 means could ask guest leaving the gallery to do so quietly please, this parliament is still in session. The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 12938, in the name of Neil Finlay, on expanding coverage of the living wage. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I'd be grateful if those members who wish to participate in the debate could press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Neil Finlay to open the debate. Seven minutes are show, Mr Finlay. Over 414,000 Scots, many of them are working in this city. 16,000 of them in my county in West Lothian are paid below the living wage of 785. That represents 20 per cent of our local workforce. For those workers, low pay and job insecurity act like a cancer eaten away at them, impacting on every aspect of their lives that affects their health, diet, housing, relationships and the general wellbeing of them, their family and their community. If we couple that with that zero hours job insecurity that we see at the moment, that situation is made dramatically worse. If you do not know how many hours you are working, how much pay you will receive, then how on earth can you plan your life, your budget, pay your bills and provide for your family? It is this combination of low pay and job insecurity combined with the attack on the benefits safety net that has resulted in the growth of payday lenders, food banks and inward poverty. Low pay and job insecurity is not just bad for our people, but also bad for our economy and the cohesion of our wider society. It is even more gallant when we see the huge concentration of wealth held in so few hands across Scotland and the UK. Only last week we saw the Sunday times rich list and it showed how the very wealthiest in our country have doubled their wealth in the last 10 years, while the rest have experienced a real-terms cut in incomes. As policy makers, the challenge is what do we do about these things? Because at all levels of government, there are things that can and should be done. Yes, of course there are EU rules, yes, employment law is reserved, but we in this Parliament are not powerless to act and we have a duty to do so. The Scottish Government said that it would produce statutory guidance on the living wage when the procurement reform bill was passed in 2014, yet here we are, I hear later and know that statutory guidance has been produced. The Scottish Government continued to hide behind EU advice and new EU directives as a reason to delay issuing that guidance. However, like any EU advice, it is what you ask and how you ask it that determines the advice given. If you ask, can we force companies to pay the living wage through publicly procured contracts, then you are likely to get a negative response. However, if you ask how can we use public procurement to ensure that the living wage is paid through publicly procured contracts, then you are likely to get a very different response. I think that that gets to the nub of the issue. It is my view that, rather than being inventive, enthusiastic and evangelical about extending the living wage, the Scottish Government, after eight years, has had to be forced to act at every stage. In this delay and failure, I wonder if Neil Findlay is aware that Labour's own manifesto no longer talks about mandating on insisting on the living wage, even through procurement contracts, and instead says that it will try to promote the living wage. Are they too cowed by EU advice? There are lots in the Labour manifesto that will ensure that the living wage is extended. I can assure you that, and I will come to that. Delay and failure has affected 39,000 Scots. Information from SPICE estimates that 147,000 jobs are created from Government procurement and that 39,000 of those jobs pay less than the living wage. Had the Scottish Government issued statutory guidance, then those 39,000 workers could be £2,600 a year better off. What a difference that would have made to families struggling to pay the bills? It was only in February that they issued not statutory guidance, but a policy note, finally conceding that fair pay can be a consideration in contract waiting. Will the Government now apply that waiting to all of its own contracts to ensure that fair pay and fair employment practices are given significant waiting in all contract tendering? I hope that the minister will answer that when he replies. Will the Government now fund councils properly to ensure that, across the public sector, that can be rolled out? Will the Government go back to the EU and ask a different question to see how we can expand the coverage of the living wage? Will the Government make it clear to Government agencies that they have to end situations such as that at TerraQuest, a contractor for Disclosure Scotland paying just £7.10 per hour to workers who are held for years on temporary contracts? Will the Government end the use of the so-called fiddle clause being used by management that visits Scotland and the National Museum to prevent the full living wage being paid to staff in those organisations? I have no doubt that the cabinet secretary will mention the Scottish living wage accreditation scheme. 186 employers are accredited and I congratulate each and every one of them, but there are 335,000 private sector businesses alone in Scotland. The accredited employers at the moment represent 0.05% of 1% of Scottish private sector businesses that have signed up hardly a revolution in the workplace. Indeed, maybe the minister could boost that figure by signing up himself. Finally, Presiding Officer, with the Labour Government, we will, through make-work pay contracts, give tax rebates to businesses who signed up to pay the living wage in the first year of the Labour Government, will require public listed companies to report on whether or not they pay the living wage. Yes, Mr Wilson. I thank the member for giving way. Could the member indicate what raising the national minimum wage to £8 an hour in 2020 does for many low-paid workers who, when demanding the introduction of the living wage by the Scottish Government, surely the Labour Party would be more honest to say that the national minimum wage should become the living wage? I think that Mr Wilson and I share that ambition, absolutely. What we propose, along with many other policies in our manifesto, will change the lives of working people, because if we look at what has been proposed to end zero-hours exploitation, an end to tribunal fees, establishing a Scottish Hazard Centre, a future fund for young people, new legislation on corporate homicide and fatal accident inquiries, an end to agency exploitation, action on umbrella companies, an inquiry blacklisting and a commitment to build a fairer deal for the care sector. That, along with the living wage proposals, is a major package of measures to improve the rights of workers across Scotland, and I look forward to support from Mr Wilson and others when the Labour Government introduces all of those measures after May 7. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate, speeches of, four minutes please, John Mason to be followed by Mary Fee. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I can also thank Neil Findlay for again raising this very important issue. Firstly, I do welcome any moves to reduce in-work poverty, and clearly every employer has a duty, a moral duty, to pay employees enough for them to live on that wage. I think that we can be encouraged that many more employers are now accredited living wage employers, and I'm sure that there are others who are doing it who have not sought accreditation, probably including myself. We can also be encouraged that the public in Scotland seem very aware of the concept of the living wage, with nearly 90 per cent saying that they have heard of it compared to 80 per cent at a UK level. Therefore, I'm fully supportive of rolling out the living wage as far as we possibly can. There has been significant progress with public contracts, and I gather that both the new ScotRail franchise and the Scottish Government catering contract are ensuring that all staff get that living wage as they should. Dr Simpson, I want to join him in congratulating those contracts, but I wonder whether he would join me in congratulating Labour-led Stirling Council, who this month have introduced an £8 minimum wage for all their workers. I'm delighted that councils are taking the lead in this, and Glasgow has certainly has as well, and that's great. However, I'll come on to my main argument that, actually, we need to worry a bit more about the private sector because it's falling behind. The motion talks about ensuring that the living wage is paid, and I think that this is where we hit problems. My understanding is that we cannot make payment of the living wage a mandatory requirement as part of procurement, but public body's procurement strategies will have to make a statement of their general policy on payment of a living wage. So, yes, the living wage is a good concept, and I certainly support it, but I do wonder if the motion somewhat overstates the importance of the living wage as if it was the only or best answer to the problem of low pay, because the reality is that the key fundamental piece of legislation on unacceptably low pay is not around the living wage, but is the legislation on the statutory minimum wage. At the end of the day, the living wage is always going to be a voluntary device, and we have to think of all sorts of imaginative ways of making it less voluntary and more of a requirement. That is why I lodged my amendment to Mr Finlay's motion. The motion really only deals with public sector contracts and who is the power to insist on what conditions. However, what about all the employers—in Mr Finlay mentioned 335—I am sorry, I have taken an intervention already—335,000 private sector employers? What about the number of them that do not have public sector contracts and may never have any interest in public sector contracts? Is it okay for them to keep on paying less than the living wage? No, it is not. I am happy to give credit to previous Labour Governments at Westminster, who introduced a statutory minimum wage, but I suspect that Mr Finlay might be somewhat embarrassed that the same Labour Governments left it at such a low level. This is the kind of topic where SNP MPs at Westminster could give a minority Labour Government a bit more backbone. We know that Mr Finlay and many of his colleagues are not happy with how far to the right Labour Government has moved under Tony Blair and others. I very much hope that, after next Thursday, we will see a more progressive grouping in London than Labour on its own seems able to offer. I do accept that some smaller employers—for example, pubs—might struggle to pay all staff a living wage, but I think that the answer to that is to target support towards them, as has been done with the small business bonus scheme, rather than allowing all businesses to pay low wages. Whether or not Westminster increases the statutory minimum wage, let's have that power transferred here to Westminster. It seems that there is a greater appetite on the two main parties to seriously tackle low pay. In conclusion, I very much support the roll-out of a voluntary living wage, but that is always going to be second best compared to a decent statutory minimum wage. I welcome the opportunity to speak in a short but important debate, and I will focus mainly on women in work poverty. I hope that there is broad consensus across Parliament in support of the living wage, and we would like to begin by recognising the progress that has already been made. I am glad that the Scottish Government has reaffirmed its commitment to support the living wage in principle through its aim to encourage all public sector bodies to pay its employees at least the living wage. I welcome the inclusion of a Workforce Matters question when considering procurement contracts for catering on Scottish Government premises, especially since the majority of those employed in the catering industry are women. That is an encouraging sign, and I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to encourage more employers to adopt that position wherever possible. I was particularly interested to see the findings from the Working Together review, which recommended that the Scottish Government work closely with trade unions to achieve fairer employment practices, and I hope that that is something that the Fair Work Commission will consider at its first meeting. However, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. As my colleague Neil Finlay has mentioned, nearly half a million