 o'r syniadol yn ddiflu'r cyfnodol, oedd yn gallu ei wneud yn gweithio, ond nid o'r ffordd o gael. Thank you very much. That concludes topical questions, and we now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 13023, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on Scotland's future employability services. I invite those members to wish to speak in this debate to please press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, 14 minutes or so please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today I want to set out how we propose to deliver employment services, employment support services in Scotland that will better help unemployed Scots into work, better meet the needs of our labour market and drive sustainable economic growth. I want to commit to doing so by working with this chamber, with those who deliver employment support services already in Scotland and, crucially, with those who rely on those services. Today marks the beginning of a process of engagement within this chamber and beyond, and a collaborative approach to designing and delivering Scotland's future employability services that will put the needs of the unemployed at its centre. First, I want to say a few words of context on the Smith commission recommendations on employment support and the challenge that we have faced in securing full and swift devolution of the powers and resources necessary to deliver those services in Scotland. The Smith commission was clear how it expected employment support to be devolved. All employment programmes currently contracted by DWP for the unemployed should be devolved on the expiry of their current commercial arrangements, that was what Smith said. That includes, but it is not limited to contracts to deliver the work programme, which is, of course, the UK Government's main employment programme for long-term unemployed and work choice of voluntary specialist disability employment service. Smith also called for a new governance mechanism to be established, which integrated the reserved functions of Job Centre Plus in Scotland. However, we have encountered obstacles to delivering progress on those recommendations. In January 2015, the UK Government published its command paper proposing a draft legislative basis to implement Smith. It would limit our future support to those at risk of long-term unemployment and limits our services to be for a period of at least one year when Smith in no way indicated such restrictions should apply. It is also silent on how conditionality and sanctions might apply to any devolved employment support. That is an area where we want to explore the scope for a less penal approach than that is currently applied. I have repeatedly pressed the UK Government for clarification on this point with no response. The week after publication of the Smith outcomes, the UK Government took a decision to extend contracts on its programmes in Scotland. In the case of the work programme and work choice contracts have now been extended until 2017. That decision was made despite the Government's express request that its contract extensions not be entered into. My understanding was that the Westminster Government signed that agreement prior to Smith coming into force. Is that correct? In the case of one of the programmes, I believe that it took place of my memory in October. I think that it was a bit of an example of bad faith on the part of the Westminster Government. Of course. She said quite clearly that the decision was taken after Smith, but I have seen correspondence between her and the DWP that makes it very clear that the decision was taken in August by the UK Government. Is that not correct? The contracts were extended after Smith, despite the Government's express request that that not happen. There is no way that any Conservative in this chamber can argue that that is in keeping with the spirit of Smith. Decisions have also been taken to extend other programmes that we believe will fall within the scope of the Smith commission recommendations, such as, for example, mandatory work activity and specialist employment support. We have still to see substantial progress on the fiscal framework that Smith proposed. We continue to press the UK Government on those issues because their actions are undermining Smith's recommendations and, fundamentally, impact on the timescales for devolution. However, the UK Government decided before the general election to proceed with those contract extensions and deferred a response on revised legal clauses that we provided them until after the general election. Those obstacles are frustrating. The frustration is felt widely and out beyond this chamber, but I am determined to press ahead on how employment support can be devolved effectively and in a way that best meets the needs of Scotland. The work programme is a pay-by-results outcome-based approach. Arguably, it does not focus enough on the quality of services that people need. Neither is it effective at helping those who are furthest from the labour market. Typically, the contractual costs to the DWP of supporting the hardest to help is a fraction of the level of support provided to those closest to the labour market. That approach simply entrenches inequality rather than removes it. As at 31 December 2014, 22.8 per cent of eligible referrals to the work programme in Scotland have achieved a job outcome, slightly above the 19.7 per cent of eligible referrals across Britain. Again, as at 31 December 2014, of those completing the two-year DWP work programme across Scotland, approximately 69 per cent were unemployed at the point of completion and returned to job centre plus. That is hardly a resounding success rate. Performance of the work programme has been improving, but only for some, not for everyone. I challenge anyone to say that 11 per cent sustained job outcomes for those with the greatest barriers to work is acceptable. One work programme provider, not one of the Scottish ones, I must stress, was quoted in The Guardian on 28 February as saying as follows, that it is not about supporting 100 customers, it is about getting 50 of them into a job, the other 50 are collateral damage. At the end of the day, UK ministers do not care about that other 50, it is an outcome contract, not a service contract. I cannot and will not accept that unemployed people are collateral damage. There are lessons to learn in terms of the effectiveness or otherwise of that programme and how we can deliver an alternative and better offer in Scotland. In comparison, work choice works somewhat better. Around a third of those entering work choice do enter work. It focuses on those furthest from employment, has a client-centred approach and elements of third sector provision. All characteristics I would expect to see in our future approach, but with only a little over 9100 starts to this programme since October 2010, it is clear that many disabled people in Scotland are simply not able to access this service. We believe that there is more we can do and more that we must do. The devolution of these services gives us an opportunity to make real change. Working with a broad range of stakeholders, I propose to develop a more integrated approach to those programmes, which builds on the strengths of the current employability delivery landscape in Scotland. That is our opportunity to develop a Scottish approach. It is our opportunity to develop employment support in partnership and in a systematic and holistic manner. It is our opportunity to develop employment support that reflects our core aims of sustainable economic growth, inclusion, fair work and social justice. It is our opportunity to live in an approach that can be less outcome-focused and more client-centred, have a range of provision, including local and third sector provision, focus on those furthest from employment, reflect the needs of both unemployed Scots and employers in Scotland, build on our strong local delivery and specialised support, learn from good practice elsewhere, both domestic and international, and align with other services for public service efficiency, for example, for unemployed disabled people by linking to areas of health and social care. Our track record is good. We are targeting youth unemployment through programmes such as the Youth Employment Scotland Fund, Community Jobs Scotland and our commitment through opportunities for all, ensuring that every 16 to 19-year-old has an offer of training or education and making a real difference to the lives of many young people in Scotland. I believe that the Youth Employment Scotland Fund, what percentage of those who are going through that programme are now in long-term employment? Minister, I can give you back the time that you have taken for intervention. I can give you back the time that you have taken. You can. I can. I will endeavour to get that figure to Gavin Brown before the end of this debate. I do not have it in front of me right now, and he may shake his head, but if he had asked me before the debate, I would have been able to have the figure for him off the top of my head. I believe that through the devolution of powers to support disabled or unemployed people, we can and will achieve more for those who have not benefited from current UK Government schemes. Employability is embedded across a wide range of our policies in the health, justice and equalities portfolios and beyond. With devolution, we can develop a distinctive approach to employment support in Scotland that builds on that broad approach and delivers our ambitions for fair work, social justice and sustainable economic growth. We have the opportunity to focus on addressing barriers to employment for those who continue to be excluded from the labour market, and our economic growth such as disabled people, older workers, care leavers and individuals with caring responsibilities, ethnic minority groups, service veterans and those with convictions. There is an opportunity to consider a broader range of delivery models for devolved employment support, which draws on the expertise, experience and strength of partners across the private, public and third sector with integration driving our approach. We have a well-developed framework for engagement on which we can deliver the Scottish approach through groupings such as the Scottish Employability Forum and the groups that support it. We can also draw on recent research through the SEF on how employability services are being delivered in Scotland by the UK, Scottish and local government to establish a shared agenda with local and national partners to better join up services, to deliver joint working through clarity of shared purpose and better target and align the estimated total of £660 million investment in employability support in Scotland, but that is across all those different areas. We can build on that evidence base, drawing on the work of Skills Development Scotland and others, and develop our intelligence of the Scottish labour market, which reflects and meets the challenges and opportunities at sectoral and regional levels in Scotland. There are key principles that we must share and follow that we will aim to design and deliver effective, sustainable and appropriate employment service in Scotland, which provides a seamless support to those on the journey into work, ensure a smooth transition of services so that essential support for those who need it most is available as soon as the existing contracts expire, not to simply replicate existing approaches, but to aim for an asset-based approach that compares with the best national and international practice, apply a robust, costed and evidence-based approach to our work, deliver through a consultative approach to policy development, consistent with empowering of communities and individuals in shaping the public services that they receive, build on our delivery strengths, including Skills Development Scotland as our national skills and training agency, and work closely with the UK Government and DWP to ensure an adequate transfer of knowledge and expertise, and learn what they know and what we need to know from that. She may be going to mention it, but I wonder if she would like to address the serious problem in the modern apprenticeship programme in Scotland. I will give figures in my speech, but it is substantially different in terms of the application of those with disability, learning disability and other disabilities in Scotland. I wonder if she is going to mention that as part of the integration. I would have to agree that there are distinct challenges in respect of disability employment in Scotland, and that will be across a variety of different sectors. We have certainly taken steps through community jobs Scotland to try and make sure that a slice of that money is targeted exactly on disabled employment, and the SDS is actively working to increase the uptake of disabled individuals on the modern apprenticeship programme. The issue of disability is not just that there are other minority groups that we have to work very hard with in terms of the modern apprenticeship programme. There would be no point in pretending that that was not the case. It is the case. There are some next steps. I intend to set out details and timescales for a public consultation during the course of this year on the development and delivery of devolved employment support. That consultation will be delivered in line with the approach that I have outlined today, and I hope that we will see the engagement and support of everyone in this chamber. Once our consultation is concluded, I will confirm the process for commissioning and implementing our new services. I will, of course, seek to bring my proposal back to this chamber for further input from members. I am coming to a conclusion, if I could finish at this point. Scotland's economic strategy makes clear that tackling inequality and delivering economic growth are mutually compatible, not mutually exclusive. Our stakeholders have already expressed clear aspirations on how devolved employment support can be delivered differently and in a way that better reflects the needs of Scotland. That includes taking advantage of the opportunity to help more people into better work that will benefit individuals, their families and their communities, as well as benefiting our economy. It includes seizing the opportunity to develop the employability services that will help to deliver a socially just, equal and prosperous Scotland. I commit today to work collaboratively while being bold and ambitious in meeting those ambitions. In keeping with that commitment, I am going to be generous and accept the Labour Party amendment. Much of it we agree with and indeed are already doing. The remainder will be the basis for a good discussion, and who knows, perhaps even negotiation, after 7 May. I move the motion in my name. I am pleased to be taking part in the debate on future employability services in Scotland. It is timely that the Parliament is hosting a debate on employment on what is international workers memorial day. I will say more about that significant day later, as I want to begin with some remarks about the current employability model adopted by the Scottish Government and its partners. As members will know, the strategic skills pipeline model is a recognised framework to support the effective delivery of employment services. That work is mainly done through the employability learning network, which is co-ordinated by the Scottish Government's employability team, and is primarily delivered via the employability in Scotland website. The website states that it provides a practical resource for all those involved in funding, planning and delivering employability services in Scotland. It has links to a number of useful resources such as service guides, case studies, news items, events and workshops, and policy and research. It seems to me that a lot of what is good about the initiative is out of reach of the most disadvantaged in our communities. That is something that we have to change. Web is not always best. I understand that the website will be of great help to those organisations delivering programmes for those seeking employment opportunities. That is to be commended, however. It should be more than a resource. The employability learning network promotes prevention on its website, however. A lot of its content is about reaction. I would ask that the Government look at that aspect of the network's function in order that it reaches its full potential. The main problem with the current system, particularly the pipeline model, is that it is not fluid. Therefore, those people who may have been out of the job market the longest, or who have additional support needs, including mental or physical disabilities, are often let down before they even reach stage 1. One of the key ways to start on the employability journey is self-referral. However, if you do not have the current skills to achieve that, particularly if you lack confidence as a result of being out of the job market long term, then you will find this hurdle harder to overcome. The Scottish Government's motion talks about the importance of effective and targeted employment support for individuals. I agree that that is key, and that is why I support the initiative that helps people to take the first step on their employment journey. For many, especially those with a learning disability, they are eager to take their rightful place in the world of employment, but the current pipeline model is yet another barrier that they face. That is why I support the Scottish consortium for learning disability in the fantastic work that they do developing the project search model. Project search is an initiative that aims to bring a significant number of people with learning disabilities and autism into competitive employment. It does that by bringing together relevant organisations to work together effectively. At time when many programmes are proposing pre-employment training, project search provides an 800-hour employer placement over an academic term, exposing the young person to a real workplace. Uniquely and key to the success of project search, the only positive outcome is a job. Students moving into training or further education are not counted as a success for project search. Currently, the employment rate in our country for those with a learning disability is 26 per cent, but with programmes such as this one that I have just outlined, we can achieve a lot more. That would be part of the targeted individual support that the Government has outlined in the motion, and I would be delighted if that suggestion would be taken up by the Government. The main programme that is used in Scotland for employment seems to be the modern apprenticeship scheme. However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has stated that the uptake of modern apprenticeships in Scotland is typified by significant gender segregation, with ethnic minorities and disabled people also appearing to have low levels of access to all forms of apprenticeships. Members will know that that is an issue that I raised on numerous occasions both in this chamber and during my time on the Equal Opportunities Committee. It is a sad fact that less than 0.5 per cent of all modern apprenticeship placements are taken by someone with a declared disability. That is an issue that the Government has known about for a number of years now and yet the figures are not getting any better. In fact, the EHRC reports dates that Scottish Government agencies are not paying sufficient attention to their leadership and that there is a danger that the current practice reinforces rather than dismantles occupational segregation and the widespread exclusion of disabled people. I therefore ask what action have the leadership taken to address the significant problem. We will thank the member for taking an intervention. Will she accept that the Government has committed an additional £3 million to increasing access to modern apprenticeships for minority ethnic young people, for young people with disabilities