The next item of business is the debate on motion 8, 6, 8, 6, in the name of Michael Marat on Scotland's finances and the cost of living. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I can advise the chamber we have no time in hand and therefore all members will have to stick to their speaking time allocation. I'm sure you will lead by example Michael Marat asked you to speak to and move the motion for up to six minutes, Mr Marat. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. Financial crisis is gripping families across Scotland, soaring food prices, interest rates, energy and fuel prices, stubbornly high inflation driving the cost of daily life up and up. That scandal was turbocharged over those few fateful days in Downing Street last September by Liz Truss and Quasie Quarteng's disastrous mini-budget and the rest of the Tory party who backed them. There we have a governing party that is morally bankrupt. Here we have a governing party that's going bankrupt. Recent events have shown the depth of the culture of secrecy and cover-up that has festered at the heart of the SNP for years. The party treasure resigned in 2021 over a lack of access to financial information. In any legitimate organisation, you would expect, Presiding Officer, the treasure to be able to see the books. Fortunately, though, the continuity First Minister does not believe that SNP is a criminal organisation. He has never had a burner phone. Expensive pens, pots and pans, jewellery and a fridge freezer are like the conveyor belt on the generation game. No wonder the auditors resigned last year and that, too, was hidden, even from their Westminster leader. Those auditors were concerned, and I quote, Presiding Officer, as to the extent to which the audit was considered capable of detecting irregularities, including fraud. Yesterday at lunchtime, Colin Beattie MSP was not capable of detecting a two-ton campervan, let alone fraud. By tea time, he had managed to recognise his own signature. In the approach of the SNP Government, crucially, we find the same patterns of cover-up, secrecy and spin. Disingenuous tactics of dither and delay from this Government meant that teachers' strike dragged on for far longer than parents' pupils or teachers could afford. For months, the cabinet secretary branded a deal unaffordable and unsustainable, yet when our own constituents were targeted like a rabbit from a hat and the cabinet secretary found the money, extra money, but very light on detail. That is familiar to members right across the chamber, as typical of their approach to budgets. The result of that hap hazard budgeting is clear. Over £3.7 billion in wasted public money under the SNP, and do not just take my word for it. Audit Scotland has sounded the alarm for years about the opacity of this Government's finance. A raft of reports and audits have criticised the Government's lack of transparency. In its 2020-21 audit of Scottish Government consolidated accounts, Audit Scotland said that, without greater transparency, it is difficult to form an overall picture of the performance of the Scottish Government. In November 2022, the report titled Scotland's public finances, challenges and risks, said that a comprehensive and transparent assessment of the state of Scotland's public finances was needed. That warning was followed in December 2022 by the audit of Scottish Government consolidated accounts, which stated that the Scottish Government needs to do more to improve the quality and transparency of its financial and performance reporting. Take the infamous ferry contracts. Audit Scotland said that there was insufficient documentary evidence to explain why the decision was made to proceed with the contract. Audit Scotland's March 2022 report on arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802 was clear that the Government should, in quote, improve the transparency of its investment decisions. Just last month, Audit Scotland raised concerns about bonuses paid to senior managers at Ferguson shipyard, stating that it was, I quote again, not clear how their performance was assessed, nor were appropriate frameworks and governance in place. Yet more wasted money, no action from this Government to stem the tide. We all remember that the SNP came to power on a promise from one of its disgraced former First Ministers to reduce the size of Cabinet and save the public money, but today we have a Cabinet of 10 and a further 18 Ministers, the biggest ever. The public purse holding together a majority of which the party voted for the other two candidates. The public know that they are not getting value for money. New figures, published just this week from the Scottish household survey, show satisfaction with public services plummeting. There is not a single institution in Scotland today that is stronger than it was 16 years ago.  While the SNP crumbles, the people of Scotland are paying the price for a distracted Government mired in scandal. Ask the one in seven Scots on an NHS waiting list. Ask the teacher, overwhelmed by workload. Ask the islanders whose livelihoods are destroyed. Nothing is working as it should. The reason for that is clear. A Government that is rudderless cast lazily adrift on an ocean of incompetence. Change is coming. The people will have their say in 2024 and in 2026. They can choose to elect a Government that will restore competence, integrity and transparency to our public finances. They can choose to elect a Government that will rebuild treasured institutions like our NHS for generations to come. They can choose to elect a Labour Government. That is the change that Scotland needs. Tom Arthur, to speak to a new amendment 8686.2 up to five minutes, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. As Parliament will be aware last week, we published our policy prospectus, New Leadership, a Fresh Start for Scotland, which sets out how, as a Government, we will address the challenges that we face and build on our strengths. How we will drive equality, how we will seize the opportunities of an economy that is fair, green and growing, and how we will deliver for our communities with first-class public services to which we all aspire. We outlined the steps that we will take over the course of this Parliament to deliver on this vision. We are committed to routinely, regularly and transparently reporting on our performance against those aims and outcomes. As a Government, we have been open and transparent with the Parliament on the fiscal challenges that we are managing both last year and as we developed the budget for this year. The on-going impacts of the pandemic, storing inflation caused by the war in Ukraine and exacerbated by Brexit, combined to create the most challenging financial situation ever experienced by this Parliament and indeed ever experienced by the people that we are honoured to represent. Against this backdrop, we have successfully demonstrated careful budget management year after year, taking the hard decisions that are necessary to live within our means, despite the challenges that are faced. All Scottish Government spend is reported in our accounts, and those are audited against international accounting standards, not right now, by Audit Scotland. The Auditor General's report on the 2021-22 accounts confirms an unqualified clean audit opinion on the accounts for the 17th consecutive year. We have delivered the most progressive tax system in the UK and delivered the social security system with fairness at its heart. Not right now, research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, published during the Scottish budget, showed that, as a result of our decisions, the poorest tenth of Scottish households are set to have incomes of £580, 4.6 per year higher than they would under the systems in England or indeed in Wales. We present a draft budget, a draft Scottish budget and budget bill each year to the Parliament for scrutiny, debate and agreement. We engage openly with Parliament on the spending proposals, meeting with appropriate members, and indeed I am looking forward to meeting with Opposition members in the coming weeks, including with Mr Marra, who I welcome to his new position. We also work with the Parliament and its committees to improve the information available to support its scrutiny of the annual budget. We also publish information on the Scottish budget that is understandable and accessible to a wider audience, principally through our Use Scotland, your finances publication on the Scottish Government website. We seek to be responsive and listening as a Government, demonstrated through our work with the key stakeholders and structures such as the Equalities and Human Rights Budgety Advisory Group and Open Government Fiscal Transparency Commitment Group. During each financial year, we also present at least two budget revisions to Parliament to agree in-year movements within the Scottish budget, and those are considered in detail with the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has also acknowledged improvements in information on that. For example, in March 2022, the convener for the committee, speaking on behalf of the committee, complimented the detail of information provided in the spring budget revision. I want to put on record my thanks to the committee for the work that they do, and also to say that the Government will be voting for the amendment in the name of Liz Smith, recognising the important work that the Finance and Public Administration Committee undertakes. That is because, as a Government, on matters of financial transparency, on presenting information as clearly as possible, we will always seek to improve. We will continue to engage on how transparency can be further improved in our accounts, in particular on the points made by Audit Scotland. We are committed to improving the understanding of the public finances and for the public, rare representatives and other interested parties, from the revenue that we raise to the outcome that it achieves. That is demonstrated through our fiscal transparency programme, which is at its heart of the wider commitment to improve fiscal openness and transparency, co-created with civil society partners in Scotland's third open government action plan. That looks at ways to improve the accessibility of our current fiscal data and information by using more data visualisations, infographics and open data. That commits to improving the accessibility and usability of our data and information on public finances, benchmarking our fiscal openness and transparency against international best practice, as well as improving engagement and participation on the public finance. That is hard and complex work, and much of the critical change that we want to see will take time. However, we will continue to work with the Parliament and civil society partners on that. In conclusion, as a Government, we are committed to delivering on-going budget to transparency and working with the Parliament and, in particular, the finance committee to improve the scrutiny of Scotland's finances. I call Liz Smith to speak to a move amendment 866.1 up to four minutes. I immediately move amendment 866.1 in my name, and I am pleased to hear that the Scottish Government is going to support it, because it raises specific issues about some of the inconsistencies in the data set that has been used for financial analysis. I also unusually support the Labour motion on this occasion, because it is an important motion. That is because it is dealing with an extremely important topic about transparency and scrutiny. In fact, I do not see why any MSP would want to oppose that motion, because it is essential, most especially in these difficult economic times, that we do everything possible to ensure that we get better value for public money and that we do so in as open and as transparent a manner as possible. On those benches, we believe that the public deserves no less. They surely have a right to know exactly what their money is being spent on, and just as importantly, why elected members of this place make certain choices. I think that we need to be held fully accountable for every decision that