 The next item of business is a debate in motion 8604 in the name of Neil Gray on managing Scotland's finances and working with business to drive the wellbeing economy. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons, and I call on Neil Gray, cabinet secretary, to speak to and to move the motion. Up to you live in minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It really is a privilege to open this first debate in my new role as cabinet secretary for wellbeing economy, fair work and energy. Before I start in earnest, I want to start by paying tribute to my predecessors who have held responsibility for elements of the portfolio that I am now in charge of. John Swinney, Michael Matheson, Ivan McKee and Kate Forbes all have and will continue to contribute a huge amount. It is particularly pleasing to have seen Kate Forbes back in her place this week after her period of maternity leave. I know what a wrench it is to return to work after a period of paternity leave in my case on three occasions, and so I wish Kate Forbes well and her family Allie Naomi and her family well for readjusting to that new normal that we all have to do after this process. A growing, thriving economy is about more than just numbers. Economic success means making the most of the incredibly rich resources that Scotland has. It means high-living standards, people being able to fulfil and exceed their potential and a dynamic and strengthening business base. That in turn feeds into strong and sustainable finances, the support public services and communities. I want to take the opportunity today to underline my commitment to working closely with our business community to maximise Scotland's sustainable economic growth potential. Yesterday, the First Minister set out plans to agree a new deal for business, and the introduction of a new group co-chair by me, which will explore, among other things, how Government can better support our businesses and communities using the policy levers that it has. Our message to Scotland's businesses is clear. We hear your concerns around high UK inflation, supply chain issues, labour shortages and the impact of regulation. We will continue to work with you to mitigate the potential impact, and in return we will work in partnership with you to support fair work and support businesses to develop and internationalise driving prosperity. The last year, do I have time to do so? I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. I start by welcoming him to his new role and look forward to working with him. However, the First Minister said in his chamber on 30 March that, throughout the period of office of the former First Minister, Scottish GDP growth had outstripped that of the UK as a whole. That statement is not true. He was misleading the chamber. Will the cabinet secretary now apologise for the First Minister making that false statement? The First Minister was referencing the most recent GDP figures that show that Scotland's GDP growth is outstripping the UK's. It is a sad fact for the Conservatives to admit that the Scottish economy is doing well. It appears, but we will continue to work well to ensure that our economy continues to thrive. This week we have incredible labour market statistics showing that unemployment in Scotland is at a record low. Surely that is something that we can all welcome and seek together in partnership to build upon. I look forward to working with Murdo Fraser constructively, as I will with all colleagues across the chamber. The last few years have seen the cost crisis, the pandemic, the impact of the UK's disastrous Brexit and the fiscal instability brought on by the decisions of the UK Government many budget. Those have brought untold damage to the wellbeing in Scotland of people and of businesses. I have laid immense pressures on our precious public services, community and voluntary sectors. Output in the global economy is forecast to slow in 2023 and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine continues to present a risk to global trade and activity. However, the IMF forecast has that the UK economy has the weakest growth outlook in the G20 for 2023. As devolved Government, we do not have all of the levers that other countries have to bring forward economic interventions to support their economy, businesses and people or to mitigate UK decision making. I agree with him about his assessment of the UK economy, but can he explain why the Scottish economy is going to perform even more poorly than the UK economy, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute, that the decline is going to be greater than the decline of the UK? Can he explain why that is going to happen? We obviously want to reverse that. We are putting in place measures through the prospectus that we put forward yesterday, coming forward with a wellbeing economy to ensure that we can take advantage of the massive resource potential that we have here in Scotland. Of course, we are constrained in that all of the economic levers that a normal independent country would have at its disposal to generate economic growth are not within our gift. We are reliant on, as Willie Rennie has accepted, a failing UK economy and a UK economic approach. He has to recognise that we are doing what we are doing with one arm tied behind our back, and it is perhaps time that we had the full control of all the fiscal levers and economic levers to ensure that we can take advantage of the economic opportunities that we have. Have I still time in hand? There is a bit of time in hand of the candid situation. I will take a last intervention from Liz Smith. I am very grateful and I also welcome Neil Gray to his position. As I understand it, some of his colleagues are currently looking at ways of using the powers of this place better. I just wondered if he agreed with that assessment when it comes to improving the economy and whether he accepts that that is something well worth looking at. We will always look at ideas that ensure that we can maximise the opportunities that we have, not just with the policy levers, but also we have to recognise the limited resources that we have in this Parliament as well. As I have said in response to Willie Rennie, we have to recognise that in doing what we are doing to try to generate economic growth, we do so with limited powers and resources compared to what a normal independent country would have. I am happy to work with Liz Smith if she has ideas about some of the areas that we have within our gift that would allow us to generate further growth, of course, and I look forward to that as I am looking to do in the coming weeks to be able to engage with Opposition spokespeople. The UK Government consistently needs higher levels of public investment. Our FDI competitors are committing greater budgets to incentivise investment. The UK needs to invest using the levers that they have that we would have liked to enjoy on a scale that matches our ambitions. As shown in recent publication by the Resolution Foundation, Britain is a low investment state which has ultimately left us the poorer. For example, in the US, the Biden administration is stimulating massive investment in renewables and green technologies through the Inflation Reduction Act and the EU is following suit with its Net Zero Industry Act and Critical Raw Materials Act. Other Governments are leading the way, bringing markets and investment with them, but the UK is left on the sidelines with the risk that investment flows to the EU and the US rather than Scotland. The UK's lack of action means that we are at a competitive disadvantage and there is a narrow window of opportunity to reap the rewards of our renewables revolution. So now is the time for the UK Government to prioritise meeting Net Zero targets and other vital infrastructure priorities, invest in the economy rather than squandering Scotland's energy assets once again. That is why this debate is so important. In the face of financial and economic pressures, as well as the threats of climate change and child poverty and the need to enhance public services, it is essential that we come together to drive our transition to a well-being economy. That was the focus of the discussion that I had with the organisations representing businesses across Scotland just hours after my appointment. A well-being economy is a strong, growing economy that is environmentally sustainable and resilient and which serves the collective wellbeing of people first and foremost. It empowers communities to take a greater stake in the economy, with more wealth generated, circulated and retained within local communities, protecting and investing in the natural environment. It provides opportunities for everyone to access meaningful and fair work and values and supports responsible, purposeful businesses to thrive and innovate. That is why our national strategy for economic transformation emphasises wellbeing, building on and broadening the sustainable inclusive growth approach that was taken previously. While one of the three missions announced by the First Minister yesterday is to increase the opportunities in our country with an economy that is fair, green and growing. To make that shift towards a wellbeing economy, we need metrics to track its progress. We developed our wellbeing economy monitor specifically to look beyond just GDP to measure how Scotland's economy contributes to improving things like health, equality, fair work and environmental sustainability. In committing to a transition to wellbeing economy, we can build on our considerable strengths and maximise our potential with the powers that we currently have. With independence, we could do so much more. Scotland has a rich, diverse economy with many areas of strength, but there are underlying structural issues. We have an ageing population and our workforce, our working age population, is falling. That is why we have made a commitment to address Scotland's labour market inactivity challenges and remove barriers keeping people from contributing economically. Investing in skills across people's lifetimes is critical to future productivity and success as the economy and labour market continues to evolve. Apprenticeships provide people of all ages with a great opportunity to upskill and reskill and help them to progress within their chosen career path, providing the skills that the economy needs both now and in the future. Certain industries still face recruitment challenges. I hear about that when I meet employers in my constituency. We continue to call on UK ministers to establish a joint task force on labour market shortages. An urgent rethink of UK Government immigration policy is also needed to increase access to the international labour that our economy needs. To that end, the Scottish Government has developed a rural visa pilot proposal, which represents a practical deliverable migration solution. The Migration Advisory Committee stated in its 2022 annual report that the proposal is, in a quote, sensible and clear in both scale and deliverability. We will continue to push the UK Government to engage with us on that. We need to do all we can to help to get people into and to stay in good jobs by providing the right support such as employability, health services or childcare at the right time, and especially for those furthest from the labour market. The national strategy for economic transformation emphasises the need for high-quality childcare enabling parents and carers to work, increase their working hours or enter training and education. Our recent early learning and childcare parent survey demonstrated clear positive benefits from the increase in the funded ELC entitlement, with almost three quarters of parents acknowledging that it supported them to work or to look for work. Our ELC provision, the most generous in the UK, also helps to tackle inequalities such as the gender pay gap, but we have ambitious plans to go even further. Within this parliamentary session, we will build a system of school-age childcare and design a new offer for one and two-year-olds, starting with those who stand to benefit most. Our commitment is set out in the policy perspectives that the First Minister published yesterday. I hope to meet with the childcare sector, including the PVI sector soon, to understand where we can support their crucial element of childcare delivery. Our focus on people's wellbeing, which prevents harm, is good for Scotland's economy. In the face of acute labour shortages for many sectors and businesses, it will help to access the workers that they need to be successful and drive our journey to a stronger, fairer green economy. That will benefit Scotland's tax base and public finances, while also having positive impacts on our children and future generations. Through our holistic approach to supporting