and also for care leavers. The EHRC welcomed the funding by saying that they were delighted that the Government had matched the ambition of the Wood commission report on resourcing that it needed to ensure that everyone in Scotland gets a chance to participate in skills development. Of course, I welcome the money. I welcomed it at the time and I welcomed it in this chamber. However, the problem is that it has taken so long when I have been in this Parliament for four years and I have said that at every single part of the budget it is not getting any better. The money is welcome but we could have been doing a lot more sooner. That is the point that I am making just now because it is not a huge problem to face the Government but it is a problem that has had a significant course of action to address it. The Government cannot come to the chamber to discuss employability services and be taken seriously if it cannot address such an inherent problem in its flagship policy. Therefore, Scottish Labour is calling for a review of all employability services currently helping disabled people to find work in order that we can best utilise the further powers that we will be receiving to this Parliament in a matter of weeks. The Tory-led Government's failing work programme has seen less than one in 10 of those disability benefits helped into work, and the vital support offered through the access to work programme has failed to reach all who could benefit. That is why Labour will work with local authorities to deliver a new specialist work support programme to replace the work programme, which has helped fewer than one in 10 disabled people who access it into work. As I said at the start of the debate, today is International Workers Memorial Day. It is an atrocious fact that every year more people are killed at work than in wars. That is why this day serves to remember the dead but fight for their living. I understand that this year's theme is removing exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace. I hope that those people who are taking part in today's commemoration activities have a productive day. My thoughts and every best wish are with them. On Friday of last week, Scottish Labour launched our workers manifesto. In that document, we committed to deliver legislation on culpable homicide, which will give families of victims a genuine possibility of justice through prosecutions. We also stated, and not for the first time, our commitment to review of the cases of convicting mine workers in the 1984-85 strike. We committed to set up an inquiry that is transparent and public to examine the issues of blacklisting. For many in our communities, the fact that they have been blacklisted in the past is a further barrier to employment today. That is why it has to be part of any future strategy of employability services in Scotland. Work should be available for everyone and there should be equal opportunities for all. In order to achieve social justice, our employment sector has to be open to everyone regardless of their background, their ethnicity, sexuality, gender, religion or physical and mental abilities. Scottish Labour wants a Scotland where people earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. A Scotland that protects and provides for its workers, is a fact that, across the UK, average wages have fallen by £1,600 a year since 2010. That is why it is so important that we promote and utilise the living wage. Scottish Labour has stated that we will encourage employers to pay the living wage with make-work pay contracts, which will see £1,000 rebate to companies who pay the living wage. We will also establish a living wage unit within the Scottish Government to promote the living wage in the private sector and extend payment of the living wage to public sector contract workers. For far too many, they go to work to provide for their families, but do not get the pay they deserve. We have to address that by making sure that those in work get the pay they deserve, a pay that provides for them and their families. Although the living wage is not a silver bullet, it provides a decent day's pay for a decent day's work. Any future contract that delivers employability services in Scotland must commit to paying the living wage. We must utilise all our procurement legislation to make that a reality. It can be done and it should be done. The time for excuses has ended on that. The SNP estimates that more than 100,000 Scots are trapped on zero-hour contracts. As it currently stands, the Conservatives would rebrand the term zero-hour contracts and the SNP Government would review them. That is not near good enough. As the chamber knows, we would ban them. That would mean that any job that is secured throughout any employability service here in Scotland would be just that—a job. James Dornan Can I just clarify, when you said that you would ban zero-hour contracts, do you also include the zero-hour contracts that are taking place in Glasgow City Council? Not a few hours here or there when it suits the employer but a full-paid job that would guarantee payment each and every week. We need to utilise our people's skills and talents a lot more than we do now. As a member of the Education and Culture Committee, I have heard and read a lot of accounts with regard to the attainment gap as part of our current inquiry. It is vital that any future employment programme recognises the challenges that the attainment gap is currently providing to our workforce. One aspect of addressing the current problem that the employment sector is facing is to remote the Labour-led initiative of the future fund. That would be used for those young people, not in education, employment or training, to deliver the skills and tools that will help them to secure meaningful employment. We all know that we need to address the problems of attainment from an early age, but for those already through their education, we believe that that would help with employment prospects. Today's debate about the future of employability services is an important one. It is important for all those people relying on such services to give them the help that they deserve on achieving work and, in return, achieve a desirable income for that work. I have outlined in my speeches the challenges that employability services currently face and the challenges that those seeking work equally face. We have a duty to change that. That is why future employability services in Scotland have to have enough flexibility to achieve the desired aim for all in our society, but in particular for those facing additional barriers to the employment market. We also have to make sure that the jobs that people secure as a result of those services are fit for purpose and pay a decent wage for a decent day's work and that they do not use exploitative zero-hour contracts. We have a chance to change the way things have been done in the past when the new powers are delivered to this Parliament. I hope that we can take this opportunity. I move the amendment in my name. Many thanks and I now call on Gavin Brown. Seven minutes or so please. This is a critical debate. I think that employability is something that all of us need to be mindful of and think about deeply. It is something that the finance committee spent a lot of time over the last couple of years looking at through formal review, through a number of debates and a number of separate inquiries. I was struck by a quote from the improvement service when it was giving written evidence to the finance committee on the issue. It said that the bottom 20 per cent in school at age 15 performs as if they have five years less schooling than the top 20 per cent. The simple question then to ask is what chance does somebody have if they have approximately five years less schooling at that stage when they then want to try and go out to the world of work? It is critical that we look at what we are doing. We analyse carefully the results of what we are doing and make sure that we try to create sustainable employment for those furthest from the labour market. It creates the right outcomes for communities, it creates obviously the right outcomes for those involved, but if one were to look at it purely through the prism of the public finances, it also ensures that we get greater revenues and less pressure on public services. It is something that all of us ought to be thinking about and acting on over the short, medium and indeed the long term. I want to share with the chamber some of the conclusions of that committee report, some of the issues that I think are just as pertinent today as they were when that committee initially reported. The first one is that we all need to take a longer-term focus than we currently do. The UK Government and many Governments across Europe obviously want to make the numbers look good and we focus on what are known as positive initial destinations, usually interpreted as six months. What use is a positive initial destination if the long-term destination is just the ending of that employment after six months and somebody moving on to a different programme? It will take a brave Government to put more of a focus on the longer term because the results by their very nature won't be quite as impressive. You won't have as great figures after six months, but until we focus on the long term we could be putting people through different programmes that just repeat themselves and actually they're no better off afterwards. Secondly, the committee talked about the complexity of the landscape. I think that somebody wishes to give a year, of course. You're talking about the success of programmes for people that are long-term unemployed. The new deal programme prior to the work programme had a much higher success rate, yet the Conservative Government actually did away with that and brought in the work programme. Can you tell me why that happened? I'm not sure that I agree with the member. I read the National Audit Office report yesterday, which came out of the tail end of last year, which seemed to suggest that the work programme was marginally more successful than indeed the new deal programme at the time at which the report was written. It seemed to suggest also that the work programme was improving and was projected to improve in the coming years, so we might have to agree to disagree on that particular point. I talked about the complexity of the landscape. Part of that, of course, is due to the different layers of government, but even within layers of government, it was pretty obvious to those who gave evidence from the third sector and indeed the private sector that the landscape was too complex, and it would be interesting to know what progress has been made by the Scottish Government on that particular point. They set up a project known as the basis project, better alignment of Scotland's employability services. It would be useful in closing to hear from the minister what progress has been made there. We heard complaints about the fact that, for many of the third sector organisations involved in this, they still, even after years of discussion, only get single-year funding. It is almost impossible for those organisations to plan for the long-term and for their clients who have complex and long-term needs if they are only operating on a model of single-year funding. Councils were criticised—the NHS was criticised—to and others, but it appears to me that, while some progress may have been made, the majority of third sector organisations in the sphere are still operating on single-year funding when most government organisations have a three- or four-year funding mechanism in place. We need to develop a stronger evaluation culture. We need to look at the investment that has been made and establish what works. Sometimes, to be straightforward, we need to look at what does not work. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a 2010 study of all the initiatives in devolved nations, said that we are unable to conclude that there is unambiguous evidence that overall strategies composed of a variety of initiatives have worked. Of course, they may have improved slightly since then, but I think that the point still stands that, in terms of evaluation, not just this Government but that Governments more widely need to invest heavily in that, so that we actually pour resources into programmes that we know work as opposed to those that do not. Perhaps the last substantive point that was made in that committee report was that we need to get better at all of us at private sector engagement, engage with them proactively before the point of shaping the programme instead of creating the programme and hoping that we can get them involved afterwards. Particularly true for SMEs, who in most cases do not have a dedicated employee who will look at all the programmes and will have the support of their job. With the SMEs, who represent a huge proportion of the workforce, a huge proportion of the potential, it is critical that we have a greater engagement with them. My final minute. I just want to throw some questions back to the Scottish Government, because Siobhan McMahon raised a very fair point about apprenticeships for those with disabilities. The Inclusion Scotland briefing paper said that only 63 out of over 25,000 modern apprenticeships went to young disabled people. That is 0.2 per cent. A briefing note from the Scottish Children's Services Coalition suggested that it was 8.7 per cent in England. I do not know if those figures are correct, but if they are, that should be a huge wake-up call to all of us. In particular to those with direct responsibility. Why is it 8.7 per cent in England but 0.2 per cent in Scotland? Finally, in closing, I pose to the cabinet secretary during her contribution. The Youth Employment Scotland fund was heralded as a landmark development by this Government in 2012. It was the flagship policy of that year's budget. It said that it was going to create 10,000 jobs for young people. The simple question that I wanted to know was how many jobs have been created and what percentage of those people who are going through the programme are still in work. It is critical that we evaluate that. I was told that I should have asked this before the debate. The problem is that the question was asked before the debate. There was a PQ last year where Tavish Scott, I think it was asked specifically, and he was told that there was going to be a review, and it would be published in early 2015. I think that the early 2015 excuse has probably run out. I do hope that the Scottish Government can give us some clear figures, because they promised us 10,000 jobs. Let's hear what has actually happened before they start to judge the success of other Government's programmes better that they get their own house in order first. Thank you. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate. Could I remind members who have perhaps intervened to check that the request to speak buttons are pressed? I can give speeches of seven minutes to members. I call Gordon MacDonald to be followed by Dr Richard Simpson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The UK Government is currently responsible through the DWP for employment services in the form of the work programme for the long-term unemployed, and work choices for disabled people. The contract with providers of the work programme was due to expire in May 2016 and work choice by October 2015, but despite many organisations making representation to the Smith commission for devolution of those programmes, the UK Government extended the contracts to 2017. That would be understandable if the programmes were successful, but the national audit office in the report into the value for money aspects of the work programme dated July 2014 found that, in relation to the easier-to-help groups, this performance has not so far achieved the department's higher expectations and was approaching minimum performance levels. It was worse when they looked at the harder-to-help groups still below expectations and then highlighted that what that meant was that claimants on employment support allowance who had completed the programme had an 11 per cent success rate of employment, half the expected rate. Faced with the lack of success of helping the work programmes harder-to-help clients, the report found that providers' own estimates show that they plan to spend 54 per cent less on each participant in harder-to-help groups than when they bid. The report's conclusion on value for money found that, contrary to the intentions of the work programme, contractors are spending less money on people in those groups and there are signs that some people receive very little support. The work programme is also not working as the department intended in the way it rewards contractors for performance. Flaws and contracts and performance measures have led to unnecessary and avoidable costs. Given those findings, it does not make sense that UK Government through the DWP has extended the contracts to 2017. If we are to wait until 2017, we must use the time effectively to design an integrated support package that helps people back into work and reflects the needs of unemployed Scots and Scottish employers. Submissions to the Smith commission supported this approach. The child poverty action group highlighted the need for local solutions to unemployment. Devolution of the work programme potentially allows for programmes to be developed that are more suited to the local labour market, local skills and local employers, minimising the imposition of arbitrary and inappropriate job-seeking tasks that can undermine claimants' current efforts to move into work and create unnecessary risk of benefit sanction. However, devolving the work programme without wider powers relating to social security benefits and operation of jobcentre plus would limit the Scottish Parliament's ability to affect meaningful change. The employment-related services association also favoured the devolution of jobcentre plus. We would question whether it is feasible to conceive of a system whereby jobcentre plus remains a Westminster Government responsibility whilst employment support schemes are devolved to Scotland. All parts of the employment support system need to work in tandem with clarity about the overall customer journey. Responsibility for support at all stages understood by all players and with arrangements in place to allow systems to work effectively, including those related to data sharing. Any other arrangements risk a fragmented and expensive system insufficiently focused on moving people into work. Capability Scotland outlined the need to include welfare benefits. A new work programme which genuinely addresses the barriers that disabled people who are found fit to work face in securing employment and provides tailored support is desperately needed. Yet, if the Scottish Government itself introduced such an improvement scheme without having power over welfare benefits, there is no guarantee that those participating in the scheme would be protected from having their benefits sanctioned by the DWP. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations submission stated that, importantly, it has often been emphasised that the devolution of powers cannot be merely administrative in order to create the integrated coherent whole government approach we desire to help people into work. Scotland must have the power to both design and deliver employability services. Administrative power over the work programme would not support this ambition. One parent family Scotland saw the opportunity for a more integrated approach with existing devolved responsibilities, stating that the ability to design back-to-work support in partnership with current devolved spending budgets such as health and education would make services more joined up and with the capacity to be proactive. It is particularly important that workplace health, equality and decent employment are considered to be integral parts of back-to-work programmes and these could be more effectively pursued with enhanced devolution. The DWP programmes are failing Scotland and the new incoming UK Government should devolve all employment-related powers to Scotland in order that we can design a system that is fit for purpose and delivers for the people of Scotland. Dr Richard Simpson, to be followed by Chick Brody. You will appreciate that if I concentrate on people with disability or health problems as an area of expertise rather than straightforward employability, one in five of the Scottish population is disabled. That is around 1 million people. Although there has been a 10 per cent improvement in employment since the Disability Discrimination Act, the gap is still 30 per cent. As I understand it, there are three UK programmes in Scotland, the work programme, work choice and access to work. The work programme is not particularly relevant to disabled people, only tiny numbers go into it, it does not really work for them. Work choice does have a much higher success rate at 45 per cent, with Scotland outperforming the rest of the UK. Within that programme, the individual placement and support service IPS should be widely available through work choice because IPS integrates employment support into community mental health teams so that people can access health and employment in one place. The centre for mental health reports that the IPS model can achieve a success rate of 60 per cent compared to an average of 20 per cent for other approaches. However, in the last report that I read, 12 out of 59 Scottish constituencies or around 20 per cent, there was no one with mental health problems who found employment through the work programme, and that was compared with just 10 per cent of England's constituencies. One of the themes that I harp on about in this Parliament is that we must look at variation. I would ask the minister to take a close look at those areas where this is clearly not working. The third programme is access to work. This is a call centre-based system and some real horror stories that are emerging. It can take up to three months to get equipment and is only available for disabled people who actually have a job offer or start date. Disability Agenda Scotland's principles and names are fairness, respect, equality, dignity and autonomy for those with disability and who could disagree with that. DAAS has 10 asks, two of which are relevant to this debate today. Devolve and improve the access to work fully in parallel to the devolution of the work programme and support people to prepare for access and stay in meaningful paid job by broadening the function of job centre plus and employment programmes to include job readiness but also to include retention. DAAS has also called for a process with the work capability assessment for the employment support allowance to ensure that health and social barriers to employment are properly identified and information is shared with supported employment providers of choice. We do need a revision of the current payment by number system of simply getting jobs, the minister alluded to that. As a minimum, in the case of those with disability and certainly more severe disability, there are payments to agencies by the level of preparedness for employment as a staging measure. On the draft 22 clause, the Government will need to work hard and fast for stakeholders and I welcome much of what the minister said in creating a better system. We will need additional funding for areas of un-net need, especially for those people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. We also need widening of its scope to provide an on-going support for people at risk of falling out of the labour market. Really, it is all about equalisation of opportunity for those with disability. Peter White recently broadcast on the intertouch programme on radio 4, which I recommend us listening to anyone who is interested in those with partial sight or blindness. We had a graphic account of the difficulties faced by blind people due to ignorance and stigma facing those with blindness. We really need to work harder supporting employers to remove workplace barriers, helping them to understand the benefits of employing blind people. The Alliance report, My Skills, My Strengths, My Works shows just how much of a problem this is in the disability spectrum. The reduction in the full-time equivalent of disability special advisers by 30 per cent since 2011 really does not sit well with the UK Government's intention of work for all. That should be worked, and I would ask the Conservative member to take that message back. It is also regrettable that one in four of all sanctions are against those with disabilities, and we need more support for the help to work post-work programme. The question of the apprenticeships has been addressed by two speakers already, who have slightly stolen my thunder on that. I had different figures. I had 79 out of 26,000. Whatever they are, the minister has accepted that there is a problem there. We need to look at it very carefully. However, can I ask as a start that we should collect data on the different types of disability in relation to the data, because that is not being done at the present time? That is not a hard-fire step. We can then understand the problem and look at exactly why there is this difference between 8.6 per cent in England and 0.2 per cent in Scotland. We can maybe learn something from that. The other area in which I think that the Scottish Government can address is the European Social Fund, which is now running out. Many smaller organisations rely on ESF funding, and they are having to make staff redundant and cut provision for people with disabilities. The programme is only being delayed in Scotland, so we really need to again, the Government needs to look on that and make sure that funding is provided in time. The time has gone for organisations to have to have temporary redundancy notices issued to workers. Funding should be either continued by the Government from a different fund until they can make a decision, or it must be made at least four months before the end. Can I conclude, Presiding Officer, by saying that another area that needs to be addressed is getting offenders back into training and work? When I was minister, I introduced Apex to Balini, and I know that that has been developed by Roseanna Cunningham in her role previously as a justice minister, but we need to go further in that area. I would also recommend that we should look at the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The Howard League has had very good debates on this issue, showing that the expunging of offences needs to be reviewed fairly quickly. I am finishing, but I would take an intervention if that is all right. I am sorry, Presiding Officer. It was just to reassure the member that the issues that we are dealing with in the Community Jobs Scotland fund, the money that was announced this year, is quite carefully categorised. Although it supports 1,000 jobs, and they will be paid at living wage, it has to be said, 300 of those jobs were for vulnerable young people, for example care leavers and ex-offenders. We are looking quite carefully at that, and that is a very good programme that delivers exactly what it says on the tin. It is not employ our lead, which is the Youth Employment Scotland fund. My last sentence was to say that another group are looked after children, where there is a real problem, and that is another group. I thank the minister for that and welcome the fact that they are supporting the Labour amendment. I thank the Scottish Government for bringing forward this debate. I do wish to rehearse all of the Smith commission's statements on this, but it is worth repeating that it did state that the Scottish Parliament would have powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programmes that are currently contracted by the DWP and through the work programme and work choice, and that would be done on expiry of the current commercial arrangements. The Scottish Parliament would have the power to decide how it operated these core employment support services. Some would say that that was a vow. UK ministers in the last few months of the last Parliament, however, took the conscious decision to extend the programme to 2017, despite that vow. In March 2015, as the cabinet secretary will know, because she was there, the social justice secretary, Alex Neil, and herself met David Mundell to discuss the issue. In their statement following the meeting, they rightly called for the devolution of powers to build a more effective, targeted and fairer employability system at the earliest opportunity to allow us to continue to build a focused, sustainable and economic growth programme. It is disappointing that, despite the request that no action was taken before the dissolution of that Parliament, no cost assessment was arrived at of existing services. Presiding Officer, to allow Scotland to deliver effective employment support, we need all job creation powers and employment alignment powers in Scotland. It makes sense if all those powers are aligned, controlled and prioritised by this Parliament in line with the economic strategy. The work programme, frankly, is a dodo. It is not alive to the employability or the economic strategy that I mentioned. Its life extension is meaningless and, indeed, some might say mischievous. The Government did not even consider the Cambridge Policy Review, which was to look at the resource implications for employability provision across Scotland. We have set out the economic strategy and vision for Scotland. There are four key areas. Each of the four priority areas of Scotland's economic strategy—investment, innovation, inclusive growth and internationalisation—have a key role to improving the Scottish labour market and, therefore, the economy. Investment is key in people and in young people. It includes the implementation of the recommendations of the wood report and providing 30,000 new modern apprenticeships across Scotland by 2020. Innovation, establishing a fair work convention to draw on best practice and facilitate a joint approach with partners. Inclusive growth, the Scottish Government would continue to lead by example, advancing greater merit-based gender equality, ensuring all staff, covered by the Scottish Government pay policy, will receive the living wage, which now is rapidly becoming the liveable wage. The level of funded expansion of childcare from £475 to £600 per year will help those with young children to participate in the labour market intervention, and that is critical. In internationalisation, the global Scotland network of over 600 business leaders, entrepreneurs and executives across 51 countries, with the connection in Scotland, provides Scotland with invaluable insights and advice when doing business in particular markets and sectors. They are all initiatives that have the origins and plans in Scotland. In support of that, we have here the economic employability strategy, the action for jobs supporting young Scots into work. Scotland's youth employment strategy is giving young people the chance to channel their talent, enthusiasm and energy, the opportunities for all and so on. It indicates that, to be successful, we should have responsibility for all those programmes. It is not just the Scottish Government that supports the devolution of work programmes in full. Take the SCVO, for example, who responded to the decision of the UK Government to extend work programme contracts. We are utterly appalled by the UK Government's move to extend its work programme contracts when it was agreed by the Smith commission that it would transfer to the Scottish Parliament as soon as current contracts expired. The fact is that it is impossible to justify why such a broken and failing system would ever be continued. Still, it goes on. While the work programme is expected to come with a heavy hefty price tag of £3 billion to £5 billion, Community Jobs Scotland, which is delivered by the SCVO in partnership with the Scottish Government, has to date helped nearly 5,000 people into jobs at a cost of just £35 million. It went on. All the evidence tells us that the work programme simply does not work. In fact, only 18 per cent of people in the scheme actually get a job. We are completely dismayed by the delay in ridding Scotland of this exploitative, punitive and underperforming programme. We could go on about all the things that we have to do, but fundamentally, as in any business, as in any organisation, as in any association, alignment of a support service of employability to the end objective of economic growth, as we have in Scotland, is Parliament. The strategic direction of one strategy embracing Scottish agencies and programmes and the Scottish Employability Forum is the only way to allow us to grow our economy to create sustainable jobs above all and above all tackle the curse of inequality. Thank you. I call Margaret McCulloch to be followed by Stuart Maxwell. Can I refer members to my register of interests? Those of us who have got a background employability will remember a well-known line from the Peter Hawkins book The Art of Building Windmills. To be employed is to be at risk. To be employable is to be secure. This is a simplification, but there is a kernel of truth in what Peter Hawkins was saying. A worker on a zero hours contract can be employed, but, as we know, they are not necessarily secure. A worker on a casual or a temporary contract can be employed, but they are not necessarily secure. Even workers in high value, well-skilled jobs, can find that an economic shock, a dip in investor confidence, a spike in commodity prices or a corporate restructuring can deprive them of job security. Logically, workers and job seekers who are better skilled, better experienced and most able to adapt to changing labour market conditions are best able to secure employment and continue to receive an income. Yet the labour market is complex, people are different, our needs are not the same, society is unequal and the market sometimes defies logic and breaks orthodoxies. Opportunity and job security is not just about the sum of an individual's experience, skills and human capital. It can also be about the ambitions and obligations of an employer, the effectiveness of a trade union organisation in a workplace, the way in which labour markets are regulated, the performance of the economy as a whole and the performance of different sectors of the economy within it. The purpose of any progressive Government's employability strategy should not be to meet the change in needs of a grown economy but to ensure that we bring some security and some hope to those who are most at risk, least secure and furthers from the labour market. In doing so, I want to be clear that employability schemes cannot work in isolation. We cannot ignore the gap between the kind of economy that we want and the kind of economy that we have. We need a more holistic approach. We have to strengthen and demand our economy and we have to ensure that our employability programmes keep pace with the wider changes in the labour market. We are seeing the recovery but, as the Labour amendment suggests, the recovery isn't reaching everyone equally. As it says, almost one in six of our young people are locked out of employment and, according to the Office of National Statistics, 3 million people across the United Kingdom were under-employed last year, working fewer hours than they wanted to and maybe even less than they needed to. We have to build a better economy on firmer foundations, ending the abuse of zero-hours contracts, making work pay with a higher minimum wage and a living wage, raising productivity and growing our key industries. We must reshape our economy so that it is rich with jobs and opportunities, not just for some but for all. Full employment and fulfilling employment comes from promoting better employability hand in hand with a better balanced fairer modern economy. I welcome the further devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament by the Smith commission, particularly the full devolution of training. Implementing the value and putting this key element of the Smith commission into practice, we can deliver a more joined-up range of employability services here in Scotland, and we can find an alternative to the flawed and failing work programme. The SCVO has said that the immediate devolution of power to support people into employment should be followed by wider debate and how employment and employability support should be shaped. I hope that today's proceedings are part of that wider debate, because people's futures depend on us getting this right. The SCVO has highlighted the need for a new programme, which takes account of the distinctive Scottish labour market, but it has also highlighted regional variations within the labour market, too. I believe that the client group currently served with the work programme would be better served with a new scheme, which is more integrated with devolved services, but it also has to be more flexible. We need national standards and a national framework, but there must be a greater role for the councils and communities who understand their own local economies best. I also want to say a few words about apprenticeships. The modern apprenticeship programme is a crucial life-changing programme, and every young person who is qualified should have the chance to be part of it. The truth is that training providers will struggle to maintain the standards and numbers that we have come to expect from the programme unless there is a fundamental rethink of funding rates. Contribution rates have remained more or less static for 10 years, and under the new rates, some occupational errors will see cuts. I fear that some training providers might find that it is no longer economical for them to participate in the programme in the way they have done up till now. We cannot allow that to happen. Finally, let me once again welcome the additional powers that the Parliament is gaining to tackle unemployment and make those who are removed from the labour market more employable. We need a broader debate about how we put those powers to work for the people of Scotland, alongside the power that we already have, so that we can reshape our economy and build a recovery for all. Many thanks. I now call on Stuart Maxwell to be followed by Mark McDonald up to seven minutes. At the heart of the Scottish Government's work since 2007 has been the idea that, to create a fairer, more equal and prosperous society, we must ensure that everyone receives the training and employment opportunities that they require to succeed. That idea has been particularly relevant to our young people, and we have prioritised policies that help to equip our young people for work so that they can share the benefits of Scotland's economic success. I am proud of what we have been able to achieve with the limited powers of the Scottish Parliament. It is vital that we build on that success and continue to reduce levels of youth unemployment and improve access to fair work. Our ability to tackle poverty, create social mobility and to improve our economy starts with providing the best possible support to individuals as they move from school and on into work. That is why the Scottish Government introduced opportunities for all in April 2012 to ensure that all 16 to 19-year-olds are not already in employment, education or training are offered an appropriate place in learning or training. By November 2013, opportunities for all had already reduced the number of young people claiming job seekers allowance by almost 30 per cent. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to a further reduction of 40 per cent by 2020 that will maintain our position as one of the European Union's best performing nations in terms of youth unemployment. We have also been successful in developing the modern apprenticeship programme, which has offered support to almost 100,000 people over the past four years. Modern apprenticeships have played an important role in getting our young people into positive work destinations and to giving them the skills that they need to pursue their chosen career paths. I am sure that other members will join with me in welcoming the Scottish Government's year-on-year commitment to increasing the number of new modern apprenticeships to 30,000 by 2020. Mark McAllough Can you confirm that the increase to 30,000 new apprenticeships will reflect an increase in the funding that is committed to that and not just diluting the amount of funding that is already there for the 20,000 to stretch out to the 30,000? That is an intervention that you should have made to the cabinet secretary rather than a backbench MSP. However, the point here is that when the Labour Party was in power, it was less than half of that number. The increases that we have seen over the past seven years have been extraordinary. The investment in the modern apprenticeship scheme has been incredible. It has been a success and it ill-beholds members of the Labour Party to criticise a Government that has ambition for our young people when it did not do it. Those programmes are just an example of the range of actions taken by the Scottish Government to improve employment opportunities, particularly for young people. It is in large part because of those measures that youth unemployment in Scotland is now at its lowest level since 2009. However, we must also ensure that when people do take up employment, they are paid a fair wage for a fair day's work. Adam Smith theorised that it is imperative for social progress to accompany economic progress, and that a worker's wages should be at least sufficient to maintain them and their family. Yet many families in recent years have had their personal finances put under increasing pressure because of stagnating wages and Westminster's mismanagement of the economy. The Scottish Government has therefore led by example in paying the living wage to all staff covered by the public sector pay policy. Work undertaken by the Scottish Government in conjunction with the poverty alliance has also led to the creation of a living wage accreditation scheme for private companies. Over 100,000 employees are now covered by the scheme, with McKean developments, a small business within my region in Barhead being the 100th accredited company. The work undertaken by the poverty alliance in this regard has been vital to implementing the Scottish Government's strategy. Undoubtedly, the issue of employability is important for the future economic success of the country. To ensure the success, we need to not only seek consensus with outside organisations but also here in the chamber. For instance, in the submission to the Smith commission, the Labour Party called for the work programme to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and I welcome that. Margaret Curran MP also echoed the SNP's submission in hoping that the work programme would be devolved immediately. I was in agreement with her when she stated that Scotland has been failed by the work programme, with as few as 15 per cent of people on the programme in some parts of Scotland finding a job. I suspect that that is the first and possibly last time that I will quote Margaret Curran. However, I am sure that Ms Curran's Labour colleagues in the chamber today will join us in expressing disappointment that UK ministers have refused to cancel the renewal of the work programme contract in Scotland, resulting in the delay to the devolution of the programme to the Scottish Government until 2017. That delay is entirely contrary to the Smith commission recommendations that the programme would be devolved to Scotland as soon as the current contract expired. The UK Government has also failed to provide vital information about the programme that would enable the Scottish Government to move forward in redesigning how the service could work. Despite those unnecessary and unfortunate delays, the Scottish Government will press ahead with the redesign of the service in preparation for the devolution of it in 2017. I am aware that one of the primary criticisms of Westminster's handling of the work programme was the lack of engagement between the UK Government and the relevant stakeholders. In light of that, it is important for the Scottish Government to ensure that stakeholders are adequately consulted in developing any future policy, so that a programme is created that genuinely delivers for its users. I am confident that the Scottish Government will take all the necessary steps to encourage an open and constructive dialogue with the relevant organisation in taking their plans forward. In conclusion, the Education and Culture Committee has already discussed a number of issues relating to improving employability through the education system. Not only have we taken evidence on the commission for developing Scotland's young workforce, we have also discussed the educational attainment gap and the role of employers on that issue. As other committee members are aware, examining the Scottish Government's role in introducing the educational attainment gap will take up a significant and important part of the committee's upcoming work programme. We all have a responsibility to ensure that this Parliament is providing the best possible support for people who are moving into work. I am confident that, with a collaborative and consensual approach, we can all deliver lasting benefits for the people of Scotland. Many thanks. We have quite a bit of time in hand this afternoon, time for interventions and indeed invention. I now call on Mark McDonald to be followed by Colin Beattie. Always dangerous to say that at the beginning of one of my contributions, Presiding Officer, but I think that most people who undertake an objective analysis of Scotland's economy at present would recognise the progress that is being made, employment increasing by 46,000 over the last year and, at the same time, unemployment falling by 14,000 to a level of 70,000 below its recession peak in 2010 and youth unemployment at its lowest level since 2009. That last statistic is an important one, because the Scottish Government, uniquely among the Governments of the islands, took decisive action on youth employment by appointing a minister with responsibility for youth employment. I do not think that it would be a stretch to look at the strong performance in Scotland in driving down youth unemployment and the appointment of that Government position to focus and channel efforts both within Government and wider Scotland to tackle youth employment, but we recognise and I think that all of us in this chamber would recognise that while there has been progress and while that progress is welcome, work still remains to be done and we cannot rest in our laurels in that respect. I think that both the cabinet secretary and the minister have shown in the work that they have done since taking up office that that is certainly the position that they take. I note the briefing that we received from SCVO, which spoke about the work that the third sector is providing in terms of employability support across Scotland through successful programmes, and they say that they believe that the sector has the drive, the vision and the ability to create a supportive, empowering environment, supporting people making their journey back into work or into their first job. What I would like to do is explore a couple of examples, local examples, from within my constituency, which I think demonstrate strong work by third sector organisations, which perhaps are an example of good practice that could be looked at as models to be looked at elsewhere within Scotland. The first, and I believe that the minister has visited them, is the station house media unit, or SHMU, which is based in Woodside in my constituency. SHMU offers a variety of different things from community radio and publications through to what is called SHMU train, which sounds like an innovative transportation method, but is actually its programme of delivering training and employability services to young people within hard-to-reach communities. They do that via their accredited SQA centre, and they have been delivering the employability awards since October 2012, and they expect in the near future to be delivering qualification awards in radio, music and film, but they have two specific programmes that they operate through the SHMU train initiative. The first is early interventions, which is for those in school who are identified as being in high risk of not securing a positive destination on leaving school. The other is positive transitions, which is a 12-week training course supporting 16 to 19-year-olds to overcome barriers, develop core skills, identify opportunities and progress to a positive destination of either employment, education or training. The positive transitions programme targets and engages young people between age 14 to 16 in school who exhibit early identifiers such as learning difficulties, lower literacy and numeracy skills, lack of confidence and intermittent attendance. They engage young people and encourage their re-engagement by providing motivating and appealing opportunities to build on their interests and challenge themselves, because many of those individuals who would be struggling at that stage are perhaps those who do not demonstrate either a desire or an aptitude for some of the more academic subjects within the curriculum, and the work that SHMU does channels the interests of those individuals to ensure that they can fulfil their potential. The last figures that I have seen is that of the participants that have taken part, an 82.5 per cent success rate has been achieved in getting them to go on to a positive destination. They have a programme within Northfield academy in my constituency that has enabled young people to work on a project in conjunction with SHMU Press, which is another element offered by SHMU, producing a youth page for the Coming North community magazine, which goes out in the Cummings Park area of my constituency. Positive transitions take part in weekly employability sessions, working on CV writing, interview presentation and job search skills. The course encourages them to focus on issues such as attendance and timekeeping, confidence, communication skills, personal presentation, appropriate language and behaviour are all monitored and addressed during that course. The aim is to have young people job-ready so that they can sustain employment, not just gain but sustain employment within the labour market following completion of the course. The success rate over the period 2009-12 that I have figures for was a success rate of 72.5 per cent. Having met a number of the individuals at graduation during the positive transitions programme, I am always struck by the difference when you see the videos that they recorded at the beginning of the process and the young people who are there graduating from the process at the end. I want to also talk briefly about pathways, which are a charity that was formed in 1998 and based on manner in my constituency, which delivers support to people to encourage participation in lifelong learning and promote positive mental health by removing barriers to employment. Since they began, they have helped more than 1,100 people find work, supported 700 people through counselling and provided adult learning classes to more than 1,000 people. They receive support from a mixture of sources and what they seek to do is assist service users to secure a job or training that is right for them, assist with CV development, interview preparation and application form completion and ensure that those people again are able to make that transition into the workplace. One final area that I would like to focus on is autism, which people will know is a very strong interest of mine. Something that needs to be done in relation to supporting individuals with autism, but also supporting employers. One of the things that we have to focus on, as well as the employability support for the individual, is support for employers to make the necessary alterations or changes to the workplace environment that can enable particularly individuals on the autistic spectrum not just to gain but to sustain employment. There are a number of individuals on the autistic spectrum who would be a great asset to any workforce. They have a range of skills and aptitudes that employers can take advantage of. One of the things that can be looked at is that often jobs that could be considered to be boring or repetitive to many people and can often be very difficult to fill and to keep filled can be jobs that individuals on the autistic spectrum can fill and enjoy partaking of. In terms of interviews, interviews are often difficult for individuals on the autistic spectrum. Maintaining of eye contact is often a challenge and they can often come across as nervous and under prepared. Support for those individuals needs to be put in place, but also support for employers so that they recognise the difficulties that may be faced. For example, one thing that I have seen recently at the Young Scotland's Got Talent event was the MyVideo CV app, which had been created through Values into Action Scotland, which allowed individuals to record a CV that offers the opportunity for the employer to see that individual and understand their skills. Those are things that we should promote more widely and would be of great benefit. Employability in Scotland, much as in any country, is a crucial indicator of the strength of the economy. It is also one of the key components in eradicating poverty and ensuring quality throughout our society. We know that unemployment in young people can have tremendously damaging long-term effects. From a financial perspective, someone who is unemployed at a young age is more likely to suffer low wages and further unemployment in their career. That is not to speak of personal issues that are likely to arise, including poorer health, lower job satisfaction and greater susceptibility to depression. When combined, those negative effects are liable to make it very difficult for someone to find sustainable employment. The Scottish Government's youth employment strategy is quite clearly a range of practicable, focused and sensible measures that will provide the necessary steps for Scotland's young people to join the employment market. The global financial crisis in 2008 set employment opportunities back drastically, but the Government's response is bearing fruit. As the cabinet secretary set out in the document entitled developing the young workforce Scotland's youth employment strategy, the ambition is to improve youth employment levels from beyond where they were before 2008 and to reduce 2014 levels of youth unemployment by 40 per cent in the next six years. That can be done through a range of steps. The report by the commission for developing Scotland's young workforce concluded that we need to fundamentally examine how a range of learning that leads to a wide variety of jobs can be provided, promoted and valued. At the most basic level, employment opportunities have to begin with an educational experience that is vocationally relevant and focused. In order to achieve that, we must seek the input of employers and councils alike. When we examine the situation, we can see that some of the groups in our society clearly suffer from a greater lack of employment opportunities than others. Four out of every 10 young people who attain qualifications at SQF level 3 or below become unemployed upon leaving school. Young people from our minority communities comprise only 2 per cent of all modern apprenticeship entrants, despite those communities representing 6 per cent of all young people. By the time young people with a declared or assessed disability reach the age of 26, they are four times as likely to be unemployed as their non-disabled peers. One in three looked after children will be unemployed nine months after leaving school. We really must look after them better. It is obvious that the Scottish Government's work policy needs to ensure parity for all to end this inequality, and if we engage with councils and employers we can find the means. The Government's work with employers is already beginning to pay dividends. Many employers are now encouraged to work towards the Investors and Young People award following its recent launch. Rob Woodward, the chief executive of ITV, is chairing the national invest in young people group, which has been tasked with the implementation of regional invest in young people groups. Those local groups will create a bridge between employers and education, supporting employers and employing young people, while providing a resource for teachers and practitioners. The first regional invest in young people group was launched in Glasgow in February and includes representatives from Scottish Water, NHS Greater Glasgow and the Clyde and Weir group. I look forward to seeing this initiative spread through the rest of the country, and in particular my constituency of Midlothian North and Musselwyr. In fact, the positive steps that the Scottish Government is taking are already beginning to show positive results in my constituency. The most recent Skills Development Scotland update for Midlothian includes some examples of that. Looking at some of the statistics taken from April to September 2014, in Midlothian, SDS funded 223 modern apprenticeship starts, while there were 625 modern apprentices in training. SDS provided over 3,100 career information and guidance engagements to more than 1,600 people in this period and also funded 128 people through the employability fund, helping to support their pathway into work. The figures for East Lothian are no less impressive. Over the same period, 240 modern apprenticeship starts were funded, resulting in 639 modern apprentices in training. Almost 3,000 career information and guidance engagements were provided to over 1,700 people, and SDS funded 120 people through the employability fund over the months. Of course, this is just a snapshot of where we are at present. There is much more work to be done if we are to hit our target of reducing youth unemployment by 40 per cent by 2021. The Government's roadmap clearly lays out the steps that will be taken in the coming years to reach this ambitious but achievable target. For young people, we will be taking the approach of ensuring that they have as much information as possible about the opportunities provided by developing the young workforce programme. This approach will ensure that Scotland's young people are aware of the possibilities available to them going forward from school unless they can maximise their potential. By the second year of the programme, it is expected that there will be more opportunities in place for young people to undertake learning that connects directly to employment by means such as school, college partnerships. By the third year, more schools will be developing a broader range of qualifications in partnership with colleges and other providers. There will be more partnerships between employers and schools to inform curriculum design and delivery and to provide work-related learning experiences. By the seventh year of the programme, we should see enhanced employer satisfaction, more young people completing vocational qualifications and achieving qualifications at a higher level and, ultimately, more young people across Scotland progressing from secondary schools to college, training, university and employment. We will also work with employers to expand work-based learning via the modern apprenticeship scheme. Such apprenticeships are one of the most fundamental ways of providing work-based skills, experience and qualification while in employment. By the seventh year of the programme, there will be at least 30,000 new modern apprenticeship starts each year, while the investment in young people's groups will be firmly established, resulting in significantly increased levels of sustained employment among young people. In conclusion, the Scottish Government has a clear commitment to fairness, equality and social justice, and we can help to achieve that by working with employers, local authorities and the education sector to give the next generation the tools that they need to get a head start on their working lives. By ensuring that no one is left out, for example by the introduction of this year's Equality's pilot action that creates new opportunities for those from currently underrepresented groups or next year's publication of the Scottish Funding Council's plan to reduce gender imbalances on courses and the necessary steps are being taken to safeguard the futures of all Scotland's young people. I am pleased to take part in this debate and to take this opportunity to highlight some of the issues that are faced in my region in Dumfries and Galloway around employment and employability and some of the approaches that are being developed in order to address them. I think that there are examples there of good practice and they also demonstrate the importance of local flexibility in service delivery. In advance of developing its new economic strategy, Dumfries and Galloway Council commissioned the Crichton Institute a collaborative venture between the Crichton campus academic institutions and their widened partners in the business, local government, health and voluntary sectors to carry out a baseline study of the local economy. The findings of this research were not a great surprise to those of us who live in the region but they are worth repeating as I think they indicate the scale of the issues that our region faces in both growing the economy and in tackling unemployment and underemployment, which is a problem in the region too. As in many rural areas, overall economic productivity of Dumfries and Galloway is relatively low. The gross value added per hour worked at just 82 per cent of the Scottish average. The workforce is less well qualified than the Scottish average. 