we make, most especially when it comes to the public finances very quickly. As a fellow member of the finance committee—albeit, I have just formally a member—does she recognise the characterisation of the committee's views on transparency, as given by the minister? I have to say that there is little inconsistency on that, not just about the data, but a little inconsistency on the comments from the minister. Mr Johnson has sat on the committee for as long as I have. It is a very important committee of this Parliament for obvious reasons. We have raised time and time again the issue of transparency and openness and the ability to scrutinise the numbers on a consistent basis. Mr Marra referred to some of the lessons that we should have learned before. Some of those lessons go further back. I can remember the previous Auditor General, Caroline Gardner, talking about exactly that issue. She was really blaming the Government, and it was not particularly directed just at SNP. It was about Government in general, about the lack of willingness and the scrutiny that is essential to making this Parliament work effectively. I think that there is a wider issue here, not just about the numbers. We know that SNP is not very good at numbers just now, but it is about the scrutiny that we need to have to make this Parliament work properly. Earlier this week, the Finance Committee convener has written to Marie Todd to express the committee's on-going concerns about the lack of the financial memorandums to support the national care service bill. That is just another example of the lack of adequate transparency, which, by its very nature, prevents the Parliament from engaging in proper scrutiny. That cannot be right. I am not really too sure why the SNP amendment should try to place the blame on Westminster, because I do not think that that is right. Michael Marra cited the figure of £3.5 billion as the failed and profligate spending, and that is a Scottish Government failure on Scottish Government projects. I do not really see how that is the fault of the UK Government. Do I have time? I cannot give you any extra time, I am afraid of this. I will finish on what I think is a very important point, which is that openness and transparency are not only good practice to measure best value for taxpayers' money, but that openness and transparency are essential if there is to be renewed trust between the Government and the public. There is much media comment just now about how politics and the Government have lost their integrity. That is not good for society and it is certainly not good for rebuilding Scotland. I apologise, but we are very tight for time. I call Willie Rennie up to four minutes. It was a commendable straight face from the minister when he talked about careful budget management. Let us go through some of the greatest hits. The troubled GFG, owned by Sanjeev Gupta, ddupped the SNP Government into providing a £586 million guarantee in return for 2,000 jobs. Those jobs have never materialised in Lochaber, but it was a fantastic picture for the then First Minister and Mr Gupta. £50 million to save 1,500 jobs by fab. The money has gone and the jobs have gone, but it was another fantastic photograph with those hard hats and orange jumpsuits. On the hook for millions of pounds for the potential environmental cleanup at the Lanarkshire steel mills if Mr Gupta's empire collapses. Another gritty photograph for the former First Minister in return. The icing on the cake, or as they say in Port Glasgow, is the painted on windows on the ferry. The running sore in our collective bank account, the insult to the workers at Ferguson's and the agony of the never-ending cancellations on the islands, over budget, overtime and an utter national embarrassment. However, boy, it was the best photograph ever. It was such a success that the next lot of ferries had been built in Turkey. The SNP Government has been an expensive spin machine from the start. It does not do Government for the long-term. It only does Government in its own short-term interests. Public money should be carefully stewarded. It has been hard-earned by people working in shops, in businesses, in schools and in hospitals. Too often, the SNP uses it as their plaything for expensive stunts and press releases. It is an embarrassment and it is not a Government. What we need instead is change. We need a new economic plan that focuses on long-term progress, not short-term stunts. Our universities are such an economic generator, global talent working on excellent research. The USA exploits its talent with careful nurturing of intellectual property, a culture of spin-outs and investment in the best research and best talent, yet Scotland is slipping. We used to attract 15 per cent of the UK research council funding. In the latest round, it is only 12.5 per cent because of this Government's mismanagement. We need to reverse that decline. Our colleges must be restored to the strength to provide the skilled workforce employers need. The apprenticeship programme must grow to meet the demand and the apprenticeship levy needs to be reformed to incentivise more training, not less. We need the skills landscape. It has been promised for years, but we still do not have it. The renewables potential is huge, but we need a proper plan to rescue the potential of Scotland. Investing in Scottish yards and helping Scottish firms to keep the jobs here in Scotland for construction and servicing. To keep the best talent in Scotland, we need to build confidence in the Government's taxation policy. It should always be evidence-based, balanced and certain. Prudence should be our watchword. We need good public services to keep us healthy and educated and a clean environment that we can all thrive in. That means expanding early learning in childcare. It means shorter waiting times for mental health treatment and accessing a GP. It means cleaning up the sewage from our rivers. What is essential is that we have a plan for the long term, not short term, photo ops and stunts. We need to use our public money carefully. We now move to the open debate. I would be grateful if all members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call on Paul O'Kane to be followed by John Mason. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and to speak in support of the motion in the name of my colleague Michael Marra. It is an extremely important and timely debate, and as I think we have already heard from across the chamber in the opening speeches, we are facing too huge crisis here in Scotland. A cost of living crisis created in part by the conservative, reckless attitude to the economy, and a crisis across our NHS here in Scotland, which I think is widely seen and felt, not just on our NHS, but across all of our public services. The reality is that Scotland has been failed by two Governments, a Tory Government who has become morally bankrupt, who has not taken the action that is required to support and protect people, and who has contributed to economic recklessness, which has driven our economy over the cliff edge. We have an SNP Government here in Scotland who has grown bloated, out of touch and are now mired in their own internal party scandals. Why is this important? It is important, because the people of Scotland are the ones who are being left behind. I want to read a quote to the chamber. I already have days where there is no gas or electricity in the property. We already skip meals and go without basic items. I am worried that this is going to happen more often and in a lot more days of the month. That testimony is the painful reality that is felt by thousands of Scots every single day. A new research from the Trussell Trust has revealed that the need for food banks in Scotland has reached its highest ever level. Parents are skipping meals to ensure that they can feed their children. However, the issue did not rise solely out of a cost of living crisis. The Trussell Trust has concluded that neither the Covid pandemic nor the cost of living crisis are the key drivers in the need for food banks. I think that we all know that they are symptomatic of wider issues and a wider deep endemic poverty that pervades in Scotland and has not been sufficiently addressed across our communities. Indeed, people who are already in poverty have been pushed to the margins and are being ignored by both Governments—both at Westminster and at Holyrood. In Scotland, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that 460,000 people are now living in very deep poverty, a figure that has significantly increased across two decades. Making poverty history in Scotland will be central to everything that we do. Those were the words of the then Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, in 2008. Of course, that aspiration of making poverty history is something that every single person in this chamber should share. However, it is one thing to say it and another to focus all of your attention and resource of Government to do something about making it a reality. 16 years in power, child poverty remains at the same level when this Government took power. It has had 16 years with the access to the levers of power to make fundamental change, but the reality is that since entering Government in 2007, the SNP has failed to address the issues in a serious, substantive manner, and that is why we are seeing those issues. Of course, as we have already heard, that has been at the backdrop of a Conservative Government at a UK level who has made matters worse. The reality is that we need change. We need a Labour Government at a UK level who will invest in a meaningful windfall tax, who will take action on the cost of living, who will support families across the country. We need change with a Labour Government here at Holyrood, who would re-prioritise, move away from waste, move away from Government bloat and find the triggers and the levers and use them to make a difference. Next week, we will participate in the poverty summit, which was announced by the First Minister, and we do welcome any action at addressing poverty. However, let's be clear, this is yet another summit and there have been many summits, and it cannot be another talking shop. The SNP has failed over the 16 years, despite all its encouraging, positive rhetoric and all its photo ops, to effectively use the power of this Parliament, the Parliament that we created, to make tackling poverty a top policy priority. In concluding, Presiding Officer, after 16 years, people need less talk and more action from this Government. I am very pleased to speak in today's debate, which gives us the chance to contrast Labour's management of finance in comparison to the SNP's and, of course, we can look at the Conservatives as well. In the first place, I am willing to accept that almost every individual and every organisation makes mistakes and wastes money at times. Who of us has never bought food that we did not eat or bought clothes that we seldom wear? The Edinburgh trams cost far too much, although that was a decision forced on the SNP by other parties, and the ferries clearly have not been a total success story. Although, if the Scottish Government had not intervened, presumably Ferguson's would now be completely closed and with it commercial shipbuilding on the Clyde, I assume that that is not what Labour is arguing for. Let's look at other capital projects that have been incredibly successful. For example, the Queensfrey crossing was originally crossed at some £3 to £4 billion and actually cost £1.4 billion. Prestwick airport remains open and is operating profitably, whereas without the Scottish Government it would presumably have closed and with it would have gone some 2,000 jobs. Then we come to revenue spending. We see some considerable SNP successes, including the Scottish child payment lifting 50,000 children out of poverty, 1140 hours of early learning and childcare for all three and four-year-olds, not to mention free prescriptions, free personal care and the continuation of no student tuition fees. When it comes to Labour, we do not actually know what their policies are. Both Keir Starmer and Anna Sarwar