 The First Minister has discussed the debate on motion 11332 in the name of Fergus Ewing on supported businesses. I invite members who want to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. Minister, if you are ready, I call on you to speak for 14 minutes or thereby. On 27 November 2012, the Parliament debated the imminent sale or closure of remploys enterprises in Scotland. At the time, that involved nine factories employing over 250 disabled people and three CCTV contracts with a further 29 staff. During that debate, members spoke of their concern for the staff involved and their disagreement with the UK Government over a process that threatened all of those jobs. A few spoke more passionately than our much-miss colleague Helen Edie, representing her constituents in the Cowdenbeath factory. In addressing Parliament, Helen asked that we think about what we could do to help not just remploy but the other supported businesses in Scotland as well. Helen was right on that day to encourage us to look more widely than the immediate threat to remploy jobs and businesses. Today I want to update Parliament on that very matter. The work of the Scottish Government since 2012 to encourage and enable the development of the remaining supported businesses in Scotland and first ask ourselves the question why supported businesses in Scotland are so important. This week, I had the pleasure of visiting Haven in Vernes. I understand that David White from Haven is here in the gallery witnessing the debate, along with a number of colleagues from the sector. In Vernes is one of the Haven sites that operate across Scotland. Over the last two years, I visited many of Scotland's supported businesses and, prior to their closure, I visited a number of the remploy factories. What I found in Vernes this week was what I found in all of those sites, dedicated staff working hard to deliver high-quality products. Indeed, it is my reflection that very often people with a disability work perhaps even harder than those without a disability and, in many cases, have a far lower absentee rate through sickness and illness from work. Such is their determination and pride in what they do. When I undertake those visits, I struggle with the perception that some observers have or have had in the past that those are no more than shelter workshops that bear little resemblance to real working conditions. That is plainly not the case. As I think, members across the chamber understand. I challenge anyone feeling that way to visit the RSBI in Glasgow or Dovetail in Dundee to see for themselves how the businesses function. There are 20 supported businesses in Scotland. There are 900 employees. Over 700 have a disability and we all have a duty and a desire to do everything we can to support those businesses. They are an important part of the landscape of support available to help to enable people to find, sustain, fulfil and work opportunities. I am delighted that my colleague Michael Matheson is going to close the debate tonight because, of course, he has responsibility for the wider issue of disability and the wider issue of supported employment for people with a disability. However, we all want to work together to sustain those businesses, the supported businesses and to help them to expand in a way that is commercially viable. What have we done since the debate in 2012? I have been clear from the outset that the ambition of the Scottish Government is that we have a commercially viable range of supported businesses operating across Scotland. Since 2012, Scottish Government staff have, in partnership with the businesses themselves, under a range of external organisations undertaken a significant range of work assisting the businesses and becoming more sustainable. Those are successful businesses, and it is very important to understand that. They are turning over £33 million a year. Those are not hobby businesses. Those are not amateur businesses. Those are professional, high-quality businesses that we are all determined to support. Changing perceptions therefore within both the public and private sector is part of our task. I have taken a strong personal interest in those developments and felt that it would be useful for Parliament to have an opportunity to debate those matters today. I convened a supported business advisory group, which met on several occasions. The group included representatives from the trade unions. I would like to add my thanks to Lyn and Phil, Lyn Turner and Phil Bran from the trade unions, who played such an excellent part in the proceedings and regularly brought us back down to earth about the reality that is faced by the people who work in those businesses. Also represented were just enterprise and Scottish Enterprise, the British Association for Supported Employment, whose representative, Alistair Kerr, is also informed here today witnessing this debate, along with representatives of the third sector and local government. That work has been instrumental in shaping the actions by the Scottish Government, deciding together, from people who are closest to the people involved. What best we can do and what best we can do in a practical sense. Procurement plainly is extremely important. In 212, Parliament was clear in demanding action to enable supported businesses to access more public contracts. Since that time, we have begun to transform the way that buyers perceive supported businesses via a number of proactive steps with a view to increasing the commitment of public bodies to buy from them. I lack the time to go through every individual action taken, but there are key steps that we have taken to raise awareness and to make it easier in practical terms for public bodies to procure from supported businesses. I thank the minister for giving way. My understanding is that, since we were debating the procurement bill earlier this year, only an additional four contracts have been awarded by public authorities to supported businesses in Scotland. I believe that there are still scores of public authorities who are yet to award even one contract to a supported business. What is the Government doing to encourage that? There are two parts to that. I do not accept the premise of the first part, and I am coming on to address the second part. In October 2012, Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister, launched the new national framework agreement for supported businesses, making it easier for public bodies to access goods and services that Scottish supported businesses can offer. The framework agreement and other Scottish Government initiatives within the public sector in the past year have provided around £2.7 million of contracts for supported business—£2.7 million worth of contracts from the public sector. That is promising, but, yes, we need to do more—that we accept. With the support of other Scottish Government ministers, I have, in order to ensure that we do more, met with a number of public bodies, including the NHS, the Prison Service, Police Scotland and the Scottish Futures Trust. Alex Neil and I launched a new supported business directory in January of this year. It gives details of the 20 supported businesses in Scotland. The value of that—and, of course, it is online as well—is that that means that those involved in procurement in public bodies have already access to what is available. In response to one of the points that were made in the Labour amendment that I regret, we cannot accept. Plainly, to impose a duty on 118 public bodies to procure purchase goods or services that they may not need, because there is a limited range of goods and services supplied by supported businesses, does not really seem to me to be a very practical suggestion. The minister is misleading the chamber slightly with us. He knows as well as I do that there is a supported business in Bruce Crawford's constituency that is manufacturing work wear uniforms and that every single council in this country has to buy work wear uniforms. So, to say that supported businesses are producing things that public authorities may not need is simply not the case. Will the minister care to clarify that for us? Ms Marra is making an entirely different point. The point that I made is that she says in her amendment that there are 118 public bodies and they must all issue one contract. There are 20 supported businesses that operate in a variety of fields, but there will be some public bodies that do not need some of the goods. I was not talking about local authorities. I was making the point that there are 118 public bodies and in her amendment she says that they must all procure business from supported businesses, but some of them will not need any of the goods or services referred to. Of course, work wear is something that many individuals will require, but that is an entirely different point. Let me make some more progress, Presiding Officer. Just as a matter of fact, out of the 118 public bodies, how many currently do not have or have not had a contract with a supported business? The vast number of public bodies do provide procurement to the supported employment sector. The priority, Presiding Officer, and I hope that members would accept that this is not only reasonable but practical and sensible, is that we focus on the major public bodies that have the major procurement, such as the NHS and other bodies. I am going to come on to that. For example, thanks to the work that Alex Neil, Mr Matheson and others across the Scottish Government have done, we persuaded the NHS that there should be procurement of nurses' uniforms to up to an annual value of £1.5 million. That was a major decision. We are extremely grateful to all those in the NHS that were involved in that decision. It took a lot of time and consideration. Those are not simple things, Presiding Officer. Those are matters of business, and I think that it is terrific in Scotland that, through the efforts substantially of Mr Neil, we were able, working with procurement officials in the NHS, to deliver a contract that has helped to secure the future of many of the ex-reemployee workers. I hope that members will acknowledge that that and many of the other examples that we will provide represent very solid progress since 2012. In addition to the supported business document, we have also produced a promotional DVD that has been produced and distributed to buyers and businesses themselves. The benefit of that is that they show, for every procurement individual, exactly what supported businesses are. One of the benefits of this debate is that it gives us an opportunity to explain and get across what supported businesses offer to the public sector. Therefore, we have done that through this excellent document and through the DVD. Indeed, when I recently attended the meeting of the SFT hub managers, one of the hub managers from Merisher area said that the DVD said it all. That has been extremely useful. We have also run two Meet the Buyer events this year in the Stirling Management Centre in the Scottish Prison Centre and also at the Curex conference last week with John Swinney. The success of Haven PTS, which the new company formed following the sale of the two stage two re-employed businesses in securing agreement to become part of the supply chain for said NHS Scotland nurses uniforms, has been truly significant. That has enabled staff, 22 staff, to retain their jobs. I had the pleasure of attending with my colleague Alex Neil the occasion upon which we made the announcement with regard to this particular public procurement. I can say that it was one of the happiest of the several hundred engagements that I have attended as a minister. It supported businesses have also been successful in securing contracts through the commonwealth games to the value of £914,000. Although winning new contracts is important, we also need to provide business support to supported businesses. I am pleased to say that Scottish Enterprise, Business Gateway and local authorities, Just Enterprise have all stepped up to the plate, offering business support to all 20 base members in Scotland. What will we do in the future? Firstly, the work to support increased procurement and business development will continue. What supported businesses need is a concerted, long-term relationship with the Government and the public sector authorities, not winning one contract per public body, not winning one off contracts but ensuring a steady flow of work that sustains them over the long term. That is the Scottish Government's approach. I will continue to press the DWP for a discussion about their intentions regarding financial support, given to supported businesses through work choice. This support is a payment of £4,800 per supported employee with a disability. It is absolutely essential that the support is not withdrawn, and yet it is under threat from the UK Government. I have so far written on four occasions to DWP ministers requesting a discussion on this matter. The letters date back to November last year, in March this year, and so far there has been no discussion, no response, no assurance. Without this payment, the future of supported businesses is, I think, under serious question. I hope today that we can unite behind the proposition that it is surely only fair to the 900 employees in those businesses that receive that support. In conclusion, since 2010, disabled people have, I believe, suffered at the hands of the UK Government through the introduction of a series of welfare reforms that have reduced their income and made some of the most vulnerable in our society feel vilified. Lord Freud's comments at the recent Conservative conference simply served to reinforce a view that the current UK Government holds of disabled workers. The Scottish Government does not share Lord Freud's views. We do not share those views, which we regard as morally execrable. We believe that we should recognise the varied employment support needs of disabled people and ensure that a variety of services and options, including supported business, is available to help as many disabled people as possible into work. I now call on Jenny Marra to speak to and move amendment 11332.2, Ms Marra. You have 10 minutes or thereby a generous 10 minutes. I was very pleased to see the debate on the Government's agenda this afternoon, but I am not pleased or impressed or even disappointed with the minister's first contribution this afternoon. Although I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with him with his condemnation of Lord Freud's comments to the Tory party conference just a couple of weeks ago, I think that the minister is really guilty of passing the buck on the issue. I outlined to him in my interventions some of the figures and the sluggish progress that the Government is making on awarding public procurement contracts to supported businesses in Scotland. However, he is not prepared to put his money where his mouth is and legislate to make those public authorities spend taxpayers' money on supporting those sheltered workplaces. Just before I start the substance of my contribution, I will take you in a minute, Mr Crawford, if that is okay. However, the minister said that public authorities could not legislate that they could have one contract to a supported business because they may not need it. I would tell him that there are 118 public authorities in Scotland. Those are made up of local authorities—he knows that there are 32—and they are made up of health boards and quangos. I do not think that it is beyond the minister's wit to pass an amendment to the procurement act saying that the local authorities and the health boards who he knows all have to buy work wear uniforms—perhaps not the quangos but all the local authorities and health boards—to mandate them to buy them from a supported business. He has put the nursing contracts to a supported business in Bruce Crawford's constituency, so there is no good reason why he cannot put other contracts in the same way. I respect the intention of what Jenny Marra is trying to achieve, but I ask her to reflect on the fact that, if all those 118 public bodies awarded contracts, would the existing 20 businesses in Scotland have the capacity to pick it up? I do not think that they would. I also point her to the fact that Glasgow-led council, North Lanarkshire-led council, Aberdeen-led council and seven other Labour councils in Scotland said that there should be no such requirement in the procurement legislation. Jenny Marra? I think that we should have the ambition to make them have the capacity, because I am sure that Bruce Crawford would agree with me. If it is good enough for his constituents for disabled workers in his constituency, then it is good enough for disabled workers across this country. He knows, as well as I do, that I will go on to outline the figures today, the number of workers with mental health issues and disabilities