 The next item of business is a debate on motion 9221 in the name of Murdo Fraser on Barclay Review and Arms Length External Organisations. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press a request to speak buttons? I call on Murdo Fraser to speak to you and move the motion for up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that it's fair to say that this is going to be a rather different debate from the one that we were expecting when we put down the subject for discussion last week. I was expecting to come along and demand that the cabinet secretary acts the swim tax, and he has, of course, beaten me to it. Being a generous soul, I thank the finance secretary for announcing yesterday that this proposal to remove the rates relief from local authority arms length organisations alloys will not now proceed for, I think, we have to accept bowing to the inevitable. I'm sure that the timing of that announcement yesterday was purely coincidental in terms of the fact that this debate was taking place this afternoon. Can I be generous in my thanks to the cabinet secretary for his U-turn? Can I thank the other opposition parties in this chamber for their co-operation and for indicating that they are prepared to work with us and show a united front? Can I thank most of all my Conservative colleagues for leading the charge against the swim tax and for delivering a significant victory for this Parliament, for the opposition parties and, most of all, for the Scottish Conservatives? Just two weeks ago, there was a member's debate in this chamber in the name of my colleague Gordon Lindhurst on this question of the Barclay review and, specifically, this recommendation that the current charitable exemption from paying non-domestic rates for local authority arms length organisations should be removed. I don't intend to rehearse all the arguments in that debate, but I think that it's worth reminding us how we got here. I'd like to reassure members before I go any further, particularly Bruce Crawford, who has a strong personal interest in this matter, that I will not be modelling a pair of Speedos during this debate. I'm sure that that will come as a great disappointment to Mr Crawford and other members. I can't speak for Mr Lindhurst, I have to say, but I will not be modelling Speedos in this debate. The background to the issue was the Barclay review of business rates, which was a comprehensive summary of the issues, although Hamstrung, from the very start, by the finance secretary's requirement that its recommendations would have to be revenue neutral. What the Barclay review did was characterise arms-length organisations, including those providing leisure and cultural facilities, as tax avoidance structures. Although that is, or may be, technically correct, I think that that language was unhelpful, particularly in the context of what we've heard in recent weeks about the paradise papers. I was, incidentally, Deputy Presiding Officer, interested to hear the finance secretary say in that debate that tax avoidance might not be a bad thing. I'm sure that he will want to reassure me that he was only referring to those limited circumstances rather than the more general issue. Of course, I'll give away. Derek Mackay My purpose in life is to reassure Murdo Fraser. I'm happy to reassure him. Of course, there's a world of difference in tax avoidance where people take money for profit to squirrella away and the description of allios, which takes the tax that is avoided as a construct of their corporate governance, to reinvest in public services. Murdo Fraser I'm very grateful to the finance secretary for giving me that reassurance and putting that on the record. I was interested to read some of his comments yesterday about what might happen going forward. Perhaps he can clarify this when he comes to his contribution about local authorities that do not currently have allios but might be considering setting them up. Of course, I'll give away. Derek Mackay A helpful intervention, because I'll be summing up. Of course, it would be interesting to hear the views of other members on that point. I recommend that current allios in their trust status have their relief maintained. However, I made a point in previous debates that there is a risk to future services, and therefore we should draw a line as to know new services being transferred into that category. That was my position. Murdo Fraser I thank the cabinet secretary for clarifying that matter. I know that it will be of interest to some local authorities in different parts of Scotland who I'm sure will want to raise that. However, the proposal about charging rates in allios did meet a great deal of objection from across the country. Robin Strang, the chair of Sport of Scotland and Anthony McRavy, the chair of Vocal Scotland, respectively the membership bodies for cultural and leisure trusts in Scotland. The National Association for Culture and Leisure Managers wrote jointly to committees of the Parliament expressing their concern, saying that they believed that the implementation of the recommendation would result in, as I quote, a catastrophic and irreversible impact on the provision of community-valued leisure parks and culture across Scotland. They were very clear about the impact that those would have. It seems particularly strange to be doing this at a time when what we're trying to do is encourage more activity, tackling obesity, getting more people involved in sports and leisure, and when our culture output is vital to our economic and tourism offer. I'm glad that the cabinet secretary has responded to a vigorous Conservative campaign. We've had this climb down from the Scottish Government, and in a spirit of generosity we'll be happy to accept the Scottish Government's amendment to our motion this afternoon. Finally, can I just reflect that it was after mature debate and consideration that the Scottish Government withdrew those particular tax proposals? We, of course, are currently having another mature debate and consideration about levels of income tax. I can only hope that the mature debate around income tax will lead to the cabinet secretary to the same conclusion that he reached on the swim tax, and we will see that tax axed as well. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to move the motion in my name. I now call Eileen Campbell to speak to and move amendment 9221.4 in the name of Derek Mackay for up to five minutes. From the outset, the Scottish Government said that it would consider the 30 recommendations from the Barclay review, which was a mix of support measures and revenue-raising. They were presented as supporting growth, improving administration and increasing fairness. It was also acknowledged that none of that would be easy. Kenneth Barclay estimated that ending charity relief from council allios would generate £45 million, its biggest revenue-raising recommendation. During a statement on 12 September, the cabinet secretary for finance accepted the vast majority of the recommendations, including a range of measures to support growth and investment that have been widely welcomed by business. The Barclay review aimed to ensure that non-domestic rates support growth and reflect economic conditions, and on allios it suggested that, in particular, leisure trusts had an unfair competitive advantage over privately operated gyms. The cabinet secretary undertook to fully engage and listen to those impacted by his recommendations. He did that, he reflected on what he was presented with and made yesterday's positive announcement. This Government will go to great lengths to protect the Scottish public from seeing Murdo Fraser in Speedos. Derek Mackay announced that qualifying properties currently occupied by allios will continue to benefit from charity relief from non-domestic rates. As we have heard, that includes many well-used leisure and cultural venues across the country. The Scottish Government will take steps to offset the charity relief benefits to councils from any new allio expansion in the future. I want to take the opportunity to put on record our appreciation for excellent work that sport, leisure trusts and cultural venues do right across the country, along with the local authorities who manage the services themselves. On the issue of offsetting any further charity relief benefit to councils to deter future allios, will that mean that councils that still have every one of their sport and leisure facilities in the house will receive compensation for the full rates for those sports and leisure facilities? If not, that does not deter them from creating an allio in the future. Aileen Campbell said that we want the cabinet secretary to outline in his statement yesterday that he wanted to offset any further charity relief benefits to councils to deter future allio expansion. The cabinet secretary also continues to engage with COSLA on many of those issues. I am sure that he will continue to pick up those points through the rest of the debate. Going back to putting on record our thanks to the work of sport and leisure trusts, I also want to thank all those who have taken part in the consultation process from my portfolio, sport it and vocal, who worked with their partners to provide us with the information required, as the Government reflected on what Barclay recommended. Their research suggests that 92 per cent of all trusts confirmed that they would be forced to close leisure centres and swimming pools. 65 per cent stated that community facilities such as town halls and village halls and community centres could face a similar fate. Similarly, cultural organisations outlined a pretty bleak future for the facilities that provide much-needed and enriching cultural offerings, including museums, galleries and libraries. It is important to remember that those facilities are more than just potential revenue streams. They are community assets providing places to meet, to be active, to play, learn and enjoy a host of pursuits. My role as Minister for Public Health and Sport is constituency member for Clydesdale and also as a mother who takes her two wee boys to the local leisure centre, regardless of where it is. It has been my privilege to visit a number of leisure trusts and to hear about the work that they do. Work that often goes above and beyond simply being a sports centre and aligns with this Government's priority to get people more active more often and tackling unfair inequalities. From swimming classes for disabled children or strength and balance work for the elderly to dementia-friendly exercise classes, leisure trusts provide a variety of services, often benefiting the hardest-to-reach in society. However, I have always been clear to leisure trusts to better evidence the impact that they are having in their local communities. Although the Government has rejected that recommendation, that does not mean that we can be complacent or simply continue as we have. We must collectively work to articulate with robust evidence