have been very policy-like. It seems that they want to avoid real policies or commitments, which they could eventually be held to account for. Nothing in their motion for today says anything about different decisions that Labour would have made. For example—I'm sorry, it's a four-minute debate, there's no time. Labour chose the four-minute debate. Would Labour have made different decisions about Prestwick and Ferguson's and allowed them both to close? What we do know is what Labour has done in the past when they had their hands on the purse strings. In Glasgow they failed to settle the equal pay claims of female staff and allowed the liability to run up year after year. Only when the SNP came to power and settled the claims did we discover the kind of bill that Labour had run up, £778 million. And then how about Labour's building of this Scottish Parliament building? The initial cost, estimated by Donald Dure, was £30 million to £40 million. The actual final cost was £414 million. Was that competence in management? Another for Labour, how about the PFI schemes? Construction costs of some £5.6 billion for schools, hospitals etc. Mr Mason, could you just give me a moment please? There are conversations happening across the aisles, I would be grateful if members could desist. Mr Mason, please continue. I'm glad I'm kind of stirring them up a bit. Construction costs of some £5.6 billion for schools, hospitals etc, but our local councils and health boards are now having to pay back over five times that and it is rising with inflation with some £15 billion still outstanding. Was that competence in management? Last time I looked, Labour continues to support nuclear weapons, £167 billion according to Reuter for the upcoming submarine programme. Is that really a priority when ordinary people in the east end of Glasgow are facing a cost of living crisis? Before the Conservatives start feeling too pleased with themselves, what was the cost of hiring boats that did not exist? £13 million. And how is HS2 going? The Euston tunnel is being delayed indefinitely, with the likely cost having risen for that tunnel from £2.6 billion to £4.8 billion. And the overall project cost up from £72 billion to £98 billion. I just hate to think where Scotland would be now if Labour had been running the show for the last 16 years. Thank you. Thank you. I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to be followed by Pauline McNeill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is an important debate and it is timely given the myriad of claims and accusations which face both this Scottish Government and the party that leads it. Transparency in accountability in government should be a core principle of government. That decisions are made in an open manner and when things go wrong that there is a clear record of how decisions were made and who was responsible for making them. But that's not how this government works. And accountability appears a foreign concept to SNP ministers. It wasn't always like this in 2010 that then Transport Minister Stuart Stevenson fell on his sword because it was the right thing to do. Fast forward to 2023 and we have a Scottish Government where no one has paid the price for the disastrous ferries procurement scandal. And we have a government happy to hold important meetings without miniting them and we are forced to scrabble around searching for those minutes they did have. Those unfinished ferries are just one example of a government as transparent as a black hole where decisions were made for political reasons and millions of pounds of taxpayers' cash has been wasted by the SNP on buying what must be the most expensive pre-conference headlines ever. The ferry scandal by Fab Presswick airport, all examples of a government not only making dubious investment decisions but making them behind closed doors and then defending them from behind a smokescreen. And in my region, the Highlands and Islands, as Willie Rennie mentioned, the SNP government's dealing with Sanjif Gupta and the GFG Alliance over the aluminium smelter in La Caba are another example of how this government often operates in the shadows. Scottish ministers have time and time again hidden behind commercial confidentiality to avoid questions on this deal. A deal that saw over half a billion pounds of taxpayers' money put at risk where promised new jobs have failed to appear and where millions of pounds worth of assets were signed over to a business which is now being investigated for fraud and whose auditors resigned last year. Sounds familiar. But why would we expect anything less from this SNP-led government? A lack of openness is endemic in their party. Is it any wonder that a party for which transparency and accountability are such alien concepts has formed a government in its own image? Presiding Officer, the SNP has claimed to have spent £3 billion tackling the cost of living crisis, but Spice have estimated that the SNP who has spent less than 20 per cent of that figure was most of that coming from the UK Government. They have claimed to have increased support to Scotland's council, but Scotland's councils have rubbished this. They have even claimed that Scottish GDP has grown more than UK GDP when they have actually presided over GDP growth, which has lagged behind the rest of the UK and allied themselves with a party that does not even believe in GDP in the first place. The SNP has claimed in its amendment today that Scotland has, I quote, the most progressive income tax system in the UK. Minister, there is nothing progressive about making Scotland the most taxed part of the United Kingdom, nor in an approach which, according to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, could see Scotland's 2024-25 budget reduced by £732 million as a result of lower than expected tax receipts in 2021-22, meaning that even more financial pressure is put on public services. However, I am grateful for the minister for giving us all a good laugh today. I can picture him sitting in St Andrew's house surrounded by his advisers instructing them to put a line in their motion about this SNP green government being open, transparent and competent. It is good to see that the minister has not lost his sense of humour, but I am afraid that Scotland does not see the funny side of 16 years of SNP incompetence after 16 years of SNP mismanagement of funds and where the only thing transparent about this new, this SNP government is its contempt for public accountability. Thank you. I call Colleen McNeill to be followed by Ivan McKee. Someone who has fought hard for this devolved Parliament, I do care how it looks 20 plus years on, but how it looks right now to most people is that the current procedures are failing to help to keep this Government to account. On one of the areas that Scottish Labour believes needs change is that she has more powers to compel more accurate answers when ministers were necessary instead of the self-policing circus where ministers can avoid answering questions or in fact provide inaccurate and inadequate answers. The only current route for politicians right now, no matter what the Presiding Officer is concerned about, is points of order. The current framework is not fit for purpose and it must change if you care about this Parliament at all. There is a pressing duty for this Government to change the quality of parliamentary answers but also to change course under poor financial management and commit to a culture of openness and transparency and one that shows taxpayers clearly how all of their money is allocated and spent. More so now than ever because ordinary people, as Michael Marra has said, question more than ever as they see the party of government laid bare in recent weeks and in scenes that have rocked the governing party to their core. Unfortunately, it has impacted on the standing of this Parliament and its reputation. I say now that the SNP owe it to the people of Scotland to overhaul their approach to openness and accountability in this Parliament and in its finances but a culture of secrecy in Scotland's finances developed in the Scottish Government for far too long. The words that I am quoting here are from Spice and from Audit Scotland to have completely have repeatedly called on the SNP to improve transparency and accountability and in recent years the Finance and Public Administration Committee have also urged the Government to improve budget transparency. When the Scottish Government published its resource spending review in May 2022, it committed to publishing details around planning for public service reform, including the direction of travel for public sector employment. However, those expected plans have had a notable emission from this year's budget, again a barrier to parliamentary scrutiny, as has been said already. The Scottish Government public sector counts for £22 billion of the budget and not having a steer on pay parameters does lead people to question why the Government was not open in the first place, given that we have had over a decade of wage stagnation and the unions and the public want to know where the Government stands on their allocation of budget for something that is so important to the people of Scotland. Is anyone interested in a higher standard of parliamentary scrutiny, a human rights budgeting approach? Transparency means that we have to do an awful lot better than we are faced with right now. Within the main budget documentation for this year, there is little comment or description on the data underpinning budget decisions or how the decisions impact on different groups of people. There is no accompanying documents aimed specifically at accessibility with a simple breakdown of the budget, and many of the supporting documents are not linked and are hard to find on the website. As a Parliament, we have to do better and the Government needs to do better. The Scottish Government needs to do more to improve the quality and transparency of its financial performance and reporting. In fact, one example in my portfolio that I cover in justice is that the rolling out of body-worn cameras is a fundamental requirement in police accountability. We cannot really see enough as to whether or not we could have made earlier decisions to make this roll-out happen quicker, and now we are the only force in the UK that will not have the full use of body-worn cameras. It is time for change. The over-secretive approach of the Government— I must ask you to conclude, Ms McNeill. Sorry, I couldn't see the clock. I'll conclude on that to say that the Scottish Government must be more open and more accountable for the sake of the people of Scotland. Ivan McKee, to be followed by Ross Greer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to take this opportunity to highlight some positive aspects of the Scottish Government's stewardship of the nation's finances, but also to identify opportunities for improvement. A few points. First of all, all organisations suffer from inefficiencies, and my colleague John Mason has given some excellent examples. There are, of course, hundreds of millions on questionable PPE contracts from the UK Government, contrasted with the Scottish Government's rapid and cost-effective deployment of locally manufactured PPE. Second, all organisations have opportunities for improvement no matter how good you think you are. You can always do better. I have some familiarisation with an area from my previous life as a turnaround professional, taking poorly-performing organisations dramatically improving service delivery and doing so at substantially lower costs through creating continuous improvement cultures that value employees and a knowledge of how best to do the job by delegating responsibility beyond layers of ineffective management, combined with modern structured improvement methodologies and adoption of latest technologies. It is very much aligned with the Christy Principles, participation, empowerment, partnership, prevention and reducing duplication. One of the core arguments in favour of independence is that smaller countries are more agile, nimble, responsive to opportunities and more efficient at service