20 per cent of the population is educated to the degree level compared to 30 per cent across Scotland. The proportion of people of working age with no qualifications is 12 per cent, whereas the national average is 6 per cent. I wonder if the member is perhaps not looking at the benefits of the kind of structure she has in her constituency, as I do in parts of mine, in that we cannot simply measure contribution by pounds and pence. If we have an older population, people will be supporting that older population. That will have an economic benefit, but more fundamentally we are supporting society and the people in it. I suggest that the member might, like me, not wish to measure things simply by economic measures alone. I have to say to the member that those are not my measurements. This is the research that is produced by the Crichton Institute as a baseline, what they were telling us. They also said that there is an evidence of under-employment increasing in the region 10 years ago. 75 per cent of those people in Dumfries and Galloway were in full-time employment, but that has now fallen to two thirds. That is people of working age, I should say. On top of that, Dumfries and Galloway has the lowest wage economy in Scotland. Average earnings are 15 per cent lower than the Scottish average, with average weekly earnings now at £342 per week. That is a particular challenge in a rural area because of the higher costs of transport and other services. The Centre for Research and Social Policy found that a family with two children living in a small town in South Scotland actually require an income 25 per cent higher than they would in a comparable urban area to enjoy the same standard of living. In addition to that, youth unemployment in Dumfries and Galloway is consistently above the Scottish nuke averages. All those factors adapt to a significant challenge to develop a more resilient, diverse, inclusive and better-connected local economy to provide better-paid, higher-skilled full-time employment and to increase the skills level of the local workforce so that it can benefit from economic growth in the region. Tackling low pay also has to be a priority whether it is arising from zero-hour contracts or from poor rates of pay. Several initiatives are being developed to address those issues. Over the next five years, a combination of the council funding and European grants will fund the Council's economic inclusion programme, the centre of which will be a youth guarantee for Dumfries and Galloway. That will guarantee that every young person leaving school is becoming unemployed, a place in employment, continued education and apprenticeship or traineeship within four months of leaving education or employment. The young entrepreneur scheme, which helps young people to set up businesses, is to be expanded to include a programme of aftercare to help those businesses to survive and grow. Dumfries and Galloway's total access point, known by the action in TAP, is to be expanded to support more local businesses. TAP is a partnership between Dumfries and Galloway Council, the Department of Work and Pensions, Skills Development Scotland and the local colleges, which provides a single point of contact to support the recruitment needs of local businesses. It was developed after listening to the needs of businesses, particularly small and micro businesses, as 90 per cent of the almost 6,000 businesses in the region have a workforce of 10 or fewer. The local employability partnership, also involving the council, the local colleges, the third sector, Skills Development Scotland, the princes trust and Job Centre Plus, provides a range of employability services across the region. That support includes one-to-one support to assist people who want to get back into work or training. Locally built-based link workers provide confidential advice and support, examining the barriers that can prevent people from achieving the employment that they desire and how those barriers can be overcome. Obviously, when people have disabilities and so on, that type of support can be particularly helpful. A team of employability link workers is dedicated to supporting young people aged 16 to 18, helping to develop their skills, providing access to a range of tailored activities that could be addressed in numeracy and literacy needs, possibly writing a CV, but also helping people to identify the strengths that they have got to offer an employer. Scottish Labour's proposals for a futures fund of 1,600 people for all 18 and 19-year-olds would provide further help, which could be crucial in rural areas. For example, in helping a young person to gain a driving licence, often in necessity for work in a rural area, they offer getting to work. There has been frustration in Dumfries and Galloway over the years that the national organisations Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland have been perceived as having a one-size-fits-all approach, more appropriate for the central belt and urban Scotland, which does not work well for small rural businesses. I am told that this is changing and that there is now a recognition that regional equity has been missing in economic policy and national business support, and that is very welcome. For example, as I said earlier, 90 per cent of the businesses in Dumfries and Galloway employ 10 people or fewer. Many of those businesses would love to take on a modern apprentice, but they do not have the capacity to do so. That was highlighted in the finance committee report to which Gavin Brown referred. Being able to share an apprenticeship with another small business in the same line of business could provide these employers with trained workers for the future and give young people the chance to develop their skills and employability. We need national action on low pay, the ending of zero-hour contracts, the implementation of the living wage rather than the minimum wage. However, those developments that are already under way in Dumfries and Galloway demonstrate the importance of local expertise in developing employability strategies. Power over many of those decisions is best devolved to local authorities and their partners. Like Mark McCulloch, I therefore hope that further powers over employment, as those are devolved to this Parliament, powers will also be further devolved to local authorities to equip them to provide the services that they identify their areas as needing. Presiding Officer, I am delighted to be following Dr Elaine Murray. I would also like to consider the issues in my rural community, although I hasten to add that I am a little bit nearer Aberdeen. Therefore, I think that the average wage is a little bit higher as a consequence. In order for folk to find a job, of course, there has to be a job there. In order to make any sense of all of this, we therefore need sustainable economic growth. However, rural communities need jobs that are local jobs. The difficulty that we have is that people have moved out of obvious forms of employment over the years. I am not sure quite how far back we would have to go when people moved off the land. It was probably a century, I suggest. People have now also moved out of the large factories, mostly across landscape. Folk are now actually moving out of the high streets. Shops are closing down because we no longer shop like that. Those kinds of businesses are not coming back. We do not only have to look after our high streets, but we have to recognise that people finding employment have to find ways of bringing jobs to them. Otherwise, commuting is not just going to be the norm, it is actually going to be necessary. If you have got to move or a job has got to come to you, you are at a disadvantage if you have children, if you have disabilities or you are unskilled. None of that is remotely remarkable and it has all been talked about before. I think that the point that I would like to make is that unless we address education and skills, then employability services are not going to take us very far. We actually have to have more people who are more employable in order to create the economic growth which is necessary and which is the solution to the employability problem itself. I would also briefly make the point that mental health issues and they have been discussed already are hugely important in this. I am not sure how many colleagues have actually been made redundant or been unemployed for a while. I do have that t-shirt. Actually being unemployed is a mental health issue, regardless of the opportunities that you actually face. So picking up on what Gavin Brown I think very hopefully introduced us to earlier, education is a key. Long-term thinking is necessary for governments across every realm. We do have to get through this single year funding for services. It does not use to anybody. We do need long-term evaluation of what is going on and this does give me an opportunity just to say to governments again, longitudinal studies really do provide long-term data which gives you some clues as to what is going on, otherwise you are guessing. I was grateful to Richard Simpson for his comments about equalisation of opportunity because of course an employer is instinctively and quite automatically going to go for the employee who provides the greatest flexibility which means they are automatically looking for the flip side of any disability because that reduces flexibility. You do not have to be unkind or ungracious about that. If there is a choice you are going to go where flexibility allows you to go. The issue of disabled folk getting into apprenticeships has already been well-ed. I am glad that is the case. That really does need to be explored. I would like to go a little bit beyond that because those who might be going to get apprenticeships are actually quite close to employment. My concern really is those within my communities who are not close to employment because I think those are the folk we need to worry about. A brief thought on the way about the living wage. I do not understand why we have a difficulty in recognising that living wage is an economic necessity. How on earth can we justify people being in work in poverty? I mean just to say it makes a point that something is wrong somewhere and we then have a position where governments whatever level are actually subsidising bad employers. I am sorry guys that has just got to be wrong and I am just wondering when we will actually collectively get our minds around that they really must deal with that. If the UK government thinks that the living wage is too high for its minimum wage the UK government just needs to understand it's wrong. Now looking at programmes getting folk into work I would like to suggest that arguably that is merely a state sponsored recruitment service because if all those employment services do is to put people into jobs which already exist then actually those folk could have found those jobs anyway we're merely facilitating it. The added value of an employment service I'd like to suggest for a providing officer is ensuring that folk who are close to being able to get those jobs are upskilled in whatever sense we have to take the word in such a way that the economic expansion can take place via new jobs and if we keep our eye on that I think there's a much better chance that we'll provide the right kind of services I think Margaret McCulloch made some very interesting points about that. So what we need is a holistic approach which looks at the individual and says why is this person not able to get a job and how do we improve their employability in such a way that jobs will be able to be created around them and they will be able to do them rather than merely displacing somebody else who might otherwise do that job. I'd like to return therefore to the issue of mental health. Made the point earlier I know fine well from my own experience simply being unemployed creates a mental health issue. If being unemployed leaves you in a position where you don't think you will be employable that gives you a bigger mental health problem. That is itself a barrier to doing the things that you should do to change your skills to look for jobs and to widen yourself to the opportunities that they might be. I'm picking up here on experience of course from constituents. Constituents who find themselves going to the to well in fact often going to the CAB as well as ourselves but who've gone to the job centre to be told they should apply for this that and the other job because if they don't apply for them they won't get their job seekers allowance. They're applying for jobs that they're never going to take they're never going to get ones that may be a significant distance away. A lady in Montrose who was told that she should be looking for a job in Perth. Now if you happen to be able to walk to the station at both ends then that's merely an hour's journey in 16 pound 70 a day. If you've got any kind of transport problem at either end that's probably very difficult unless you're seeking a relatively highly paid job which by definition the person probably isn't. There are all sorts of barriers simply due to transport due to family requirements and due to the say to mental health issues which folk in rural communities find much more difficult to work their way around than they do in urban areas. So let me conclude there Presiding Officer making a special plea that whatever it is we do we bear in mind that the city opportunity is very much easier for folk than the opportunity in rural communities and we must address that through the systems that we set in place. Thank you. Thank you very much. I now call on Lewis MacDonald to be followed by Richard Lyle. Thank you very much. The Government's motion today talks of effective and targeted employment support for individuals, their families and communities and of the importance of collaboration and engagement in making that happen. Siobhan McMahon and others have spelled out a number of specific actions that are required to support those furthest from the labour market and the importance of making work pay and promoting safety at work and I'm glad that the Government has accepted Labour's amendment along those lines. But if employment support is to deliver for individuals and their communities that must also include people already in work who are faced with the prospect of losing their jobs. Sadly there are all too many people in Scotland today who are in that position. We heard yesterday that hundreds of paper workers at Tullus Russell faced redundancy hard on the heels of Scottish powers decision to close the power station at Lunganneth next year. Both those closures will have a major impact on their local communities in the next few months and both will require urgent action by all levels of government working together. The biggest test of the Scottish Government's approach this year however will be in the oil industry in the northeast. Nowhere is there a more pressing example of the need for government action to help workers to continue to have the opportunity to work. Today's Aberdeen evening express reports nearly 400 further jobs at risk at Petrofac Wood Group and Amac. Those are only the latest in a long list of company announcements of job losses in the sector in the last few months. Thousands of jobs have already gone as major employers have shed either contractors or directly employed staff in response to a low oil price wiping out the short-term profitability of most of the North Sea. Many more jobs have gone from companies in the supply chain and many thousands more remain at risk. The question in relation to today's debate is whether the Scottish Government and its agencies are indeed providing the targeted employment support that people need and whether the right levels of collaboration and engagement are being achieved to make that happen. We are on the side called for urgent responses from both the Scottish and UK Government as the oil price began its dramatic fall at the end of last year. We argued for a resilience fund to allow local councils to support supply chain companies in the face of sudden economic shocks and Aberdeen City Council hosted a summit to address the oil jobs crisis. The Scottish Government supported that summit, although it did not support the resilience fund and it announced that it would set up an energy jobs task force with Lena Wilson of Scottish Enterprise in the chair. That was welcome and so, too, was the PACE initiative that followed and which organised a jobs fair for oil industry workers at Potardry five weeks ago. That oil jobs fair attracted some 850 people reflecting the sheer scale of job losses and insecurity in the sector. The PACE approach of cross-agency working is the right starting place. It reflects an approach of collaboration and engagement, but it is not enough on its own. Government's approach to the oil jobs crisis has to be not just about supporting those who have lost their jobs, but it also has to be how to limit the number of redundancies in the first place. It is good that the energy jobs task force has also begun to address some of the other issues that affect security of employment in the sector. Just as Nigel Donne said that you need sustainable economic growth to achieve employability, so you need sustainable employment policies in order to maintain jobs that already exist. The issue, I think, is how far the good intentions expressed by Government and its partners are reflected in the actions that follow. The minutes of the March meeting of the energy jobs task force were published earlier today. The show, for example, an oil industry employer making the case for increased trade union representation. He was right that trade unions are indeed best placed to reflect the actual experience and concerns of workers faced with the risk of redundancy, and I am glad that UNITE, the RMT and the STUC are all involved in the energy jobs task force. However, we have seen decisions and proposals from major employers and from the Offshore Contractors Association to change the terms and conditions of workers offshore in ways that could damage confidence in the industry among some of its most experienced employees. If those