the wellbeing of our children and young people, we can help to improve outcomes in education, employment, health and justice by ensuring that they are supported, encouraged and empowered to contribute to and benefit from the development of a wider wellbeing economy by taking a preventative approach now that we can reduce issues in the future. I have given you some latitude because I took a number of interventions, but I would have to ask you to bring your remarks too close. Of course, Presiding Officer. The development of offshore wind can obviously help to achieve a just transition to net zero. De-carbonise our energy system, create good quality jobs, and also one of the lowest forms of electricity generation at scale. We have huge opportunities there in our Scotland offshore project, looking at hydrogen, the tidal and the rain sector. I really will have to ask you to conclude. I will conclude. Please conclude. Thank you. It is clear that we have the plan, the opportunities, the ambition needed to deliver a wellbeing economy. To succeed, we need everyone to be around the table. The prize when we succeed will be a prosperous, dynamic, thriving Scottish economy where everyone shares in and benefits from our success. The Government's motion that I move in my name indicates the steps that we need to take to ensure that we get there and reap the opportunities that there are for us all. Thank you. I now call on Liz Smith to speak to you and to move amendment 8604.1 around seven minutes. Thank you. As well as welcoming Neil Gray to his position, I can also welcome Michael Marra. I look forward to working with him both. The minister is quite right when he said that there are issues about the UK economy, there are issues about other European economies that have been flagged up by IMF and the various economists actually all around have been flagging up these concerns. But I want to concentrate on the Scottish Fiscal Commission's sustainability programme, which was missing, I thought, from the First Minister's comments yesterday. I was a bit surprised about that, because Willie Rennie is quite right in what he is saying, is that the situation for Scotland when it comes to fiscal issues is considerably worse than the rest of the UK. That is partly to do with our ageing demographics, but it is also to do with the fact that the tax base in Scotland is not nearly as broad as it should be. Also, that has an effect when it comes to productivity issues, so there are some really serious concerns about what the Scottish Fiscal Commission is saying, not least of which is the fact that the social security spend alone is predicted to increase from £4.2 billion in the financial year that has just passed up to £7.3 billion in the financial year of 2027-28. That is a very substantial increase, and that is on just one area of considerable spending. She concentrates quite a lot on that we do not have enough people to work, and therefore more people are not working, so would she accept that a relaxed immigration system of some kind is absolutely necessary? Yes, I can accept that, but I also think that it is not just about immigration, it is about ensuring that there are people coming back into the working population who, perhaps through Covid but through other areas, have not been participating in the workforce, but it is much more than that. It is about the tax take that Scotland desperately needs from people in the working population to ensure that we are addressing that. The most important conclusion that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has made is that the current tax and spend model in Scotland simply will not cut it. I think that that is the most serious issue that is confronting the Government. I think that Kate Forbes, and I am pleased to see some of her colleagues in the backbenches there quite rightly focusing on exactly this issue, because they are quite right to see that as the main problem that Scotland has got to get over if we are going to succeed. The finance committee of this Parliament was very clear indeed in paragraph 63 of the recent budget scrutiny report that we produced that the efficacy of the tax system in Scotland has to be questioned. It needs a complete overhaul, because a lot of the tax elasticities and behavioural changes are simply not being properly accounted for. What are the actual tax rates? There is a debate about the structure of tax, but there is obviously a debate about tax rates. The cabinet secretary and First Minister have been telling us that they want a much more progressive tax system. In theory, and in terms of social justice, that is absolutely fine, but in practice that simply cannot work just now because we do not have the wide tax base that we need. Simply hiking up tax rates on middle and higher earners, and especially increasing the differentials—the tax differentials—between Scotland and the rest of the UK is a very serious issue indeed. That is something that is not going to bring in the money that we require in order to ensure that the economy is on the right footing. That is the point that Willie Rennie was raising in the debate that we had just before recess, that if we continue to increase the tax rate, there comes a point where that has diminishing returns. In my colleague Murdo Fraser's committee, I think that it was a way back in 2016—Mr McKee will give away in just a minute—where he questioned quite rightly the previous cabinet secretary, Derek Mackay, the infamous Derek Mackay, about the laffer effect, that if you go on squeezing the middle and higher earners, you come to the point where not only do you reduce the amount of revenue that you need, but you actually have an effect, a detrimental effect, on the economic activity that you need. Mr Mackay. I want to entertain the chamber by going through the differential calculus that lies behind the laffer curve this time, but I will go and have a look at it, because it does not say what she says. It is really about understanding exactly where you are on that curve, because it takes a very different perspective depending on where you are on that curve. I am just trying to understand the point that she is making about the Scottish Fiscal Commission, because she should know that, being on the finance committee, in advance of any tax change that has been put through the Scottish Fiscal Commission, it does do the behaviour analysis and factor that into the tax take numbers, so that, by the time the numbers come to the budget discussion in this chamber, that behavioural impact has already been factored in. I do not know about her, but I trust the SFC to make sure that they check on that work and understand that their behavioural factor ratios are correctly implemented. I absolutely trust the Scottish Fiscal Commission, and you are quite right that a lot of the analysis that they have done in the sustainability report is first class. It is groundbreaking, because they have not done this before. The key point, is the fact that the overall conclusions of the Scottish Fiscal Commission are really damning, because they are suggesting that there will be a 10 per cent deficit on-going for perhaps 50 years. Who knows? That is really serious. May I help the SNP out just a little bit on what we have to be doing? On this side of the chamber, we are unashamedly the party of economic growth. That means a competitive tax, an investment structure and emphasising on creating a modern infrastructure when it comes to transport, to housing, to net zero, to the rural fabric of our nation. We are also unashamedly on the side of business, on breaking down the tax barriers and red tape that stifle enterprise and innovation. It means that Governments, local, Scottish and UK all are working together to support business. I think that I am in my last minute on our local communities, including with an emphasis on levelling up. We are unashamedly on the side of promoting jobs, transferable skills and incentives to keep those people in the workforce. There has been lots of chat from the SNP about this, but I think that we need to have an awful lot more detail on exactly what policies are going to be put in place. Finally, Minister, please ditch the Greens when it comes to this, because they have not a first idea or understanding of what it means to have economic growth and underpinning the new Scottish Government. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Michael Marra to speak to and to move amendment 8604.2, around six minutes please, Mr Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I've moved the amendment in my name. I do welcome Mr Gray to his place and his promotion to Cabinet Secretary. I know that it has been a bumpy old start for the Administration, but I wish him well. The motion that Parliament is considering today is, I am afraid though, a little more than a collection of platitudes. There is very little difference to the motion that we debated just a few weeks ago, which was the Deputy First Minister's Governmental swan song, the former Deputy First Minister. I am afraid that the tune is none the sweeter for a new singer so far, but this is a political movement that exists to deny difficult numbers. We have heard a little bit of that already. When the numbers showed that we were falling down international education league tables, this Government withdrew Scotland from those education league tables. It was a self-serving mistake that amounted to self-harm of this country. Finally, yesterday, that mistake was reversed after 13 years, and I would imagine that whatever benefit the First Minister believes will now be accrued. Can we count what has been lost after all of those long years without those measures? When the Government's official National Statistics Office kite marked figures showed that we benefit to the tune of the average of £10 billion a year in fiscal transfer within the United Kingdom, the SNP decided that those figures had to be trashed. It started in the dark corners of the internet with sad little men in their bedrooms, but eventually it has become a rite of passage for leadership contenders within the SNP to have to do exactly that in meetings of party members across the country, savaging GERS figures, GERS deniers, one and every single one of them. We have seen the video of the former First Minister to whom Humza Yousaf is proud to call himself the continuity candidate. When the numbers showed that the SNP was running out of money, Nicola Sturgeon said, do not ask questions, we wish for indy. As a wise man once said, Cwys Cysdodiad ipsos Cysdodiad, that wise man I am quoting was Colin Beattie MSP, speaking at the Public Audit Committee in January 2022. For those of us who are less familiar than Mr Beattie with the works of the Roman poet Juvenas, the translation is, Who watches the watchman? Colin Beattie and the SNP know now who watches the watchman, it's Police Scotland. It really is astonishing, no thank you, for the SNP to slink out of the blue crime scene tent to come here today and preach probity in public finance. Just as that is astonishing that, in their forensic search for relaunch policy ideas, the Government has stumbled across the idea of economic growth. It's an idea that was willfully expunged from this Government's previous policy agenda in their partnership with the Greens. So I would say to the cabinet secretary today that if the Government really wishes to trade in economic concepts such as a wellbeing economy laid out in the works of Trebek, Williams, Jackson and Rayworth, then they have to be able to explain where the ecological and social limits of growth are. That's what a wellbeing economy is. There's no evidence in any of the muddled thinking that's been presented so far today, whether in this motion the cabinet secretary's speech or in the First Minister's intervention yesterday, that they are engaging in anything more than a willful abuse of that concept, frankly, as a branding exercise. The other broad concepts would be invited most certainly. I would implore Michael Marra to look at the prospectus paper that was published yesterday to see the outline of the work that the Government is looking to embark on in order to achieve the wellbeing economy, but also to look at the wellbeing economy metric that has been available and publishable that could be seen that tracks the progress that we're looking to make in order to make sure that we're achieving the wellbeing economy rather than just serving up sound bites from his speech. If he could engage on those facts, which I hope that we can do as we engage across this chamber, then I'm sure we'll be further, we'll be closer rather than further away than what he's outlined. I'm certainly happy to engage with the cabinet secretary on any of those metrics and in the discussion of what any of it means. I have