exactly what those community facilities bring and what further potential they still have. We are very familiar with the arguments of the need to nudge our population towards being active. We are also familiar with the stats that show that physical inactivity, which results in around 2,500 premature deaths, costs the NHS around £94.1 million annually and can have a significant impact on over 25 chronic conditions. Leisure trusts can and some already do position themselves firmly in that preventative health space. Here, they can clearly differentiate themselves from other leisure providers. They have opportunities to collaborate with the NHS, local authorities and third sector colleagues in the delivery of health and social care services. The power of that potential, if done in a consistent way, is huge. The office also has an opportunity to support local groups and not fear that they are in competition with them. There is also surely scope to collaborate across their territorial boundaries in the pursuit of maximising the impact of that significant resource. Yesterday, I spoke with Sporta and Vocal, who are rightly proud about what their members achieve. Again, there is also great scope for us to continue working in partnership, along with Macaulay, Derek Mackay and others, to seize the chance to get the most out of the considerable resource that should be maximised so that the benefits from all, for all, can be felt. I look forward to hearing the contributions from across the chamber. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has given me pleasure to speak in this afternoon's debate on the Barley review in Allios. As Murdo Fraser said, it is perhaps a very different debate from the one that we expected a little over 24 hours ago. Much is the Government's talk about the consideration that it has given us and the consultation, etc. The reality of that is that, 24 hours ago, the Government faced the prospect of a defeat on this issue with the Opposition parties uniting to vote down the Government at 5 o'clock, and that was why Mr Mackay rushed out his press release yesterday afternoon in order to avoid that defeat. It does. If I need any more evidence, usually in these finance debates, we see Mr Mackay leading the charge for the Government from the front. However, bearing in mind, this is a concession that has been dragged to make the valiant Aileen Campbell up to the front of the debate this afternoon. I cannot allow any extra time, Mr Kelly. I thank James Kelly for taking that intervention. I think that it is quite appropriate that the responsible minister for this area, including sport and such organisations, makes this contribution to the chamber. Amongst ministerial views, rather than Murdo Fraser, it was Aileen Campbell who was representing the sector, ensuring that this was the decision that the Government took. That is all the more reason that Aileen Campbell contributed to this debate. Much as he tried, Mr Mackay, that does not sound very convincing. I was interested to hear Aileen Campbell talk about the consultation. I was really surprised that the Government felt the need to consult on that recommendation. Clearly, it is a logical follow-on from that. If the sporting venues in various council areas would have to pay business rates, it would lead to the closure of many. That would not only have a detrimental effect on local communities, which series sporting facilities are the lifeblood of their local area. It would also significantly reduce participation rates. That is something that Aileen Campbell talks about quite consistently, as a sports minister. In the health questions this afternoon, there was quite a vigorous debate about funding for the Scottish Sports Association, and it showed how much members feel strongly about funding sport. That would have been severely undermined if that decision had gone ahead. From that point of view, I welcome the Government's view turn. It is also essential to look at the overall funding package in terms of what will be raised on domestic rates, because £2.8 billion is the figure that contributes towards local authority budgets. It is a complex area, and it is important to get the solutions correct and transparent. It is absolutely essential that it is cost-neutral, and it does not result in reductions to the overall local government settlement. In terms of moving forward, although it is welcome that we have a U-turn, it will be welcomed by many councils. There are consequential issues that have to be examined by Colin Smyth, and others have been raised around council sporting facilities, which are not allios, and the clear issue of the local government settlement cannot be undermined as a result of that. Strict four-minute speeches, please. Andy Wightman, followed by Tavish Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing this debate, and thank those who have provided briefings as well. As I said during Gordon Lindhurst's debate last week, the way in which we have historically developed policy and non-domestic rates has been often ad hoc and opportunistic. However, the system of non-domestic rates itself is based on sound principles. The cabinet secretary and his predecessor are fond of citing Adam Smyth's four maxims of taxation, one of which is the equality of proportionality of the ability to pay. However, what Scottish ministers never do is to complete the maxim, which in full reads, "...the subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." When Adam Smyth wrote that