proposals go through, many offshore workers who currently work two weeks on with three weeks off will be faced with a change to three on and three off without the agreement of their trade unions. That could well have the result that many older more experienced workers decided that it is no longer worth their while to continue working offshore. That potential loss of experience and expertise could prove difficult to replace. A very pertinent issue for those of us concerned with employability, particularly in this case in relation to older workers. The energy jobs task force adopted a new objective last month to encourage and influence flexible approaches to employment that limit job losses and avoid losing skills and talent vital in the medium term. That is very welcome. It could mean, for example, offering experienced workers more choices over their working hours, securing their continuing employment and the opportunity for younger workers to continue to benefit from their experience. That is the approach that we require in employability policy going forward, a flexible approach to the workforce that makes jobs available to more people than would otherwise be the case. However, if the reality in the offshore sector is quite different, longer shifts offshore, fewer colleagues working will make life harder for older workers and put the skills and talent required for the future more at risk. So the test for employers and for the Scottish Government and its agencies is to turn the right words about employability and future jobs into the right actions. If Government and employers practice what they preach, they can make a real difference to prospects of employment for people young and old, not just in the energy industry today but right across the economy in the future. As a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I hope that my remarks on this chamber to this afternoon will look at this debate from a different angle and widen the scope of discussion. I believe that it is important from the outset to remember that, while employment services are still a reserved issue, the Scottish Government is taking a number of steps with the powers of devolution that it has to develop an approach to employment support that delivers our ambitions for fair work, social justice and sustainable economic growth. Indeed, in Scotland's economy strategy, investment, innovation, inclusive growth and internalisation have a key role to playing the improvement of the Scottish labour market. In particular, I would like to focus on the aspect of investment, as the key actions within the strategy are to implement the recommendations of the commission for the development of Scotland's young workforce. A pioneering piece of work commissioned by this Government that I will, I believe, truly deliver a better future for Scotland's young people and, in addition, as part of the youth employment strategy, this Government has increased the number of modern apprentices delivered to 25,000 and the Government plans to increase that to 30,000 by the year 2020. That is the difference between this Government and Labour. We deliver for Scotland's young people from our policy on opportunities for all, which is an explicit commitment to an offer of a place in learning or training to every 16, 19-year-old who is not currently employment education or training. We are the only Government in the UK to have a dedicated youth employment minister who is working towards our goal of cutting youth unemployment by 40 per cent by the year 2021 and, of course, exceeding our manifesto commitment to maintain 116,000 full-time equivalent college places and providing the best student support in the UK. That, indeed, in stark contrast to half-hearted commitments by the Scottish Labour Party, who claim in that motion to bring an end to insecure employment with a ban on exploitative zero-hour contracts. If that is not an example of hypocrisy, I do not know what is. I am not alone. Where the Labour Party claimed to aim exploitative zero-hour contracts, how can they defend that? Apart from Mr McMacdon, who, on admission this afternoon, admitted that Labour controlled Glasgow City Council, where almost 1,700 workers are a city council and its allios are currently on zero-hour contracts with no sign of a council helping them, a Labour council. It is clear, Presiding Officer, that the Labour Party says one thing and does another. However, the SNP Government does what it says and knew that that would certainly annoy them. That is why, on May 7, the people of Scotland will reject Labour and their vision for continued austerity. We will look again at the actions of the SNP Government, who have led by example in being the first Scottish Government to ensure that all staff covered by public sector pay policy are paid at least the Scottish living wage. They do not like it when you tell the truth, and that is the one thing that I love about the Labour Party. They never like it. Since 2011-12, the SNP Government covers 180,000 people in Scotland working for central government agencies and the NHS. While Labour continues to pontificate, we have continued to make clear our support of the principle of the living wage campaign, as well as the SNP Government continuing to encourage public, private and third sector organisations to ensure that all staff are paid a decent and fair wage. However, the Scottish Government cannot set pay levels of those employees who are not covered by the Scottish Government pay policy. We continue to not only be pioneering in our approach, but we are also the party that is delivering for Scotland. I would like to make reference at this point in my remarks, Presiding Officer, to the inclusion of Scotland beefing, which was helpful in providing in that that they highlighted the Smith's commission's proposal. The Scottish Parliament will have all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programme, currently contracted by DWP. However, both the narrative and the draft clauses appear to restrict us power, to employ in its support schemes that last over a year. It is not clear why that restriction has been included and it appears to be a direct contradiction of the Smith's commission proposals. I, like many others in this chamber, will tend to agree with the view of inclusion Scotland. It is indeed important that what the Smith's commission proposes for the Scottish Parliament is what is delivered for this Scottish Parliament. That is surely what was agreed through the Smith's commission processes. That is why it is even more crucial that we elect a strong team of SNP MPs to ensure that we get what we were promised during the referendum, the closest thing to federalism and home rule. If, on 7 May, Scotland elects a strong bloc of SNP MPs, it will support targeted reductions to employers' national insurance contributions to support job creation and the extension of the living wage. It will support action to make work fair, including ending unfair and exploitive zero-air contracts, and SNP MPs will back a minimum wage of £8.70 by 2020 and support extending measures to extend the living wage across the UK. That is what the people of Scotland get by voting SNP on 7 May. In my remarks, I have highlighted the many actions that this Government has taken to deliver change and a fairer future for Scotland's young people, but more generally in delivering for Scotland's future workforce. I believe that we are a party and a Government that is delivering not only for the people of Scotland, but for the future of Scotland, and it is time that the Labour Party woke up to that fact. I now call on Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Margaret McGoogle. Up to eight minutes, please, Mr Stevenson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is quite interesting to find that we can make such action on the broad sweep of policy common cause with our colleagues to the left. I very much welcome that. I looked at the amendment and I thought to myself that I could see words in it that the Government might pick at and so on and so forth, but when we put the people of Scotland who have the category of problems that we are debating today into the mix, it is right and proper that we try and build some consensus. I want to try and do that, if I may. Perhaps one of the things that we should think about is labels. We have quite a lot of labels that have been kicking around in the debate that we have used. We talk about young people, we talk about disabled people, and we haven't, funnily enough, talked about old people. I speak as the third old person in the debate today. I'll be 17 next year, although someone said to me quite recently, but I'm very young, so maybe I'm both young and old simultaneously. I simply don't know. There are a number of groups that we haven't talked about. Richard Simpson and my colleague Nigel Don did talk about people who suffer degrees of mental ill health, and I think that Siobhan MacMahon also made reference to that. We have to make sure that, when we look at people with mental health, when we look at people who are recovering from addictions, when we look at people who have come out of the criminal justice system, when we look at people who have particular literacy and numeracy problems, when we look at people who, for whatever reason, are not comfortable with, perhaps through disability, perhaps through lack of access with modern technology, we've got a wide range of different issues and that brings us to the heart of the matter. We're not talking about categories, we're actually talking about individuals. We're going to solve the problems that faces in this area of public policy one person at a time, and with each person we have to make sure that we develop what is appropriate for them to help them. Work is an important part of most people's lives, but not because it provides economic security, although it has to do that, but because it puts in the mind of people who work a value. It says, you are valued, you are making a contribution. I think that work has a purpose, but that purpose is not to build a stronger economy, that purpose is not to increase taxation, that is to help the individuals, it's about making sure that they have that sense of purpose. People have been out of work for some considerable time, and bringing to the issue of re-engaging with work or engaging with work for the first time have all sorts of issues that they have in their own mind and that they may create in the minds of others, that we have to make sure that we deal with. When we're looking at, for example, people with mental health, somehow, despite the fact that one in three women and one in four men will suffer some degree of mental health at some time in their life, it is somehow seen as a tiny little minority issue that doesn't affect us, and whenever you've had, as people will do from time to time, mental health, you're stuck with a label for the rest of your life. Employers will get a great deal out of drawing people in with the wide range of issues that I've delineated by having people that can contribute from their experience, adverse it may be, to improve at the operational workplaces. The Presiding Officer in the early stage in the debate said that this would be a debate whether there would be some room for invention, and I'm going to take him up on his word. I, as an older person, among others, would suggest that perhaps we're missing a trick in relation to how we use older people to bring in younger people with less experience of work. As older people reach the end of their working career, and for many, through choice rather than necessity, that is later than it might have been, we have a core of people who can be the mentors of the new, who might wish to work fewer hours, but might feel that there is a good social purpose in bringing in people who have particular barriers to getting into the world of work that they, with their experience, might help. I wonder if it's time that we collectively turned our mind to how we might actually make that work, because this one gets older. One may wish to work fewer hours. My father, when he was 65, as a GP, gave up working nights. When he was 70, he gave up working weekends. So, from the age of 70, he started to work what he thought was a normal working week. Now, he was a bit different from the generality, but the pattern was one that we see increasingly, people reducing their workload. That is an opportunity to get people into the engagement with people, giving them that sense of worth, giving them a tiny little skill perhaps in the first place that enables them to get in through the front door and become depended on, because as nothing gives people more sense of worth than the idea that what they are doing is something that is necessary to support other people with much greater experience and much greater skills, and the old lags, like myself and others, perhaps might be the key to unlocking that. Now, another thing that we've talked about, which is quite relevant in my area of the country, is gender gaps. We've talked about how there is a huge skew, very few women going into many of the traditional male-dominated industries. I very much welcome the fact that, when I go to what is now the North East College, previously Banff and Buchan College, on the oil engineering courses, there's always a decent number of women. Not yet enough, Presiding Officer, but a decent number of women who can see a career ahead of them that is rewarding intellectually, economically and will engage the mental faculties of people. I very much welcome that, but that pattern is not repeated over enough of Scotland. It isn't something that we're seeing women challenging men for the places in what is a traditional male industry. I spent 30 years of my life in information technology, and when I started, the number of men and women doing the technical jobs was roughly equivalent, which was quite interesting. Of course, the reason for that is that nobody knew about computers, and it was a bit of an illegitimate thing. I'm talking about the 1960s when I started in it, so therefore the men didn't automatically take it over. Things have gone downhill since then, and it's now an industry where men dominate once again. I think that we've got to try and find new models and new ways of mentoring people, including women, including people with mental ill health and sideways reference a little bit by Richard Simpson, people who have the ability to recover from addictions and the desire to do so. That means helping companies who are prepared to make that effort, helping companies who are going to support ex-offenders who have, hopefully, in the prison service improved literacy and numeracy. They now need to add employment to their portfolio. I think that what we've got before us in a debate today is one where a very large amount of agreement—I think that the Labour amendment talks about wider reforms of employment policy to deliver a more socially just Scotland—is spot on. It actually captures the whole point of this. The amendment also talks about industrial injury. We've moved on a great deal from 1836 when my great-great-grandfather died as a serf in the coal mining industry. So low down the picking order, there is no record of his death. We can make progress. The debate ought to be and, hopefully, is a contribution to an on-going debate on how we do that. I welcome the debate on international workers' day. While I support the Government's motion, it does not go far enough. That is why I welcome and support the Labour amendment today, which seeks to ensure that we have wider reforms of employment policy. We need to ensure that people are supported when trying to find employment and are equipped with the right skills to find well-paid and secure work. I'm going to use my time today to discuss supporting people into work, specifically in relation to third sector support and addressing insecurity and unfairness in the workplace. The third sector has been invaluable in supporting people into work. It has done a great job despite the lack of resources. That's why I believe that the third sector should be involved at the early stages of setting up future employability services. That would ensure that employability services could move away from sanctions and adopt a people-centric approach. It's hard enough to find work. It's even harder on a six-week sanction when your priority then becomes how will you pay the bills and feed your family? Never mind, find work. The third sector's approach is tried and tested. Take, for example, Community Jobs Scotland, which provides paid jobs for people in the sector. CGIS has given 5,871 paid opportunities with nearly 600 different third sector employers across Scotland. The individual receives real-life employment experience, linked with on-the-job training and development. In return, the third sector receives increased staffing capacity to achieve its aims and objectives. Almost 67 per cent of people who took part had positive destinations. In those terms, it's more successful than the UK Government work programmes. With the devolution of the work programme to Scotland, we have a great opportunity to do things differently, and it's important that we involve the third sector from the start. As the SVO states, we need to give people a real choice and meaningful control over their support. That requires accommodating different needs with sufficient flexibility and specialist input as required, an approach that is already pioneered by the third sector. In terms of addressing insecurity and unfairness in the workplace, we need to make sure that work not only pays but is secure so that people can plan from day to day and know exactly how much money they have for essentials and bills. First, we need to extend the living wage to public sector procurement contracts, an opportunity that was missed recently by the Scottish Government when they chose to vote against Labour amendments, supported by the unions to introduce the living wage. Boris Johnson sought to do it in London, while the SNP had behind European Union legislation. At the time, Professor McRudden, a leading expert on procurement law, social justice and equality said that, to be protected under the posted workers directive, the living wage will need to be provided through laws, regulations and or administrative provisions. A suitable amendment to section 39 should meet the requirements of the posted workers directive in that respect. I'm grateful and I can't, the lady quotes, a respected person who believes that it might be possible. I merely suggest to the member and the Labour Party that they stop banging this drum. The vast majority of legal opinion and all those who want to err on the side of safety are saying that they simply cannot do it. You can do lots of other things around it, but you can't actually do it. When all public sector workers have a living wage, we'll stop banging the drum, Mr Johnson. If the SNP had been bolder, it would have been possible to avoid any legal challenge. Scottish Labour will ensure that we would use the powers of procurement to provide decent wages. Why won't the SNP and why, despite the fact that it was possible, did you vote down the living wage for public sector procurement contracts? Secondly, we want to see a ban on exploitative zero-hour contracts and bring an end to the insecurity that is faced daily by an estimated 100,000 Scots. Flexibility in work is a good thing to have, but for too long employers have abused zero-hours contracts. There is evidence to suggest that some companies employ people on them despite the fact that they work regular hours. That is wrong. We believe that if you work regular hours, you should have a regular pay packet, so instead of consulting on them as the SNP wishes to do, we'll take action and get rid of them. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I don't know if I'm in my last minute, am I, Presiding Officer? I'll take an intervention from James Dornock. Can I just get clarification from yourself then? The zero-hours contracts, are you saying that you'll scrap all zero-hours contracts? We are saying that there is a need for some zero-hour contracts, but there should be flexibility and there shouldn't be abused by employers. To conclude, Presiding Officer, Scottish Labour believes in fairness and equality. A Scotland where people earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, a Scotland that protects and provides for its workers, and a Scotland that offers the best opportunities to all Scots. With that in mind, we can't look at employment and employability as separate issues, as we've heard many times in this debate, so it's disappointing that the Government's motion is so narrow in its approach. We need to ensure that when employability services are devolved to Scotland, we adopt a people-centric approach, moving away from sanctions, working with the third sector and others to make sure that everyone gets the right support. However, we have to go further than that. We also need to ensure that good jobs are available, end this insecurity of zero-hours contracts and low wages, and make sure that no one is worse off in work. For the past five years, we have seen a race through the bottom and ordinary workers across Scotland and the UK have suffered. A vote for Labour on May 7 is a vote to say no more. I didn't know that it was for no more. I thought that it was for something, yes, but that's obviously a different member of the party. I was a wee bit concerned at short Stevenson's comments where he said that he was the third oldest person that was taking part in this debate, and I'm looking about to see who the other one was, no disrespect Richard, but thankfully it's not me. The comments about the living wage and the zero-hours, I'll leave to one side, because this should be a consensual debate, and in the main, it has been a consensual debate. I think that we're all looking for the same outcome here. We've just got a slightly different way of going about it, and I'm delighted to have to say—I'm not sure who it was that spoke earlier on when we saw the wording of the amendment—that we could see how it could be quite difficult for us to accept it, but I'm delighted that we agreed that the bigger picture was more important than playing party politics and an issue such as this. Not everybody's done that, but in the main, that's what this debate has been like. We've heard a lot in the debate about the good work being done nationally on this subject, and it's true that there are areas of common agreements that have just talked about devolution of parts of the work programme. I think that it's because we can all agree that where the Scottish Government is able to act, and where this place is able to act, we've acted well, and the stats, particularly for women and youth employment figures in Scotland, compare to the rest of the UK and reflect that. That's in large part due to the particular commitments that we've made to assist more women into the workplace, including through the increase of hours at nursery and the implementation of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, which will provide new powers to increase the amount and flexibility of early learning and childcare. Of course, a continuation and an upcoming increase to an additional 10,000 school pupils and 12,000 part-time college students of the educational maintenance allowance has been crucial in the fall of youth unemployment over the last few years. Those are all positives that the Scottish Government has done and, as I said, is part of the reason why there is a consensus around the devolution of the work programme, which is why it's so disheartening to see the UK Government pull back in the agreements that were made in the Smith commission about the devolution of the work programme. In the words of the SCVO, we are utterly appalled by the UK Government's move to extend its work programme contracts when it was agreed by the Smith commission that it would transfer to the Scottish Parliament as soon as current contracts expired. They continue, but our disappointment doesn't lie so much in the almost immediate failure to keep the agreement, as in the fact that it's impossible to justify why such a broken and failing system would ever be continued. It's yet another indication of why we need a—I was going to leave this bit out because in the spirit of consensus I probably shouldn't be saying this, but it's another indication of why we need a strong team of SNP MPs at Westminster to hold them to account and to the promises that they have made in the Vow and in the Smith commission. However, while the national work is encouraging and we desperately need those greater powers, there's also a lot of work being done locally by organisations to ready people for work, and I just want to highlight a couple of examples from my Keith Cart constituency to the chamber today. Last week, I was delighted to welcome volunteers and representatives from Arden Glen housing association based in Casimal through to Parliament to see First Minister's questions, have a tour of the Parliament and spend a day in Edinburgh. Arden Glen, like so many housing associations, are doing great work in the local area with their tenants. One example of many I could raise in the only way is up personal capacity building programme. Of the 28 learners in the initial programme, 14 stopped attending because seven had found work, six had moved into further education with jobs and business Glasgow, and one had gained the IT skills that they were looking for. Of the 14 remaining learners who continue to attend nine attend computer classes, which focus on welfare reform requirements such as universal job match, CV preparation and online forum filing, and three have moved on to intermediate general IT to prepare them for work. One of the participants, Thomas, joined the programme after being made redundant from his job of 14 years. He found himself in the situation not so uncommon when he fell out of his depth due to lack of IT skills. He undertook the programme and has found work off the back of it. He said of the experience of the programme that the only way is up was vital in assisting me with my job search. The staff and volunteers at the hall were so welcoming and friendly and put me at ease right from the start. It has really helped my confidence too. When you have been in work for 14 years and a change like redundancy hits you, your confidence really hits rock bottom. I would recommend joining up to anyone who requires assistance, as the programme says, the only way is up. Castleton Housing Association has a 30-year history of creating positive opportunities for local people. One of their key objectives is to create employment and develop people's skills in an area where there is high unemployment and few career opportunities. They do that through a variety of successful initiatives, including offering their own housing apprenticeships and ensuring that their major suppliers offer apprenticeships. One local youth has been employed for 10 years and is now a housing officer. He has completed his diploma and acts as a role model for other young people in the area. He also offers short-term work experience placements to schools and local unemployed women and has had great results with them moving into positive destinations after. This is also the case for the community job Scotland placements and internships. Of the 12 placements that Castleton has offered, all have gone into work of further education upon completion. He has also run a highly successful environmental employability programme in Castlemall Park. That has taken 80 unemployed people through an eight-week training programme. Over the past three years, more than 80 per cent of participants have gained qualifications and just over 50 per cent of participants have moved into employment with more than a third of them in the programme coming from workless households. It is possible for them and Arden Craig and countless others across the country to offer those programmes to empower local people because of the support that they receive from partners, including the Scottish Government. Just think how much more we could do with all the powers for employment here in Scotland. I now call on Mike Russell to speak up to four minutes, Mr Russell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise for not being here for the opening speeches, but, obviously, this has been a considerably detailed debate. The core of this debate is Scotland's economic strategy, which sets out what is called an overarching framework for achieving a more productive, cohesive and fairer Scotland. That is essentially whatever part of Scotland you come from. There is a difference in being employed or looking for employment between Collins Day and Cumbernauld, between Gia and Gallashields, but the core issues are the same for the Government in terms of increasing competitiveness and tackling inequality. I want to deal with the tackling of inequality, in particular the four priority areas that are focused on to deliver Scotland's economic strategy. The first is investing in people and infrastructure in a sustainable way. It is vitally important, in my own constituency, particularly that the work of public bodies is to the fore in this matter. The work of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Business Gateway is very important, but, as long as they have to be focused along with other public bodies in securing employment and in securing infrastructure growth. Without infrastructure in place, employment is very hard to find. Some weeks ago, I chaired the first meeting of the COLE Fixed Link group. That is a major infrastructure project that is a long way away, but it is important that every part of the public sector is engaged in thinking about how such developments could take place. Recently, I have been working with the community in Dalavik, one of the remotest villages on the Scottish mainland, who are very keen to establish a hydro scheme but require the help of all the public agencies to make that happen. The second pillar of growth is fostering a culture of innovation and research and development. That is possible in rural areas, both through investment through bodies such as the University of the Highlands and Islands, and I am thinking of the science park at Dunstaffnidge and the growing work that is done there. In some of the priority industries, the natural resources of Scotland are very great. Investing in the Scottish food and drink industry is something that the Government has done comprehensively since 2007. It is producing the opportunity for innovation, but there must be more of it. The difficulties are being experienced by the dairy industry in Kintire, and the requirement to sustain that because of employment issues has risen to some degree because of the lack of innovation in that industry. The success of the New Zealand dairy industry has been because it has been an innovating industry, so there must be continued innovation, but again it will be the public sector that supports it. Thirdly, promoting inclusive growth is extremely important, particularly in the jobs market. The role of public agencies and, indeed, the local MSP—and I have been involved in this very heavily—in promoting jobs fairs and jobs markets throughout the constituency and encouraging employers to think of different ways of employing young and old and making sure that there is an opportunity for people where they live is exceptionally important. Finally, the promotion of Scotland on the international stage is vital. Tourism plays a great role in that. So do things like food and drink industries and so does the industry of agriculture, which I know that the cabinet secretary is very familiar with having had that portfolio after myself. To see the excellence of Scottish food and drink and the excellence of Scottish salmon promoted across the world brings people to Scotland and makes them think about how people earn their living in parts of rural Scotland. It is extremely important—in not everything that we do in this chamber and everything that the Scottish Government does—that there is a focus on those places that are outside the central belt, and that in each rural and remote community there is an investment in opportunity. That requires supporting employment, but it is the state and the public purse that has the largest responsibility. I am quite sure that that needs to be remembered again and again. We now move to closing speeches. I call on Gavin Brown up seven minutes, please, Mr Brown. I have just realised that, in my opening speech, I neglected to outline how the Conservative group would be voting this afternoon, so let me take the chance to do that. Now I thought that the Scottish Government motion was perfectly reasonable, one that we would have supported on its own. It seemed to me to be a motion that wanted to explore issues and look for collaboration among political parties, and therefore it is one that, as I say, we would have happily supported. In terms of the Labour amendment, there are plenty of parts within it that I agree and could happily have supported. I particularly acknowledge part of the low levels of disabled people on modern apprenticeships in Scotland, but ultimately we are not able to support the Labour amendment. I have a particular concern. I have to say about the last section investing in a future fund for all young people, not on education, to give all young people in Scotland the best possible employment support. That is obviously a direct link to the policy announced by Jim Murphy just a couple of weeks ago, and it is one that, in my view, we are unable to support. I am afraid to say. I am surprised, I have to say, that the SNP are able to support that particular policy because a couple of weeks ago they were not quite so enthusiastic about the policy, and to some extent perhaps the Labour Party has had a bit of a coup today in terms of getting the Government to commit to that. Who knows, perhaps even by five o'clock, they will have convinced Richard Lyle to support their amendment as well. Ultimately, I think that this debate was a debate of two parts. The first part, I think, was outlined by Rosanna Cunningham in her opening 30 seconds, in which she said that this is the beginning of a collaborative process involving Government, Parliament and other stakeholders. I think that part of the debate, I have to say, has been a success. We have had some very interesting contributions from all parts of the chamber and a huge number of issues, I think, which were ones that we may have been aware of before but were worth repeating, and a couple of issues that were perhaps fresh and new and can help to complement Government thinking over the coming weeks and months. Margaret McCulloch, I think, put it well, but she said that we need to have a broader debate about how we take the process forward. There were a number of references to the Finance Committee report from a couple of years ago, and I commend that to anybody who wants to drive the policy process forward in employability. We heard about the specific rural elements, most recently from Mike Russell, but before that, Elaine Murray and Nigel Dawn made some pretty valuable contributions in that regard. Elaine Murray also talked about an element of the committee report that I had forgotten about, I have to say, but he came flooding back to me as soon as she mentioned it. That is the idea of where a lot of smaller businesses, not just in rural areas but obviously in some rural areas, a lot of smaller businesses did say that they wanted to take on an apprentice, and they had quite literally half a job for an apprentice. If you could have the shading of an apprentice between several companies or organisations, we might find a significant additional number that would end up taking an apprentice on. I know that there are some difficulties with that. I know that it is not quite as simple as putting two and two together, but perhaps we can make progress in that. If we can, that would be a very welcome step forward. We heard some good local examples of activities. Mark Wooddonald talked about one in his constituency, which had an 80 per cent plus success rate. I would be interested to hear more of the details of that, because anything with a success rate of that percentage is worthy of further examination. They also had an interesting contribution, as we normally do, from Stuart Stevenson, who brought mental health to the fore quite rightly. Then, while he was free-wheeling at this stage, his suggestion of mentoring was a pretty interesting one, the idea of getting those with huge experience who eventually want to do slightly fewer hours, passing on more of their knowledge in a perhaps a more structured way over time is something that, again, was a pretty valid contribution. The first part of the debate was a big success. For me, the second part of the debate was a little disappointing, because the second part, I think, was the Scottish Government basically saying, we need more powers because the UK does not do it terribly well and we do everything completely brilliantly. I could exaggerate slightly, but that was a subtext of what the Scottish Government wanted to say. We do it so well here that that is why we need everything. However, when we are actually pressed on any of their own policies, the Scottish Government has to say that we are unable to answer questions and we are unable to hold themselves to account for their own policies. On apprenticeships, the overall numbers are welcome, and I think that all parts of the chamber have talked about that, but on the figures given to us by Inclusion Scotland, there is a real difficulty there. It was described by the Government as a challenge, but those figures from Inclusion Scotland come from 2012-2013. We are now in 2015, Deputy Presiding Officer. We should be at a stage where the Government is able to say more than it is a bit of a challenge, particularly if the same figures are in England—I have not had those verified, but they have come to me from the Scottish Children's Services Coalition—but if they are true, where it is 8.7 per cent in England, as opposed to 0.2 per cent in Scotland, that is not just a small difference. That is, obviously, a completely different approach and something that ought to be investigated urgently by the Scottish Government as soon as this debate is finished. That is one issue where, I think, it failed. On the Youth Employment Scotland fund, one of its flagship policies, the Scottish Government has been unable to say from inquiries through spies from PICUs last year and again from questions today that they have not been able to tell us how many jobs have been created and how many of those placements, more importantly, turned into longer-term jobs after the initial six months. Of course, I am delighted to take that answer, for sure. Just on the point of the Youth Employment Scotland fund, of course, it is an employer recruitment incentive approach and is therefore not directly comparable to the work programme, and I am sure that the member would accept that. On the member's other point about evaluation, yes, that is quite right. There will be an evaluation and, of course, the findings of the evaluation will be shared with the Parliament as soon as they are available. I am not sure that intervention cast the Scottish Government in a particularly good light. They said that it would create 10,000 opportunities. Not my words, John Swinney's words. The key plank of their budget for 2013-14 was that they would create 10,000 opportunities. All that we are asking now, several years later, is how many opportunities have been created. Surely the Scottish Government must know this figure. The figure is not going to change for 2013-14, given that we are well outside that financial year. They must know, and they told Tavish Scott in an answer last year that they would tell us everything at the beginning of this year, and they have not done so. We are simply asking the Scottish Government to tell us what has happened to this flagship policy