frankly given an outline this in the last speech I made on the economy in this chamber. After years and years of listening to economic policies, jumping from one idea to the next from this Government over now 16 years, the latest bandwagon that's being jumped upon, frankly, I've struggled to believe that it's going to be any more coherent and delivered than any of the previous attempts from this Government. But there are other broad concepts that we're being invited to celebrate and that's the high bar of this Government not doing ridiculous things or deciding not to continue doing ridiculous things or deciding to pause doing ridiculous things for a short while before intending to start them again. So what do the deposit return scheme, the national care service bill and the ban on alcohol advertising all have in common, the ineptitude of a Government that can turn any crumb of a decent idea into a toxic morass almost as quickly as they try to blame Westminster? So of the mess the Government has made of the deposit return scheme, the association for the protection of rural Scotland said, this is a bitter betrayal of Scotland's natural environment. Most certainly. Keith Brown. Can I thank Michael Marra for taking intervention and whilst he talks about the morass of the economy, could he just confirm that the last words of the last Labour Government was, there is no money left? Michael Marra. If Mr Brown wants to invest himself in the idea that the last UK Labour Government was responsible for the global financial crisis that resulted in the crashing of the banks, he may well recall the First Minister that he served in Alex Salmond, who called the regulation of the banks in this country gold-plated. We know that we have a very difficult economic situation in this country as a result of the Tory Government and the Liz Truss's ineptitude. However, this Government has to rise to making sure that there is economic growth in this part of the country. The manner in which the deposit return scheme was devised would have been ruinous for businesses. Scottish firms deciding to sell only out with Scotland rather than in Scotland is a perverse situation. It is right that it is put on the back on the blocks for the moment, but it is entirely due to this Government's incompetence. Ross Greer said yesterday that this was a Westminster delay. I can assure him that the businesses that I speak to are not asking for a derogation from the single market regulations, and that is not their reason for failing that this has been a complete disaster. They want a scheme that is appropriate for consumers and for businesses that can increase recycling without costing jobs. The first thing that they want is a scheme that is led by a Government minister who can answer the most basic of questions about it. The test of economic competence for this Government will be whether what universities Scotland said last week can be reversed. They have called the situation of our universities' managed decline of their sector, managed decline, entirely unacceptable and critical as reversed if we are going to ensure that our economy can thrive again. The question will be whether we can meet the skills demands to make a jobs first transition, whether the Government has a real plan to deliver growth. Our financial prosperity, I am afraid, counts on those questions being addressed. On the question of financial poverty, I am afraid that the question has been failed already. I welcome the cabinet secretary to his post. I think that the first step that he took was a wise step to indicate that we are going to reset the relationship with business. I think that there is little doubt that that relationship had really been tested, certainly over recent years, certainly with the arrival of Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister. That relationship was much more strange. I think that he made the right decision to reset that relationship. The real test of that will be on the delivery of the key economic indicators over time. I embrace the wellbeing economy approach. I think that it is fundamental that we have good public services, a good local environment for people to enjoy, for healthy people to work, to be able to live good and healthy lives. However, the difficulty sometimes with this Government, and it was an indication in the minister's speech, was that he tended to focus more on the wellbeing aspects rather than the economic aspects, as tends to be the attraction on these occasions. I hope that there is a different approach, as we are going forward, that it is a more balanced approach, because you need strong economic approach, as well as good public services and a good environment for people to work in tandem to boost the economic prospects of the country. I like the wellbeing economic monitor. It is rather subjective. There are quite a lot of indicators in there that are of the view of the Government that they are making progress. Take, for instance, the poverty-related attainment gap. It is down as making progress. If I look at S3, that gap is as wide as it has ever been. There is no indication that it is gnarling. I think that that is subjective. On GDP, we are not making progress on that either, because it has fallen since 2017. We need an independent assessment of that monitor to make sure that it has got as much validity as the GDP and productivity figures that we rely on. The Canadian Trust has done some really good work on that, and I hope that we can see a reform of the monitor to reflect the more accurate indicators on the wellbeing. I have to say that the fundamentals on the economy are not good. Liz Smith rightly pointed out the Scottish Fiscal Commission's work and the report for the longer term. The productivity index provided by the CBI, which shows that Scotland lags in the rest of the UK on 11 out of the 13 indicators, is not good either. There is some short-term improvement. The longer-term outlook is very, very weak. If you look at Labour productivity, UK has gone up 1.2 per cent in 2020-21. If you look at Scotland, it is flatlined. We will have to see significant progress on productivity if we are going to get some improvement. Likewise on the GDP, the UK economy is a basket case as a result of Liz Smith's budget decisions, but Scotland is lagging even further behind than that. We should be better than the UK performance. However, I want to see improvements on this—I have actually really limited on time today, I am afraid. I want to see a real focus on universities and the potential that they provide. However, Scottish research performance has slipped in the recent breadth from 15 per cent of UK research council funding to 12.5 per cent. That is a major generator for economic potential, but we are slipping further behind. The skills agenda—we still do not have that alignment in the skills agenda. Colleges, they still do not have some certainty about the future. We also need to have a better relationship with the UK rather than this constant friction. We need to have a more balanced approach, as Liz Smith was highlighting on the income tax. I am in favour of progressive taxation. I argued for an increase in a penny, but we cannot keep on arguing that we need to have greater progress and progressive taxation, because at some point there is a tipping point, so we need to have it based on evidence. I want to see the Government looking at evidence rather than living by the slogan and rhetoric. We need to have an appropriate approach on that. I am going to conclude that this debate is far too short, I am afraid. We need to have a much longer debate on the economy, because there is so much more to cover. Could I ask those members who are wishing to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons? Some members have not yet done so. We now move to the open debate. I would now like to call Christine Grahame to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston, who has speeches of up to four minutes, please. Well-being starts, I have done something funny to this. I need my sorry about this. Can somebody take this off my screen? Three of you. My apologies, Mr Grahame. I have got much funny stuff down the side. Miss Grahame, are we all good to go? I am technically intact. Excellent. We know that wealth protects and poverty brings with it ill health, both physical and mental, bliting the prospects of some children even before birth, because the damage or poverty of inequality actually begins in the womb. It can also corral whole communities where your postcode can determine your prospects in health, wealth and happiness. Sustainable economic growth, focusing on indigenous businesses, fair taxation, fair pay together with a just benefits system provides a foundation, but it is simply that. It is what we build in that foundation that matters. Of course, we do not have power over the macroeconomy, most areas of taxation or substantial benefits, so devolution dilutes radical progress and redistribution, let alone growth of a nation's wealth. Despite that, housing, education and healthcare are just some examples where Scottish Government policies have and will improve the quality of life of those who cannot see the way forward for themselves and their children. In my view, we need to accelerate building public sector homes. Currently, many of my constituency emails deal with housing issues—overcrowding, damp, people languishing and councillal lists for years, some paying high rents in the private sector, or stretching their income to breaking point with a mortgage. Yes, there is a place for home ownership, but it should be a choice not driven by necessity. That said, wellbeing for me starts with a decent roof over your head, so if you want to increase the happiness, health and ambition of people in my book, start with social housing, and I welcome measures announced to bring back empty homes into usage. In those education, the key to having the opportunity to realise your potential, it happened for me. Brought up in a council house educated in state schools, he has paid twice through two university degrees. Indeed, at one point for his family income, I had full grant for living costs. I say to the Opposition that Brexit has impacted on university research and development. Today's support here begins at Berth. I therefore welcome the support for families with the baby box, with well over 90 per cent uptake, 1140 hours of free nursery care for three and four-year-olds and the prospect of being extended to one and two-year-olds and no tuition fees, free school meals, P1 to P5 to be extended to six and seven for those in receipt of the Scottish child payment. To health and social care, we do not pay for prescriptions in England, it is well over £9 per item, so the worry over the costs are even rationing which medication you can afford and cannot does not exist. For context, and we have to put some blame at the foot of the UK economy, it's at the bottom of the G7 countries in its recovery from Covid, even worse in Russia, waging and immoral and costly war. Inflation, general inflation, over 10 per cent, food inflation round about the 18 per cent mark, but which this Parliament can do nothing. So I do think it's a bit hypocritical for any conservator to argue that poverty in Scotland has nothing to do with Tory policies for which we didn't vote because part of it is us being dragged out of Europe and no matter what Spin Jeremy Hunt puts on it at best, the UK economy is stagnant and teatering on recession. To conclude, I think to restart a house building programme for socially rented housing as we did many decades ago, we benefit the economy from the planners, the architects, all the trades, the suppliers, the shops which sell the takeaway bacon rolls. For as I to rank up the three areas, housing, education and health, I'd start with decent housing for MD in Scotland who needs it. Thank you, Ms Graham. I now call Jimmy Halcro Johnston to be followed by Ivan McKee, Mr Halcro Johnston. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'll be focusing on a number of areas today, but I'll be doing it through old-fashioned technology, like paper rather than mucking around with this new stuff like these young bucks, like Christine Graham. Can I also welcome the cabinet secretary to his new role as a morcadian like me? He comes from a very rich and entrepreneurial skills drive and determination. I hope that he can bring that to his new position, because it's been sadly lacking over the past few years. This is an important debate, and more so given the clear warnings from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, as Liz Smith has mentioned, over the significant challenges that the Scottish Government will face on the provision of devolved public services in Scotland going forward. As Liz Smith highlighted, the report shows Scotland's fiscal gap will be around 10 per cent per year, and only four years' time spending on welfare will be £1.4 billion higher than the Scottish Government receives from the UK Government. Looking longer term over the next 50 years, health spending will increase to consume half of devolved spending. Further pressure will be added to this by Scotland facing a drop in population over the next 50 years in contrast to the UK as a whole. Scotland's financial trajectory is unsustainable. Those are not just challenges that Scotland faces or the United Kingdom faces. Those are challenges that countries across the world are grappling with. Like those countries, Scotland's financial and economic model will need to change. It is worrying that, rather than recognising that, the new First Minister seems determined to push on with the failed fiscal policies of the past. Indeed, to accelerate a high-tax, high-spend culture that Scotland simply cannot afford and to make no effort to grow the pie rather than take larger slices and from a dwindling number of people. They will do that while claiming, like rabid cobalistas, to be taxing the rich, but the rich they talk about are teachers and doctors and ordinary people doing vital jobs in Scotland who no one in their right mind would claim to be rich, and they will have more money taken out of their pocket by this SNP Green Government. This approach has found root in the SNP of the past few years, but it has been accelerated by the malign influence of the anti-business and anti-growth Scottish Greens, a party that has singularly failed to understand that, to spread wealth, you have to create it in the first place. A party whose leader Lorna Slater once said that economic growth was bad because it led to people buying, and I quote, "...crap you don't need to impress people you don't like." No fear of that in Scotland if it has to suffer more years of Scottish Greens in government and when those people who haven't already been driven out of Scotland by high taxes won't have any money left in their pockets anyway. No wonder there is, at long last, a growing backlash from at least some on the SNP-backed benches who don't want to see Scotland held to ransom by six anti-growth Green zealots. It was welcome, at least, to see some recognition of this from Humza Yousaf yesterday, who conducted so many U-turns in his statement that even he knows in which way he's facing. His approach resembled a man left endlessly driving around a roundabout until he works out on which exit he wants to take. Presiding Officer, I support the need for good jobs, that employment should be secure and that it should be rewarding, but that needs strong businesses operating in a strong economic environment. The SNP Green approach of the last few years—more tax, more regulations, more uncertainty—is not the way to achieve that. In January, the Fraser Valander Institute reported that business confidence was low in Scotland, with only 5 per cent of Scottish firms feeling more confident at the outlook for their businesses after the Scottish Government's budget. It found that the business activity had significantly declined, with a value of new activity down by nearly 5 per cent and new capital investment down by nearly 15 per cent. Business needs confidence that the Government is there to support them and will give them the tools to do the job. That means that delivering the infrastructure businesses needs superfast broadband, reliable and fast road rail and ferry links. It needs Government support through enterprise agencies, business gateway and other bodies such as the SNIB to be focused and ready to meet the needs of businesses in the way that businesses want those needs met. It needs Scotland's Government's UK, Scottish and local Government level to be working together, as they have done with the city and regional deals on the Green Freeports. Presiding Officer, talk of a wellbeing economy is all very well, but business needs less rhetoric from Government and fewer regulations. I had hoped that a new First Minister would herald a new approach. Unfortunately, the evidence so far suggests that Scotland is in for more of the same from this Government, a continuity First Minister whose Government will continue to make many of the same economic and fiscal mistakes of the past. I remind members that speeches of up to four minutes have been up to four minutes. I would like to start by welcoming the cabinet secretary to his new role and wish him all the best. Thank him for his comments at the opening of his remarks this afternoon. I hope that he takes my contribution this afternoon in the constructive manner in which it is intended. I welcome the widespread recognition by Government and others of the strong links between a wealthy economy and a fairer and greener economy, something clearly articulated in the paper that we published with Commonwealth yesterday. International evidence shows that the fairest countries, including our Scandinavian neighbours, are also the wealthiest and most productive. But building that economy requires hard work from Government and others, and it is a path littered with potential wrong turns. There are some clear messages. I do not have time, sorry—four and a half minutes or whatever it is—clear messages that Government needs to internalise and deliver on. Firstly, the good news is that the Scottish economy benefits from lower unemployment, lower labour market and activity, higher average wages in the rest of the UK, and the percentage of workers earning less than the real living wage. A key lever to tackling poverty has fallen over the past few years. Scotland's good exports, excluding oil and gas, have grown at twice the rate of the rest of the UK, despite Brexit. Inward investment performance continues to outstrip the rest of the UK, except London, and it is well positioned for future successes with some very tasty opportunities coming down the track. Scotland's world-leading position in renewable energy, life science, fintech, digital, premium food and drink and, of course, our space sector is well recognised, not just at home but very importantly globally as well. I look forward to Minister Richard Lochhead's space debate next week. None of that takes away from the fact that much more needs to be done and the considerable day-to-day challenges that businesses face on labour and skilled shortages, energy and input cost inflation and access to market season is addressed in the immediate term. However, sometimes the best thing that Government can do is to not make things worse, so it was welcome to see some recognition of that in the First Minister's statement yesterday, but there remains uncertainty around the direction of travel on some key policies. While Government may feel comfort, find comfort in space to manoeuvre, that is not, of course, the case for business in that regard. Unless and one for Government, be clear and be consistent. Resist the temptation to top and change, to grab sound bites. Business does not appreciate politics, I show business. The second advantage that the Government has is its unfortunate position of knowing what it needs to do. The blueprints for success are in place, and it was great to hear the cabinet secretary reference the national strategy for economic transformation, which lays out the actions that are required to deliver that strong wellbeing economy, fairer, greener and wealthier. The supporting action plans on exports and investment, innovation skills, regional development and others are robust, but Government has to focus on delivery. Do not be diverted into more discussions and reviews just because it is easy for officials. Relentless and tireless focus on doing the right things day in, day out is what gets results. Spin over substance does not cut it. To make this happen, Government needs to work with partners, not just through superficial engagement, but through deep strategic partnerships. The mechanisms to deliver that are in place. Industry leadership groups with their capacity to mobilise sector to deliver agree strategies is key. Government needs to avoid convincing itself that it knows best. Ministers, as I learned, are far from the most important people in the room when dealing with business. In partnerships that go much wider than just business, the role of trade unions is critical to delivering on that agenda. They need to be at the centre of ILGs and other partnerships. Likewise, the mechanisms are now in place through regional economic partnerships to align and mobilise efforts right across the country. Support for business is complicated and cluttered. There are 130 different funds at the last count. Expensive to administer, difficult to understand and limiting impact. The next lesson is to do less, but to do it better. More random, uncoordinated and non-strategic initiatives thrown out in an attempt to grab headlines is the last thing that the economy needs. Stay focused on where it can make a real impact. The industry group on RUK, talent attraction, for example, has the potential to add up to £1 billion to tax revenues over the next five years of its actions. I agree with the industry that is followed through. The ILG chairs group is a powerful forum for cross-sectoral co-operation and innovation. It is a deep reach across Scotland's diverse economy. The other good news is that the Government will have help. The cabinet secretary has welcomed, as has the First Minister, constructive input to taking this agenda forward. Myself and colleagues are only too happy to take up this office. We will be delighted that we will continue to engage extensively across the economy and with partners, polishing our thoughts on what needs to be done to deliver the strong well-being economy and net-zero economy that is definitely within Scotland. I apologise, but we have no time in hand and therefore members will need to stick to their speaking time allocation. I call Claire Baker to be followed by Kenneth Gibson up to four minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is hardly three weeks since I spoke in a debate on the well-being economy in the chamber. That was often more a valedictory debate for John Swinney as he stepped down from his role. While I do not grudge him the tributes that were paid that afternoon, I raised a number of matters of substance that I intend to return to this afternoon. It is just over a year since the Scottish Government produced Scotland's national strategy for economic transformation. At the time, there was some disappointment expressed over the lack of a gendered understanding of the economy and the lack of an acknowledgement of the extent and nature of economic inequality. While a commitment to develop a well-being economy monitor was welcomed, if the Government is serious about that, it needs to demonstrate that economic policy is shifting from one driven solely by GDP growth to one that takes a transformative approach to address poverty and inequality. The December 2022 update on well-being economy monitoring showed that wealth inequality is worsening. In March, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Oliver Dushutter, addressed why growth is not the magic wand to address poverty, while income inequalities largely cancel out any of the positive impacts on wellbeing that are expected to come from increased GDP. During the pandemic, aspirations were expressed to build back better, to do business differently, to invest in our communities and value workers, particularly those who were shown to be undervalued but vital to the operation of society. However, as we face a cost-of-living crisis, the ambition appears to be lost, but surely recognising that models that people first are more relevant than ever and offer solutions to some of the challenges that we face. We can create a more resilient and robust economy, one that is better placed to withstand external pressures and unpredictable events. There are calls for the national performance framework to be transferred into a well-being framework for the review of the national outcomes to ensure that wellbeing goals are a key part of policy and spending decisions to open up a discussion on taxation and how we distribute wealth fairly. The forthcoming wellbeing and sustainable development bill, its self-overdue, is another opportunity to be bold and take decisions to accelerate this transition. While we can talk of Scotland's membership of the wellbeing economy government's partnership, it is clear that current actions are not sufficient to achieve the substantial redesign that our economy needs to achieve that vision. We need to see bolder action and we can learn from partners. As I highlighted last month, New Zealand has started building its budget around wellbeing priorities and since 2019 has been consistent