maxim, income tax did not exist, it was yet to be invented, and the revenue that he referred to was the revenue arising from the economic rent of land. Since today, almost a quarter of a century later, the non-domestic rating system continues to capture or socialise that economic rent. On the question of charitable relief for arms-length organisations, as I said in the previous debate, I am not persuaded that there is a case for withdrawal of that relief, and such a case as might exist should only follow a full impact assessment. We welcomed the Government's announcement yesterday, but we regret a little bit that a system that, as I say, is already complex and dealt with in ad-hoc fashion is to have further ad-hoc provisions attached to it in relationship to Derek Mackay's proposals about future allios, which will add more complexity. The fact that that proposal was even under consideration is because of the peculiar manner in which the Barclay review was framed. In September 2013, Derek Mackay, who was the then Minister for Local Government, published a response to the consultation supporting business promoting growth, in which he said that during the Scottish Government would conduct and I quote a thorough and comprehensive review of the whole business rate system by 2017, which would deliver a fair, simpler and more efficient business rate system. That review never took place. Instead, we had the Barclay review, which asked only one question. How would you redesign the business rate system to better support business and incentivise investment? It was also instructed that its recommendations should be revenue neutral, and that meant in practice that any proposals that were made to reduce liabilities, in any way, had to be balanced by measures that would make up for that lost yield. Barclay was not the comprehensive review promise in 2013 that has yet to take place, and it was the narrow context in which Barclay took place that the idea under debate to date emerged with no proper grounding in taxation principles or of the legitimate debate to be had on charitable relief and other reliefs. I have long argued that charitable relief is a blunt instrument, as is the small business bonus scheme, which, as I reported for example some weeks ago, results in many short-term lets in Edinburgh, avoiding £6 million in tax liabilities. It is high time that we had a proper debate on the system of local taxation and how to make it fairer, more transparent and locally accountable. Greens advocate a system of land value tax, which would mean that there would be no tax liability on improvements, but a levy solely on land values. Given the current state of the housing crisis, my colleagues and I recently calculated that there are thousands of hectares of derelict and vacant land, some of which are held in offshore tax havens, but which pay not a penny to local services. We believe that councils should be provided and could be provided with powers to tax, for example, the capital gains of main residences. We could scrap land and buildings transaction tax, we could re-value domestic property, we could do much, much more, but every hour spent debating ad hoc proposals arising out of flawed reviews is in my view an hour wasted when we shouldn't could be turning our efforts to far more fundamental reform. The last of the open debate speakers is Tavish Scott, Presiding Officer. I begin this debate by suggesting that Murdo Fraser should apologise to Derek Mackay, because there was poor Mr Mackay trying to think of one or two cheerful bits of news for the budget in two weeks' time and there he alighted on the obvious thing to do, which was to take away the threat hanging over our sports clubs and many other organisations across Scotland. What happened that Tories put down a motion which the rest of us were going to support and there was Derek's opportunity for glory in two weeks' time and swept away from him? I think we should start this debate by Mr Fraser apologising to Mr Mackay for that disgraceful bit of political grandstanding. This is an important outcome for the sports clubs for the leisure facilities and many other organisations across Scotland who would have been in some big financial hall where this measure to have been allowed to happen, for this relief to have been removed. In that spirit I think we should take this debate forward today. They made a careful and considered case, both to the Government and also to the Opposition parties, about the importance of the organisations of a wider policy in part of any decision to remove rates relief. They did it in a way that I think was important from a number of perspectives. One of which in my part of the world was on competition, because Barclay considered that, where such facilities were competing with the private sector, there should be a change in respect of those sports clubs and others who were competing as they saw it. Well, that does not exist in Shetland and it does not exist in many parts of rural Scotland. It may exist in some of our cities, although there are what does exist in some of our cities, but there are different arguments there as were made clear in Gordon Lindhurst's debate a week or so ago. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary recognised that point and made that change. There is one or other aspect that he made in response to murder phrases from Marx earlier on. He made an observation about the definition and what may or may not happen in the future, and keeping that under review. I think that it is very important when the Government looks at this again on the use of values by local government that they recognise all its Scotland's definitions in this area. There is some room there for sensible arrangements to be made by local government in trying to ensure that the people that they serve receive the best service that they can through the kinds of organisations that we are protecting here tonight. Two final points, Presiding Officer. On Friday night, instead of having a debate in the Clickham and Leisure Centre in Shetland about how they were going to find £700,000 of savings, instead we will have our annual sports awards. We are very honoured to have Gregor Townsend, the Scottish National Rugby Coach joining us as our principal guy. It would have been Derek Mackay, but we did not know he was going to make this U-turn. Otherwise, obviously, we would have had Mr Mackay to do the honours, not in Speedos. There are some things that we have almost not put up with in Shetland, and that is certainly one. However, the important point here is that we have an agreed sport strategy at home in my part of the world, which involves the national health service, Sports Scotland, our local council and our leisure facility trust. That ensures that we do, as the Government would ask us to look at participation of healthy lifestyles, of tackling mental ill health across all ages, and that for me is at the heart of what this debate should be about. When the Sports Minister in her opening remarks this evening suggested that, collectively, we should look at how we can work on those things, I agree. Therefore, perhaps tonight, the test for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, when the budget is announced in a couple of weeks' time, is to make sure that there are no further cuts to the sports budget that we have seen since the Commonwealth Games and, instead, that we recognise how important sport is for all those wider Government objectives. We move to the closing speeches. I call Jackie Baillie. Can I have shorter than four minutes, please? Oh, I shall be quick then. Let me thank the Cabinet Secretary for making this one of the shortest debates in the Parliament. Let me gently observe that, when it comes to the Cabinet Secretary, it appears that the mere prospect of losing a vote in this chamber has him on the run. His normal answer for everything is to say that he cannot possibly tell you anything until the budget is announced on 14 December, while clearly he has changed his mind. I very much welcome this, as he made the right decision yesterday. Of course he will say that his announcement had nothing at all to do with today's debate. Of course we believe him, but, although I might enjoy teasing the Cabinet Secretary, at the end of the day, the right conclusion has been reached. I will, however, put him on notice, because the temptation to bring forward a series of motions that would enjoy majority support in the chamber during the budget is too strong to resist. I look forward to the Cabinet Secretary responding positively. It is the case that members across the chamber had been contacted by their local leisure trusts. I was approached by West Dunbartonshire leisure trusts, not in the time available, and Livar Gile, both genuinely concerned about the impact of paying business rates on the services that they provide. I know that leisure trusts across Scotland were having to face the possibility of closing facilities, price rises, reducing hours and even making staff redundant. They are both relieved and grateful for the decision made by the Cabinet Secretary to continue their exemption from non-domestic rates. The Cabinet Secretary has, however, been silent on the other recommendations that he believed required further consideration and engagement. Has he reached a view on private schools? Has he reached a view on empty properties? Will he increase the large business supplement again in the budget, and will he tell us now? Rather than tell us exactly now, he can do it in his contribution, because, Presiding Officer, he has told me that I do not have time. However, what I suspect he will actually tell us in his closing contribution is that gentle refrain that we always hear, he cannot reveal anything until the budget. However, he has clearly made a decision on part of the non-domestic rates package, so why not the rest? Perhaps he should listen to what I am saying, Presiding Officer, because it is a package. I well remember the Cabinet Secretary saying that the Barclay review would be cost-neutral when it started. He repeated that in the chamber on 6 September when he made his statement to this Parliament. So far, he has announced the giveaways, the good stuff, but he has not told us how he will raise the income to keep it cost-neutral. I look forward to his contribution telling us that, because I want to know, is he proposing that the balancing funding—which must be in excess of £120 million per year—should come from the areas that he has still to consider? If so, wow, is that some burden? However, this money matters both to businesses and to organisations that need to plan for increases but also for local authorities who rely on the income. The cabinet secretary needs to tell us if he is going to stick to the outcome of Barclay being revenue-neutral or if he is going to forego vital resources and cut local government even further than he is already planning to do. He should tell us in his closing contribution, Presiding