Scots are paid less than the living wage, and in Renfrewshire, almost one in five working-age adults are paid less than the living wage. In the Scottish Government's latest report on poverty that was published last month, 22 per cent of children were in relative poverty in 2012-13. The first increase in child poverty after decades of progress in reducing it has been a marked increase in the number of Scots experiencing in work poverty. Those are things that we should all be ashamed of. Promoting the adoption of the living wage is essential if we are serious about attempting to alleviate poverty. Scottish Government research into poverty has also revealed that although relative poverty has decreased, the poverty that remains has become deeper and more entrenched. Young mothers and single parents who are disproportionately women are more likely to be in poverty than the average person in Scotland. However, we know that poverty is not caused simply by unemployment. Almost 60 per cent of children in poverty in Scotland live in working households, and 50 per cent live in households where at least one adult is in full-time employment. Our rate of pay, number of hours' work and income gained or lost through taxation and welfare were identified as key factors in influencing in-work poverty. Also important was the ability of families to balance work and caring responsibilities, again disproportionately affecting women, as families across Scotland struggle to meet the cost of childcare, which continues to rise much faster than take-home pay. In Scotland, 22.4 per cent of women are earning less than the living wage compared to 13.9 per cent of men. That figure rises to as high as 72 per cent in the hospitality sector, 43 per cent in the retail sector and 33 per cent in administrative roles, industries in which there is again a disproportionate concentration of women. Across all sectors in Renfrewshire, a woman working full-time can expect to earn on average only 79 per cent of a man's median full-time earnings, and that is simply not fair. Introducing a living wage across all industries in Scotland would go some way in addressing this gender divide. To summarise, the scandal of low pay has a direct and measurable impact on both the prevalence of child poverty and in-work poverty, which again disproportionately affects women. Women are less likely to be paid the living wage than men, and the sectors that are least likely to pay the living wage are also the sectors where the greatest number of working women are concentrated. The first step that we need to take in addressing those problems is through the widespread adoption of the living wage, and I hope that the Scottish Government will lead by example through giving serious consideration to the payment of the living wage when choosing suppliers in public procurement and encourage private sector employers to always pay the living wage where possible. At this point, I can advise the chamber that, due to the number of members who have indicated they would like to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion from Neil Findlay under rule 8.14.3 that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Mr Findlay. That has been moved, as the chamber agreed. We are. Thank you. I now call Gavin Brown to be followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by congratulating Neil Findlay on securing this afternoon's debate? We have debated the living wage a number of times in this chamber, and I am sure that we will do so again. However, what is slightly different about today's debate is that Mr Findlay has chosen a rather specific focus. He has wanted to focus on the procurement guidance given to public sector organisations by the Scottish Government. Therefore, I will address my remarks specifically towards that guidance, and I will address my comments in the main to the cabinet secretary, Mr Keith Brown, who I know has a bit of a reputation for listening. I will attempt to be as constructive as possible in terms of the guidance that has been published and, indeed, the statutory guidance that will come out, I understand, later in this year. At the moment, we have a policy note from February of this year trying to outline, I think, as best as possible to public sector organisations the routes that they ought to follow, as and when they include questions on workforce matters and when they intend to use workforce matters as one of the criteria on which to base their procurement contract. The guidance is fine as far as it goes, but I have to say that if the statutory guidance is going to work, if it is going to achieve the policy objective of the Scottish Government, which is to increase the number of contracts that have the living wage within them, I think that some pretty substantial differences will be needed going forward. I understand that there is a consultation on going, which may well tease some of those issues out, but I think that the guidance is probably not as clear as it needs to be if it is going to get specific action. There is, later on, just to give you one paragraph in particular that jumped out at me, paragraph 18, where it says that public bodies are asked to note this advice wherever it is legally possible to do so without giving too much definition on what is legally possible. If you had any doubt as to whether adopting the measures proposed are legally possible, you should take appropriate legal advice. Of course, nothing wrong with saying that, but I think that the issue in policy terms is that if the risk and if the obligation to seek legal advice is passed down the way to other public sector organisations, then, in fact, some of them will not take legal advice and will just take a risk-free option, which is not to include a workforce matters question in their procurement exercise, or to take a very cautious attitude towards it, because no public sector organisation wants to get it wrong. Bottom line, if they get it wrong, they probably get sued and will end up paying out legal bills and compensation and damages, none of which goes towards helping paying the living wage. I think that we probably need some leadership from the Scottish Government here, partly because they are the central government, but more importantly because they have more experience of contracting than many of the public