in those goals. The Future Generations Commissioner in Wales provides additional scrutiny around the wellbeing economy agenda, and here in Scotland there are local initiatives that we could be learning from, including the innovative community wealth building approaches in North Ayrshire and in Dumfries, where community ownership and engagement models are empowering communities. Tied to the economic model, which is based solely on GDP, is the idea that business success can only be demonstrated by growth. However, we know that there are many businesses that do not fit that model. In the creative economy, for example, those businesses do not fit that measure of success. Therefore, they are not valued and supported by government agencies. The report from the Business Purpose Commission for Scotland showed that almost half of people think that the role of business in society is to maximise returns. However, when the Fraser of Allander Institute asked what role businesses should have, almost two thirds think that they should have a role in finding profitable solutions to the problems of people on the planet. We need to do more to promote and grow social enterprises and corporatives. They are often more resilient than other businesses and important consideration as we recover from the pandemic. There is a real opportunity to grow the number of social enterprises and corporate businesses in Scotland. The amount of money that supports the corporate and social enterprise fund is small, and it is disappointing that those models continue to have a very low profile on the Scottish Government's economic strategy. We need to see a greater focus on corporate models if the target of 500 employee-owned businesses by 2030 is to be achieved. The motion asks not just to examine budget spreadsheets and haggle overspending, but service delivery in the long term. We consider how we measure economic progress and face up to challenges, including the need to eradicate chill poverty and minimise climate change. The notion of a wellbeing economy is becoming increasingly well understood. For too long, countries have focused primarily on growth, often with low productivity wage stagnation and environmental degradation. China's economy, at least on paper, appears a model of success with booming exports, high investment and rapid growth. Nevertheless, few of us would want to live in that economy. China's growth exceeds the pace of institutional development, with an unstable business environment where the rule of law is often an afterthought. Working conditions are often poor and unsafe, regulation weak and little consideration given to the planet. China's example might be extreme, but illustrates a point that growth only tells part of the story and neglects the quality of life, distribution and allocation of wealth, calibre of jobs created and fairness of conditions. In 1968, US Senator Bobby Kennedy said, "...GDP measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion. It measures everything in short except that which makes life worthwhile." While the relative simplicity of gross domestic product means that it remains an indicator, measuring wellbeing is increasingly important with Scotland at the forefront. A founding member of the wellbeing economy governance group where member countries work together to develop priorities for a wellbeing economy, Scotland's contribution to mainstreaming the concept is highly valued and our national performance framework is wellbeing as a co-par of the Scottish Government's purpose. I am grateful to Carnegie UK for sharing their work on that, particularly across domestic wellbeing paper that is mapped against GDP, which focuses on 10 domains linked to the Office of National Statistics data. That helps in livening the concept and offers thematic reviews of 800 recommendations from merely 50 commissions and inquiries since 2010. The thoughtful paper produced by my colleagues Kate Forbes, Ivan McKee and Michelle Thomson is also a useful addition to the debate. While supportive of such efforts and keen to see wellbeing progressed, development, fairness, equity and poverty alleviation will not be achieved without economic growth. While some economists would happily ignore wellbeing, others would abandon growth and its measurement altogether. Today, we also focus on the management of Scotland's finances and it would be irresponsible to ignore the recent and worrying Scottish fiscal commissions, fiscal sustainability, reports and analysis of Scottish Government budgets that project spending and funding over the next 50 years. Between 2027 and 2073 on current demographic trends, health spending will grow from £19 billion in today's prices to £60 billion, a 218 per cent increase associated with new treatments and the greater prevalence of chronic health conditions. Total spending will rise from 123 per cent to £120 billion, while Scotland's economy will grow only 72 per cent. Simultaneously, Scotland's population will fall by 400,000 with age 65 and over-increasing from 22 per cent to almost a third of the population. Driven by historically low birth rates, the demographic shift and falling the number of economically active citizens creates a huge challenge for our public finances and the reimagining and delivery of services. Chamber time must be set aside to fully debate the commission's report and hear from all parties about the proposals for addressing challenges such as taxation, immigration and retirement age, access to benefits and services. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and shirk our responsibilities. Many countries seek to raise low birth rates. We can do that by delivering more high-quality affordable childcare, having more flexible paid parental leave, pursuing policies that support with partners' involvement in child rearing, improving work flexibility and job protection, ensuring the disposable income of middle learners is not impacted by crippling tax burdens, fundamentally addressing the high cost of housing supply being the key issue. Through developing a wellbeing economy, which marries productivity and growth to environmental sustainability, we can improve our work-life balance, increase quality of employment and overall commitment to a better, fairer society, and we can address long-term challenges to GDP growth, which GDP cannot solve alone. I apologise for not taking interventions at times against me. Thank you, Mr Gibson. I now call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Michelle Thompson up to four minutes, Ms Chapman. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I welcome Neil Gray to his new role? Today's motion describes a wellbeing economy that recognises our dependence on the natural environment to thrive. Such an economy is purposeful, it relies on and enhances democracy for communities to fulfil their potential. To address the climate and nature crises and the cost crisis, to deliver a just transition to net zero, reduce child poverty and enhance public services, radical change is needed. Those interrelated challenges and crises are not freak accidents resulting from bad luck in a game of chance. They are systemic outcomes of a limitless growth model adopted to date under London's Tory Government. We welcome the renewed focus brought to this chamber by the new First Minister. The focus on tackling child poverty is essential. The wellbeing of our youngest generations is imperative for the future prosperity of Scotland, yet this investment is not normally accounted for when we ask ourselves how well we are doing. Embracing the wellbeing economy will increase the opportunities available to individuals, communities and businesses, rather than decrease them. Our economic strategy must go hand in hand with the just transition plan. The on-going cost crisis highlights the blatant injustice of people worrying about how to afford their next energy bill, while oil and gas companies laugh all the way to the bank. Those whose livelihoods have depended on the fossil fuel industry's success are increasingly concerned about their job security. New legislation on the horizon could genuinely transform the way wealth is created, retained and distributed for the benefit of Scottish communities. We must take advantage of community wealth building to ensure that the influx of public and private investment in the renewable energy sector flows into and stays in our towns and cities. It is worth remembering that just a few months ago more than 100 charities, academics and others from the STUC to the Scottish Men's Sheds Association and Scottish Women's Aid wrote to the former First Minister calling for an urgent transition to a wellbeing economy that, and I quote, delivers good lives for all people and protects the health of our planet. That's what we need to do and as fast as possible. The public is telling us that we are not yet moving in the right direction quickly enough to achieve the outcomes that the people of Scotland deserve. Of course it is no easy task changing course when, in large part, the ship is being steered by a Tory Government with virtually no understanding of the systemic shortcomings we are facing. But it is in our power to do more, and in particular to stop doing things that take us backwards. Communities and the third sector are key to helping us to identify the things we need to stop doing and the things we need to do more of or do better. Local and regional economic empowerment and development doubles the need for a new deal for local government. We have the crucial role of standardising the key ingredients of a wellbeing economy. Fair work, public procurement that takes the impact of public spending into account. Support for community buyouts, workers having the right to buy their businesses, democratic reform that puts citizens at the heart of those decisions that affect them, participatory budgeting and end to the hegemony of advice from the big consulting firms and vested interests. Let us stop relying on the people who are most responsible for getting us into this mess. While much valuable work is being done by the Scottish Government, the third sector and local government, more is clearly necessary, especially because of the headwinds that we face in a Tory-led UK Government that fails to grasp the nettle. Business, as usual, a fixation on GDP and economic growth has got us into the climate crisis, the nature emergency, increasing inequalities, soaring inflation, obscene profits for energy companies while people freeze and so many other injustices that should shame us all. The economy must work for the wellbeing of everyone and our life support systems, not just the billionaires. It was a pleasure to hear from my colleague Ivan McKee delivering thought leadership at the rate of a gatling gun, and his presence here is the backbench's gain. We comment in our document written for common will on the complexity of a wellbeing economic system, how multiple areas interrelate, not just in policy but through multiple lenses. We know that Scotland is a member of the wellbeing economy government group. This group states that a wellbeing economic system should have a fundamentally gendered lens from the outset rather than treating intersectionality as an add-on. Whilst I accept that the Scottish Government's NZ contains a commitment to develop a wellbeing economy monitor, which in its latest iteration includes measures for the gender pay gap, this does not yet begin to meet the test of a fundamentally gendered lens. At the moment, we can only have a piecemeal sense of this. Our reporting does not routinely disaggregate by sex or indeed a variety of other diversity measures. On multiple occasions, I have asked ministers to what extent the Scottish Government and all public sector agencies to whom they provide any funding, how they ensure disaggregated data is gathered, and in that, I would say, it is too often a well-meaning rather than a well-being approach that is taken. In our report, we credit Highlands and Islands Enterprise for applying conditionality to their business grants support in terms of the real living wage and our fair work agenda, but the Government's conditionality in of itself does not go far enough. Again, taking a gendered lens, I would look for gender equitability in all public sector funding, in business start-up grants, procurement and so on. I will also look for early confirmation of the delivery of recommendations from the Anna Stewart review for female entrepreneurship. We cannot and must not underestimate the loss of women's contribution. New analysis by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies and Women's Budget group has found that the barriers to paid work encountered by women means that £88.7 billion of GVA is lost to the economy in England, Scotland and Wales annually, equivalent to the contribution of the entire financial services sector in the UK. If I could quote Sarah Rice, acting director at the women's budget group, those findings further underline the hugely significant economic cost of systemic barriers to paid work for women, including caring responsibilities, the cost of childcare and wages undermined by the gender pay gap. What's more, they don't capture the social cost, the loss of connection, sense of accomplishment and mental challenge for women excluded from paid work is immensely damaging for both their individual health and the wellbeing of our communities. It is therefore not only barriers to employment and the continuing injustice of the gender pay gap, but in the very approach to the design of public services, town planning, transport, access to education, women's healthcare and so on, where that becomes important. Even in access to our political institutions, we see that the prevailing attitudes still keep women from achieving true equality, which in turn causes further harm. So if I could close with a question to the cabinet secretary, do you agree with the challenge set down by Weego and will you set out some of your thinking towards it in your response today? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, the dog may have a new head, but it's the same tail wagging it. Economic growth in Scotland is hindered by this coalition of chaos with many of those on the front bench who had business experience being sacked and the Greens continuing to hold sway over policy and pull the strings. But what is most concerning is that it's Scottish business and the Scottish public who will suffer the most. Our economy is lagging significantly behind the UK economy. Despite the nonsense that the First Minister said last week, Scotland's GDP grew at a lower rate compared with the rest of the UK during Nicola Sturgeon's reign. That is an absolute disgrace and highlights the severe mismanagement of the Scottish economy by this devolved Government. According to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, Scotland's finances are unsustainable. They have stated that the Scottish Government will face significant challenges in funding the future provision of devolved public services in Scotland. The Fiscal Commission continues its gloomy outlook by stating that our economic projections show Scottish GDP growing by an average of 1.2 per cent each year for the next 50 years, lower than similar projections for the UK. Social security spending is increasing massively. Health spending is going from 35 per cent of devolved spending to 50 per cent. Policies such as universal basic income are simply ffiscally unsustainable. The Fraser of Under Institute found that business confidence in Scotland was low. All of those points demonstrate the profound financial mismanagement by the Scottish National Party of Scotland's finances and economic growth. That is hardly surprising when you consider the SNP cannot even manage its own party finances. Taxing the middle income earners of this country are teachers, nurses and public sector workers who will not have the effect that the Government believes it will have. It will drive middle income earners away from Scotland. The Scottish Fiscal Commission expects the Scottish population to fall by 8 per cent while the UK population increases by 5 per cent. The SNP needs to work out why that is. Is it because it has cultured a deeply divided country or is it because Scotland pays more tax than the rest of the UK? The devolved Government is driving earners away and that needs to be reversed. The Scottish Conservatives absolutely support the drive towards a wellbeing economy, but that starts by building up business, increasing wages and reducing household costs. The SNP Government has lost the confidence of businesses or taking more from your pay packet and seem hell bent on shutting off our energy supplies in the North East. We want to see this devolved Government work with the UK Government to establish projects that will grow our economy for the benefit of us all, whether that is investment into free ports, levelling up or investment zones. We want to see this devolved Government take responsibility for the years of failure and work towards a Scotland that works for everyone instead of conjuring up grievance and blaming Westminster at every opportunity. Scotland deserves a Government that is able to deliver economic growth, financial stability and hope for the future. Instead, we have a green SNP coalition that stifles growth, has lost the confidence of business and the population of Scotland. The record on economic management of this country is woeful and it is time for them to listen to the business community, listen to the middle income taxpayers and listen to experts in this area and even Kenny Gibson, who are asking them to stop increasing taxes, widen the tax base and truly create a wellbeing community for everyone. John Mason will be the final speaker in the open debate, after which we will move to closing speeches and everybody who has participated in the debate will need to be here for the closing speeches. John Mason, up to four minutes please. Thank you very much. We previously had a debate on the wellbeing economy on 22 March, so I suspect that there will be, in fact, a fair bit of duplication today, and I may well make some of the same points. Key issues for me continue to be that we need to have measures like gross domestic product, gross national income and similar. However, as has been said, GDP is a poor metric for human wellbeing. I do think that Scotland's national performance framework has a big part to play in this space, along with the new wellbeing economy monitor. We owe John Swinney a debt for driving forward the NPF and I continue to think that we as Parliament, including I accept myself, have not used the NPF as much as we could or should have. My feeling would be that when we consider the wellbeing economy we can build on what the NPF is already doing, embedding it more and making it more effective. There is currently a review of the national outcomes until June and we could add care as an outcome and I personally am open to that. However, we do not want to lose focus by having too many outcomes all at the one time. The finance committee published its report on the national performance framework last October and we discussed the Government's response at yesterday's meeting. I think that both the committee and the Government agree that a number of areas need to be considered further, including integrating the NPF more into the systems and processes of Government. For example, one recommendation was that all levels of Government should more explicitly set out how their actions will deliver on specific NPF outcomes. That may well be implicit at the moment but the finance committee would be keen to see that being more clearly spelled out. When I spoke in the debate last month, I focused on two of the national outcomes, namely economy and poverty, and I continue to believe that those two are hugely important. There is too much divergence in income and wealth in Scotland and we need to distribute both better among our population. However, today I wanted to mention another national outcome, namely health. That is not least because I thought that the briefing for today's debate from the non-communicable disease or NCD Alliance made some important points and was very helpful. In particular, it emphasised the link that there clearly is between health harming products and the negative impact both on people's health and also on our economy. They reckon that the impact of alcohol, tobacco and overweight and obesity are costing our economy between £8.1 billion and £12.4 billion each year. They refer to national records of Scotland figures for 2021 and over 12,000 deaths being considered preventable. Of those more than 7,000 were deaths from non-communicable diseases such as cancer, heart disease, stroke and lung disease. As they say, we must prioritise supporting the people of Scotland to live long, healthy lives that also allow them to contribute to the economy, combining both the wellbeing and the economy. Finally, a few comments on the amendments. In Labour's amendment, it is very difficult to see what they are saying or actually asking for. I love the phrase, the Scottish Government should be doing more. Well, what does that mean? Not very much. And also, we should tackle the cost of living, but no suggestions as to how or how that should be paid for. On the Conservative amendment— Excuse me, Mr Mason, could the front benches, we will have an opportunity to close very shortly. Please do the courtesy to listen to what he is saying. Mr Mason, please continue. Well, I'm glad that I kind of woke them up with that little phrase. And now to go for the Conservatives. They refer to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, Fiscal Sustainability report, but miss out one of the key themes, which is Scotland's ageing and reducing population. I accept that Liz Smith took on board that point. They could have called for a more relaxed immigration system for Scotland so that we could get more people of working age here, but they didn't. Even without independence, the UK could be issuing visas, allowing and requiring new arrivals to work in Scotland. So all in all, I welcome this further debate on the wellbeing economy and I urge members to support this motion. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Mason. I note that there are a number of members who have participated in the debate who are not in the chamber for closing speeches. I will expect either an explanation and or an apology. I now call Daniel Johnson to wind up for around six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. They don't know what they're about to miss out on. Can I too welcome Neil Gray to his position? It's the economy stupid, that's not an insult, but it's a statement of a criticality to the economy brief, to all the work that we do in this place, because without a thriving economy, quite simply nothing else is possible. I do note, however, that this does have some similarities with the debate that we had before recess, and I know that we're sometimes asked by the official report to give our notes in advance. I was tempted to provide them with a hyperlink to the 22nd of March. However, there are some differences in today's motion for the Government. They talk about sound financial management, not that they spoke much about it today. I'm guessing that they think that questions about sound financial management are best put by the police rather than by Parliament. In terms of the contributions today, can I start by highlighting on both what Liz Smith and Kenny Gibson highlighted, because the fundamental baseline to this conversation ought to be the Scottish Fiscal Commission's report, because as much as we may support or disagree with what the policies the Scottish Government are pursuing today, the long-term outlook in terms of that fiscal gap, the £1.5 billion that are in terms of the commitments over and above projected revenues, that is something that we all need to address ourselves to, and also the underlying points such as the increase in health expenditure, the slower productivity growth both at the UK level, but the fact that the Scottish productivity growth is even lower than that is something that we need to address ourselves to, all fundamentally driven by the demographics that Kenny Gibson. The one warning point that I would make to all members is that while migration is undermined by Brexit, ultimately in the longer term, world population will start to decline by the 2080s. In the medium and longer term, we need to look at solutions that look absolutely at migration in the short term, but in the longer term, every country around the world will have to deal with shrinking populations, and that is the seriousness of intent that we need to have. We need to be treating demographics as seriously as we treat net zero, and quite frankly, I do not think that this debate has the status that it needs or requires right now. However, the one other key difference in terms of the debate today, as compared to that on 22 March, is that we have seen a return of the acceptability of the word growth from the Government. In those narrow terms, I would accept it, but much as Michael Marra points out in his contribution, what was wrong with it in the first place? Ultimately, I agree that we cannot just simply have a crude measure of GDP growth. That is too narrow, it is too crude, it measures the wrong things. However, if you are serious about tackling poverty, if you are serious about delivering net zero, if you are serious about tackling those demographic changes, you need growth, because tackling those things in a stagnant or