delivery, benefiting from shorter lines from odd-through organisations to service users. That is demonstrably true and is one of the reasons why smaller countries benefit from an average growth rate 0.7 per cent higher than larger comparable neighbours. To persuade people of the benefits of independence, we need to demonstrate that we can run efficient, high-quality public services within budget. Scotland's health service, for example, performs better than its UK counterpart on many measures, but much more needs to be done. Health is one area where organisational complexity, scope for technology adoption and leverage and preventative efforts spend off a significant scope for improved delivery within budget. I and my colleagues will be producing a paper shortly to give more details on our thoughts on that. There are some clear examples of where we need to do better. Our service delivery mechanisms are over-complicated, with more than 100 public bodies, much overlapping duplication, serial management overheads in systems and complex interfaces. Government finds comfort in talking about inputs. There is no easier headline than creating a new fund or a new organisation to deliver it. All that does, of course, is create more complexity and cost in the system, reducing the amount of money that finds its way to those who need it. The Scottish Government annual spend on cost-civil services is now more than £700 million, with significant increases in recent years, alignment of workforce and budget-controlled fall short of best practice. It is worth noting that the majority of the additional revenue that is raised from this year's tax rate rises will be spent funding increases in Scottish Government civil service costs. The adoption of hybrid working has rightly led to an over-provision of real estate, and the scope for significant cost reduction here needs to be realised as leases expire. The construction of new premises, for example, the proposed Glasgow hub, seems in that context a misuse of scarce capital resources. The Scottish Government should also take forward at pace the creation of the Victoria key tech and creative hub making use of redundant Government-owned estate to boost local economies and national clusters. The public sector reform agenda is important. The work on culture change, empowerment and adopting best practice in modern technology within the Government itself is critical. The external expert advisory group has significant value here, so I am concerned by reports that the DfFM has delegated engagement with this group to officials. In conclusion, what my constituents want to see is the money getting to the front line and delivering high-quality cost-effective services, not being swallowed up in organisational complexities before it gets there. There are hundreds of millions to be redirected in that regard, and I have every confidence that the Scottish Government will deliver on that agenda. I am grateful to Michael Marra for using one of his party's business slots to give Parliament time to consider the challenges of managing our public finances during a cost of living crisis. As others have already said, fiscal sustainability is a major area of interest for our Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Scottish Fiscal Commission. On one level, fiscal sustainability in a devolved context should be pretty simple. We do not have the option of running a deficit. We cannot accumulate debt like a normal national government, but the considerable constraints on our financial powers and on the budget available to us create serious challenges of their own. Investing in infrastructure is one of the most effective ways to spread economic prosperity, but Scotland's capital budget has been cut significantly by the UK Government and we do not have the meaningful capital borrowing powers that any normal nation would have for exactly this kind of investment. The effect of that lack of funding has short and long-term impacts. A group of MSPs from the Greens, Labour, the SNP and the Conservatives met last month with Jubilee Scotland to discuss the impact of private financing of public infrastructure under the PFI model. I have not got the time to go into the detail of that here, although I commend to members the latest report from the Scotland Against Public Private Partnerships campaign. I hope that through the Scottish National Investment Bank and other pathways we will be able to make progress on providing far better value for the public purse in the future than has been the case with PFI's. However, in the context of the review of the fiscal framework between the Scottish and UK Governments and the development of the new framework between Scottish Government and local Government, I hope that we can build a consensus across Parliament on the need for greater direct capital borrowing powers to sit here and for some further reform of the borrowing powers available to local councils. That review of the fiscal framework needs to deliver significant reforms beyond just borrowing powers. The operation of the Scottish Reserve, for example, is absurdly limited. The £700 million overall limit, the £250 million resource drawdown limit and the £100 million capital drawdown limit are all entirely arbitrary numbers and they now reflect a far smaller proportion of the overall budget than when they were originally agreed. Reform of the reserve should be obvious and I hope that it will be a source of consensus rather than contention between the Scottish and UK Governments. On a somewhat related note to the operation of the reserve, one other area where change is needed for the sake of transparency and public understanding is reporting and discussion of our annual underspend, not because there is anything inherently wrong with the Auditor General's reports on that in particular, but because they are clearly and consistently being misunderstood. Let's be honest, some of that is pretty willful, this is politics, but if we take the £2122 budget as the most recent example, the reported figure of £2 billion was repeatedly claimed and resulted in claims being made that there was a £2 billion pot of cash which went untouched for some deliberate but unexplained reason and which could therefore be spent in the year 2022-23. When the reality is that much of that underspend was technical, it was the result of a variation in the student loans market which the Audit Scotland report made clear in the very next line did not actually mean that there was cash left over, much of the rest was one-off ring-fenced Covid funds which couldn't be entirely spent on time for reasons that we all understand and funds for specific projects which were also delayed by the pandemic, meaning that the money wasn't literally going unspent, the spending was just being rolled into the next financial year because it couldn't literally be delivered in that one. Despite all of that, I lost count of the number of teachers I spoke to during their pay dispute who couldn't understand why we weren't making a higher offer to them because they'd heard that we had an extra £2 billion in the bank just sitting there, unused. Communicating that nuance is a challenge for Audit Scotland, for the Scottish Government and for Parliament. Openness and transparency in the handling of public finances is of critical importance to every nation and the work of our Parliament's Finance Committee has demonstrated that there is much here which we can find consensus on. This afternoon's debate hasn't quite hit on that consensus to the same extent but there have been a number of really strong points made, that's politics, but I hope that through the committee system in particular and other avenues we'll continue making that progress on our financial governance which is so essential to maintaining the public's trust with what is ultimately their money. I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, which serves as an important reminder of the responsibility of all Governments to spend public money as effectively as possible. Today's motion is right to speak about the waste that we have seen over the last 16 years of Government and of the failed financial interventions that we have also seen throughout that time. On this, we have already heard about the hundreds of millions of pounds wasted on two ferries, which have yet to tee active service. Indeed, the final cost of those ferries is yet known and continues to rise. I have also spoken before about the SNP's failure to properly use financial levers of power that holds such as those with over-income tax. The SNP's amendment today mentions proudly talking about Scotland having the most progressive income tax system in the United Kingdom. The truth, however, is that the SNP's decision to hike taxes for 2023-24 will mean that Scots are paying massively in additional taxes to higher rates and lower thresholds. As an ally said, we have seen from the Scottish Fiscal Commission shows that the result will just mean that it is £325 million in additional revenues due to the lower earnings and employment growth compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. My colleague, Cliff Smith, challenged the First Minister on this issue just last week and was told that detailed analysis has been carried out on all tax-related decisions. When it comes to the justification of those tax policies, which ultimately risks slower growth and lower tax takes revenue, it is unclear about that detailed analysis and what it looks like. This is just the latest example of this Government failing to truly be transparent when it comes to its finances. The other financial burdens that we have heard and from memory include £30 million spent last year on the census. This is not the first time that the SNP insists on doing something different that ends up costing the Scottish taxpayer. Examples of all kinds of financial mismanagement have been found in every year that this Government has been in power. This Government's mismanagement of public money is far from something of the past. It is still very much on-going. Despite many's stakeholders' opposition to their plans, the SNP is still pushing forward with their national care service. That will cost an additional £1.6 billion at the worst possible time. The funding will be much better spent on overstretched local care services instead. They need that money and they need it now. While we have already heard that plans have been kicked further down the road, it is still the case that the SNP will not scrap plans and waste money continually. In conclusion, it is perhaps no surprise that the SNP has come to this chamber and attempted to paint a very different picture of the Government's record when it comes to Scotland's finances. The main issue and the main thrust of its amendment appears to be absolutely nothing to see here. However, as today's motion sets out, the truth is far less convincing for this Government. Holding the financial levers of power is a tremendous responsibility for any Government. It is high time that the Green SNP Government recognised that and started to take its responsibilities much more seriously for the people of Scotland. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate in support of the amendment in the name of Tom Arthur. There is no doubt that this is very difficult times for public finances in Scotland. The Tory's crashing of the economy and the disastrous Brexit and now also the policy of a Labour colleague's opposite are stretching budgets to the limit. Inflation has rocketed and is affecting Government budgets. It is having a terrible impact on our constituents. Food inflation is at an astonishing 19.2 per cent, the highest level in 45 years. The Scottish Government, in the face of this challenge, has set balanced budgets and invested in supporting many policies to assist during these very difficult times. Unlike south of the border, people in Scotland can claim the Scottish child payment, have access to free prescriptions, pay no tuition fees and have lower council tax bills. Some of those policies, Labour apparently previously labelled as a something for nothing country. That was because it did not have the vision and compassion to recognise that those policies were crucial in keeping many households afloat. Higher pay offers for teachers in Scotland, an increased investment in education from the SNP Government, when spending per pupil is now over 18 per cent higher than Tory run England and Labour run Wales, who spend just 7,200 per pupil compared to over 8,500 in Scotland. It is correct that we need to continue to deliver budgets that allow this investment to continue. That is what we will see from this Government. We can contrast that with Labour's record, because we know that Labour's budget competence and stewardship of the economy confirmed their incompetence in writing. We all remember the letter left by the chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Burn, when Labour was removed from office. It said, Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid there's no money, kind regards and good luck, Liam. Some of us are old enough to remember the record in Government in both Scotland and the UK. All of us are old enough to remember that. They're even still paying for their record, their disastrous PVP savings, costing Scottish taxpayers 30 billion repayment bill, forcing us all to pay many times more the original cost of the projects. It's estimated that there's still 15 billion to pay for this economic madness. Also, don't forget the millions of pounds that they took away in supporting people grants from charities and third sector organisations in western Bartshire. I'll never forget that. My Glasgow colleague John Mason has reminded us of Labour's refusal to pay the equal pay to working women in the city. Absolutely shame. Unpaid carers will not forget Labour's record either since 1976, when it was initially introduced as invalid carer lines. Successive UK Governments refused to align the amount paid with other earning replacement benefits. This Parliament needed to step in to right this wrong, a wrong that is owned jointly by the Labour Party in the Tories. In 2018, a total of 833,425 carers' allowance supplement payments have been paid to 141,565 carers, totaling £231.8 million, another cost of mitigating Labour and Tory failure. Think of where that money could have been spent. We can't rely on pro-Brexit in the Serity Labour Party to put people of Scotland first, and the Tory-inflicted cost of living crisis tells us own story about their incompetence, unprecedented since records began. Instead, it weighed out in this Scottish Government to manage our budgets carefully, set progressive rates of taxation within our powers and continue to invest in crucial services for the people of Scotland. I fear Michael Marra was enjoying himself just a little bit too much at the start of the debate, trolling the SNP front benches about their party finances. At least, Tom Arthur has demonstrated that he has a sense of humour. As Jamie Halcro Johnston mentioned earlier, his amendment talks about unqualified accounts and opens transparency incompetence. I assume that his tongue was firmly in his cheek when he drafted those words. I am surprised that no well-paid spader or civil servant did not say, minister. Do you not think that that wording is just a little bit courageous given current events? Michael Marra was right to highlight the lack of transparency in relation to the Government's financial decision making. Do not just take the words of the Opposition for that. Liz Smith quoted a previous Auditor General, Caroline Gardner, back in 2021, raising her concerns about transparency in providing loans to private companies. Stephen Boyle, the current Auditor General in December of 2022, produced a report asking for more transparency in four respects. Firstly, fully costing spending commitments and reporting them clearly in budgets. Secondly, greater transparency over capital borrowing plans and how they apply to projects. Thirdly, more transparency over how reserves are used to help to manage cost pressures. Fourthly, increasing transparency within the accounts around the balances held within the Scotland reserve. Four areas where the Auditor General has called for greater transparency. Even within the Scottish National Party, we see criticism. Kenneth Gibson, convener of the finance committee who I do not think is in the chamber this afternoon, writing just today on behalf of the committee who are, and I quote, increasingly concerned over the lack of information, over the financial implications of the national care service bill. A flagship policy of the SNP and no financial memorandum to accompany it, absolutely extraordinary from a Government that tells us it believes in transparency. Yet the Minister for Public Finance tells us that this Scottish Government prioritises openness, transparency and competence in the management of Scotland's finances. The evidence tells us something different. I have heard from a number of members who highlighted the wastage in Government. Willie Rennie, among others, BiFab, Prestwick Airport, Ferguson Marine, £300 million on upwards and still no ferries being delivered and our island communities let down. Yet we learned just the other week that pentland ferries are now loaning the MV Alfred from the Orkney route to CalMac to help service some of the communities in the west coast who have been let down for a cool £1 million a month, a nice work if you can get it, for a ferry that costs £17 million to purchase. I make that an annualised return on investment of 71 per cent. Pentland ferries will be laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of the Scottish taxpayer. I would think that the Minister for Public Finance should be just a little bit embarrassed at the deal that he struck there, or his colleague struck there, for the Scottish taxpayer. Then we have the guarantees to Sanjeev Gupta and the GFG group for the Fort William smelter, adding up in total to £3.5 billion wasted just so that the Scottish Government could get some nice photo opportunities. That is not the way you steered the public finances. My time is very short. Trust in politics is important. That applies to the finances of political parties as it applies to the finances of Governments. But Governments are using public money, and that is why they have to demonstrate a proper record of transparency that is not happening at the moment. That needs to change, and the complacent approach that we have heard so far from the Government front bench really has to be improved upon. In the midst of a cost crisis exacerbated by economic mismanagement by the UK Government and facing the most complex and difficult budget in the history of devolved Parliament, this Government is using the powers that it has to tackle inequality and poverty. We are a Government that is focused on equality, opportunity and community, and making a real difference to people's lives. On equality, we will continue to tackle poverty in all its forms, and we will still substantially reduce child poverty. On opportunity, we will use all the powers that we have to their maximum effect to support economic growth to help businesses and trade to thrive and to maximise the opportunity for a fair green economy. On community, we are focusing on the delivery of key public services. This Scottish Government recognises the pressure on household budgets, which is why, last year and this, we have allocated almost £3 billion to support policies that tackle poverty and support people during the on-going cost of living crisis. This Government's second tackling child poverty delivery plan, Best Art Bright Futures, reaffirms our sharp focus on working with partners to support those at greatest risk of poverty. The plan commits to wide-ranging and ambitious action to provide immediate support to families and deliver transformational change in the longer term to break the cycle of child poverty in Scotland. That includes, of course, Social Security Scotland now delivering 13 Scottish Government benefits, including winter heating payment, which launched in February this year. Seven of those benefits are entirely new forms of financial support, only available in Scotland. Of course, it also includes the game-changing Scottish child payment. It took 18 months from inception to delivery, and that is unprecedented, and no benefit in the UK has ever been delivered so quickly. It is a response to the cost of living crisis, of course, as well. Last year, we increased this payment by 150 per cent within eight months, from £10 to £25 per week per eligible child under 16. That is making a real difference for children and families. In 2324, we are investing £5.2 billion in benefits expenditure, supporting more than 1 million people. That is £770 million above the level of funding to be received by the UK Government through the block grant adjustments. That money will go directly to people who need it most and will support households on low incomes, carers and help for disabled people living independent lives. Of course, in April, we also upgraded all Scottish benefits in line with inflation by 10.1 per cent. That is all being delivered by this Government within our fixed budget and limited powers, shows the political choices that we are making to support people and show that we are making significant investment in the people of Scotland. That also includes, of course, offering free school lunches during term time to over 280,000 pupils in primaries 1 to 5. It includes maintaining our investment in the Scottish welfare fund. It includes continuing to invest in discretionary housing payments. It includes our continued investment in free bus travel, now applying to over 2 million people, including all children and young people under 22. It includes £350 million a year to deliver the council tax reduction scheme. Of course, it includes our support for carers allowance. We have heard a great deal from the Opposition parties. Opposition debate speeches come without cost. However, if Opposition parties are also seriously wishing to engage in the Scottish Government on practical, costed proposals, then our door is always open. However, if not, this is, unfortunately, yet another afternoon that we have spent listening to hot air and nothing more. In the meantime, this Government will get on delivering for the people of Scotland. Let me pick up just where the cabinet secretary left off. If I am not mistaken, if she is wanting practical solutions, let us look no further than £12 an hour for social care workers. I pledge not just adopted by Kate Forbes, but I pledge from the current First Minister. If our suggestions are so impractical, so wildly unaffordable, why are they being adopted by her own Government? Frankly, the statement that she just made lacks any form of credibility, and she knows fine well that it is not a fixed budget because this Government controls income tax, it controls other levies, it has a variable budget, it cannot change it within year, yes, but it is not true to say that it is a fixed budget. I need to make some progress, Mr Brewer. Perhaps the most interesting point of difference in this debate did not come from the Opposition benches. I think that it came from Ivan McKee, because I agree with him. We do need a lean Government, an agile Government, a Government using best technology, but that is not what we have. If you contrast what he was saying with the account that we had from Tom Arthur, that everything is fine, everything is best practice, I think that it showed a level of complacency that stands at odds with what this Government needs to do and what it needs to embrace. It stands at odds with even the most recent findings from odd at Scotland, within their net zero report that they just published, where they said that there was ill-defined goals, ill-defined lines of accountability and overlapping responsibilities leading to poor outcomes. I would suggest that if the Government listened a little bit more to people like Ivan McKee, they would do a little less of the things that they are currently doing as evidenced by that net zero paper. Perhaps that is why Ivan McKee was pushed down, because those challenging voices are not ones that this Government can tolerate. That is what goes to heart of what this debate is really about, because a Government that makes progress needs to be honest about mistakes, it needs to be honest about where it needs to make improvements and it needs to be honest about the challenges that it faces, but that is not what this Government is interested in. You only need to look as far as the recent Cabinet reshuffle. The Government, in its infancy as it may be, is remarkable for very few things. It cannot even claim the prize for self-inflicted crisis and disaster. No, that prize goes to Quasley-Quartang and Liz Truss. No, the only thing that is remarkable for it is its sheer size, a Government that has doubled, a Government that now almost 20 per cent of parliamentarians sit on the Government front benches, and most of us do not even qualify. Almost half the SNP group—and I would look to those members sitting across there—if they are not on the Government benches, they might need to ask yourself why you have been overlooked.  