sector bodies who are going to do so, so they can pass that experience on to those bodies and also because I think that they have a greater legal resource and greater budgets in order to seek legal advice. The Scottish Government, I just think, is in a stronger position to get as much legal advice as possible compared to perhaps one of the smaller councils or some of the smaller public sector bodies who again would probably want to follow the guidance, but may fear to do so. The guidance, when it comes out, needs to be as clear as possible. It is good that the example in relation to the catering contract was set out in an XA, but I think that we need to see as many examples of Scottish Government contracts as possible so that there is not just one example, but as many as possible, so that public sector organisations have a very, very clear focus on the sort of questions that they are entitled to us, the ones that are completely legally safe, so that they can have a really simple idea on what sort of waiting can go into workforce matters. We know that it is 10 per cent in terms of the catering contract, but that is just one contract. Some kind of greater spread of advice in relation to that would be helpful to public sector organisations, and perhaps some definitions as to what is meant by where it can be deemed to be relevant. Can the Scottish Government, if not an exhaustive list of examples, at least an illustrative list, also with things that are proportionate and indeed things like place of performance? As many definitions as possible—I understand my time is up, Deputy Presiding Officer, so I will end it there—I hope that the Government can take all of that on board so that the policy objective is more likely to be achieved from the statutory guidance that has been published. The living wage is indeed about dignity and security. Of that much, I will agree with Neil Findlayon. Can I thank him for bringing this debate to the chamber, because it gives us another opportunity to expose the Labour's position on the living wage? I will follow that up in a minute. Presiding Officer, action and only action when it is promised and when it is delivered will make the difference. The number of accredited living wage employers now stands at over 180, with a target being set for 500. I am one of those living wage employers. With all the commitments that we have heard today from Labour, why didn't Labour support the evolution of all employment laws and rights in their Smith commission? Submission, they didn't, and that baffles me to come back to this chamber every single time to have the same debate with the same commitments made, but not when the chance comes up to make the commitment that Labour Party actually takes that chance. The previous executive did nothing in the eight years to encourage or even implement the living wage. The current Scottish Government has implemented the living wage in all its departments and agencies, and is working hard with public contractors and employers through the living wage accreditation scheme—something that Neil Findlay seems to think is okay to talk down rather than talk up. The Scottish Government has established a fair work convention, working with the STUC to realise its aspiration of decent work and dignified lives. The Scottish Government will issue the statutory guidance that is being called for, something that Labour Executive never did. Can I thank Alex Thomson from Channel 4 News for exposing the rank hypocrisy of a party who promises everything in campaigns but delivers absolutely nothing in government? The point that the people of Scotland have to deal with now is who do the trust. Do the trust those who don't take the opportunity of the Smith commission to have the evolution of employment rights and laws to Scotland? They don't trust a party who promises everything on zero-hour contracts and doesn't deliver it. That brings me back to Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News. He was interviewing Ed Balls in Jim Murphy last week, and he was surrounded by young people with placards saying, end zero-hours contracts now. I agree with him, absolutely. However, those young people, those technicians were actually on zero-hours contracts, working for the Labour Party in their campaign on zero-hours contracts. It seemed to be that the two leaders, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy, had absolutely no idea. Let's deal with the facts. A party that says one thing in a campaign and doesn't deliver a party who has the audacity to do interviews while surrounded by young people on exploitative zero-hours contracts, where zero-hours contracts are in place. I'm not sure whether the Labour Party are exploitative or not exploitative. Which ones are the good ones? Which ones are the bad ones? They're absolutely confused on it. I come back to trust, and who do we trust? Who does the Scottish people trust when they go to the polls next week? Do the trust talk? Do the trust obfuscation? Do the trust and Ed Balls that stand there surrounded by young people on zero-hours contracts? Or do the trust, the SNP, to deliver that voice at Westminster and, in turn, bring the rights to this Parliament to ensure that we do the right thing for the people of Scotland when it comes to those issues? On that page, Neil Findlay and I will agree that Scotland should have the power to do this. He just doesn't agree that Scotland has got the ability to take that power. Thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and we heard just a few moments ago from the First Minister her criticisms of this party for a lack of positive ideas. I think that the contribution that we've just heard might count as one of the most negative contributions ever heard in a member's business debate. I, on my part, congratulate Neil Findlay on bringing this motion for debate and especially on doing so at this critical time. Next week, voters in Scotland will decide what kind of government we want for the wider United Kingdom, and it is on issues such as the living wage that there are choices to be made. It is easy to forget that it is only 20 years since the very idea of putting general wage levels into statute was novel and controversial, opposed by some and not supported by others. Over the years, progressive Governments had imposed wage regulation