declining economy is 10 times harder. You need a dynamic economy if you are going to tackle those structural barriers that impact on those things. You need a dynamic economy in order to deal with those challenges. That is precisely what people such as Thorsten Bell and the Resolution Foundation say, and why growth is so important, and why it was so unfortunate that we ended up with a delay to the international strategy for economic transformation. However, as much as six months, if rumours are to be heard, because there was so much negotiation between partners and government, so maybe we will get some clarity. Neil Gray was appealing to us all to follow his plan, published yesterday. I am happy to give way. Richard Lochhead I thank the member for giving way. If he is putting such emphasis on one of the most important challenges facing Scotland being demographics, is that not a case of the Labour Party changing its position on Brexit? Daniel Johnson We absolutely need a more holistic and realistic view on migration, which is exactly what you would get from a Labour Government. However, coming back to the Scottish Government's so-called plan, and Neil Gray was appealing to us to follow his plan, there are 11 bullet points in there, but it is such things as increasing the number of businesses, increasing wages, increasing the amount of investment. There is nothing wrong with those, but they are at best broad outcomes. They are not even detailed or precise in terms of their focus, and there is certainly nothing in there in terms of what specific measures he intends to follow them. Absolutely, I would be happy to give way. John Swinney I thank Daniel Johnson for giving way. We put forward specific measures within the motion that the Labour amendment seeks to take out, expanding childcare, implementing insects, community wealth building, just transition plan, promote fair work, delivering high-quality public services, all removed by the Labour amendment. Why is that? Daniel Johnson In the words of Ivan McKee, you need specific and clear targets. Those are just words from Mr Gray. They are broad headings. What the Government needs to do if he is serious about any one of those things is to put clear action points that will deliver those things, not just name-checking them. Frankly, that is all that intervention. I am afraid I have gotten very brief. Ivan McKee, briefly. John Swinney wants to see the specifics on that. He should go to the end set, control it out there and 100png. But we are being asked to believe that this is fresh thinking and new leadership. Either it is fresh leadership or it is just continuity. Now, maybe Mr McKee is correct, but the Government cannot ask us to believe that this is fresh thinking and then say all the fresh thinking was the stuff that the previous Government did. It just does not wash. And what we do need if we are going to have a genuine reset is a genuine focus on the structural problems that the Scottish economy has. For far too many people, there are major structural barriers to them seizing the opportunities. Now, we have the absolute absurdity of the tightest labour market since record began, but people stuck and low wages. So we need to be identifying the barriers that prevent people from taking those work. And some of those things are simple things, like lack of public transport, lack of useful childcare. And yet, all we've got from the Government today is the promise to come up with a plan on childcare for one or two, not even a date for when that plan will be implemented. So if we're serious about this, we need to embrace the concept of wage maximisation that people, such as the wise group, we need plans that actually support people into training, not just asking why they're not taking it. We need to deal with those structural issues. Only that way will we deliver the well-rounded, well-being economy that the Government uses the words, but doesn't have any numbers or targets to deliver. You do need to conclude, Mr Johnson. But frankly, those are absent from both the Government's speechlessity, the motion day, or the plan that they published yesterday. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I now call Mardo Fraser for up to seven minutes, Mr Fraser. Thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Early on in the debate, I welcome Neil Gray to his role on the front bench. I should also welcome Shona Robison, who I think we might hear from shortly, to her role as finance secretary and deputy First Minister, and we look forward to working with them. I think that this has been a helpful debate, but my sense is that we've only just skimmed the surface of what is a really vital subject. I think that it is a pity that this debate was truncated and we lost 30 minutes, which meant that back-bent speeches were cut to four minutes. And like Willie Rennie, who I'm pleased to see is now back in his seat in the chamber, albeit rather late, like Willie Rennie— Mr Fraser, for the avoidance of doubt, Mr Rennie was in the chamber. He just wasn't in that same seat. Oh, why, of course. Apologise to Mr Rennie. I hadn't realised he had joined the Conservative benches quite so soon. I apologise to Mr Rennie, but I agree with him. I agree with him the point he made. Is this such a vital subject? Actually, I hope we will return at the earliest opportunity for a fuller debate on the economy, because I genuinely think some of the ideas being put forward by Mr Gray are actually of interest and do deserve a greater scrutiny and discussion. Now, over the Easter recess, I spent some time in the North West Highlands. I think, coincidentally, in the constituency of Cape Forbes. And it was the weather was glorious. That explains the unseasonal tan. There were signs of spring all around. There were trees and bushes bursting into bud. There were young lambs in the fields. There were queues of camper vans on single-track roads. Well, with one notable exception, but despite the weather and the warm welcome, all is not well in the rural economy, because those I spoke to in the hospitality sector were not optimistic. They faced a range of serious challenges. They know businesses south of the border have been given a 75 per cent rates reduction for the current year to assist with post-Covid recovery. Despite having the Barnett consequentials from that decision, this has not been passed on by the SNP Government. There were real concerns about the proposed restrictions on alcohol promotions and very serious concerns about the proposed deposit return scheme. Despite being a good idea and principle, one that has been implemented in the most calamitous fashion. On top of that, in the highlands and islands, they are suffering from the on-going delay to deliver the promise to complete the A9 to a dual carriageway, from the on-going debacle with the ferries hitting island communities and now with the threat of highly protected marine areas devastating the fishing sector. Every one of those issues comes under the control of the devolved administration, and everyone could choose to put right. I welcome, therefore, the U-turns that were announced by the First Minister yesterday, firstly on the alcohol promotion ban and then on delaying the deposit return scheme. Those are very welcome. It seems that the continuity candidate in the recent leadership contest is already ditching the legacy of his predecessor as fast as he can. He is already in full retreat. Those U-turns are welcome, but much more needs to be done to address the issues in the Scottish economy. Despite what we have heard from the SNP benches this afternoon, the UK economy is doing better than many predicted. We recorded the fastest growth in the G7 in 2022 at 4 per cent. Despite what we hear about IMF predictions, I would just gently remind members that the track record of the IMF in predicting UK economic growth is not a good one. I think that we remember Christine Lagarde apologising to George Osborne for getting it all wrong a number of years ago. But at the same time, this is the crucial point, Scotland's GDP has only grown at around half the rate of the UK average in the period since 2014. And despite the First Minister claiming to the contrary, the GDP in Scotland grew between 2014 and 2021 at 12.72 per cent for the same period that the UK's GDP grew by 21.87 per cent. I'll give way. Cabinet Secretary. We ran over that in intervention. I thank him for giving way. We're running over that in intervention on the murder phrase that was made in the speech that my speech earlier on. Does he accept that the most recent figures and the most recent trend show that Scotland's GDP growth outperforms that of the UK's? Murder phrase. Well, I've just demonstrated the trends since 2014 over a seven-year period that we are growing at half the rate of the UK average. Now, if the new cabinet secretary is going to tell me that under his tenure that's going to miraculously turn around, well, we look forward to seeing that and the growth will be in the pudding. Well, if he's very brief. Cabinet Secretary. Of course, he also has to accept that the full economic levers that would allow us to continue to generate the economic growth, that other independent nations enjoy, we would be able to do just that. Well, I think maybe Mr Reim I want to listen to some of his colleagues in the back benches who now seem to have found some interesting new solutions as to how he might use the powers he currently has to help grow the economy and maybe he should start listening to them. Because all these figures matter because a growing economy delivers not just more and better paid jobs but also more tax revenues to spend on the public services we all want to see. And it's no wonder, and Liz Smith referred to this earlier, as did other colleagues, that the Scottish Fiscal Commission in their fiscal sustainability report warned that there are significant challenges coming down the route facing the Scottish Government. And I agree with Kenneth Gibson who said that this is such a serious issue it deserves a full debate by itself. Now, the response from the new First Minister seems to be that we should be increasing taxes still further. And what this shows is he's learned nothing from the experience of the SNP Government in widening the tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Because again, according to the Fiscal Commission, Scottish taxpayers are now paying around £1 billion more each year, but this is translating to a net increase in tax revenues of only £325 million, barely a third, because we have slower earnings and slower employment growth in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK. And as Jamie Halcro Johnston reminded us, under the SNP we are all paying more in tax, but we are seeing very little benefit for it. And rather than learn the lesson from this, the new First Minister wants to go further and increase taxes even more. All that will do is lower the tax take, shrink the economy and starve the public services of even more resources. I hear from the new First Minister he's considering a wealth tax. Well, Ivan McKee earlier referenced Scandinavia. Look at Norway, where a wealth tax has been introduced, it's been increased in the last year. What has that done? It has fuelled capital flight. In the last year alone, 30 billionaires relocated from Norway to Switzerland with a massive loss in tax revenues to that country. Now, I'm not sure there are people on the SNP front bench who understand that. I hope there are. But I'm sure there are some on the Forbes faction, on the back benches, or perhaps we should call it the government in exile on the back benches who perhaps do understand that. And I hope the front bench might start listening to them. Now, Presiding Officer, we do need to see a different approach taken by the Government. And we saw that in the recent SNP leadership contest. We saw from Kate Forbes, at least, talking about growing the economy and creating wealth. We know that the Greens are instinctively hostile to that. We know that they don't believe in growth, as Douglas Lumson reminded us by a hope that there might be some in this new ministerial team to understand that basic point. Without a growing economy, we cannot afford a health service and education system or the transport network that we desperately need. Now, I was pleased to hear yesterday from the First Minister. He intends to reset the relationship between the Government and business. That was repeated by Mr Gray. That would be a welcome move and a contrast of what we have seen in recent years. Because it really is time when this Government started listening to the voices of business. Their asks are simple and modest. Competitive taxation, quality infrastructure, no additional bureaucracy or regulatory burdens, a Government that gets out of the way