who would benefit from work in a sheltered workplace supported by a public contract. It has always struck me as a bit sad and quite ironic that the Victorians had the foresight to open those businesses, but, in our sophisticated modern world, we failed to find a way to make them sustainable and keep them open. We know that this Government let the Royal Blind Craft Factory in Edinburgh close just a couple of years ago, after 200 years in operation. Just weeks ago, we saw the engine shed in Edinburgh announced its closure, a cherished social enterprise and supported business. For the last 25 years, the engine shed has provided work-based training placements for young adults with learning disabilities and supported trainees. Its model is transformative, it has a well-documented success rate and it provides people with the skills and confidence to overcome barriers to work. There is another example. The Royal Strathclyde Blind Craft Industries is an example of what can be achieved by supported employment business. RSBI is successfully diversifying its business into areas such as archiving and records management. It has over 200 employees and over 50 per cent of whom are disabled people. It gives work experience and training to furniture manufacturing, to school pupils from additionally supported learning schools in Glasgow every week during school term. It has also ring-fence posts for returning disabled ex-servicemen and women. Some of those examples are good examples of how we can be ambitious and innovative and create the capacity for work in those areas. Many years ago, community union worked together with RSBI management through a difficult period of change in funding and restructuring the business. At the heart of community union's work on supported businesses has been Robert Mooney, who joins us in the gallery today with his colleagues from RSBI. A disabled worker from Glasgow, a champion of sheltered workplaces and a long-serving member of community union, and I hope that I can say a friend of mine, Robert has selflessly championed the cause of supported employment all his life, ensuring that opportunities for good work and fulfilling careers are available to disabled people. Disabled people are at least 30 per cent less likely to be in employment than those without a disability. There is a moral imperative for Government intervention to support disabled workers, but there is, to Bruce Crawford, an equally strong economic case. We believe on the Labour benches that other supported employment businesses could be just as successful and profitable as RSBI, but it is clear that effective Government action through procurement and proper legislative back-up for that procurement is needed for that to happen. Disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, learning disabilities or mental health issues, face pronounced and complex barriers to sustaining employment in the mainstream jobs market. Many people who previously worked in sheltered workplaces such as Remploy, which closed recently, have been directed towards supermarket work or similar jobs, but if I tell the chamber that there were 8,000 applications for 350 jobs at an Asda store that recently opened in Dundee, maybe that gives a picture of just how difficult that job market is. How do we turn the situation around? How do we provide sustainable employment for the disabled and those needing more support? I believe and Labour believes that it is modern, sheltered workplaces supported by public contracts. When the coalition Government announced the closure of Remploy factories, I came up with the solution for the Dundee plant, which manufactured uniforms. A business structure of a social enterprise supported by local authority, NHS police and fire uniform contracts. I moved amendments to that effect, which were voted down by the SNP Government in this chamber. They used article 19 of the EU public sector procurement directive, allowing councils, Governments and all those public authorities that we have spoken about today to bypass the commercial tender process and reserve contracts for sheltered workplaces. The Scottish Government could, at the stroke of a pen, place its contracts for those uniforms in Scotland with sheltered workplaces all over the country. The SNP took that idea and made it happen in Stirling, but for some reason there was not the political will to make that happen from the SNP in Dundee. Labour's amendment this afternoon revisits a debate that we had during the passage of the procurement bill, because we believe that it is absolutely vital. We propose that each public authority in Scotland, all 118 local authorities, health boards and quangos, award at least one public contract to a supported business. The SNP did not think that that was a good idea. The Deputy First Minister argued against that proposal, suggesting that public authorities would be confused that they could only award one contract to a supported business and not more contracts—not the strongest argument that I have heard, but perhaps an argument nonetheless. The Deputy First Minister's argument was entirely different. Her argument was, why should only one contract be awarded? He knows as well as I do that the amendment was not mandatory for it just to be one, but at least one. I would ask him to perhaps bring back an amendment to the public procurement bill, saying that at least one contract must be awarded by local authorities and health boards. As I was putting together the plan for Remployment Dundee, I was in touch with private uniform buyers, trying to encourage them to place contracts with supported businesses. I wonder what those private firms would make of the fact that there is no imperative under this Government for local authorities to use public procurement to support shelter workplaces. Indeed, those private companies were saying to me that they were looking to the lead of government to place those contracts before they did so themselves. A Scottish Labour Government would pass an amendment to the 2014 procurement bill, requiring each public authority to place at least one contract with a supported business. Disabled workers across Scotland should not have to wait until 2016, and so I ask the Scottish Government to support our amendment today and I move it in my name. I now call on Gavin Brown to speak to and move amendment 11332.1. Mr Brown, a generous six minutes. Presiding Officer, thank you very much. Let me just begin by moving the amendment in my name. Listening to the Government opening today, I have to say that I agreed strongly with parts of Fergus Ewing's speech. Where he talked about the dedicated staff, where he talked about the high-quality products, where he talked about the lower absentee rates, not just within supported businesses but with disabled people working anywhere within the economy. He made a lot of fair points and put his case forward in parts quite well, but I have to say that I disagreed strongly with other points that he made, and I will come on to those later. Let me first of all say where we agree with him then. The idea that there is an economic and indeed a social value for supported businesses, I think, is right. The idea of the hard working and quality products, as I have just touched on, I think we agree with, and we certainly welcome the idea of any supported business enhancing their commercial viability so that they are sustainable, not just in the short to medium term but in the long term for those who work there. I think that I would even be happy to give praise to the Scottish Government for some of the work that they have done in this area and, in particular, I think that the minister himself. He said that he has taken a strong personal interest in the subject, and I think that that is true. I think that he has, and I think that a number of the actions that he has taken personally can be commended and we would be happy to support, in particular the steps to raise awareness, in particular the framework for supported factories and businesses, and also the directories of supported businesses in Scotland. However, one should not be complacent, and I think that that is what the Scottish Government needs to just answer some of the questions that have been posed and think very seriously about some of the policies that they espouse. I think that the first one that I want to touch on there is their one contract policy, the idea that every public body within Scotland should have at least one contract with a supported business. This was a policy set in 2009, Deputy Presiding Officer, and when the policy was set originally, the achievement or the policy was meant to be achieved by the end of 2010. At the time that the Government was giving a year and a half for the wheels to turn and for public bodies to grasp that policy and to award a contract. The reason that I asked the question and the intervention that I did was to find out exactly how many of those public bodies currently do not have or have never had a contract with a supported business. It is a perfectly fair question. It is quite an important question to ask and one to answer. I was a little disappointed that the minister was not able to give a direct answer to that question. I would happily hear the answer either from him or from any other speaker in the Government later on in the debate. The reason that I asked is because, according to the spice briefing in advance of this debate, there was an FOI request earlier this year—I am not clear on which month—but in that FOI request, the answer given was that 44 public bodies out of 118 did not, at that point, meet the policy. I suppose that what I was trying to establish is that the current position or have things moved on at all or have they moved on rapidly since that position? I would happily give way to the outcome that we expect to work towards 118. Do you accept, in the commercial practice, that you cannot just suddenly switch on 118 businesses? 44 is one step along the way to what I believe will be an achievable objective. I was asking a far simpler question than that, Deputy Presiding Officer. Five years into the policy, I was simply asking what is the actual number of public bodies today that have not endorsed that policy? We hear from the minister that some of them might not need it. If we have public bodies that do not need those services, why is the policy there? If they genuinely do not need them, I would challenge that. I suspect that, when I look at what is described as lots in the Government's own document, there cannot be many public bodies in Scotland who do not need either furniture, or document management, textiles or signage. There might be one or two, but I would be surprised if there are dozens of public bodies who do not need any of those services at all. I am sure that Mr Brown will be aware of the interchange between the Deputy First Minister and Mr Griffin on the committee in relation to the procurement bill. It is important just to restate that for the record, because what the Deputy First Minister said—this is now part of the procurement legislation—is that every public body must consider whether they are able to use supported businesses and reports in their annual reports what the outcome of that consideration has been. The onus is not an arbitrary imposition that everybody must purchase goods or services whether or not they need it, because every public body is different, varying from the NHS to very, very small public bodies that have limited procurement options. The obligation is on public bodies to consider whether they should and have the need for supported businesses, goods and services, and to demonstrate that they have so considered that on an annual basis. That seems to me the important thing, and I hope that Mr Brown will recognise that that is the sensible and the correct approach to take. In the generosity of your time, I will give you a little more time. I am grateful, Presiding Officer. In a way, the minister makes my point for me there, because of all the points of put in place, he should be able to easily and simply answer the question how many public bodies do not have contracts. That was his simple question. He intervened for about a minute and not once did he mention the number. Let us see from the Scottish Government—I have been happy to praise him on the opening remarks on my speech, but I think that it is an important question—are they tracking this? Do they also note the value of the contract? One or two of the contracts that he mentioned were pretty big contracts, but are those outliers? Are other supported businesses getting minuscule contracts, or are they all getting reasonable-sized contracts? Do the Scottish Government look at which body specifically could do more? What approach do they take to those who do not have a contract? Is it talked about? Is it a slap on the risk? Is there any kind of discussion about it at all, or is it something that is not mentioned between supported businesses and the Scottish Government? Let me just close shortly, then. The other area where I disagreed strongly with the minister on which I will certainly return to in closing is this. The minister said directly that he wants to help as many disabled people as possible getting into work. I agree with that. That is what we should all be aspiring to. I believe that that is what the coalition Government is trying to do, too. The SACE review, which was a serious piece of work, came up with the conclusion that the UK Government approach ought to be allowing the funding to follow the individual, to give them greater flexibility, greater choice and, ultimately, to help far more people into work, as opposed to funding directly to institutions. I will return to that in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank you for the additional time. Thank you. In the meantime, we now move to the open debate. I call on Chick Brody to be followed by Hans Alemanic. Six minutes or thereby, please. I am delighted to speak in this debate, as I was in the 2012 debate and support the motion. I would also like to take the opportunity to recognise the role that the minister himself has played in brokering not just the post-reemployed deals but in his attendance to this matter generally. As inventory and purchasing manager of the NCR in Dundee, many years ago, I company I have to say that it had a real community ethos as one of its founding principles under Nelson Kahn was a joy to work with. I was involved directly and indirectly with employing Dundee. They made, at that time, cable assemblies for electronic accounting machines, which dates the involvement and computers. It was never seen as a company of the disabled but rather one of a productive company whose employees had varied disabilities. My colleague Dennis Robertson was so right when he called in the debate that we had about accessible tourism just before the recess. He called for a change in the terminology that defines disabled people. They are not. They are people with a disability. In the last tranche of remploy closures, I, with my colleague Gordon MacDonald, met with management and employees at remploy in Sight Health Gail to see what could be done to save the organisation and lend what expertise we could to that organisation. We also met those who had achieved the security of a building that is similar, a company in Wigan and saved their employee organisation. To go round that factory—it was not a factory, it was actually a community, a social enterprise in the real meaning of a social enterprise, a name and practice. To be stopped by Dan, I think that that was his name, asking us to clean with us to save his job, his work community that he knew was threatened with closure. We left that factory consumed with ananga, ananga that was only further fuelled by our meeting with the Tory Employment Minister of the time, Esther McVey, who came to Hollywood and who, it seems, whose aspirations for betterment appear to be hers and hers alone and not for those with disabilities that she claimed she had come to speak to. I often wonder what begets those Tory ministers who suggested icy lack of caring and compassion and a promise of helping people when, in fact, the promise seems to be me first jack. There are 20 supported businesses in Scotland, as it has been said, businesses that, with sensible intervention, could and will play a role in the public and indeed the private sector—profitable, I believe, sustainable and desirable. There is no reason on earth that the capabilities of re-employ at the site hill, the site, for example, in documentation archiving at the point of closure could not and should not have been the foundation and the base of working with NHS boards, the police service, Transport Scotland, the local authorities, libraries and so many other bodies in providing what they were already doing successfully, which was digitised archiving. The