and, actually, has it delivered results? I hope that the minister, in summing up, will give us some answers to the challenges posed to the Scottish Government, instead of just criticising others. Commitments that I had today here in Parliament prevented me from attending the annual International Workers Memorial Day event at Summerley Heritage Park in Coatbridge, as I would have liked to, as I would normally do. I thank the Scottish Government for holding us to debate this afternoon, so that my colleague, Siobhan McMahon, could lodge an amendment that recognises the importance of today, as she stated in the amendment to both remember the dead and fight for the living. It is good that we are debating employability, but we should not just be looking at how we get people into work, but considering what type of employment people should have the right to expect and how we can achieve that. Margaret Macaulay's speech threw those issues out particularly well. Ms McMahon was also right to raise the fact that the Scottish Government should be committing to use its powers of procurement to extend the lowing wage and bring to an end insecure employment with a ban on exploiting zero-hours contracts and to assist James Dornan and Richard Lyle further. That means Glasgow, Greenock and Grangemouth and any part of Scotland that begins with or without a G. I hope that that is clear. It is good to hear that the Scottish Government agrees. Just for clarification, is it with or without the exploitative aspect of it, because that was not clear from both contributors earlier on? I do not know whether it is just that Mr Dornan is hard of understanding or hard of hearing. I said to be of assistance that it is exploitative contracts. There is a clear difference and the trade union organisations know the difference between a flexible contract and an exploitative zero-hours contract. I think that you should go away and try to understand that yourself, Mr Dornan. I am particularly pleased that the cabinet secretary indicated her support for this afternoon's amendment from the Scottish Labour Party because it promotes work-pay contracts, as well as our commitment on zero-hours contracts. It does not chime with what they said when we announced them in our manifesto. It is certainly not in their manifesto, so I wonder why they chose to support our amendment this afternoon, but I welcome it anyway. I am just unfortunate that clearly someone did not send Mr Lyle the memo. He introduced Labour for its position on those issues and he confirmed that, in spite of what the cabinet secretary said, he does not support Labour's position. I think that the SNP should clarify that for us this afternoon. I was reminded as he spoke of the axiom that it is better to stay silent and let people think that you are a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. I commend that Mr Lyle looks... I am going to ask the member to withdraw that. At the end of the day, I have called you for what you are, not what you believe you are. I think that Mr Lyle just continued to expose the point that I was making. I commend that Mr Lyle looks more to his colleague Stuart Stevenson, who clearly understood the message that was being delivered from his front bench this afternoon and took us into a broad consensus on the points that we can agree on and I think that we should agree on. While our amendment recognises the work being done by the Scottish Government with the third sector and I think that it is right that we do that, there is a lot of help to prepare disabled people for work. We understand that as well, but you cannot deny the point that has been made by others in the debate this afternoon when you look at inclusion Scotland statistics. The latest figures show that the employment rate for disabled people in Scotland has fallen to just 40.8 per cent despite overall employment rates for the whole working-age population rising to almost 75 per cent. That is something that we have to look at. Within those figures, the points that were made—and I think that it is worth reiterating—the fact that in 2012-13, just 63 apprentices out of 25,691 modern apprenticeships went to young disabled people. That is a shameful 0.2 per cent. No matter how much the Government might want to pat itself on the back for its achievement and its numbers, I take the point that Stuart Stevenson made. We want to get to figures like 30,000 modern apprenticeships, but I think that it would also be useful when you are making that point not to compare it to the statistics that we had under the previous Labour administration because you would be comparing apples with oranges. In the previous Labour administration, Mr Maxwell, if you check your facts, only level 4 and 3 at SVQ were counted as modern apprenticeships. The Scottish Government now counts level 2 and other SVQ in-work qualifications. I am not decrying that. That is not a bad thing, but please do not try to say that you are moved to this figure of 25,000 by comparing it to what was counted before. You are counting them differently, and that is an important point. No-one saying those figures could disagree that disabled peoples' on-going exclusion from the labour market because of discrimination and a failure to provide the necessary report to access employment has to be tackled. That is why Labour uses its amendment to call for an early review in the context of Scotland taking over disability benefits with the expected implementation of the Smith commission proposals. We believe that wider reforms on employment policy are required to deliver a more socially just Scotland. My experience in listening to employers tells me that, at present, the expectations of the private sector are far too often odds with the structures for employment programmes that are designed and run by public sector agencies such as Jobcentre Plus and Skills Development Scotland. That is why any employment programme must have the earliest possible private sector involvement so that employment initiatives have the best possible chance to succeed in meeting the needs of the business sectors that we rely on to provide the sustainable economic growth that we all desire. That was a point that I agree with Stuart Maxwell on. The main criticism that we have is that it appears that it has been raised by people in the debate. The Skills Development Scotland seems to identify the outcome that it wants and then try to fit the round SME pegs into square training place holes that they have designed to meet their targets. Elaine Murray highlighted an important example of SDS, one-size-fits-all attitude in her area. Nigel Dawn and Lewis MacDonald also introduced perspectives into the debate on consideration of local job market conditions. I think that that is a very important aspect. We often hear that businesses and government are under intense pressure to become more strategic about developing and assessing employability initiatives and the skillsets that need to be created to meet current and envisaged skill shortages. Business groups claim to be linking strategic planning more directly with training, development and recruitment, while an education and skills system claims to be moving towards skill-based outcomes. Government agencies are keen on certifying learners' employability skills by the modern apprenticeships, SPQs or other vocational courses as a means of indicating that people have been enabled to negotiate their transition to the world of work. However, what seems to be missing is a robust evidence that we need to ensure that that is being achieved. Although employers and educators know that the development of skills is essential to Scotland's competitiveness and growth in highly competitive global markets, they find it difficult to take effective concerted action to establish programmes for delivering them. Whether they disagree or not with their opinion, there seems to need to be a certain lack of clarity about what employability skills are often seen as and how they are connected to one another and how they approach the process of developing them. Connecting the separate worlds of work and education by developing employability skills should also help to promote a culture of lifelong learning that will provide benefits to the economy at large in the longer term. A number of people talked about the long-term importance of the debate, and I think that that was an important aspect to draw out of the debate. I look forward to the response from the minister and I hope that, as we go forward this afternoon, we can continue to have that consensus that brings us to a point in which we agree just how important an issue this is for Scotland as we go forward. Thank you very much. I now call in Annabelle Ewing to wind up the debate. Minister, I think that all of the extra time has been used up. If you could finish by 5 o'clock, I would be grateful. I will certainly do my best, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Today's debate has been interesting and wide-ranging, and I welcome the contributions from all members this afternoon in a moment. I will try to pick up on a number of the points made, but first I would like to stress that the cabinet secretary made clear in her opening speech that it is important to say that we want to listen to ideas and views from across the board and, as far as possible, to build a consensual and a collaborative approach to the devolution of employment support services. We intend to engage with a broad range of stakeholders and service providers through our public consultation to be launched this year, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank SCVO, Inclusion Scotland and the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland for having taken the time to provide briefings for today's debate. Those briefings reflect the enthusiasm on the part of the third sector to make a contribution to the debate and ensure, indeed, that their suggestions are duly considered. In the context of this debate this afternoon, we will focus particularly and, indeed, in the consultation that we launched on the position of users of employment support services because we need to understand their needs to ensure that they are empowered to make progress into the world of work by being closely involved in the development and in the design of the employment support services. We take that approach because we believe that those who use services can make a critical contribution to how those services are delivered for the best, and we take that approach because we believe in participative democracy, empowering communities, building community capacity and enabling more people to participate in decision making about issues that affect them. We also take that approach because we believe that the devolution of employment support services provides Scotland with significant opportunities that we intend to seize and to maximise. Responding to some of the points raised, I welcome Siobhan MacMahon's approach to the debate today because she came along with some suggestions, and that is what the debate is all about. Indeed, in terms of the point that she made about the website, I think that that was an important point, and it is something that I will certainly take back to officials, because the point of communication is to communicate. If there are people that that is not serving, we need to find a way to communicate with those people, so I think that that was a very important point made. On the project search model, that is something that I was aware of, but I will look closely into it. I am quite sure that the Scottish consortium for learning disability will wish to be very closely involved in the roll-out of our devolved employment support services, particularly for disabled people, so I am sure that they will wish to play a key role in that process. Mr Brown raised a number of points, one of which I have already dealt with in my intervention, but on the issue of alignment of employability, of course, as we have heard in the debate points made very well by Gordon McDonald and by Chick Brody, the point is at the moment that we are a bit hamstrung because the jigsaw is fragmented, some of the powers are here and some of the powers are at Westminster. That is a point that has been recognised by indeed many third sector organisations quoted this afternoon. I think that I have already dealt with one intervention. I have got now a little time and I am trying to get round as many people as possible in terms of their important contributions today. The fact of the fragmentation is indeed holding us back, and I think that we could do an awful lot better if we had the powers as suggested to be devolved in the heads of agreement of the Smith commission. I hope that the member will support the devolution of those powers and not the more restrictive powers that came up in the draft clauses. On the important issue raised by a number of members, including Gavin Brown and Michael Machen, on the issue of those with disabilities and having access to employment, it is fair to say that the modern apprenticeship is one scheme and there are other areas perhaps where the reporting is not being picked up in terms of numbers. However, it is fair to say that a lot of work still needs to be done, and that is why, as part of the national programme under the Developing Scotlandian Workforce project, we have allocated additional funding, part of a wider £3 million allocation in 2014-15, to develop a range of equality activity. One of those activities is research, which is about to be completed. There has been involvement of various stakeholders, and once we have that research, we will be in a position to proceed with an action plan, a very brief intervention, because we did already have one. I will try to be helpful, minister. It would be useful if we could get the figures on people in training who have disabilities in the round so that we can have that proper contract, as I take the point that you are making. Yes, I accept that point. I was going on to say to Dr Simpson that, of course, in terms of what he suggested, of a breakdown of what kinds of disability and so on, I think that that is important. However, it has been pointed out to me in my work, along with Michael McMahon and Siobhan McMahon, on the cross-party group on disability and, indeed, in other areas, that, for some people with a disability, they do not self-identify, so there is that issue to be borne in mind. However, I nonetheless think that, to the extent that we can, we should try to gather more information to better equip ourselves to work out a better way forward. In response to some of the other comments in the debate, which I have now lost, that Margaret McCulloch made a good point to the effect that employability schemes do not work in isolation. I entirely agree with that. Stuart Maxwell spoke about, in his constituency, McKean development limited in Barrehead being the 100th firm accredited as a living wage accredited employer. I indeed had the pleasure to meet them at a reception in a Barn Deniston just on the day in which they received the accreditation, and they were very proud to have achieved that accreditation. Mark McDonald mentioned the excellent approach in terms of employability of the station house media unit Shmoo. I indeed had a very successful visit there, and I was very impressed with the excellent work that they are doing. Colin Beattie mentioned the investment in young people accolade, and I encourage all members to engage with local business to encourage local business to consider becoming accredited in terms of the investment in young people accolade. Elaine Murray looked at various local issues in terms of Dumfries and Galloway, and, of course, if there is good practice to learn about, I hope that Dr Murray will make that known to me. Nigel Don made the key point of the need to secure further economic growth in order to secure the better opportunities for young people that we all wish to see. Lewis MacDonald talked about the highlight of the important work of the energy jobs task force, and, of course, the Scottish Government has been working closely with unions and will continue to do so. Richard Lyle made a passionate speech, and he was very passionate about the need for fair work, which I think that we can all agree with. Stuart Stevenson spoke about the overriding need to put first the interests of people in need of a bit of help into the world of work, and that is the overriding approach that we have taken to today's debate. He also made a powerful plea for the need to treat people as individuals and not as categories—a point that I entirely agree with. Margaret MacDougall stressed the important role of the third sector in employment support provision in Scotland, and that was a point well-made with her experience on the CPG on volunteering. James Dornan talked about local examples in his constituency of Glasgow-Cathcart of young people getting the skills that they need to make their way into the world of work, with help from local programmes such as The Only Way Is Up, and I feel that we visit probably coming on to Cathcart. Mike Russell stepped into the breach to make a brief contribution to the debate, and a very interesting one was, too, that he focused on the need to tackle the issue of inequality in society. In this regard, he highlighted the important role that local jobs fairs can play. What do you please? Can we hear the minister's closing? That was an example of indeed the wide-ranging nature of the debate today. I see that I have only a little bit of time left, so that means that I won't be reading out this very long, detailed technical speech. I'm just going through the pages. There are a number of important points that have emerged from today's debate. In terms of suggestions made, those suggestions will be duly considered by the Government, because that is the point of the exercise. We want a broad discussion about how we can do this better, because that is how we will serve better the people that are relying on us to act in a way that serves their interests and not get diverted down other routes. In conclusion, the Government has established a strong track record in supporting people into work, and we have heard evidence of that today. I am determined that we will seize the opportunity brought by the planned evolution of employment support services to build on that success and to ensure that more people secure better work and secure the benefits that that will bring to Scotland, to her people and to her communities. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on Scotland's future employability services, and it's time to move on to the next item of business, which is decision time. Could I ask members who are in the chamber and hoping to vote at decision time to check that their cards are properly in their consoles? Thank you very much. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment 13023.1, in the name of Siobhan MacMahon, which seeks to amend motion number 13023, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, on Scotland's future employability services. We agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, and therefore we will move to a vote. Members should please cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 13023.1, in the name of Siobhan MacMahon, is yes, 54. No 13, there were no abstentions, the amendment therefore is agreed to, which then brings us to the next question, which is that motion 13023, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, as amended, on Scotland's future employability services, we agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, and therefore we will move to a vote. Members should please cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 13023, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, as amended, is yes, 57. No nine, there were two abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed to, and that concludes decision time. As we are now moving to members' business, I would be grateful if members who are leaving the chamber could do so quietly please.