Officer. He might want to continue to hide behind the mantra of all that will be revealed in the budget, but I am asking him about a principle. Will the outcome of the Barclay report, when implemented by the cabinet secretary, be revenue-neutral for this coming financial year, yes or no? Presiding Officer, I am always happy to welcome ministerial announcements that give hard-pressed organisations a financial break. Goodness sake, we all do, but it shows an arrogance from the cabinet secretary to simply pick and mix what he tells the chamber. SNP Labour members are rightly pursuing the Tory Government about transparency in the EU negotiations. Perhaps he should start closer to whom and provide transparency to this Parliament now. Paul-Gerrit-McKyle, Chief Cabinet Secretary, knows what shorter than four minutes means. I will do my best, Presiding Officer, of course. I am in your hands. First of all, I welcome the constructive, consensual debate where Parliament has united. We have united and even Jackie Baillie has had to complement me. That is as close as a compliment that Jackie Baillie gets. Minister Eileen Campbell has covered many of the benefits of the decision. In fact, many members have to be fair. Of course, those interested in the decision have warmly welcomed the decision as well. A key recommendation of Barclay that people across this chamber welcomed was one of the recommendations in the content of the report that, if the Government is going to make substantive changes on non-domestic rates, it should consult first. We agreed that that was an important principle and that is exactly what I did as finance secretary in the Scottish Government. It is hardly a U-turn of Government policy when it was never Government policy. It was a recommendation from an independent panel for which we were to consider and to deliberate on. I did engage, consult and consider. Some members have said why even consult, because I have kept within the spirit of the Barclay report to engage in such matters. Andy Wightman, with very thoughtful contribution, made the point that, if you ever change anything, do an impact assessment and that is exactly what I have been engaged in. That includes stakeholders, that includes trusts and allios, that includes council, COSLA and political colleagues as well, such as Bob Doris, who took an interest as a local government convener and asked questions of it, so I have engaged with members. I listened very closely to the member's debate that we had and I said at that point that the matter was not concluded, but that would feed in to my thinking. Stop, press, minister listens, engages and responds constructively and positively. I do not have enough time, I am afraid, in terms of models of delivery. I listened very closely to what the Greens in particular and the Labour Party said as well around the particular Aalio model. That is why I have set out a position that we have to draw a line. Some local authorities were engaging in the concept of putting school gym halls next into the status to avoid paying non-domestic rates. So there are a range of reasons for us to consider at what point it was appropriate to say no further but also to give stability and continuity going forward in terms of those trusts that are delivering operations right now. There have been arguments about who should take credit for this decision. I see Richard Leonard not in the chamber right now, but of course there has been—I do not have time but I will try if I have a minute left. Of course this was about engagement, this was about listening to impact and responding appropriately, but I say gently to the Conservatives. When they speak about sport and culture, are they not aware of the downturn in lottery resources that are impacting in sport and culture organisations across the country and have failed to address that issue? I have said that I was listening and engaging and that is exactly what we have done in terms of revenue neutrality. Barclay did have that as a remit, but clearly we can look at the totality of resources to arrive at the right decisions around what is the right thing to do in terms of non-domestic rates. This debate has been quite a mature one, but it has flushed out once again that the opposition, particularly the Tory party, knows how to spend money but has no idea how to raise revenue for our public services. I say to everyone in the chamber—I am touching on the point that Tavish Scott made—I said that I would listen to everyone in the chamber. I look forward to the budget on 14 December, and he has yet another reason to back it. I call Gordon Lindhurst to close this debate. Can you take his two decision time, please? After the last two speeches, I was not sure if peace on earth would come early to Parliament, but the speeches then developed into one or two critical points. Nevertheless, I am not going to enter into the debate between my colleague Murdo Fraser and Derek Mackay earlier on about either speedos or squirrels. It is good to come here and for the Government to have listened to the views of the opposition parties and the allios who would have been affected by the decision, and to come here on the back of the members' debate that I brought to the Parliament. That gave the opportunity to members from across the chamber different parties to express their views on the potential consequences for allios if the Barclay recommendation 24 had been implemented. That message was loud and clear. By removing charitable relief from