cost-saving would have been immense, as would be the appropriate data protection needs because of the reduction in communication links, but no, they were closed. Happley, Red Rock, who have now transferred that activity to Hillington, have at least saved some jobs in that area of Notre Dame. 20 supported businesses employing 900 people, of whom 700 have some form of disability, a turnover of £33 million per year. High-quality products, in all cases, marry to customer commitment. It is not just about creating more of them, but we should look at the role and support the role of the minister's business advisory group, which embraces the trade unions, COSLA, the private sector and many others. They all can help us to develop and create, given the timescales of involvement and engagement by the private sector to create more and build those that are already in existence. We should consider the creation and further development of social enterprises in which those with a disability have a stake and not just a job stake but a real income and earning stake and encourage them with appropriate business support to engage profitably with the public sector buyers to secure contracts. Contracts under, as has been mentioned, the public procurement provision, the sustainable procurement action plan and also to operate within the EU article 9 procurement regulations. We must never subscribe to the Freudian McVey principle that those with a disability have lost their jobs will find another within the wider jobs market. At the level required, they did not and they have not. It is a nonsense that the employment rate for those with a disability in Scotland in the second quarter of this year was 43.3 per cent compared to those that are not disabled with a proportion of 80.6 per cent. Finally, I say this to the party in turmoil on these benches. When those of our countrymen and women with a disability are lucky to get some employment and those without go home and sit at home to watch the news, what do they see? A replacement of the DLA by the dreaded PIP that will reduce their aggregate disability benefit expenditure in Scotland by £300 million per annum by 2017-18 or 100,000 people of working age with disabilities to lose some or all of their disability benefits by 2018 with a loss of £1,120 per year. I have to ask, is this what we have come to? Is this what the UK Government has come to? Instead of helping those with disabilities to climb the ladder with the creation and the hope of a job and security, what we have is the Freud, McVeigh, her predecessors and successors having the Tory principle of pulling up the ladder jack. I'm all right. Well, not in our name. We will help those with disabilities retaining the welfare cuts in Westminster. We will help those with disabilities on a journey that makes them valued in the factories in the offices, in the commercial marketplace. They should know that, at least in this place, they are highly valued. There is a limited amount of time for interventions to be made and taken, should members so wish. I now call on Hans Alamallach to be followed by Maureen Watt. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. It gives me pleasure to speak on the topic of supported businesses as many disabled persons face practical and complex barriers to keep sustained employment. For example, stigma and discrimination or lack of confidence and skills result in low level of employment. Why should that be? Only 46% of working age disabled people are employed compared to 76% of the general working age population. In addition, 10% of unemployed disabled people have to be out of work for five years or more compared to 3% of non-disabled people. The question must be asked why. I all heartedly agree with the principle of supportive employment. It has the principles to support disabled people when entering employment. Job should be integrated in the work environment and the job holder should always be paid a full rate for their work. I am keen to see future development for more flexible policies that go beyond the basic framework. But sadly, the SMP Government commitment to supportive business has not come up to mark. Ramrowd was forced to close a factory in north of Glasgow in 2012 and the Scottish Government failed to step in and support the factory despite calls for help. Springburn lost the factory that helped disabled people and 49 workers lost their jobs in the bargain. Now some efforts have been made, I accept that, in respect to the render force closer of the five two-stage employment factories. The work of having protective technologies solutions goes some way to salvage the devastation that has caused by the closures in the first place and I have to say that it's a bit late in the day to try to now claim the benefit after damage was done in the first instance. It needs to be understood that supporting businesses that have impact that cannot be calculated or should not be calculated only in pounds and pennies. If the public bodies do not give support, business is a chance. In procurement then who will to date 40 public bodies in Scotland are yet to award a single contract. That is quite frankly shocking. I accept the minister's comments that more needs to be done and I accept that and I genuinely believe that he means it. However, I think if he does mean it he needs to perhaps accept the amendment that has been proposed that will go some ways in tackling the difficult situation that the disabled people find themselves today. I also want to point out to the minister is that there's also an issue about the minority communities and how they're fearing in all of this. I don't seem to understand and appreciate why the figures are not available currently in this area and I would appreciate some work done in that area so that we can tackle those processes. Presiding officer, the current framework simply holds together a system of supporting businesses that is no longer fit for purpose. A fresh look at the framework for supported businesses is required. Highlighting initiatives such as specialist social enterprises that could review the field of support of businesses is now overdue and welcome. But I think one of the main solutions in all of these issues are that we really need to understand our own communities and we need to understand the needs of people with disabilities. We need to understand the challenges they actually face. It's very easy to publish glossy reports which doesn't actually deal with the difficulties that people face on a day to day basis. Life is becoming intolerable in many families because people are not getting the simplest opportunities and I think it is important that the amendment that Jenny Marra has brought gives us a small hope, a light at the end of the tunnel, that something can be done to support this community and support the organisations who are trying to support our disabled communities out there. A lot of the times many people will simply don't understand the actual needs of the people who suffer the disabilities. We don't seem to understand the apprehension and the barriers that people face to come out and actually work in the first instance. People need to be handled and supported and I think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that if the private industry or local authorities or other agencies are failing that we provide that support and mechanism to support help bring that about. The amendment goes somewhere in doing that and I will ask the minister to consider the amendment with some serious thought. I do believe that his heart is in the right place. I do believe that everybody in the chamber today has the right feelings for what we are trying to achieve here but I think we need to be realistic and actually take on the amendment if we really mean what we say. Thank you for writing off. Thank you very much. I'm now calling Maureen Watt to be followed by Mike McKenzie, a generous six minutes. Thank you very much Presiding Officer and I'm pleased to be taking part in this debate, both as a member with a supported business in my constituency but also as microphone but also as convener of the infrastructure and capital investment committee, sorry Presiding Officer, which of course scrutinised the procurement bill and of course it's apt that we're having this debate this week when the poppy appeal was just launched because of course one of the most high profile supported businesses is Leigh Dee Haig's poppy factory. Presiding Officer, in an ideal world it would be great if everyone with a disability who was able to find work in a mainstream environment but we know that that just does not happen regardless of how well qualified or highly skilled they may be. The stark employment rates bear that out with the employment rate for people with disabilities being 43.3 per cent compared to an employment rate for non-disabled people being 80.6 per cent and putting that in a more startling way the unemployment rate for disabled people in Scotland is 14.6 per cent compared to an unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent of non-disabled people. That is why, like Brodie, I was so angry over successive Westminster Government's decisions to close reply factories without a care or heed for what was happening to people who in so many cases, as we know, are now left on benefits, declining benefits, strict of their dignity and wellbeing. I am proud of what this Government has done to step into the breach to help as many people as possible but also to promote the sector. I know that the minister himself has been very involved and that he has the complete support of the First Minister who himself became deeply involved in helping Glencraft in my constituency. In anticipation of this debate, I popped into Glencraft to get an update on how things are with them. I know that the employees are very pleased that their enterprise has won a string of awards over recent months. Most recently, a few weeks ago, I watched them pick up an award at the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce business awards. Glencraft is, at last, looking forward to moving into new premises having reached an agreement with the Reg Vardy company and the council to move to refurbished premises in the Langstract in Aberdeen regrettably out of my constituency but into Mark McDonald's. I am sure that I will keep the links with them. They are currently looking to raise funds to fund the move, minister, so if there are any sources of funding that might be able to help with that, I would be glad if you would let me know. Carl Hodgston of Glencraft had just been at the Procurex Exhibition recently, and the first thing that he wanted to make clear to me was that the Government and senior civil servants absolutely get and encourage supported businesses, and he welcomed the procurement legislation. We have already seen the new Caledonian sleeper franchisee commit to procuring the mattresses for the beds from Glencraft. However, the support from the top I think has yet to be replicated throughout other public bodies. It is well to reiterate Bruce Crawford's intervention that, in consultation for the procurement bill, a number of Labour-led councils did not want to legislate to help supported businesses. Glencraft is well supported by the oil and gas industry and privately owned local hotels and, of course, the general public, but there is no doubt that a contract with a public body would undoubtedly help. I think that the requirements of the procurement bill are still very new to a lot of people in the procurement business, and many public bodies are still coming to grips with it. It does require a change of mindset. It is so easy for procurers to go to large businesses who can provide a whole range of products, and it is difficult for supported businesses to engage and get into those big suppliers as those providers and businesses are looking for the cheapest goods so that they can increase their profit margins. Procurers, especially in looking for sustainable procurement of goods, will have to start breaking up those large contracts into smaller contracts, and that will, I am sure, help supported businesses. The member then thinks that it would be a reasonable suggestion that all local authorities, councils, all 32 of them and the health boards should place at least one contract with a sheltered workplace who we know manufacture things like beds and uniforms that they all buy. I wish it was as simple as Ms Marra tries to make out. Of course, there is nothing stopping councils at the moment doing that, but we have not seen any lead on this from any of the councils. Indeed, as I have just said, Labour councils did not want it in the bill, so she cannot just stand up and keep repeating the same mantra all the time that she has to face reality. Supported businesses, as I have said, cannot compete on what is an uneven playing field. For example, Glencraft's advertising budget is £18,000, compared with a major bed provider who seems to be advertising on the television all the time and who has spent, I am whopping, £22 million. However, I am so impressed with what Glencraft has done and are doing. 80 per cent of its workforce have disabilities. The minister is right to say that they are very good at turning up to work and have lower absentee rates, but it is not without its challenges. The management is constantly looking for new avenues for their projects, for their product and even getting on to the mail-order sites of some major companies, which I hope comes off. They also have local school children in for work experience. I am so glad that the approach of the Scottish Government is so different from Westminster, and I think that the future for supported businesses in Scotland is bright. I was very disappointed with Jenny Marra's speech that she not once did she even attempt to place the blame for her employer's closures, where it properly belongs, with the Tory-Libdem Coalition in Westminster. It is not possible to properly tackle the subject without placing it in the context of the UK Government's austerity agenda. We know that this is about ideology rather than finance because austerity is clearly not working. The only test that is worth applying in financial terms is that George Osborne has missed each and every one of his borrowing targets. It is not about finance, it is about ideology. We heard much during the referendum campaign about the broad shoulders of the UK, with the implicit suggestion that the big, the rich and the powerful would help to carry the burden on behalf of those who are less fortunate. Where are those broad shoulders when it comes to supporting those people with disabilities? The closure of the employee factories was about nothing more than the vicious cutting of this failed austerity agenda with the cuts falling as usual on those who are least able to bear it. There is no evidence here whatsoever of those broad shoulders that we have heard so much about. All to make savings that look infinitesimally small compared to UK Government borrowing now around £1.4 billion. Does the member then think that, if he were to be in charge, should the money be taken away from individuals and channeled towards institutions? I will come to that just a wee bit further on in my speech here. Presiding Officer, this goes beyond the ideologically driven finances of austerity, because we know this from Lord Freud's recent Freudian slip, where he suggested that people with disabilities should qualify for a lower level of minimum wage. We should not forget that this is the same Lord Freud who oversaw the employee closures, and he suggests to answer Mr Brown's point that his true agenda is a benign one, and that he is merely trying to integrate those with disabilities into the mainstream workforce. However, he surely realises—Mr Brown surely realises—that not all people with disabilities can integrate into that mainstream workforce. What is to become of those people? I have already taken one intervention, Mr Brown. What is to become of those who lost their jobs in their employee closures? What is to become of those people who have lost their dignity and their confidence and who perhaps may never find another job? What is indeed to become of those same people who face the perfect storm of welfare reform once again bearing disproportionately on the shoulders of those who can least bear it? And just as damaging as the decision to shut down the employee was the haste in which this was done, allowing no decent opportunity for business models to be adapted or for the Scottish Government to fully mitigate the damage done. I know that the minister's efforts in working to mitigate this damage have been unstinting and with some significant successes. Given more time and a decent interval by the UK Government, I believe that even more jobs could have been saved. I would commend also the Scottish Government's approach in