very much, Mr Halcro Johnston. That concludes this afternoon's debate on realising Scotland's potential, and we will turn straight to decision time. Before the first vote, I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Humza Yousaf is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Pauline McNeill will fall. The first question is that amendment 17503.2, in the name of Humza Yousaf, which seeks to amend motion 17503, in the name of Liam Kerr, on whole-life custody sentences be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 17503.2, in the name of Humza Yousaf, is yes, 70, no, 28. There were 18 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The amendment in Pauline McNeill's name therefore falls. The next question is that motion 17503, in the name of Liam Kerr, as amended, on whole-life custody sentences be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division once more. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 17503, in the name of Liam Kerr, as amended, is yes, 88, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 17504.3, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, which seeks to amend motion 17504, in the name of Dean Lockhart, on realising Scotland's potential be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 17504.3, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, is yes, 59, no, 51. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 17504, in the name of Richard Leonard, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Dean Lockhart, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 17504, in the name of Richard Leonard, is yes, 51, no, 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 17504, in the name of Dean Lockhart, as amended, on realising Scotland's potential be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 17504, in the name of Dean Lockhart, as amended, is yes, 59, no, 51. There were six abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We are going to move shortly to a member's business debate in the name of Richard Lyle on the Alzheimer Scotland report on delivering fair dementia care for people with advanced dementia. We will just take a few moments for members and the minister to change seats.