them, devastating cuts could have been inflicted on vital facilities and lifeline services within our communities. Those organisations have sat somewhat uneasy for the past couple of weeks, at least awaiting this decision, which, indeed, I am sure they welcome as we do on those benches. At the heart of the issue of the Barclay review, as has been commented on, was a misunderstanding about the purpose of those allios and the idea that they were involved in tax avoidance in the commonly understood sense. As has been done in the debate, it was a good thing to do to remind ourselves of the services that were delivered by them. In my own region, Edinburgh Leisure's community access programme provides free leisure cards to partner organisations that work with some of the most vulnerable people in society. The goal is to promote positive partnerships and to create opportunities for everyone to get active. That is an example of the sort of programme that was potentially under threat by this. I think that we are all agreed that is the sort of programme, and indeed it chimes with the Scottish Government's policy objectives, as stated, which we all agree with. Another example is West Lothian Leisure. It excites numerous programmes that could have been affected by this, including one that was free-swimming, but, again, I fear that neither Murdo Fraser nor Derek Mackay could benefit from this being for those aged over 60 or under five. However, for those who do benefit from it, a crucial programme to help to keep people active and in good health. All in all, a welcome decision by Derek Mackay on this, and it means that rates relief not being removed in this way will mean that, as Robin Strang of Excite in West Lothian said, many thousands of people in our communities will not, to add into his words, lose their only connection to physical activity and social inclusion. That, again, we are agreed upon. Perhaps in closing, I might ask Derek Mackay whether he has any further news on recommendation 27 in the Barclay review, because this would affect sports clubs, community sports clubs that I have visited in Lothian, and they operate in a not-for-profit way. Again, they provide services not just to those who come to them but also to local, state, schools provision of playing fields free of charge, and those would be impacted upon. I would be interested to hear what his response is on that particular recommendation, which I do not think that he has yet clarified and no doubt he will very shortly do so. I conclude with that, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on the Barclay review and allios. The next item of business is consideration of five business bureau motions. Motion 9274, setting out a business programme, motions 9275, 9276, 9277 and 9278 on timetables for four bills. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against any or either of those motions to say so now. I call on Jo FitzPatrick on behalf of the Bureau to move the above-mentioned motions. Thank you very much. No more member has asked to speak against the motions, therefore the question is that motions 9274 to 9278 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 9281 on approval of an SSI. I could ask Jo FitzPatrick on behalf of the Bureau to move this motion. I turn now to decision time. The first question is the amendment 9218.4, in the name of Shona Robison, which seeks to amend motion 9218, in the name of Miles Briggs, on general practice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9218.4, in the name of Shona Robison, is yes, 58, no, 54. There were six abstentions and the amendment is, therefore, agreed. The next question is the amendment 9218.2, in the name of Colin Smyth, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Miles Briggs on general practice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9218.2, in the name of Colin Smyth, is yes, 29, no, 89. There were no abstentions and the amendment is, therefore, not agreed. The next question is that motion 9218, in the name of Miles Briggs, as amended, on general practice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 9218, in the name of Miles Briggs, as amended, is yes, 63, no, 49. There were six abstentions and the motion, as amended, is, therefore, agreed. The next question is that amendment 9221.4, in the name of Derek Mackay, which seeks to amend motion 921, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the Barclay review and allios, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that motion 9221, in the name of Murdo Fraser, as amended, on the Barclay review and allios, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. And the next question is that motion 9281, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Before we end decision time and before we move to members' business, it has been brought to my attention that one of the members took a photograph of the chamber while we were sitting and tweeted it out. I would just draw attention. My guidance on the code of conduct, which was published at the beginning of this session, makes it clear that photographs should not be taken in the chamber. The guidance forms part of the code of conduct. I would draw members' attention to their responsibilities under that code of conduct. I will be writing to the member concerned but I hope that all members will take that on board. That concludes decision time. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business and we will just take a few moments for members to change seats.