encouraging procurement, which aims to set a level playing field for supported businesses. I am astonished at the Labour party's proposals. They seem to wish the Scottish Government to impose centralised control on local authorities when, almost always, they argue that the opposite should be the case. It has been argued that supported businesses cannot compete on price. I am not sure that that is valid, but I am sure that they can compete on quality, they can compete in terms of community benefit and they can compete in terms of the public good. This issue indicates clearly the difference between the two Governments—our Government in Scotland and that other one down the road—because the Scottish Government has provided assistance to employ employees and to supported businesses, not to swell the coffers of the Scottish Treasury or not to reduce the costs of Scottish welfare, but because it is the right thing to do. It does so with moral purpose and with humanity, knowing that there is a value beyond any that can be captured on a balance sheet. Those are our Scottish values, and that is perhaps the most important reason why this Parliament and this Government should hold and exercise more powers, as suggested in our submission to the Smith commission. I am pleased to be able to take part in this afternoon's debate on supported business. As the minister will know, this is a subject very close to my heart. Many of us in this chamber campaigned against the closure of their employee factories only a short time ago. We did so because we recognised the importance of those factories, not only to the disabled people they employed, but also to the wider economy. Our country is poorer as a result of the loss of such factories. One of the people who campaigned the most against those closures and was a champion of supported business throughout her time in politics was Helen Eadie. On 9 November, it will be one year since Helen passed away, leaving many of us to feel her loss on a daily basis. However, it is during debates such as these that we feel her loss all the more. I am sure that Helen, if here, would have delivered the most passionate and articulate of speeches asking that the Government amend the Procurement Reform Scotland Act to require that all 118 public authorities in Scotland award at least one contract to a supported business. Although I do not have the same skills as Helen had, I asked the minister to amend the act in order that we in this Parliament can actively demonstrate our commitment to supported business throughout Scotland in a practical way. Of course, it is not only for the Scottish Government to commit to helping supported business, it is for our local authorities to do so as well. That is why I am immensely proud of North Lanarkshire Council, who have invested more than £500,000 in forming NL industries to take over from their employee factory at Netherton. That has allowed the expansion of Bertain products, a furniture and refurbishing service. Bertain products have previously employed 21 disabled people, but, with the council's investment, it has been able to expand that by adding seven former employee workers and three people from the council's own supported employment service. The business has plans to add to that number as it continues to expand. As the council leader, Jimmy Cabe, has said, it is an amazing thing to see people who thought that they had no future working so hard to produce a fantastic standard of product. I am glad that North Lanarkshire has shown true leadership with regards to supported business, but it is deeply regretful that 40 other public bodies have yet to award one single contract to a supported business, and that is why we needed the Scottish Government's support for Mark Griffin's amendments to make a minimum threshold compulsory to ensure that all public bodies issued at least one supported business contract. I urge them to rectify this mistake now and amend the act. We of course know that supported business is not the only way to provide employment to disabled people. It is shameful that only 46 per cent of working age disabled people are employed, in comparison to 76 per cent of the general working age population. We also know that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people. The Scottish Government's framework for supported business is a good start, but such a framework should address the wider issues disabled people face with regards to employment. In the Inclusion Scotland briefing for today's debate, they state that they would prefer disabled workers to be fully integrated into all employers' workforce by giving them the support that they need and by removing the barriers that they face, including the attitudes of employers and society about the capabilities of disabled people. I could not agree more. Many employers see disabled people as a potential problem in the workplace rather than focus on the positives that that person can bring. I was recently talking to a constituent who has autism, an obsessive-compulsive disorder. He told me that his disability means that when he begins a project, he stays with it until the very end and works hard to achieve everything that was required of him at the beginning. That type of dedication to one's workplace is priceless and should be viewed as such. I believe that the Scottish Government has missed several opportunities to address the problems that many disabled people face when it comes to employment. I have spoken many times in this chamber about the lack of vision contained within the youth employment strategy for disabled people, particularly those with learning disabilities. I have also spoken about the complete lack of opportunities for disabled people in the modern apprenticeship programme. From the 2012-13 figures, we can see that just 63 out of 25,691 that 0.2 per cent modern apprenticeships went to young disabled people. When we take account of all disabled people, that figure rises to 0.5 per cent. That is a national embarrassment and yet I have had absolutely nothing about how the Government wishes to tackle this inequality in its own system. Furthermore, I laid several amendments on behalf of charities and organisations working with young disabled people to the Children and Young People's Bill regarding the need for support for those young people leaving school and transitioning either into further education or employment. I argued that we should have a mentoring system put in place to help young people in times of transition. Of course, all of my amendments were defeated at that time, but I agree with inclusion Scotland who say that the Scottish Government could lead by example, by establishing internships and apprenticeships specifically for young disabled people in every Government directorate, every health board and local authority in Scotland could do likewise. I believe that that is an achievable ask and I ask the Scottish Government to consider it seriously. As I said previously in my speech, supported business has a crucial role to play in the employment prospects of disabled people, but they are only one part of the solution. Of course, we should support them as much as we can, and that is why the role of procurement is so important. However, I urge the minister to take on board the suggestion by inclusion Scotland, as those two will make a huge difference to the employment opportunities of disabled people going forward. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Cameron McCann, a very generous six minutes. The word very is duly noted, Presiding Officer. Let me just start by saying that it is very clear from the debate thus far that there is a pretty broad consensus—it may stop at the aisle along to my right—that this is an important issue where we have shared objectives. If we differ, I think that it is about means, not about objectives. Let me just commend two speeches that we have had so far that I think have best illustrated that consensus and the nature of the challenge. The most recent one from Siobhan McMahon is a subject that she has taken close interest in over a period of time, while not necessarily agreeing with everything that she said, no one who listened could doubt the commitment from Siobhan McMahon. I thought that Mike Mackenzie today made an outstanding speech that captured the essence of the debate from those benches. The motion that is before us from the Government talks quite properly about enhancing commercial viability through business support and action to increase public and private sector procurement. We have talked about the quality of the products that can be produced from supported businesses, and that is correct. Very, very early in my married life—I have now been married for 45 years—the very first bed that we bought was bought from Blindcraft. It was an excellent product at an excellent price and it was delivered to us. I am sure that many of us have had very good interactions with supported businesses at various stages in our life. Why did I go to Blindcraft? First of all, because I knew about them and I felt that I wanted to support them, but also economically it made sense to go there and I bought a good product. It is disappointing to hear, as we have heard, that there is comparatively little money available to help those businesses to market themselves. I think that that is something that we might all ponder from here on in. Prophet. Let us just talk about what Prophet actually is. It is really quite interesting, in the inclusion of Scotland's contribution to us as members in advance of the debate, they highlight, for example, in relation to the DWP's access to work scheme, that for every pound that access to work scheme the Treasury spends on that, they actually receive £1.60 in additional tax. Actually, as an intervention by the DWP, it makes a profit. I think that that leads us from the particular to the general. That is that when we support people who require a supported environment in which to work, the odds are that the economics of that makes sense, because if we have people who have dropped out of the system, because of social contact, lack of income, lack of being integrated into the wider community, require more economic and social support, the cost of those people rises. There is actually a profit. We do not have to be moral about this. It is almost certainly economically sensible, but the trouble is that this is being conflated into all people who require any money from the state, are people who leaches on the state and must be cut to the bone. When the reality is a proper economic look at this, it would come up with a very different view. Now, there are some interesting things as well that happen in supported industries. There are some of them, and I have been trying to look around the world, who are keeping old crafts alive. For example, in the town of Soreddy in France, there is what is thought to be the last manufacturer of whips. Yes, I know that we can all think of some uses for whips in this debate and many others, and they are using local materials to do it and they are a supported business. Often, we get these little niches that are really of value and of interest, so things are happening all around the world one way or another. Let me just quote from the new statesman in 2013. We might want two interesting observations in relation to the subject. The first one is perhaps that we need to be slightly careful about when the reduction of the number of people employed in the supported business sector started. In 2008, the first round of closure started under the Labour Government, with 1,600 workers being given the booth at that point. The DWP suggested that only 200 of that 1,600 were successful in getting jobs, and that is five years later that they are looking at. It is a long-run problem, and I do not think that we should particularly point at any single individual or any single Government. I think that what is being done now is certainly not going to be helpful. Jim Sheridan asked a question in the House of Commons in 2013 on 4 March about the £8 million that is supposed to be made available to ex-rempoi people to find work-or-access benefits. It does appear both on estimate days answer, but more fundamentally on the work of private eye, a print publication for which I have the highest regard, it is unclear whether anybody got anything out of that. Most of the money seems to be spent on unpaid volunteering, work experience or coffee mornings. Even the money that is being available to support people in that position seems, on the basis of that, not to have been wisely deployed. People with disabilities—we meet them in our everyday life—I regularly go to a local cafe where some of the staff—a majority of the staff—are people with disabilities, working not in a supported enterprise but in a supported environment within an enterprise. There are many different models that will suit many different people. The Government and the Government's companies and agencies do very well. I particularly remember, as a minister, visiting Carl Mack's office in Gwric and meeting Eric Rutherford, who started working there in the 1990s, having come out of a supported environment. He is now a valued member of staff there. He is probably the best-known member of staff of people who get the ferry at Gwric, and he is in receipt of an MBE for the charitable work that he has been doing in the local area. We should never underestimate people with disabilities. Let us just close by thinking about companies, private companies, big private companies, small private companies and public companies. There is increasing pressure on companies in a number of ways to behave in moral ways. We are actually seeing increasing adoption of the living wage, for example, without legislative requirements. That is good news. Corporate responsibility—social responsibility—is a thing that is debated in many boardrooms across those islands. That is the next subject that we should try and make sure is debated there. We could, of course, do what the Danes have just put into legislation, for example in relation to the environment, where companies now have to give an environmental statement as part of their annual reporting. We could see that providing a useful thing here. Finally, just to address the 118, I have been racking my brains to see looking at the list of the 20 supported businesses, what exactly the water industry commissioner Scotland would be able to buy from any of those 20 businesses. I am sure that they are very eager to do so. They have got a good complement of furniture that is relatively modern. If the Presiding Officer allows me, which he does, I will. I made it clear to the minister that what I was suggesting was that there was a mandate of at least one public contract to local authorities and to health boards, which we know by uniforms and beds that are made by sheltered workplaces. If the minister would then like to exclude quangos that he knows, such as Scottish Water, who do not buy anything that supported businesses make, that would be a decision for Government. Presiding Officer, I am not quite sure if I have been reinstated in a previous position because I appeared to be being addressed as minister there, but let me reply anyway. The amendment says 118. I merely suggest in the most kind way that my colleagues in the chamber must proofread their amendments more carefully before submitting them, because 118 certainly includes the Water Industry Commissioner Scotland. I am not saying that it is impossible for them in some future date, but I think that if you were to make it a legal requirement, it would be a substantial difficulty. Presiding Officer, thank you for the extra time. Thank you for your contribution. I call on Cameron Buchanan to be followed by Animal Ewing suitably and similarly generous time is available. Thank you Presiding Officer. This afternoon we have had a very informative discussion about Scotland's supported businesses. We all do have shared objectives, even if on this side of the aisle we differ as to the means. We are all agreed on the important role that they can play in boosting disabled people's quality of life. However, it is also apparent that if the sector is to make as much of a contribution to sustainable employment for disabled people as possible, there must be a greater focus on boosting employability in the mainstream workforce. I would first like to touch on some of the details of supported businesses in Scotland and the valuable role they have to play. As we have heard, there are 20 recognised in Scotland which together provide sustainable employment for around 910 people. Of these, around 625 people are people with a variety of disabilities, very difficult to categorise. Furthermore, supported businesses in Scotland still offer training opportunities for more than 400 other individuals every year. Sustainable employment where possible