in sectors such as agriculture, where too many employers impose poverty wages and block trade union efforts to represent working people. It was the wider attacks on trade union organisations and free collective bargaining by Conservative Governments in the 1980s, which showed that that limited intervention was no longer enough. Labour recognised the need for a national minimum wage, and that was one of our first priorities, one of the first things that we did after we turfled out that Conservative Government in 1997. Lewis Macdonald for giving way, but would Lewis Macdonald not accept that the national minimum wage was not a new concept in Europe, that several countries in Europe had adopted the national minimum wage at higher rates than the Labour Party introduced when it did in 1999? We have just heard a contribution from the SNP benches saying that Labour does nothing when it has the chance. The national minimum wage is absolute evidence and proof that the opposite is true, that it is Labour that does not talk but actually does, and it was Labour that was the first Government in Britain to bring that forward, and building on that policy will quite rightly be a top priority if Labour wins the election next week. Of course, the national minimum wage did not end poverty, but it has made a huge difference to the lives of millions of people. Along with tax credit for the low-paid, it helped many working people to escape the poverty trap. Wage regulation can do that again if that is what people vote for next week. However, we have rightly gone beyond the national minimum wage to make the case for our living wage and to seek to roll it out as widely as possible. Again, that will not solve every problem, but it does make ending poverty and ending the need for food banks that much easier to achieve. In my own region, I am delighted that Aberdeen City Council adopted the minimum wage as a minimum hourly rate in 2012, not only for hundreds of permanent staff who were previously paid less but also for those employed on an occasional basis. Sport Aberdeen have followed that good example and so too have won a court care. Aberdeenshire Council decided to bring in the living wage in 2013 and backdated it to the previous year, giving a very welcome lump sum to the lowest paid. The difference for the lowest paid staff in the city council, which has come from introduction of the living wage three years ago, is equivalent to an additional £1,400 a year for a full-time employee. However, our living wage for public sector workers alone misses part of the point of that wage intervention, which is to support those most in need of legal protection because of the jobs that they do or the lack of trade union organisation in their sectors. Enlightened employers in the third sector also pay the living wage. Aberdeen, YMCA, do so, for example, because it is ethically the right thing to do. So do highly competitive commercial concerns in the north-east, such as Brew Dog, such as Aberdeen Asset Management. They also know that well-paid staff are ultimately good for the bottom line. Imposing the living wage as a condition of public sector contracts is not an add-on to a policy for public sector workers. It is bringing the living wage to bear where it can help the most. If it is good enough for public services and for the best employers in the private sector, then it should be good enough right across the economy. That is why Neil Findlay is right to press the Scottish Government to do more and do more quickly to ensure that private firms that seek public money meet the test of fair employment and fair pay. I hope that the minister will respond in positive terms to the case that has been made for that today. I, too, would like to thank Neil Findlay for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic today. There is general agreement that the minimum wage has been a progressive step, despite dire predictions when it was introduced. However, it is set at too low a level. Surely a minimum wage should not be below the level of a wage that you can live on. Often people on the minimum wage require help from the state to meet living costs, a subsidy to help meet housing rents and we are effectively making up the difference when pay is too low and we are subsidising those high rents. Greens want to see the minimum wage raised to the level of the living wage, £7.85 at present, then raised to £10 per hour over a five-year period, but that, of course, may need to be revised depending on what happens to average wages and living costs. The minimum income standard that I am calculated by Loughborough University reckoned that £9.20 is the figure that we need at the moment for a socially acceptable standard of living in the UK. A living wage will benefit those on low incomes. It will reduce the dependence on loan sharks on payday lenders and we need to bear in mind that the poorest people typically pay the highest interest charges, although they are least able to afford them. Most of the increased pay will be spent back into the economy. We know that people on low pay spend a higher proportion of their income. Sadly, they have little choice. Saving seems a distant dream, but state funding would then be freed up for other uses, as it is no longer required to subsidise employers who pay poor wages. Does it make sense that shareholders benefit from profits when employees of the companies who are so often responsible for making those profits have not been paid a living wage? As well as practical action, we need a cultural shift. I suggest that shareholders will share concerns that do not accept their dividend if they do not know that those employees have been paid a living wage. As I stated at the beginning, how many people now seriously oppose the minimum wage? At the time of its introduction, concerns were raised that businesses would close down, employment would fall and so on. However, it has been recognised that there are so many advantages to having a well-paid, a better paid workforce. You retain more staff, the staff feel motivated and valued, productivity—a serious issue for this country—improves. We harm those positive working relationships when people feel undervalued. If we still feel that a particular sector needs or should benefit from public subsidy, then let us look at that, perhaps with