rather than tries to hold them back at every turn. If that is what this new team is prepared to deliver, then we will be very pleased to support them. Thank you, Mr Fraser. I now call on Cabinet Secretary Shona Robison to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government up to nine minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, let me thank everyone for their in-the-main constructive contributions to this debate. Many have been very helpful and informative. And let me, first of all, make an offer, I suppose. And that is that let's create the space for further discussion on the range of matters that have been raised in today's debate, whether that's working on a cross-party basis on where we agree or where appropriate bringing matters back to this chamber. We won't agree on everything, but I think there are areas where we can make progress in working with Neil Gray. We are certainly keen to do that where we can. I want to just pick up on a couple of issues that Liz Smith raised and others around the SFC report. And of course, we absolutely recognise the need for sustainable public finances. Everybody in this chamber has to recognise that. Now, some of the issues that have been touched upon on the demographics, yes, Kenny Gibson made a fair point. There are some powers in our control that we can make progress on, whether that's in terms of child care or parental employability, getting people back into work who have been economically inactive through the work of the child poverty delivery plan. All of that is absolutely good and we need to do that. I think that we also need to recognise and there needs to be a bit of honest recognition from other sides of this chamber that we also are hampered by our lack of immigration policy. The rural visa pilot proposal that's being put forward is a very constructive, pragmatic suggestion and we absolutely need to have those levers. We also, of course, I'll let you in a second, we also of course need an urgent review of the fiscal framework because the current fiscal framework does not work for Scotland's public finances on a number of levels. Now, we have the agreement around that review and we need to take that forward so that we can fully benefit from growing the tax space and broadening the tax space. I'll let Liz Smith in on that point. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for allowing me to contribute again. Firstly, on the fiscal framework, that is under way already. Secondly, on your point about immigration, if you look at the most recent research on immigration, it is actually the net immigration that is actually improving. And what we have to ask in this country is why is it that we're not benefiting more in Scotland from that than is happening in the rest of the UK? Cabinet secretary. Well, we need to make sure that the communities that are requiring labour and people to move into those communities to fulfil the needs and the skill gaps within those industries are supported to do so, but we need people to come here. And of course we have a role with things like the key worker housing, for example, that was announced yesterday, that we will work with rural communities and businesses to support them in delivering key worker housing for people wanting to move in to those rural communities. And on that point about rural Scotland more generally, in my area of responsibility as Deputy First Minister, there is a commitment to pull together across government that a rural delivery plan to address some of those issues, whether it's on the rural economy, whether it's on key worker housing, because we do recognise that some communities are really, really struggle to sustain the businesses and the local economy within their areas. So if we can agree on some of these areas then absolutely we want to make progress. And we also need to talk Scotland up, because let me highlight three areas where broadening the tax base and growing the economy is under way and is doing really well, because there can be a tendency in these debates to talk Scotland down. And we can't have that. And I don't think anybody, that's in anybody's interests or any party's interests. So take Photonics, for example. The Scottish sector is a £1.2 billion industry supporting six and a half thousand highly skilled jobs, a value add per employee that is three times three times the national average. Scotland offshore when leasing round has delivered over £750 million in revenues to the public purse for the initial awards. And that will bring billions of pounds of investment into the Scottish supply chain. Take hydrogen, the action plan will make Scotland a competitive producer in low cost renewable hydrogen. So three examples of many of where we can broaden the tax base and grow the economy and examples that are already happening. So get behind these industries and these sectors to make that happen. On taxation I absolutely accept there needs to be a balance on taxation and we need to get that right, of course. But of course the Scottish Fiscal Commission which has been well quoted throughout this debate have estimated that the decisions that we've made in Scotland since income tax powers were devolved might raise up to £1 billion more in this financial year compared to if we had followed the UK Government tax policy. Now some across this chamber might think that that is the wrong decision but if you want lower taxes that does mean lower spending and you can't then come to the chamber to ask for higher spending that is not economically literate and you need to set out there for where those spending reductions will take place while of course accepting the need to broaden the tax base and grow the economy. Yes. She probably was around in this chamber when I was when Alex Salmond was First Minister. She will remember as I do Alex Salmond arguing for a 3% cut incorporation tax in Scotland and at the same time arguing that would increase the tax revenues because it would grow the economy. Does she now disagree with that analysis? Cabinet Secretary. Well, I've never actually agreed with the concept of trickle-down economics and to be honest what we need to have is a balance. We need a balance of taxation of we need a balance of business regulation. I think that Murdo Fraser seems to be indicating that he doesn't want any business regulation that the business community themselves in a meeting with Neil Gray and I actually support appropriate business regulation because they absolutely acknowledge the importance of regulation where it is important. And of course if we didn't have any regulation we wouldn't have health and safety at work and all of the the improvements that have been made. So regulation is important. I also want to touch on a couple of areas that have been raised by others. Willie Rennie talked about his keenness for an independent assessment on the wellbeing economy metric and the work of the Carnegie Trust. I think that we should look at that and we are happy to take that forward and see how we can make that happen. Michelle Thomson mentioned the importance of a gendered analysis. I think that Clare Baker referred to that as well. Of course the national advisory council Women and Girls and the work being taken forward by the women's budget group is really important in this domain but happy to have further discussions. And I actually met with the national advisory council just yesterday and invited them to engage with us on an earlier basis around the budget process and we are happy and keen to do that. I think that, Deputy Presiding Officer, I have tried to come back on as many points as I can and my apologies for those that I miss out. I think that I just want to really end with an offer which is where I began. I think that we can on many areas across this chamber try to make more progress on where we agree. That will not be easy but I think that we have an opportunity to do so. I am very keen to look at public sector reform, to look at the landscape in Scotland, to look at how we make sure that every pound of public money investment goes to the most efficient and the best outcomes for the people of Scotland. I would hope that that is an area where we can have agreement and I am keen to look at ways of trying to build that consensus whether that is on a regular meeting basis across the parties, on areas where we do agree or where it is about bringing ideas to this chamber for debate. So you can have my assurance that that is the way I intend to do business on behalf of this Government. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate on managing Scotland's finances and working with business to drive the wellbeing economy. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8621 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam minister to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am moved. Thank you, minister. And I call on Donald Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Scottish Conservatives object to the debate scheduled next week, next Tuesday, on the UK Government's illegal migration bill and for this reason we'll be opposing the business motion tonight. We are deeply concerned, though not surprised, by the Scottish Government's intention to use parliamentary time to debate an issue that is entirely, entirely reserved to the UK Parliament. Plainly there are very differing views on the issues of migration across this chamber. But we have no idea of the Scottish Government views on this bill because there is no legislative consent memorandum that has been published or made available to the public. The Government has failed to publish any formal documentation regarding the competence of this bill in advance of the business motion presented to Parliament today. We don't know if the Scottish Government thinks devolved competence is engaged and whether they believe legislative consent is necessary. If they do believe consent is necessary we don't know why and in what way. We don't know what areas of devolved competence the Scottish Government's argues are affected. No committee of this Parliament has taken evidence or considered the bill in any form. It makes a mockery of this Parliament and its processes. More broadly, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is telling that, in the early weeks of the fledgling new Government, one of the first issues that the Scottish Government wants to debate is a UK bill explicitly reserved as a matter of law to the UK Parliament. In short, no credible rationale has been given why a debate on this bill is either justified or necessary and for those reasons we will be voting against the business motion tonight. Thank you, Mr Cameron. I call on the minister to respond on behalf of the parliamentary bureau. Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I say normally, with Mr Cameron, I've got a lot of time and respect for some of the things he says. But here we are again after two weeks of people probably having a bit of a break. Coming back in, we are once again having the business questioned. Now, my title is a member of the Scottish Parliament. This is a Parliament and has the opportunity to discuss anything that is a part of what the people of Scotland want to discuss. And this bill in particular is something that vexes many of the members within this chamber and is obviously across-party. People have opinions on that bill as well. And the legal migration bill has gone through the House of Commons at an accelerated pace and it's anticipated that the bill will complete its passage next week and move to the House of Lords. And given the subject matter it is important that the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to debate the bill before this is complete. The UK Government's view is that the bill is reserved. The Scottish Government's view amends the powers and duties of Scottish ministers to provide support and assistance to victims of human trafficking under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Act 2015. Of course Scotland's Parliament should be able to discuss any attacks on devolution. The Scottish Government is committed to lodging a memorandum as soon as possible and will schedule a debate when the subject committee has considered and reported as is routine. And closing, Presiding Officer, can I say the Conservatives were never fans of devolution at all but the rest of us within this chamber believe in this Parliament and this chamber and we will discuss what this Parliament and the people of Scotland want to discuss. Thank you minister. The question is that motion 8621 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau setting out a business programme be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed therefore we will move to a vote. There will be a brief pause to allow members to access the digital voting system.