is the best means by which disabled people can live independently and with a good standard of living. As a result, the presence of training opportunities within these businesses in Scotland should be warmly welcomed. However, recent figures put the employment rate for disabled people in Scotland at 44.3%. Needless to say, we all agree that this is simply not good enough. In an ideal world, all disabled people who are willing and able to work would be able to find a job. But this isn't an ideal world nor an idealistic one. It is a highly challenging aim to get everybody back into work who are disabled. Yet all efforts to get closer to it should be applauded. But in order to make larger steps, encouraging words need to be bolstered by concrete actions. In this respect, Scotland's supported businesses do set an example to follow. Yet in order to develop and expand the supported business models, we must first recognise its limitations and the challenges it faces. Without necessarily addressing all of these, it would be very difficult to achieve the progress that we desire. An important point I would like to make here is that in some cases the solution may be to have less active intervention from government rather than more. A case in point here is a perceived lack of readiness in some supported businesses to compete commercially. Commercial viability should be welcomed where it is genuinely achieved. It is apparent that in some cases high levels of subsidy have actually protected these businesses from the genuine market forces and the real world, which may have detracted attention from business and also detracted attention from business such as marketing, product development and indeed innovation. As an entrepreneur, I understand that subsidies should not be relied on and these business skills are absolutely vital in this sector for two stunning reasons. The first is that commercial skills are essential in the world of mainstream work. The world for which these jobs are meant to be operating for the employers. The employment in the open market indeed represents sustainable employment for disabled people in Scotland, a view that is shared by Remploy. Their chief executive, Bob Warner, said himself, that there is now an acceptance that disabled people would prefer to work in the mainstream employment alongside non-disabled people rather than in sheltered workshops. That is key. That, for the cost of employing a person in a remploy factory, employment services could help four disabled people into work. That, I feel, is a telling indicator that the development of business skills must be treated as a priority. If your premise is right in Mr Warner's comment, can you explain why the rate of employment of those with disabilities is almost half of those with no disabilities? Where is the incentive to help those into normal workplace employment? My own feeling for that is that it depends on the disability. It is very difficult to categorise disability. There are so many different types of disability and I think that is the problem that they have. Certain people in remploy can only use certain narrow jobs. Other people can do wider jobs. Remploy employment services help people realistically and is a telling indicator that the development of business skills should be treated as a priority. That is the business skills, not just manufacturing skills. With large subsidies dominating the planning and the operation of supported businesses, these vital skills are not being used or taught as much as they should be. The second reason is that strong commercial skills must be developed in that dependence on subsidies is not at the moment a sustainable long-term course for supported businesses to wholly depend on. This is because funding for specific supported businesses is not guaranteed to cover all costs going forward. Programmed such as work choices currently provide £4,800 subsidy per eligible supported employee. In some cases, which help highlights that such programmes are critical to the financial sustainability of a number of supported businesses. As a result, it is not apparent that these businesses will need to be added to their income if they continue to provide great help for the disabled people in employment. Skills development for disabled people is essential. To diversify their income, supported businesses will need to increase their revenue from business streams, namely the product and services. It is only possible on a substantial scale where the employees have the skills and experience to operate under the competitive market conditions. Therefore, I want to express my sincere hope that the operation of supported businesses will evolve to the increasing include working within market incentives. Given that need, transitions will be required within affected businesses to ensure that their staff members are provided with skills development and wider business training. As a result, we must recognise that a significant challenge lays ahead for many supported businesses. This Parliament should do all we can to ensure that a smooth process evolves whereby employees do not lose out. I hope that Scotland continues to benefit from the contribution of supported businesses to our country, society and indeed economy, as the latest figures put their turnover at around 33 million per year. Furthermore, I hope that this debate and the attention it brings will enable those businesses to deliver all the changes that they most importantly require and that their employees need in order to continue in a sustainable manner and prepare disabled people for the well-deserved security that they deserve in a wider open economy. I am pleased to have been called to speak in this debate this afternoon. At the outset, I believe that it is important to recognise that the starting point in the promotion of opportunity for disabled people in the workplace must always be what suits that individual best. For many, mainstream employment, as it is termed, will be the best option. However, for some, supported businesses may be the only chance that they have of getting a job. There must always be a role for supported employment, otherwise we risk closing the door on dignity and hope for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. That said, it was extremely disappointing that successive Westminster Governments pulled the plug on remploy. As was evident from the excellent contributions of many members during the two debates that we held on remploy in 2012 in this Parliament, the way in which the process was carried out by the current Tory Liberal Westminster Government left a lot to be desired. Indeed, a cynical person would suggest that there was from the outset a presumption in favour of closure with respect to all nine remploy factories in Scotland, including in Leven and in Cowdenbeath. It has been important to note, therefore, the significant actions taken by the Scottish Government to mitigate, certainly. Does the member then think that the current expenditure should move away from the individual back towards supported workplaces? I am grateful for the member's intervention, because later in my remarks I was going to call on the member and his colleagues to assist with lobbing his chums in Westminster to maintain funding for the work choice programme, because of his argument is that the funding should follow the individual, not the institution. I am sure that Mr Brown will be supportive of those calls to maintain funding for the work choice programme. It has been important to note the significant actions taken by the Scottish Government to mitigate the effects of the UK Government's closure policy. For example, the minister has outlined that we saw established in November 2012 the supported business advisory group that the minister convened, in which he was paying stress and provided real practical input and advice about what actions could be taken to help supported business. We also heard that the national framework agreement was established also in 2012, which makes it easier for public bodies to buy from supported business. We saw reference to the launch of the supported business directory, which showcases the range of capabilities of supported business in Scotland. Earlier this year, we saw a supported business development event being held that gave a platform to supported business to raise awareness of the products that they can supply. All those actions are intended to provide for a sustainable future for supported business. As the minister said, the key issue here is that there is a steady flow of work available over time, and that is how we create a sustainable future. On the important issue of procurement, I welcomed the announcement earlier this year of the three-year contract issued by the NHS for the supply of workforce uniforms from Haven and Pts Ltd. It is important to note that the work has enabled the company to take on many former employee employees. I commend the efforts of all concerned here. The member has given way. If she is welcoming the NHS placing this contract for nurses uniforms, would she recommend to her Government that they should go further and do the same with police, fire, bin men, cleaners, uniforms across the country? I am grateful for the member's intervention, because it is very timely. I was just going to get on to the Labour amendment. As my colleague Bruce Crawford pointed out in an intervention to Ms Marra, it is worth recalling that, during the consultation on the procurement legislation, respondents were asked if the current policy guidelines should be made a statutory requirement. That is to have at least one contract with the supported business. As we heard, the majority of respondents said no. Those respondents said no, including Labour-led Glasgow City Council, Labour-led North Lanarkshire Council and some seven other Labour-led councils. I would perhaps suggest gently to Ms Marra that she might be better placed having a chat with her Labour council colleagues to better understand their real-life experience from the front line on those matters. Finally, in concluding remarks, I hope that my call to Mr Brown to support the Scottish Government's funding for the work choice programme will be heard and that it will assist with the Scottish Government's efforts to promote the continuation of that funding. The Tory member of the UK coalition Government at least is here today, or some of them, but we do not seem to have the junior members of the coalition, the Liberals, and they have failed to turn up to any debate that we have had in recent years on supported employment. It is perhaps a sad reflection of where the Liberal Party finds itself now in Scottish politics that they do not see it as important to turn up to those important debates. Disabled people are keen to work and to make their contribution to society. They want the dignity of employment and the hope that that brings. For some supported employment, as I said at the outset, it is their only chance and we must therefore recognise that and do all that we can to promote sustainable supported employment. That is all the more important in the times of Westminster austerity and the dismantling before our very eyes of the welfare system that Westminster is currently engaged in. That is indeed a tale of two Governments, and we here in Scotland utterly, utterly reject the not-so-noble Lord Freud's truly contemptible suggestion that disabled people be treated as second-class citizens in the workplace. What a disgrace that man is, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. Before we move on, I will just advise the remaining members who wish to speak that we do have some time in hand. I call Bruce Crawford to be followed by Richard Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate today. I want to come on to the main body of the motions and amendments later, but I want to give you some personal reasons why I wanted to be involved in this particular debate. One of my earlier experiences in life in the civil service in the Scottish office earlier in my career was an equal opportunities officer. As part of that role, I was responsible across the Scottish office to ensure that managers understood what disabled people required in the workplace, the aids and equipment that was available to help people perform, was available to help individuals who were disabled to give off their full potential to be the best citizens that could be in the workplace. I found that job very rewarding. One of the most powerful lessons that I learned from that was in order to create an equal opportunity for any individual. Actually, on many occasions, you have to ensure that they get an additional service to enable them to compete at an equal level. Very early lesson I got. Later on in my career, I became the council leader in Perth and Kinross. One of the pleasures I had at that stage was helping to support the dovetail operation in Dundee, which was an amalgamation of the former Royal Dundee blind craft products and the Lord Robert workshops that had come together in Dundee. During that period, the company wanted to reinvest, plant and equipment to ensure that they could produce the high-quality furniture and materials for businesses, offices and hotels. I was always very impressed when I visited dovetail in Dundee about the high quality of commitment, workmanship and product that was produced from that facility. From that moment on, I was always persuaded that there was a role for supported business in society. It was interesting. Jenny Marra and her contribution seem to be suggesting—I may have got this wrong, Jenny Marra—that Stirling had favoured over Dundee as far as concerned. The City of Dundee was not getting a fair share from the SNP. I am sure that you are aware that, since October 2013, dovetail has been delivering to Dundee City Council, of course, SNP runs one contract of supplier for beds, bedroom, lounge, dining and furniture, plus ancillary items, bedding and kitchen parts. The SNP is doing a good job in Dundee with Dovetail. Later on, I was to become the Mid Scotland and Fife MSP and later the MSP for Stirling. I got to know the Remploy operation well. I was also—similarly to the operation in Dovetail and Dundee, any time I visited the Remploy factory in Stirling, I was always highly impressed by the quality of product that was being produced for the army, for the military in general, for the ambulance service, for the nurses' uniforms, etc., that were being produced there. Producing materials such as Kevlar vest for the military and front-line real activity, and those people did a fantastic job. Many of them had been there many years, were highly skilled. If you think back to Scotland's more recent history in the textile industry, we have lost a lot of that skills. Those skills now exist in places that were employed, but now in places such as Haven. It is something that we should be thinking about building upon for the textiles to skills for the future in Scotland. Many colleagues will remember across the chamber well the difficulties faced by disabled people, particularly due to respect to the UK Government's decision to cease support for the Remploy factories. In terms of Stirling Remploy, I was involved in efforts to help to buy buyers for the factory, and I was privileged to be included in the minister's working group, along with the late Helen Eadie, who others have mentioned, who was such a champion of Remploy. It is regrettable that the UK Government pursued its agenda in the way that it did of removing support from the Remploy factories in Stirling and elsewhere. I have got to say that it showed a lack of care and respect about the impact that the sudden removal of that support would bring. In sufficient flexibility, as Mike Mackenzie, who is not in the chamber at the moment, suggested, was one of the issues. There was not enough time and space to allow the bidders to come forward to take on the management of some of those factories in a successful way. The factories, in effect, were being asked to compete and be involved and prove their worth were one hand tied behind their back. That is a classic method of ensuring downsizing and failure. It was pretty obvious to anyone who was outside this process looking in that there was only one agenda that was on the cards, and that was to ensure a closure of the facilities in the way that they did it. That has a human impact. During the referendum campaign, I came across a number of former Remploy workers who had not been able to secure new employment, who previously in life could stand up tall, go to their work, feel good about themselves, have a worth and have dignity and feel good about the value that they brought to society. It was clear from the contribution that I had from those people that they felt incredibly pushed down. They were depressed. They could not really work through the benefits system in the way