In the UK, the number of ministers is capped, yet the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the SNP seem to ever grow those numbers. It makes for bad Government, because we know what it is about. It is about increasing the payroll vote, because it is part of a wider pattern. What this Government is about is about increasing its level of control, increasing secrecy, control of the narrative, but that ultimately leads to bad decision making and waste. Let me quote someone. We need to create a leaner, more efficient Government that is focused on delivering results and cutting waste—not my words, but from their first minister. I know they do not like quoting their previous First Ministers, but he was right, was not he? However, it is not just ministers where this Government is going wrong on quangos. Again, do we remember the bonfire of the quangos? However, since that was uttered, the number of quangos has increased. There has been a 29 per cent increase in the number of executive board members and 223 new positions created by the Scottish Government, taking the total number of those positions to 774. There are people now whose job description is a description of what they do professionally on LinkedIn as a professional public board member. However, when you have so many in such a small country, of course you need people to double up. However, as a sign of waste, as a sign of confused objectives, it is ultimately about outsourcing and abdicating responsibility, but it ultimately leads to bad outcomes for the public and the public purse. Labour has also published just last year £3.7 billion of Government waste under this budget. That is not an exhaustive list. For example, it does not even include Angus Robertson's travel budget. However, what it does and the thread that runs through all of the issues that have been indicated is poor planning and puller objectives, whether it is the spiralling costs through a complete inability of this Government to implement a workforce strategy that is resulting in delayed discharge, spiralling out of control and hundreds of millions of pounds spent on agency spend through to it—I could not have put it better than Willie Rennie did—the greatest hits of transport disasters in industrial interventions. He is absolutely right in his analysis, because it is driven by that same culture of secrecy by putting politics over delivery, and it is why this Government needs to go. We need a Government that is focused on the key issues—housing, skills and industrial strategy, but ultimately delivery over spin, which is something that this Government is incapable of doing. That concludes the debate on Scotland's finances and the cost of living. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 8663, in the name of Sue Webber, on the appointment of the commissioner for children and young people in Scotland. I call on Sue Webber to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the selection panel. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the cross-party selection panel, established by the Presiding Officer, under our standing orders, I am delighted to be speaking to the motion in my name to invite members of the Parliament to agree to nominate Nicola Caleen to His Majesty the King for appointment as the commissioner for children and young people in Scotland. The Presiding Officer chaired the selection panel, and the other members were Bob Doris, Colcab Stewart and Martin Whitfield. As part of the recruitment process, in addition to being interviewed by the cross-party panel, the candidates were also interviewed by a panel of young advisers who had collaborated with children on setting the questions that the candidates were to be asked. Our thanks go to all those involved, and in particular to Megan, aged 11, and Sandy, aged 10, for their particularly challenging questions. We had the pleasure of meeting the young advisers and getting their feedback on the candidates, which was an invaluable part of the process. On behalf of the panel, I would like to thank them all very much for their time and commitment, and for their excellent feedback. I am delighted that one of the advisers is in the chamber this afternoon watching this debate. As members might be aware, the role of the commissioner is to promote and safeguard the rights of children and young people in Scotland. In particular, the commissioner must promote awareness and understanding of the rights of children and young people, keep under review the law, policy and practice relating to the rights of children and young people, promote best practice by service providers and publish research. The commissioner also has powers to investigate some issues affecting children's human rights. Turning to the panel's nominee, who is in the chamber with her family, Nicola is the chief executive officer of Systema Scotland, which delivers a social change programme called Big Noise in five cities across Scotland, using music and nurturing relationships to support over three and a half thousand children and young people. I am sure that a number of members will have engaged with Systema and know of its very valued work in their communities. Their newest project is in Westerhales, and I have seen firsthand the benefit that their work has brought to that community, and I am hoping to visit them again very soon. Nicola graduated from the Royal Society, the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, with a degree in music education and has a particular focus throughout her career in creating opportunities for children and young people from more disadvantaged communities. The panel believes that Nicola's blend of skills, knowledge, experience and commitment to children and young people will make her an excellent commissioner. Lastly, I would like to mention the outgoing commissioner, Bruce Adamson, who has served since 2017. Bruce has had a considerable impact as the commissioner, and I am sure that we would all like to thank him for his many achievements during his term of office and to wish him very best for the future. I move the motion in my name. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8701, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion, and the question is that motion 8701 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motions 8702 on stage 1 extension and 8703 on stage 2 timetable. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motions to press their request-to-speak buttons. I call on George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motions. No member has asked to speak against the motions, therefore the question is that motions 8702 and 8703 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 8685.2, in the name of Paul MacLennan, which seeks to amend motion 8685, in the name of Mark Griffin, on homelessness prevention and housing supply, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.


Hello everyone, welcome back. Let's just continue from where we left off. Let's do a quick recap of the first session. We very briefly try to understand what is worship and what is ministry, and then worship ministry together, what it really means.  And then we begin to learn about the altars that he built. In the first altar, we are calling it as the altar of obedience, because it kind of signifies that he obeyed. It was by faith, as Hebrews chapter 11 verse 8 says, it was by faith that Abraham obeyed. And then there he built an altar with the Lord where God speaks to him, a shechem. Okay, now let's go on. Let's be in Genesis chapter 12 for a while. It's been a book of Genesis for a while. So the first altar that he built is mentioned in the place of Shechem. That's from verse 6 onwards. Abraham passed through the land to a place of Shechem as far as the Terebinth tree of Moray, and the Canaanites were in the land. Then the Lord appeared to Abraham and said to your descendants, I will give this land. And there he built an altar to the Lord who had appeared to him. So when God appeared to him and spoke with Abraham and he makes the covenant again, he tells him to your descendants, I will give this land. Here God is saying, okay, this is the land and I'm going to give this to your descendants. You see all these people, the Canaanites living in this land, the land that they are in. Later, which we get to know is that the land of milk and honey is given to the descendants of Abraham. And so Abraham, his response is he built the altar. And then what he does after that is kind of significant or if I was there, I would ask him why is that he moves. That's what it says in verse 12, verse 8, sorry, chapter 12 verse 8 says, and he moved from there to the mountain east of Bethel. I don't know why, okay. Because if God appeared to me and said, okay, this is the land, you're going to be here. I'm like, all right, great. Let's put on a firm foundation and build myself a mansion. Because this is the land you're going to give me and my descendants. But not Abraham, he moved from there to the mountain east of Bethel. When you look at the map, you see where Bethel is, right? It's not too far off Shechem. It's just further down south from Shechem. Okay. And then to the mountain east of Bethel. And he pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and I on the east. There he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord. There he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord. Now here, this is the second altar that he's building. God had not appeared to him. He had not reassured the promise or done anything like that. Abraham moves from Shechem. He comes down to Bethel and then he builds another altar to the Lord. And he calls on the name of the Lord. Okay. Now that is an act of worship. Calling on the name of the Lord is an act of worship. Now this is the very first act of worship where people call on the name of the Lord is found in Genesis chapter 4. Let's go to Genesis chapter 4 and the last verse in Genesis chapter 4 verse 26. Genesis 4 verse 26. It shouldn't be hard to find. The chapter is pretty sad. It's pretty tragic. It's a story between Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel and then Adam and Eve are sad about it. And then later, 100 years later, Adam and Eve begot Seth. Verse 25, that's what it says. And Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son and named him Seth. Which means for God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel. Who Cain killed? Verse 26, it says. And as for Seth, to him also a son was born and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord. It's amazing, isn't it? So he's blessed with a child and then men. We don't know how many people, you know, we just don't know if it's just one family or an entire town or city or a village. It says the men began to call on the name of the Lord. That's just a simple act of worship. And that's exactly what we see Abraham doing in verse 12, chapter 12, in verse 8. He says he moved down from Shekin, he came down for the south to Bethel. He pitched his tent over there and he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord. Now this second altar, we are going to title it as the altar of intimacy and of the pilgrim walk. An altar of intimacy and of the pilgrim walk. So what does that mean is that as this Abraham has been going on on this journey, his familiarity with God has increased and that has resulted in his growth and intimacy of who this God is. He's growing in this intimacy. It's like this walk of faith, right? As we call it, it's like in this Christian walk, from the time we started and as we've been walking in this Christian walk of faith, our relationship with God has increased, isn't it? Is there anyone of you who can say that you are still the same as how you were in day one as a Christian?   