direct financial assistance. I do not believe that Amazon needs public subsidy. I would like to see that cash transferred into hundreds of thousands of small businesses who could perhaps take on an apprentice who could pay their staff more. That is a business. We need Amazon's taxis and we need them paid in full to contribute to a living wage. If a business depends for its survival on paying poverty wages, then I would suggest that it is not a sustainable one. We need to question are there companies in receipt of government grants who do not pay a living wage? Are there companies who declare big profits? Share those out amongst a few shareholders when their staff are not being paid a living wage. Taxpayers in this country want to contribute to the good of society, not to top up those private profits. All employees deserve the dignity of a living wage. I thank Neil Findlay for bringing his motion to the chamber and giving members the opportunity to take part in the debate that not only promotes the living wage but explores how the living wage can be extended by government and by private companies. There is no doubt that, as Neil Findlay outlined, the case that 414,000 Scots have not been on the living wage, many in our communities, including in my own constituency, are struggling with the cost of a living crisis. That struggle is even greater if they are not being paid a proper wage. As Mary Fee outlined, many women, more than 60 per cent of women, are not being paid a living wage and they are being hit harder. There is an onus on us all, on government, on councils and on businesses to promote and to try to extend that living wage. There is no doubt that there are twin advantages to individuals but there are also advantages to businesses in the living wage being paid. Those who receive payment of the living wage take them up to a more adequate level of income coming into their household. Many women who are not in receipt of the living wage are working in the retail sector. They are also living in some of their poorest accommodation and it therefore becomes more difficult to bring up children and to ensure that they have a sound and solid education when there is not enough money being coming into the house where people are not able to feed their family properly and heat their homes. We need to tackle those issues. There is a need for leadership from businesses. There is an advantage to a business in having employees that are paid properly. Those employees will then be more loyal to the company and will be more motivated. That will be rewarded in terms of a more stable workforce that, in turn, has benefits to the business and that business has been able to operate more effectively. That is why, even in the football sphere, HAAPs took a great lead in Scotland by ensuring that all their employees would be paid the living wage. That is something that has got to be congratulated. In terms of the Scottish Government, it could do more. Clearly, everyone who is covered by the public sector pay policy is paid the living wage and that is welcome, but there are people working in Scottish Government locations and prisons and other locations who have not been paid the living wage. I think that the cabinet secretary should commit to a review of all Scottish Government employees to explore whether they are not being paid the living wage and ensure that living wage is extended. In terms of the procurement legislation that was passed, it is regrettable that, over a year down the line, we still do not have the statutory guidance. The Government has got to show more political will. It is good enough simply to hide behind the EU legal advice. If you look at what has been done in London, you can pay a living wage. There is a way of doing it. You have got to link it to the performance of the contracts. I will take an intervention. Would he acknowledge, as seems to be acknowledged now in the Labour Party manifesto, that it cannot be mandated and the London birds, which he is referring to, have also admitted when questioned that they cannot insist on that under EU law? Does he accept that position? I would say to the minister that every time this is debated, the minister and his predecessors hide behind the legal advice. What I would like you to do, minister, is to explore how you can take this legal position to the limit and try to ensure that—because there is legal advice that shows you how to do it—to try to explore that you link it to the performance of the contracts. You have not—even leaving aside the legal issue—in my opinion, you have not done enough to make the contracts more robust. You have not implemented the statutory guidance. I will finish on that point, Deputy Presiding Officer. I genuinely believe that this Government needs to do more in promotion on the living wage and the Government needs to look not just at the statutory guidance but at the contracts that are issued so that we can get more of those 414,000 people off the living wage, on to the living wage and on to a decent level of living. I remind members to speak through the chair and the chamber and also to speak to their microphones or the official report. I cannot pick up their remarks. John Wilson, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I also congratulate Neil Findlay on securing this debate, because I think that it is always a timely reminder to have a debate on the living wage or the national minimum wage, because, as I said in my earlier intervention, the national minimum wage should be the living wage and not a false ceiling in terms of what we are intending to pay employees. No matter where they are employed, as James Kelly said, the 414,000 workers in Scotland who may not be affected by the living wage also deserve those rights as well. I also thank Gavin Brown for his intervention and contribution to the debate, because it is one of the most positive Conservative party contributions that I have heard in the time in the chamber. I hope that it is a welcome sign that the Conservative party is moving forward to accept that the living wage is something that should be advanced and supported and that employers that sometimes cry out against such interventions such as the living wage will tell the CBI that it is a good positive move to take forward the living wage. I am not sure whether Lewis MacDonald