that they would have hoped to have done, and their lives had taken a turn for the worse. That is a shame, and it did not have to happen in that way. However, in Stirling's case, I am pleased that Haven PTS was able to step in and take on the management of the former Remploy factory. Haven has now opened the business on October 2013. Gavin Brown? I have to say that the member is making a thoughtful contribution, but given where we are now, does he think that the money should be taken away from individuals and put back towards institutions and supported workplaces? Gavin Brown, with all due respect, you have got that question the wrong way round, because had they not taken it away in the first place, the money would still be there. The question is to you if it is such a valuable way to go about business. Should the Government not find additional resources if that is what it is going to do? You cannot suddenly reinvent it and take it back from those people. That is the problem. You know it is, and you have been a wee bit mischievous when you do that. Through the chair, please. Sorry, I apologise, Presiding Officer. Haven opened for business in October 2013, with a head count of 16, following the closure of the former Remploy business. However, in Haven's first year, it has been successful in establishing new business and growing sales, enabling it to expand its activities to over 32 employees. Some of those people have got 15 years experience of manufacturing—a very valuable experience that they can pass on to others. Even more encouraging, the company that anticipates further growth generated recently will require them to take on 20 more staff than they are currently recruiting. It is hoped by Christmas that the staff number will be 52, of whom 96 per cent are classed as disabled or facing complex barriers to work. That is an organisation that is able to expand and grow in the way that it has done. During Haven's first 12 months, because of the experience that they have on the site, they have been able to bring in a work experience programme supported by the local job centre plus, which has provided invaluable work experience for 30 unemployed individuals. I take my hat off to that organisation and the way that it is operating. There is a minor downside to all of this for me as the MSP for Stirling. It is such a success that I can see my colleague Michael Matheson turning and smiling because he knows what is coming now. Such is the success of Haven's PTS. It now means that it needs to expand and find larger premises. There is a result of that rapid and welcome growth that we have seen over the last year. Unfortunately, we have seen them shift out of my constituency into my colleague Michael Matheson's constituency just a few miles from Stirling in Larber. Although it is not great that it is not my main Stirling constituency, it would be churlish of me not to accept that this is a good thing and that it will be moving on to expand and have more jobs on the new site. I know that my constituents who are currently employed at Haven PTS will be benefiting from the undoubted success story, the example that services can be achieved. This is because this is a well-run, efficient, supported business. One of the things that he had success recently during the Commonwealth Games was that he was able to produce 17,000 laundry bags for the Commonwealth Games activity. That shows that, if he can get into a new niche, that has now opened up new opportunities for them and other places to expand that sort of activity. Thank you for the extra time, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. I now call Richard Baker to be followed by Gil Patterson. First, I can apologise for missing the staff of the minister's opening and comments, but I agree with others that it is good that we are debating the future of supported businesses in Scotland, not just because they play a very important role in so many of our communities, as we have heard throughout this debate, but because it has been, as Members have reflected or traumatic few years, for supported businesses and for the people employed in them, many of whom have now lost that employment, which was such a big part of their lives. In 2010, I led a Members' debate on the subject of supporting Scotland's supported workplace, when there was a threat to the future of Glencraft in Aberdeen, which has provided employment for blind people in the city for over 140 years. At that time, it was clear that supported businesses already faced huge challenges, although Glencraft was saved, I am pleased to say, but I could not envisage them that the situation would deteriorate so quickly through the actions of the coalition Government and the closure of so many remploy factories. Many of us in this chamber were involved in the campaigns to save those factories, as Bruce Crawford just mentioned, his contribution, his involvement in the future of the factory in Stirling, and I was involved, like others, in the campaign to save the factory in Aberdeen, a campaign which was sadly unsuccessful, although remployed facilities and some of its employees were involved, along with Cornerstone in the establishment of a new social enterprise, which is an upholstery business and has been a success. However, so much else was lost with the closure of remploy in Aberdeen. We kept hearing from UK ministers that they would help those who lost their jobs at remploy to find alternative employment, but, like Bruce Crawford's experience in the referendum campaign at the St on I met a former manager at the Aberdeen factory, and his experience was that many of those workers, actually the great majority of them, hadn't found jobs. So that theory of the money following these employees in this instance certainly just hadn't proved to be successful at all. So that was his experience, and I sad that I think it would be an experience of very many others who had been involved in working in remploy. So there's no doubt in my mind that the policy of the UK Government towards supported workplace has been deeply damaging, but we must look also to what we can do here, and our motion states that there is more that public sector agency Scotland can do and more the Scottish Government can and should do, as Jenny Marra rightly pointed out in her opening contribution for our side of the chamber. I agree that it's right to acknowledge the minister's personal involvement in this issue and he spent a great deal of time on it and been very involved, but what we are debating here is delivery, and still not enough is happening in terms of securing public sector contracts for these supported businesses. Yet again, we've rightly turned to the issue of procurement because it is a big weapon in the armory of the Scottish Government, which, if properly deployed, can make a real difference to important businesses like these. The minister has told us that progress is being made, but I believe that more should have been done by the Scottish Government much earlier, back in 2010, when I raised those issues in the member's debate. As Jenny Marra said earlier in her intervention, still more needs to be done now. The minister says that the Scottish Government will make further progress, so we'll hold him to that. We've debated for years promoting these contracts, whether it be through the use of article 19 in European legislation or through the legislation. We recently passed into law here on procurement reform, and I think that Jenny Marra is absolutely right to talk about the need for a further amendment of that legislation. It's been debated a great deal and it's now time to deliver on what has been said. I wonder if Mr Baker felt that it was a situation that likely to deliver good government for Scotland where the UK Government punch holes in the roof and the Scottish Government run around with buckets trying to catch the leaks. Does he feel that Labour's submission to the Smith commission, which proposes an extra half bucket for the Scottish Government, is any use at all? We have a contribution from Mr McKenzie. I think that he's not focusing on the real issue that we've got here. I think that it's wrong to minimise. It's absolutely right to acknowledge the difficulties caused by the position that the UK Government has taken on this issue. I've made that point clear in my contribution and my speech, but it's wrong to minimise the impact procurement and effective procurement policy can have for these supported businesses, because winning these contracts makes all the difference to them. Remploy and Aberdeen had developed links with Aberdeen University through which it won contracts for work. Work carried out to a very high standard, which University was very pleased with. Not only did it benefit the workers of Remploy, but it benefited the University as well. Now, if that flow of work from other contracts had been there, it might have been a different story for Remploy and Aberdeen, or indeed for Blinecraft in Edinburgh. The minister has been involved in this issue for a long time, and he's right to praise the role of trade unions of Lyn Turner and others. Bruce Crawford was certainly right to mention the contribution of Helen Eadie. We'll all remember the passion that she spoke about supported workplaces in this chamber. She did a tremendous amount of work on the Remploy group in this Parliament, bringing all of us together to talk about the future of the factories in our areas. She worked closely with the Scottish Government on the issue to try and get the best results. She fought hard on behalf of the Remploy factory in Calden-Beth, and she again and again spoke up for these workers here in this chamber. She was passionate about what could be achieved for these workers by being part of supported businesses, and what could be achieved through the application of article 19 and through procurement policy. In that debate in 2010, which I referred to earlier, she said, people who are disabled are not asking for handouts or grants. They are asking for the dignity of taking home a wage packet at the end of the week. That's what they want above all, and that is what they should be able to get. I think that that really hits a nail on the head about those people. It's their future, their welfare that we are debating here today. If Helen was here today speaking this debate now as an issue, she would be encouraging us to be more ambitious in our support that we give to those workers and those businesses, and I would agree with her that we can be more ambitious still. Many thanks, and I now call Gil Paterson to be followed by Nigel Dawn. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. I'm certainly indeed pleased to be speaking in this debate, and it is very important. Before I begin, I must declare a constituent's interest in the debate itself as one of the factories that has recently opened in the town of Clydebank significantly in a factory formerly used by Remploy, which is a very positive development for the local area. Since 2007, when being elected to represent people in Clydebank area, I have worked very closely with those involved in the Remploy factory. Visiting a factory on a regular basis really brought home the passion that the workforce had for what they were doing and how high the quality of the goods that were produced on site. I hear a range of goods that are mentioned today, but I'm quite sure that the chamber will be quite surprised to note that the Clydebank factory was actually manufacturing goods for the automotive industry. I declare another interest because the business alone is heavily involved in the automotive industry, but the exacting standards that are required to deliver goods into that industry with the high expectations and safety is remarkable. This unit delivered into the automotive industry on a commercial basis. However, despite the high quality of the goods and the valuable experience for those employed, they live with constant the black cloud hanging over their operations with cutting of the staff numbers over some considerable years. Then in July 2013, they received the news that they were dreading Remploy announced that it was closing a number of factories, including the Clydebank operation. In the second stage of cuts after the UK Government decided that, and I quote, funding should be used to maximise employment for disabled people through individual support, rather than subsidising organisations like Remploy. I just pointed out how good this operation was, the kind of work that it was achieving. I think that it was quite revolutionary that it had broken out the kind of public sector element of its operation, and it broke into a very difficult commercial area. Nevertheless, it was a devastating blow that the great workforce, many of whom were extremely worried about whether or not they would be able to secure employment ever in the future. That is quite a thing to have, to worry that you might never ever be employed. Unfortunately, we are hearing that this is precisely what has happened so far. This was just another example of the callous attitude of the UK Government towards those who need support instead of giving them the necessary support. They dumped them on the scrap heat, or they offered them support in gaining employment into mainstream work. It is very laudable, but it is not possible for everybody in certain circumstances. The attitude completely failed to take into account the significant barriers that disabled people face to sustain employment. The figure speaks for themselves, and members have already mentioned that the rate of disabled people in Scotland in April to June 2014 was 43.3 per cent, compared with an employment rate of 80.6 per cent for non-disabled people. Those figures speak volumes for themselves. Disabled people do not want special treatment when they are seeking employment. They just want to have those complex situations recognised and taken into account. At the time of the announcement of the closure of the employ factory in Clydebank, the Scottish Government, which has consistently opposed the cuts agenda proposed by the UK Government, stepped into the breach in an attempt to alleviate the impact of the callous decision, but the damage had already been done. However, since then, I am pleased to say why I believe that this is a very important debate, that the former employ site in Clydebank was purchased by Haven, and, after extensive renovation, it has recently reopened and is now a key component of the group's packaging operations. This is a very important news story for not only for the local community, but particularly for those who will be employed in the factory. I congratulate all those involved in securing the future of the site, from the Scottish Government itself to the Western Bartonshire Council's economic development team, to those in Haven themselves. They have all proved that, when there is a will, there is a way. This is an approach that should be commended to local and national governments working together for the benefit of the people. I would also like to praise and thank Fergus Ewing for the work that he carried out as Minister for Enterprise. For all the hard work that he has put in dealing with the situation, through my experience and witness of campaigning with those affected by his employ closures, I saw at first hand the dedication that Fergus displayed in fighting for the rights of those workers and, indeed, for the factories themselves. However, there is only so much that our Government can do in Scotland to deal with issues such as those. How much easier would it be if we had full control over welfare? If we had full welfare powers, we could make the calculation on how much it would cost to lay disabled people off compared to making a small contribution to their continued employment. That would make the vital work that they need valuable. In fact, if I had my accountants act on, then giving support in some cases would be cheaper option, whilst also being the best social option. Members have pointed that out. Despite the limited powers available, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has introduced a policy and that every public body should have at least one contract with a supported business. That shows a united approach throughout the Government agencies. The national framework agreement that was published in 2012 ensures that it is easier for public bodies to buy from supported businesses. Those are approaches that will ensure the long-term feasibility of supported businesses, and I commend the Scottish Government for looking at the long-term solutions rather than the short-term fix. There will be challenges ahead, but with the Scottish Government committed to independent living and in complete opposition to the welfare cuts proposed by the Westminster Government, I am fully confident that supported businesses will have a positive future for a long time ahead. I commend this motion to Parliament. Finally, I call Nigel Dawn around seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have to say that this has been an interesting debate. I come at this from a slightly different angle, but very close to the one that my colleague Chick Brody started. 