In the previous place, God tells him, I'll give you this land, he moves from there, Abraham moves from there and then maybe he's encountered something of the Lord and just builds an altar and he worships him there. Okay, and this kind of again signifies in parallel in Hebrews chapter 11 verse 9. Hebrews 11 verse 9, can someone read for us please? Hebrews 11 verse 9. And can someone else be ready with Acts chapter 7 verse 5 please? Right, Hebrews 11 verse 9. Hebrews chapter 11 verse 9, I fight he's urgent in the land of promise as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob and the heirs with him on the same promise. Thank you. Okay, so here it says, even when he reached the land God promised him, he lived there by faith. Like he was like a foreigner living in tents, that's what it says. Right, so he like I said that when God tells him that this is the place, this is the land I'm going to give you descendants. He didn't build a mansion for himself, but he continued to live in tents. Now, the temporary nature of the tent is that he was willing to not have his roots in this world, that he was constantly looking for a city, for a land that he would, for a city that was eternal and we learn about it more, you know, in the different chapters as we go on. But so, and that's why we're calling it is this altar as land, as the altar of intimacy and of the pilgrim walk, that Abraham was constantly living his life as a pilgrim. He was not willing to, you know, build his root into the world or he was not easily swayed by what he saw. Okay, and so it's also encouraging us that we as a children of God is that we don't get too caught up in the things of this world or, you know, where we build treasures for ourselves where moth and everything else kind of destroys it. But we are constantly encouraged to fix our eyes on eternity, you know, on the things above as Christians. And so that's another encouragement that we can take off. And there's a very wonderful poem by Thomas R. Taylor. It says, I am but a stranger here. Heaven is my home. Earth is the desert deer. Heaven is my home. Danger and sorrow stand around me on every hand. Heaven is my Fatherland. Heaven is my home. And so it's just like a pilgrim's progress kind of a poem that we are constantly encouraged to live as pilgrims in this world. Okay, so that's the second altar that Abraham built. Let's come down and go on. Let's go on this journey just a little bit more. So verse nine it says verse eight, let's just read verse eight one more time. And so he moved there to the mountain east of Bethel and he pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and I on the east. There he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord. This is the second altar, right? Verse nine it says, so Abraham journeyed going on still toward the south.  Verse 10 says, now there was famine in the land and Abraham went down to Egypt to dwell there for the famine was severe in the land. Okay, so let's stop there. And now we know that again, let's look at the map. Now he look at where Shechem and Bethel is. And verse nine says he came further down south. We don't really know where exactly. It could be Hebron, it could be Bershiba, you know, or sure somewhere down south. But then wherever he pitched his tent, there was severe famine in the land and so he decides to go further down south all the way to Egypt. Now from verse 11 to verse 20 is the story of what happens in Egypt. We don't want to go into the details of what happens, everything that you know what happens in Egypt. So that's the story of Abraham in Egypt from verse 11 to verse 20 of chapter 12 in Genesis. Okay, if you're interested, you can read about it later. Now let's come down to chapter 13. Chapter 13 verse one says then Abram went up. It's amazing how Bible gives directions, isn't it? Up is north. So then Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all that he had and lot with him to the south. Abram look at this verse to Abraham was very rich in livestock in silver and in gold. Now, when Abram was coming out of Egypt, he came out with two headaches, right? He became very rich. Something happened in Egypt that he flourished and then he was very rich. We read, you know, and then we also know that Hagar came along with him. How do we know that? Because in Genesis chapter 16 verse one, Genesis 16 verse one it says, now Sarai, Abram's wife had born him no children and she had an Egyptian maid servant whose name was Hagar. An Egyptian maid servant. That means it doesn't clearly say that, you know, okay, she was there before there. These are the details or Easter eggs kind of thing that the Bible gives us and then, you know, let's mix this thing and you have to. And so, but simply says that Hagar must have joined him on this journey from Egypt. And so when Abram came out of Egypt, he became very rich and he came with Hagar. Okay, so we all know where the story ends. Let's go on. Verse 13, sorry, Genesis chapter 13 verse three, everybody's alive, right? Everybody doing well. Okay, I hope so. Verse three, it says, and he went on his journey from the south as far as Bethel to the place where his tent had been at the beginning between Bethel and AI. So he's saying, from Egypt, he went up to Bethel where he had first built an altar. Okay, so you remember he built, he pitches the tent and he builds an altar there. His Bible is saying that's where he went back to the place of the altar which he had made there at first, verse four. And there Abram called on the name of the Lord. So he's going back to that same altar where he built in Bethel and there he remembers everything. Okay, Lord, I went to Egypt, I did all these things and I'm back here and I'm reminded of your promises.  It's almost like maybe he's saying, okay, Lord, I'm sorry I left in the first place because that's the place where God tells him, okay, this is the land. I'm going to give you a descendants and Abram practice tent and he moved on. Okay, now verse five, Lot also who went with Abram had flocks and herds and tents. That means Lot also became rich. Verse six, now the land was not able to support them that they might dwell together for their possessions was so great that they could not dwell together. Notice those words, okay, for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together. Okay, because there's so many, there's so many things are happening in here. Subashish, I see you raised your hand. Do you have a question? Do you have a question, Subashish? Okay. All right, if you're speaking, your mic is muted. If you have a question, feel free to unmute and speak because I see that you've raised your hand. I guess that was a mistake. Now, just continue to notice with me here. Abram and his nephew Lot, they were in Egypt for a while. And when they're coming out of Egypt, they're coming out as rich people, right? Very rich people with a lot of possession. Now let's come to chapter 15 Genesis chapter 15. Genesis chapter 15 verse 13. Then he, God said to Abram, No, certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs and will serve them and they will afflict them 400 years. Now what is what's happening here? God is prophesying to Abram about the time the Israelites will be in the land of Egypt. Okay. God is prophesying 400 years ahead of time. He's saying, No, certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a strange land and they will serve them. They will serve the people that, you know, in the land that they are in, that is the Egyptians and they will afflict them 400 years. That means the Egyptians will afflict the Israelites for 400 years. Verse 14. And also the nation whom they serve, I will judge. Afterward, they shall come out with great possessions. What is he saying? When Israelites come out of Egypt, they will come out with great possessions. Okay. So, this Bible is packed with mysteries like this.  So, he will go to Egypt. But when he comes out of Egypt, he comes very rich. Right. And so, same thing, what God is telling Abraham in chapter 15 verse 13 and 14 is saying, Okay, your descendants is going to be, they're going to be in Egypt. They're going to be strangers in a strange land, but they will come out. They're going to come out with a lot of possessions. They're going to come out with a lot of gold and silver and whatnot. Right. Because that's the gold and silver they used to build the golden calf and later the tabernacle and whatnot. Okay. So, it's like his life is kind of projecting what's going to happen, kind of prophesying. He's just brilliant. Okay. What's happening in the life of Abraham. Now, and we know that there is, let's continue reading. I hope you all are with me. Verse six, it says, verse five, let's read verse five. Genesis chapter 13 verse five. Lot also who went with Abraham had flocks and herds and tents. Now the land was not able to support them that they might dwell together for their possessions was so great that they could not dwell together. And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abraham's livestock and the herdsmen of Lot's livestock. The Canonites and the Peresizites then dwelt in the land. So Abraham said to Lot, please let there be no strife between you and me and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me. If you take the left, then I will go to the right. Or if you go to the right, then I will go to the left. Now, one of the things what we need to learn or know about this, what when Abraham is saying, if you go to the left or to the right, the patriarchs of those days always used north as their main direction to tell which side they wanted to go. And so what Abraham is saying is pointing towards the north. That's because that's what the patriarchs of those days and the people of those days did is keeping north as the reference. What Abraham is saying is if you go to the east, I will go to the west. If you go to the west, I will go to the east. That's basically what's happening there. Okay. Verse 10. Now, here's the difference between Lot and Abraham. Verse 10, it says the Lot and Lot lifted his eyes and so all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, what Lot is looking at is the land of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as you go towards Zohar. Then Lot chose for himself all the plain of Jordan and Lot journeyed and Lot journeyed east and they separated from each other. Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan and Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain and pitched his tent even as far as Sodom. Okay. So let's pause there and then come down all the way to... Actually, let's read, continue reading from verse 14. Genesis chapter 13 verse 14. It says, and the Lord said to Abram, after Lord had separated from him, lift your eyes now and look from where... Look from the place where you are, northward, southward, eastward and westward.  I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width for I give it to you. And then Abram moved his tent and went and dwelt with the terrible trees by Mamre which are in Hebron and built an altar there to the Lord. Huh. Okay. So what is happening here from Genesis chapter 13, we see Abram is back from Egypt. He goes to Bethel to the place where he originally had built an altar. And it's his... And he again is worshiping there. He almost like saying he's reassuring his commitment to the Lord.  