will view that as a negative contribution, but I have to remind members that the living wage is only part of an overall scheme of things that can benefit people and raise people out of in-work poverty. While we talk about raising the living wage, there is no mention of the tax credits and other benefits that workers rely on to survive and are only surviving. By raising the living wage at the present moment, many of those workers may be penalised at the end of the year by the removal of the tax credits and benefits that they receive. We have to bear in mind that when we talk about a living wage and a living income, we have to also take on board the other benefits that employees receive in relation to their survival, taking Lewis MacDonald's intervention. Lewis MacDonald? I am very grateful. Mr Wilson, we recall that I mentioned precisely that point in my own contribution that it is the combination of the minimum wage, the living wage and tax credit support that is critical. It is a Government that wants to achieve the desired objectives that will make all the difference. I thank Lewis MacDonald for his intervention, and he agrees with me in terms of my analysis. While we talk about tax credits and other benefits, we have to look at our employees being offered. At the present moment, when we talk about zero-hour contracts or short-term working contracts, we do not refer to zero-hour, but there are many workers throughout Scotland who are on five-hour a week contracts, 12-hour a week contracts and 16-hour a week contracts. Introducing the living wage for many of those employees would not raise their income levels on a weekly basis, and we have to ensure that there is security of employment as well and that work is there for them to do that. The issue in terms of the contracts, Government contracts but also local Government contracts, I welcome the opportunity to look at what local authorities are doing throughout Scotland in terms particularly the ones who have set up allios and what the allios are doing in relation to the living wage and whether or not they are encompassing some of the ideals that Neil Finlay has exposed today to ensure that workers are on full-time contracts where they want full-time contracts but are being paid the living wage, like other council employees as well, and that allios should not be seen as a shorthand excuse for reducing the income levels of staff being transferred to allios or employed by allios. I welcome the debate and I hope that we can move the debate forward and we can get a situation where the living wage is the national minimum wage and we actually introduce a living wage that benefits everyone in society and takes people out of inward poverty or poverty. I now invite Keith Brown to respond to the debate, cabinet secretary, seven minutes or so please. I would also congratulate Neil Finlay on securing this debate today, which seeks to tackle low pay and job insecurity and that is crucial to achieving the Scottish Government's vision of a successful Scotland. To that end this morning, the cabinet secretary for fair work skills and training attended the first meeting of the fair work convention and that is an independent body that will develop a blueprint for fair work best practices in Scotland and also publish a fair work framework early next year. We are already leading the way by doing all we can within the current powers we have to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from a living wage. To come back to some of the points that were made by James Kelly, I thought that he made a number of very good points, especially why paying a living wage is in the interests of the employer, both in terms of recruitment and retention and also in terms of productivity. If you are paying somebody a wage that they can live on, you will get more out of that person just by virtue of having done that, but he also made the allegation that we are hiding behind EU legislation. We will just let see look at who else is hiding behind EU legislation. Glasgow City Council said that EU regulations do not allow the living wage as a mandatory requirement within our contracts. Renfrewshire, West Lothian and Inverclyde all responded to freedom of information requests, stating that their contracts do not include a mandatory requirement that suppliers pay a living wage. The London boroughs, which James Kelly mentioned, claim to mandate the living wage, but they also say that procurement could potentially be of a cross-border interest where either EU procurement directives or EU treaty principles apply and the requirement for a London living wage should not be made a precondition at the tender stage. You see a lot of evidence, and I think that the most compelling evidence is that, despite what has been said by many Labour spokespeople for quite some time, that this was a fig leaf to try and I do not know, I suppose, the allegation that we did not really want to pay a living wage, this is a fig leaf. Labour's own manifesto now talks about promoting the living wage, not mandating it, and perhaps you should reconcile some of the rhetoric that you have heard to date with that position, which we agree with and are doing a great deal to try and achieve. Despite pretty sharp reductions imposed on the Scottish budget by London, we have taken steps to protect the pay of our lowest-earning public sector workers, including a commitment to support the living wage through our pay policy for the duration of this Parliament. Somebody else also mentioned the Abellio contract, the biggest contract that the Scottish Government lets, £8 billion worth of public money, not just everybody directly employed, but every subcontract, whether cleaning, catering or whatever, is also guaranteed to be paid the living wage. We have also provided further funding to the poverty aligns to promote the take-up of the living wage accreditation initiative in every sector. Last month, the First Minister announced a new target for the poverty aligns—500 accredited living wage employers by the end of March 2016. That follows the achievement of the target of £150, eight months ahead of schedule. I understand that there are now over 180 Scots-based living wage accredited employers, and that is a sign in itself that employers are now recognising the benefits that the living wage can