25 years ago, I was the technical manager for Unilever's detergents business in the UK, and we were buying production from one or two smaller manufacturers, but we had a requirement to get things packaged and sometimes repackaged and sometimes washed and reworked, and that was largely done by Remploy. I have to be fair, that was along the M62 corridor, so I wasn't in Scotland at the time and I'm not talking about Scottish businesses, but I did see first-hand what Remploy did. I would endorse the view firstly put forward by Brebus Crawford about the quality, and he wasn't the only one to mention that. The extremely experienced people that that business developed, I guess, and was able to retain, but of course the other thing that that business had was a flexibility, because it had a group of people who would turn their hands to pretty much anything. It was just the nature of the way that business operated, and that meant that we could take them a job more or less on the back of a lorry and be pretty sure that the following week it would be turned around and they'd have done what we needed them to do, and so we had a long-term working relationship in that kind of way with Remploy, and it worked very, very well. Also what I saw in that, and others have mentioned this as well, is that it's not just a factory where people go to work, it actually very quickly becomes a community, like any good workplace would actually, and when you have a group of people who are looking for that little bit more support than probably we as individuals are, then actually what happens at work is enormously important, and some security in there and some continuity is again of huge value, and I would simply make the point that this isn't the first time I've made in the Chamber this year, that for the bean counters this is actually a good thing to support. If you take away people who need social support in any sense at all from an environment when they're getting that support, then you are going to generate some costs for our health service and for our social services, and not only is there a cost in that, but you're actually taking away those limited resources from other activities. So on balance, these kind of things are worth doing in a simple economic sense, never minding the obvious social advantages of doing so. Now, if I can come on to the points that I think Jenny Marra has been trying to make, and I'll pick up on the other point as well in a moment, I think Jenny Marra would have gone on rather better if, as my colleague had commented, she'd actually proofread her amendment, because actually if it had picked up on the very large point that she's been trying to make about those public bodies that could reasonably, then you never know it might have been supportable. But to say that absolutely everybody's got to have this contract is to invite the criticisms which I think we've heard. But I would also make the point that if you come along, and I'll tell you in a moment, hang on, if you actually require a business to form a contract, which I would remind you is something that requires two people to agree and they're starting from different places, then you finish up with the risk that they would just get nominal contracts, which are actually very little value to anybody other than ticking the box that you've got them. Jenny Marra, I thank the member for giving way. I think the SNP seemed to have reneged on their commitment to this issue, because I'm just looking back at the debate from 2010, when Minister Jim Mayther for the SNP said, and I quote, we are working hard on our intention that every public sector body should have a contract with a supported employer using article 19. We will bring forward a timetable for that. I think with respect to that intention is reflected in the Government policy that we've heard. Whether that policy should be written down in a single line of a statute is the point that I've just addressed, and I think it actually runs the risk of simply being supported by a tick box process rather than actually by a sensible commercial process. I think that, frankly, is the risk. Now, if I can then come on to Gavin Brown's comments about the money following the individual or being put into the businesses, could I simply suggest that what we've heard this afternoon demonstrates the obvious answer? It's actually both. It really is part of let's support businesses where those individuals who go into that business are getting sensible support things, sensible commercial things, and actually it is economically sensible to subsidise that. I take Cameron's point about subsidies being not necessarily sustainable forever, but actually our population is not suddenly going to run out of disabled people or people who have disabilities, I'm sorry, correct myself. Those businesses can be long term, they were very long term, they had subsidies in the long term and it was all very sensible. To decide for an ideological reason that suddenly we must stop doing that, everything must follow the individual into other businesses has not worked. I don't even have to disagree on ideology. I've now got the economic argument. Comments from across the chambers. I too was standing beside Richard Baker in a very cold November or December morning outside Aberdeen. I remember it very distinctly. The utter frustration that ideology was closing the factory, which actually could have worked into the future because I was in Aberdeen at the time. The answer is both. We can see that. Let's just get a sensible balance into this. Last point I would make is, and I'm sorry, I can't remember which of my colleagues I'm following on here, but the thought that there's some social responsibility in having these kind of businesses and there's some social responsibility in contracting with these kind of businesses. Now I remember in the days when I sat on Dundee, was a member of Dundee City Council, I sat on their pension funds committee that we actually talked to the businesses in which I'm at least of the businesses in which we invested and these were pretty large sums of money and asked them about their social policies and their commitment to the environment. Now that was pretty nominal to be honest in those days. That is something which is growing in importance and people are taking it more and more seriously. I think there is an opportunity for our pension funds and large investment funds to actually ask this kind of question. These kind of social businesses do need support where it's appropriate and those who could procure things from them should be being asked whether they are even trying to do so because frankly if they're not even trying then somebody should be asking them to change their attitude. I suspect providing officer that my time is up so I'll leave it there. Many thanks. Yes indeed. We now turn to the closing speeches and I call on Gavin Brown up to seven minutes please. Thank you Deputy Deputy Presiding Officer. I think this has been a very good debate I have to say and I want to focus my closing remarks on two main issues. The first one is the one contract policy and the second one is the conclusion reached by the SACE review which I think underpinned all of the UK coalition government action as opposed to some of the incentives and suggestions put forward by members from the SNP today. We turn first to the one contract policy. I'm a little disappointed that not a single SNP-backed venture was prepared to challenge the government on this issue. Not a single one of them was prepared to even comment on it other than to tie themselves in knots as to why it's actually a good policy but it doesn't matter that they're actually not achieving it. We've heard the excuse from the minister that some public bodies might not need them in which case why do you have this policy and why have you had this policy since 2009? We're the Bruce Crawford excuse that actually if every public body had a contract then the supported businesses simply couldn't cope but in his own contribution he gave an excellent example of a supported business in his constituency for now that clearly was able to cope with an enormous contract and there's no reason why the other supported businesses couldn't cope if every public body did decide to sign a contract. Then the rather facile excuse from Stuart Stevenson that because he doesn't think the water industry commissioner requires a lot of furniture then that suddenly excuses every other public body that doesn't currently have a contract. It was disappointing that not a single member was prepared to challenge the front bench and perhaps they can redeem themselves in closing speeches with the minister to find out how many public bodies today have not yet signed a contract. I'm happy to give way to Stuart Stevenson. It's interesting to hear the Tories defending the Labour Party again in the construction of their amendment. The point about the water industry commissioner for Scotland is of course the general one that you have to look at the individual circumstances of each and everybody perfectly proper that it be mandated that they look at the opportunities they each and everyone have for buying from supported businesses absolutely impossible to mandate that they must complete a contract because the WICs and there will be others simply will have limited opportunities. Well ask him simply back then in his view does every other public body who hasn't yet signed a contract is a conclusive proof that none of them actually need any of the items produced by supported businesses. I'm quite sure that that's not the case but it appears that the Scottish Government haven't even done their homework and they simply don't know the minister wasn't able to answer the basic question and as for defending the Labour Party we don't actually agree with the Labour Party on this we don't think it should be in statute but we do think the government ought to be doing more given that it's been a policy in place for five years I think they could have done a bit more and I think they ought to be able to tell us at least what the position is on the ground and what they're going to do to try and improve the situation. But deputy president of the second issue I want to finish on or to focus on is this the idea put forward by a number of members here that the reasons for deciding to close the employ factories and to try and transfer funding to the individual was one that showed an icy lack of compassion shut without care it was all about cutting it was all about being callous. I refute that absolutely deputy president and I say to those members please go and read the SACE review please read the review that underpinned the reforms put forward by the coalition government because it is a thoughtful piece of work it is a far-reaching piece of work and yes in parts it is a painful piece of work there is no question that the report acknowledged some of the pain that would be caused by this but it was done for reasons of principle and pragmatism the conclusion reached by the SACE report was that the model of employment support needs to change so that meets disabled people's aspirations is based on evidence is fit for the future and serves far more people than it does today it was built on a principle of those with disabilities getting into work staying in work and then ultimately getting on in work it was based on principle and pragmatism the pragmatism that government funding should be spent where it can have the most impact and they concluded that there was a significant scope to increase the number of people who could benefit if we look at the numbers deputy officer the budget let me develop this point mr crovert the budget spent on this issue was 333 million pounds of which 63 million pounds each year was going on remploy factories so about a fifth of the budget was going on the remploy factories but it was a cost per head that was proving a challenge the cost per head in the remploy factories was 25 000 pounds whereas if that were to be transferred to the individual remploy themselves another division of remploy as camera Buchanan made and commented on his contribution they believe they could help three or four people with that same amount of funding it's about raising the appalling level of employment statistics which everyone in this chamber wants to do something about but by focusing the efforts on the individual we can get far more people into work i said i would give way to Bruce Crawford i genuinely believe that Gavin Brown believes that that's what was trying to be achieved i don't underestimate what he's saying but the UK minister of state for disabled people confirmed on the 15th of october this year that of the people who had been previously employed in remploy 1507 was still looking for another job so despite this issue about the money supposed to be following the people all these people were still looking for another job only 774 were able to find work it proves Gavin Brown that while the theory might be there in practice it simply hasn't worked for these people they are facing the misery of these decisions i'm afraid you're concluding i accept it hasn't worked for some people absolutely right but i make two two comments in response to that the first the first one is this deputy representative officer remploys employment services have found jobs for 35 000 people over the last two years whereas the factories employed approximately 2400 people and the government never said that every single person would get a new job overnight this is a series of reforms that will take time they will take time to achieve everything but ultimately if we want to increase dramatically the number of people with a disability in work then the idea of funding flowing towards the individual i think makes economic sense and practical sense too it was based just in closing then also though on a on a degree of principle it wasn't just about the bean counters lis says spoke to thousands of stakeholders spoke to the same people with disabilities across the country and they said this i want the same choice as anyone else to have the career i want again and again disabled people especially young people said they wanted the same chance of getting the full range of roles in the economy as everyone else ultimately presenting officer was about the types of support that could help today's young disabled people that the type of support that they will want in tomorrow's economy that's why while the principles were painful for some in practicing in the long term we think they were the right decision thank you and i call in Jenny Marra maximum nine minutes Presiding Officer i think this has been a good and interesting debate but somewhat i think lacking in ambition and innovation i think a framework for supported business does not really go far enough to meet the needs and aspirations of our young and experienced workers in Scotland who live with their disabilities and want like Gavin Brown said to have fulfilling careers and it is Labour's vision for modern workplaces sheltered workplaces where workers who have worked for years can can work there but share their skills not just with disabled workers but from some of our young people who we know from our youth employment statistics and all of our visits to youth employment projects across the country these young people who are so far from the labour market who have lived chaotic and difficult childhoods who have come or far from the labour market and could do with actually starting their careers in a sheltered modern workplace and then moving on as they've learned their skills to the mainstream workplace it is modern sheltered workplaces with innovative solutions like that and blending the talents of disabled workers with experience with our workers who need that nurture and support that is our vision for the future of sheltered workplaces in Scotland that is a vision that i hope we will get the chance to implement in 2016 but i do feel from this debate this afternoon that the Scottish Government is really lacking any of that ambition to make this happen the motion this afternoon is very much around their framework and i made a said in my intervention to Nigel Dawn anyway that we've been here as Gavin Brown pointed out before we were here four years ago now before i was here debating this very issue about the SNP's framework but not nearly enough progress has been has been made Gavin Brown has pointed out to the Scottish Government this afternoon that they don't seem to be on top of the figures about the amount of public authorities in Scotland who have not awarded a