Or the restoration of his former commitment to the Lord in that first altar that he built in Bethel. And then because of the strife between Abram and Lot, Lot goes different place towards east and then Abram stays in the land. And then he builds an altar in verse 18 of chapter 13 near the Terebinth tree. I know again, you know, it's... Is anybody there in Hebrews chapter 11? Okay. Because that is corresponding to Hebrews... This altar that he builds in chapter 13 verse 8 corresponds to what Hebrews chapter 11 verse 10 has to say. So can someone read Hebrews chapter 11 verse 10, please? Hebrews chapter 11 verse 10. For he looked for a city which had foundations whose builder and maker is God. Okay. Thank you, Japhina. So now while Lot had looked, you know, he looked at all the planes of, you know, the Sodom and Gomorrah and all these beautiful lands that was like the Garden of the Lord. That's what it says, isn't it? Lot looked with his eyes. All that is pleasing. Now if Lot saw all these lands, I'm sure even Abram could see what Lot saw. Now Abram could have easily said, Hey, I brought you out. You wouldn't bring me out. Like I'm the leader here. You know, you will get the land which I tell you to take. Abram could have easily said all of that, but then Abram doesn't do that. He says, Lot, you choose. You take the land, whichever you want. And then the Bible says, Lot saw and it was everything was, and he picked a land that was flourishing, that looked amazing. But Abram, as it says in Hebrews chapter 11 verse 10, he was confidently and constantly looking forward to a city with eternal foundations. Going back to the second altar where he lived a life of pilgrim. He knew that he did not want to have his roots down in this world. And his journey and his walk with God came so intimate that he knew that there is something eternal. That he was constantly looking for a city with eternal foundations, a city designed and built by God. This is the book of Hebrews talking about Abraham and how he was living. It's kind of supporting everything what Genesis chapter 12 and 13 has to say. Are you with me? Any questions? Any thoughts so far? Because that is the third altar. The third altar we're calling it as the altar of commitment and separation. Why are we calling it the altar of commitment? Because he comes back from Egypt to the place Bethel where he had first built the altar. And you see he's recommitting himself. It's like, Lord, I have, it's almost like I've gone away from you. I'm committing, I'm coming in, you know, restore the relationship with you. And then he decides to separate himself from the things of the world. He says, Lord, you go your way.  And he was constantly looking for a city that was whose maker and the builder was God. Right? So that was the third altar. And finally, we come to the fourth altar, which we all are aware of. And we're calling it the altar of sacrifice. Okay, so let's just pause you for a second and sorry for being redundant. But is everybody following what's happening? You know what we're learning so far? Yes, pastor. Okay, thank you. I just want to make sure that I'm not losing you guys. Now let's look at the fourth altar, which is the altar of sacrifice. Genesis chapter 22. Let's go to Genesis chapter 22. Genesis chapter 22. I've mentioned only verse nine in the notes, but I want to read the chapter from the top. Genesis 22 verse one says, And now it came to pass after these things that got tested Abraham and said to him, Abraham, and he said, Here I am. Then he said, Take now your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you. And so Abraham arose early in the morning and saddled his donkey and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son. And he split the wood for burnt offering and arose and went to a place of which God had told him. Then on the third day, Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off. Verse five says, And Abraham said to his young men, Stay here with the donkey. The lad and I will go yonder and worship and we will come back to you. So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son.  But Isaac spoke to Abraham's father and said, My father. And he said, Here I am, my son. Then he said, Look, the fire and the wood. But where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering. So the two of them went together. Then they came to a place of which God had told him and Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order. And he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said Abraham, Abraham. So he said, Here I am. And he said, Do not lay your hand on the lamb or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God since you have not withheld your son, your only son from me. Okay. That's enough reading, right? Wow. You can never get tired or bored of reading this chapter. The language that is used, the word, the choice of words is just outstanding and just so beautiful. Okay. So we all know the story. God tests Abraham. He tells Abraham, Take your son, your only son. Does those choice of words remind you of another verse? Yeah, John 3 16. My only son. This is my son, my only son. Forgot to love the world that he gave his only son, right? He says, It's amazing.  And verse three, it says, And so Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey and took off again. There is no mention of a question here or even a thought that, Okay, Abraham thought this, Abraham thought that. What's interesting is that there is no mention of Sarah anywhere in the scene. Now imagine, imagine what would have happened now. So Abraham wakes up and says, Yeah, you know, this son that we had to wait for a hundred odd years or so. Yeah, God wants me to sacrifice him. I'm sure Sarah would have sacrificed Abraham there, right? But just think about we need to put ourselves in Abraham's shoes, isn't it? From the time that he got to know about this, when God tells him to take Isaac and go and that he has to sacrifice him. He must have gone through so many chains of thoughts.  So there was a three day journey. And again, the third day signifies something. Okay, and so for three days, it's almost like Abraham was dying on the inside, but he was still obedient. He was still obedient to what God told him to do when he was doing all of that. He took Isaac and then some of the Bible scholars and the historians claim that Isaac was a teenager by then, like an 18 year old. Now an 18 year old versus a hundred year old who will win the battle. And a teenager, a strong teenager could easily overpower a very old man and could have ran away somewhere along the way Isaac also realizes it. Okay. I don't know what Abraham was going through. I don't know what Isaac was going through because it says they reached the place Abraham built the altar. And Abraham bound Isaac. And through it all, Isaac asks a question. They're saying, Father, there's the wood is here, the knife is there, but where's the lamb for the sacrifice? And only God's wisdom could have helped Abraham to respond in the manner that he did. He says, don't worry about it, son, the Lord himself will provide a lamb for himself. All of this is pointing towards the cross. If you haven't realized it, everything, this whole chapter is pointing for us to the cross. What's going to happen? The Lord himself will provide for himself a lamb. God will provide for himself a lamb. That's where we get the God's covenant name, Jehovah Jireh, that he is God, my provider. He, God will, verse eight, that is in chapter 22, God will provide for himself a lamb of burnt offering. So the two of them went together. And then they came to a place of which God had told him and Abraham built an altar there and all of that. Okay. Now, in all of this, we know really that, why are we calling it the altar of sacrifice when he did not kill his son? Because sacrifice didn't really happen there. But the story or the moral of the story, so to say, is that God really didn't want Isaac. He wanted Abraham's heart, right? He wanted Abraham because it was Abraham who was actually upon the altar from day one. Because Abraham was surrendering his will. Abraham was surrendering, laying down everything at the altar from day one until day three, until they reached the place. So throughout the journey, it was actually Abraham who was on the altar, right? Now, can we go to Hebrews chapter 11? Hebrews chapter 11, I'll read for us, was 17 to 19. Hebrews chapter 11 was 17 to 19. It says, it was by faith that Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice when God was testing him. Abraham, who had received God's promises, was ready to sacrifice his only son, Isaac.  He'll give this land to my descendants. And my descendants are going to be like the sand, the number of grains in the sand or the stars in the sky. He knows and he remembers all of these promises that God has told him. And he has seen so many things being fulfilled. And so, although Abraham was dying and he knew that, okay, even if Isaac dies, this God that I have gotten to know in this journey is more than able enough to raise him from the dead, right?  Verse 19, Abraham, the reason that if Isaac died, God was able to bring him back to life and that in a sense Abraham did not receive his son back from the dead. It was by faith that Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice when God was testing him. Okay, so that is the fourth altar of Abraham that he builds. The last one is the altar of sacrifice. Now, from the first one, we see that the first altar, we call it as the altar of obedience from Hebrews chapter 12, verse 6 and 7. And then we see that the second altar is the altar of intimacy and of the pilgrim's walk. And then the third altar is the altar of commitment and separation that he was looking for a city that was eternal, whose foundations was eternal and whose builder was God himself. And then finally, we see that the fourth altar is the altar of sacrifice where he was willing to offer his son as a sacrifice simply because God told him and he was willing to do that by faith and knowing that God was powerful and able enough to raise him again from the dead. And all of this, he was aware of. But what I want to leave us with learning and why I thought it was necessary for us to learn about the altars of Abraham was can someone read Romans chapter 12, verse 1? Actually, I'll read it for us. It says in Romans chapter 12, verse 1, this is Paul, right? Apostle Paul says, I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Right? I beseech you. That means you sing, I beg you, therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Now, just like Abraham, we are called to be a people who would build altars unto the Lord, who will constantly remember everything what God has done, and he will constantly be thankful to everything that he has done. But we will constantly offer up sacrifices for everything that he has done and that he does in our lives because he is worthy. So there are two things here. One is that we are called to be men and women who build altars. But in conclusion, when Paul says in Romans chapter 12, verse 1, offer yourself as living sacrifice, that means God is not only asking us to build altars, God is asking us to be on the altar. Are you with me? That he is not only asking us to build altars of worship where divinity would meet with humanity, where there would be a divine exchange that would happen. He is not just saying build the altar, and lay yourself on the altar that you have built as a living sacrifice. This lovely poem there by Alicia Hoffman. It says, Is your all on the altar of sacrifice laid? Your heart does the spirit control. You can only be blessed and have peace and sweet rest as you yield him your body and soul. So if there's anything that you can learn from the life of Abraham is the life of surrender. It's the life of laying down our all. That's really what worship is all about is laying down your 100% and obeying God for what he says and trusting the trustworthy one, trusting the one who is trustworthy. That's basically what we will learn from the life of Abraham. I hope everybody is still alive, everybody is doing well. That's the end of the session for today. We'll pause here. Thank you for joining and we'll continue again the next week. Alright, thanks guys, thanks for joining. God bless you all. Thank you.