bring to their staff and their businesses. In fact, consultants KPMG published a report on Monday that showed that Scotland is the most living wage-aware region of the UK. Nine out of 10 people have heard of the living wage, and that report also confirms that Scotland is one of the highest proportion of earners in the UK that is now paid above the living wage. If I could turn to the point that was made by Gavin Brown, unlike John Wall, I agree that it was a very constructive point, and I undertake to look further into it. What I would say is that the myriad of contracts that are let by public authorities, especially local authorities, I do not think that I admit of the idea that we can give guidance for all eventualities. It is also true to say that, specifically in relation to local authorities, they will have their legal teams—I accept not as extensive as the Scottish Government's legal resources—but they will have their legal teams and their autonomous bodies, so they will have to take, in certain circumstances, their own advice to make sure that they are observing the legal requirements. I undertake, as I say, to look further into that. Minister, when you turn away from the microphone, I am afraid that it gets more difficult for the chamber to hear you. I apologise, Presiding Officer. Some members mentioned public procurement. Promoting a living wage through public procurement is a weak alternative, in my view, to having the powers over employment law, which we asked the Smith commission to deliver, a plea that was not supported by other parties, in fact was vehemently and specifically opposed by the Labour Party. However, we are right to expect the delivery of the highest quality services and those who deliver the services to offer their employees fair and equitable employment terms. I believe that employees, as I have said in response to James Kelly's point, who are treated fairly, will in turn deliver a higher quality of service. As we implement the procurement reform act and the EU procurement directives, we are focusing on using procurement as a lever for economic growth, supporting a fairer Scotland, streamlining the public sector's dealings with business and adopting more efficient practices that secure best value for the public purse. Will it now be standard practice for the Scottish Government to use that contract waiting in every applicable contract to try and drive up fair pay? On two other points, since I have got the opportunity, will the minister directly look into the issue of terror quest operating at Disclosure Scotland, who are paying very much poverty pay and the fiddle clause being used in the museum service and at Visit Scotland? I can ask on the last two points that Neil Findlay raised that, if he writes to me, he will respond specifically to the points. I think that the first point that he raised was that he should be on the clause. As we have been asked to do by a number of speakers, we are using every possibility, every avenue that we can see to try and achieve that. It has brought some success—I have already mentioned it in relation to Abellio—and current contracts that we are looking at. We are looking at ways in which we can say to people that the workforce wellbeing is a very important part of how sustainable we see a contract being, so they should address that. There are a number of ways that we can do that. We do not want to be too prescriptive, but if it achieves the result that we want to see being achieved, which is the living wage being paid—and it is not just, as John Wilson said about the living wage, there are other aspects to employ a wellbeing, then we will take those opportunities. Since February, we have been consulting on changes to the public procurement rules. The deadline for responses is today. As part of that process, we have sought views on the content of the statutory guidance that has been mentioned. In advance of that guidance on workforce matters and procurement, it shares the lessons from an approach that we piloted to encourage the living wage in our own contract for catering services. That offers practical guidance to purchasers on how and when workforce matters to go back to the point that Neil Findlay raised, including payment of the living wage, should be considered in the course of a public procurement exercise. That will inform the development of statutory guidance to give, as Gavin Brown raised, as much certainty assurance as possible to others public procurers when they seek to do the same thing. We have already engaged with key stakeholders—I have spoken to the STEs here myself—on the published guidance note, and we will engage further with them and others as we work to fast-track that guidance to have it in place by the autumn. I must also agree with many others who have said today that we have to tackle low pay and job insecurity in Scotland as a key priority. I do think that, if you go back to one or two of the points that were made, council funding was raised by Neil Findlay. I did not see any amendment to the budget that we proposed or to the local government finance order as to how much more we should pay local government. If we had seen that, perhaps we would have attached more importance to the point that was being made. I do not see a manifesto commitment mandating a living wage alone. I think that everyone expected that to come, given the rhetoric that we have had. I also do not think that we should forget the point that the people have changed that. It is not just because it is the SNP Government, but because times have changed and people are much more aware of how damaging low pay can be. We could do this now. If the UK Government was willing to give us not just the responsibility but not the power, but the power over the minimum wage, that is the quickest way to deal with the scourge of low pay. That has been refused up till now. Despite that, I would encourage public and private sector organisations to follow our lead, pay the living wage to their own staff and consider how they can maximise the opportunities in their own procurement exercises to promote fair employment practices and workforce matters, including living wage in all relevant contracts. That concludes Neil Findlay's debate on expanding coverage of the living wage. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30pm.