contract. I can tell the Scottish Government this afternoon that it is at least 40 public bodies and that was 40 public bodies who had the information and were able to tell us that they have able to tell Spice that they have not awarded one single contract under the framework for supported business. To go back to Jim Mather's comments in 2010, we are working hard on our intention that every public sector body should have a contract with a supported employer using article 19 and we will bring forward a timetable for that. I would ask the minister in closing today exactly how hard is this Government working on that. Since the freedom of information request, which many people have cited that was done in April this year, only an additional four public bodies have placed a contract with a supported business. The progress is slow, it is sluggish and it doesn't really reflect some of the warm words from the Government this afternoon. It is baffling to me that the Scottish National Party Government, who has built the whole referendum campaign promising the earth, cannot even say to public authorities in this country that they should place one contract with supported business. We have heard a number of arguments from the Scottish National Party benches this afternoon about why public authorities should not be compelled. That is the minister's problem with this. It is legislating to make it happen. We have heard arguments why they should not be compelled to place contracts with supported businesses. Mike McKenzie said that the Scottish Government should not tell local authorities what to do because it is centralisation. Mike McKenzie might want to reflect on the fact that the Scottish Government tells local authorities every year to freeze their council tax, but it cannot tell them—it is not prepared to tell them—to place a contract with a sheltered workplace. It is frankly baffling. Mike McKenzie. I was pointing out—the member might care to reflect—that it is Labour Party that accuses the Government of centralisation whenever we try to use legislation or other powers to insist that local authorities do certain things. Generally speaking, the Labour Party argues against that. Why, in this situation, are you arguing for it? Jenny Marra. Disabled workers deserve it, I would say, to Mike McKenzie. On one point, we are prepared to argue for this to put that on the statute book to make sure that public procurement is working for the benefit of disabled workers across this country. Let me come on to the criticisms of the Labour Party in this debate, because we have been criticised this afternoon for the fact that some of our councils have said that my amendment is not necessary. Can I say to this that many of those councils, including Glasgow and North Lanarkshire, are already making substantial investment in supported business, so they know that they are doing it anyway? Secondly, I will commit to winning that debate in my party for the amendment to the Public Procurement Act with those local authority council leaders if the minister will commit to enacting it. I would be very surprised if the SNP Government would let Labour councils stop them from doing something that they really want to do and believe in. Stewart Stevenson said that Scottish Water does not buy anything that supported businesses in Scotland make. I can clarify for me. Stewart Stevenson. It is just a factual correction that the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland is not Scottish Water. Jenny Marra. I am absolutely convinced that that commissioner has a desk, he has drawers that he puts his papers in and he has office furniture, which are made by supported businesses in Scotland. So I think that he could put the contract for his future office furniture with him. I think that Stewart Stevenson makes a spurious point, and quite frankly, Presiding Officer, it is really quite baffling the splitting-hair arguments that the SNP have come up with this afternoon against legislating for a wholly morally justified policy. Mike McKenzie, briefly, as the member is approaching the last minute. Would you consider that the terms of your amendment would be fulfilled if a public authority bought one paper clip from a supported business? What you are suggesting is not workable in real terms. Jenny Marra, apologies, you do still have more time. Presiding Officer, quite frankly, I think that that is the most ridiculous point. I think that it is embarrassing for this Government. What we are saying is that every public authority in this country should place one, at least one, public contract with a supported business to support disabled workers. It is something that Jim Maither, one of your ministers said, was a good thing to do. It is something that is wholly and morally justifiable. It would support sheltered workplaces across this country. It would put more disabled and young people far from the labour market into work. I am very surprised that the SNP shows such resistance to a progressive policy. I move the amendment in my name, and I thank for this good debate this afternoon. Thank you very much. I now call on Michael Matheson to wind up the debate. Minister, you have until 5 p.m. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that this has been a very useful debate with a number of very thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate and to the whole issue of employment for disabled people. I feel as though there is more points of agreement in the debate than has probably been recognised at points from some of the contributions, and I would wish to lose sight on that point. What we need to do is to make sure that we build on the areas of agreement that we have, but we also have to recognise that there are some differences of view on areas around this matter of policy. I recognise the point that Jenny Marr is making about the issue of making it mandatory for all local authorities to place at least one contract with a supported workshop environment. I think that we should always be very careful in thinking that by identifying a simplistic single solution to the issue, it will in some way address what is a much more fundamental issue around supported employment and supported workplaces. Although I recognise that Jenny Marr, with all the best of intentions, wishes to try to achieve the best for those supported workplaces, we need to take this forward in an approach that will allow us to create a sustainable approach for successful disabled workplaces. I believe that the approach that we are taking as a Government is setting out why we wish to take the approach that we are. I also think that a number of those who have contributed to the debate, for example Bruce Crawford, have already highlighted the real difficulties that would be in taking the approach that Jenny Marr has outlined. However, there is an area in which I agree with Jenny Marr. That is her ambition to see modern supported workplaces for disabled people. Gavin Brown raised the issue about placing of contracts with supported employment businesses. There are a number of complexes around this. There are a number of complexes because not all of the contracts go through the public procurement portal system. Some of them are through subcontracts as well and there is a whole range of complexes around being able to monitor and measure those contracts that are being placed. However, I can say to remember and give them an assurance of that we are determined to look at seeing how we can actually get much greater detail around how those contracts are being placed and when they are being placed and who they are being placed by as well. However, I do not want to give the impression that that is something that can be easily achieved because of the complex of some of the subcontracting that gets on in this process. However, we are intending—on our procurement team—to look at what they can do through the IT system in order to be able to monitor that issue much more effectively. As a Government, if that monitoring demonstrates the need for further intervention from our point of view and encouraging and working with public contracts to encourage them to place more contracts with supported employment employers, we will be prepared to do that, as we have been doing for the last couple of years. I will give way to the member. I am grateful for his remarks. Is it as complex as he makes out? When the FOI was put in, a very clear answer was given back that there were 44 out of 118 that had not signed contracts. If the information was possible via FOI in 21 days or whatever it is, surely it is not as quite as complex as it was making out. Not all of those contracts have been placed through article 19, for example, so there are other issues that have to be considered and have been able to actually get a proper picture, a fuller picture of the detail. I think that there is a real danger that we are looking at this thing from the wrong perspective, because the focus should not be just on public sector contracts being awarded to supported employers. It should be about making sure that the supported employers that we have are successful in being able to gain contracts, not just from the public sector, but also from the private sector, and to do that in a way that allows them to be ambitious and to be able to produce goods that they can take to market and that they are in a position where they can be a sustainable business. That is the approach that ways of government are determined to take. Just to give you an example of how we are taking that forward, my colleague Bruce Crawford made reference to the changes that have happened in Stirling with the Remploy Factor that is now moving to my constituency in Larbert. Moving to Larbert in order to be able to take on new work in an environment that is modern, sophisticated, it has had £1.7 million of Scottish Government investment put into it to allow them to support them, to become a successful business and to be able to actually market their goods in a successful way and to be able to also train those who work with them in a way that allows them to either remain there in employment or to move on in employment. That is a partnership in Larbert in my constituency that I think demonstrates the approach that allows us to be taken forward in a sustainable, successful way. A partnership between the Scottish Government, Haven, Scottish Enterprise and Falkirk Council, and I have got no doubt that that will continue to be a success and will be able to build on what is a £1.5 million per annum contract that they now have with the NHS in Scotland. We also heard from Maureen Watt in her contribution about the way in which Blindcraft and her constituency have been able to engage and to move on from the situation that they were in when they were in real difficulty several years ago in order to turn the business around in order to make it sustainable and potentially successful. I think that part of the issue about the point that Gavin Brown and some others were making about should we now take the money away from those individuals and put it back into the businesses is not really the way we should be looking at this matter. One is not mutually exclusive to the other. Business support for disabled people is equally important as supported employment is. The problem with the UK Government's approach was that it had to be supported employment in a place of employment with an employer, but supported workplaces were not of value. That was the problem with the UK Government's approach. It was one or the other and we then found ourselves in a situation, as is rightly highlighted by Bruce Crawford, where we have 1,500 people who were previously employed by re-employed no longer employment. They are unemployed, receiving benefit to support them in their position because of the difficulties that they now face. Had the UK Government taken a different approach to this whole matter, yes, recognising that support and employment is important but also that business employment support for disabled people is also of equal value, then we could have taken an entirely different approach. The problem with the UK Government's approach is that it has been a one-size-fits-all approach that does not work in this area. I will give a way to the member. Does the minister not accept the conclusions of the SACE review that demonstrated that if you could help three or four people for the same amount of money, then that has to be looked at and that has to be the way forward? The SACE review was not about doing one thing and ruling out the other. It was not. Was it simply about that? The problem with the UK Government's approach is that it has chosen to interpret it in such a way that it has decided that it does not value supported work placements. That is why it has run into such difficulty. That is why two thirds of those who previously were employed by re-employed now find themselves in unemployment. Let us put the whole issue in some context because I think that it is really important that we do that. Maureen Watt made that particular point in her own contribution. Employment rates for those with a disability in Scotland during April to June of this year was 43.3 per cent. For non-disabled people during the same period it was 80.6. An unemployment rate for disabled people at the same time was at 14.6 per cent and for non-disabled people it was 5.5 per cent. It is that employment opportunity, that lack of opportunity that causes the gap in terms of people's relative income. It is that type of gap that causes inequality that so many disabled people experience, that loss of self-esteem, that loss of confidence and find themselves caught in the benefit trap as well. That is why we need to make sure that we take a balanced approach, not only about supporting those who want supported employment but also supporting those businesses that can help to support those disabled people who want to have employment as well. I also turn to some of the other issues in the time that remains to be able to highlight that the approach that we as a Government are taking is much more ambitious than the approach that Jenny Marra suggested. Our ambition should be that we want to have each public body place one contract with a disabled business. Our approach is to create equality for disabled people, equality of opportunity so that they can get employment no matter what their circumstances are. I thought Siobhan McMahon made an extremely good speech in highlighting a number of those issues, some of the points that are already being taken forward by the Scottish Government in our youth support strategy. We already have Skills Development Scotland looking at how we can make sure that we increase the number of those young people with a disability are able to participate within our apprenticeship scheme. We have also got re-employment services in Barnardo's, working with Skills Development Scotland to look at how we can enable more disabled people to be able to engage in employment as well. To take it beyond that, as a Government, we have also set out a range of measures to help to support those with a disability into employment through our keys to life, our learning disability, national strategy, our mental health strategy, our autism strategy and as a Government we will continue to take forward policies in a positive way to support disabled people. That has been a very useful debate. The one thing that I can assure the chamber is that we, as a Government, will continue to do everything that we can to help to support disabled people to ensure that they get the opportunity, the equal opportunity, to employment here in Scotland. That concludes the debate on sported business. We now move to the next item of business, which is decision time. The first question is at amendment 1133, 2.2, in the name of Jenny Marra, which seeks to amend motion 11332 in the name of Fergus Ewing, on supported business, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1133, 2.2, in the name of Jenny Marra, is as follows. Yes, 31. No, 74. There were no abstentions. The next question is at amendment 1133, 2.1, in the name of Gavin Brown, which seeks to amend motion 1133, 2, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on supported business, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1133, 2.1, in the name of Gavin Brown, is as follows. Yes, 15. No, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is there for not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 1133, 2, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on supported business, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Let's move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 1133, 2, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is as follows. Yes, 90. No, 15. There were no abstentions. The motion is there for agreed to. That concludes decision time. I now close this meeting.