 making the people of Scotland happy. Thank you for listening. The next item business is consideration of business motion 14410, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting a revision to today's business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14410. The next item business is consideration of business motion 14410, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting a revision to today's business programme. The next item business is consideration of business motion 14410, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting a revision to today's business programme. To ask the Scottish Government what action it can take in relation to the reported shortage of trading standards officers in Scotland. The Scottish Government's vision is for an enforcement system that is comprehensive, effective and widely respected. The Scottish Government has set up the working group for consumer and competition policy, which is considering the most effective arrangements for delivering consumer and competition services in Scotland. It will make its recommendations to the Scottish Government in November this year. The Scottish Government will continue to work in partnership with interested groups to create an integrated consumer protection regime that puts the interests of consumers first and gives consumers greater clarity on where to turn for help and advice. I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. Trading standards officers undertake an important service protecting both the public and legitimate businesses from rogue traagers. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, in February 2013, Audit Scotland warned that trading standards had experienced greater than average staff reductions and that the long-term viability of these council services was under threat. Since that warning, a further one in eight staff has been lost. Can the cabinet secretary explain why it is taking so long to act on Audit Scotland's concerns? The first thing that I would say is that I agree wholeheartedly with the point that Dr Murray made about the vital role that trading standards officers undertake in Scotland, because they are to provide advice and guidance to members of the public who may be in a very vulnerable situation as a consequence of an experience that they have had in relation to consumer policy. In connection with the Audit Scotland report, the working group that we have established is exploring many of the issues in this whole area of policy, where, of course, there is some further devolution of responsibilities coming to the Scottish Parliament, but we are also taking into account the findings of the Audit Scotland report to ensure that we create a system in Scotland that provides the necessary assurance and support to individuals. That will be at the heart of the material that comes to Government in November and the shape of the Government's response. Finally, I think that the timescale for addressing those issues has been pretty swift by the Government. We have seen the conclusions of the Smith commission, we have adapted our approach to take that into account and we have a very broad base of stakeholder opinion participating to the working group, which I warmly welcome. Cabinet Secretary will be aware that, prior to the reorganisation of local government in 1996, trading standards were the responsibility of regional councils. I understand that there is support for a return to a regional model of service provision again. If the cabinet secretary can give serious consideration to alternatives that retain some local accountability, rather than just centralising the service as a national quango? As Elaine Murray will know, the Government is very committed to ensuring that we devolve services to local levels. The removal of ring fencing, which the Scottish Government undertook back in 2007, gave significant greater flexibility to local authorities to determine their choices in their localities. If there is an appetite amongst local authorities to try to draw together some of those services on a wider basis to secure their sustainability, I would be very open to that conversation with local government and to find ways in which we could do that. What I am confident about is that there is a very good atmosphere for discussing those issues involving the various stakeholders who have been part of our working group and the wider discussion that has been taken forward by the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The point that Dr Murray makes is a reasonable suggestion, and I will ensure that that is reflected on in the Government's thinking. The cabinet secretary will be aware that I spent most of my working career as a trading standards officer. I am currently a vice-president of the UK's Chartered Trading Standards Institute. That problem started 20 years ago when the regional councils were abolished and it has got much worse in recent years. Very small local authorities—there are trading standards of a very small number of people involved, so very small authorities cannot really deal with the huge myriad of issues across the consumer protection landscape. Would the cabinet secretary value further devolution of all consumer protection to this Parliament? We are currently going to get advocacy and advice, and we can look at the structures. Does he think that it would help if the full powers in relation to consumer protection were devolved? I would also like to encourage him to certainly go for bigger units, but there have been many schemes in the past—voluntary schemes for local government to combine. Every single one has failed, and that has been the case across the whole of the UK. The Parliament has benefited enormously from the contribution that Mr Thomson has just put on the record in relation to the experience of the operation and development of the service over a long number of years. I thank him very much for that very helpful contribution. The point at heart is about two points that Mr Thomson raised that I want to respond to. The first is on the additional powers that we will attract. There are four pillars of competence that are essential around the areas of consumer protection—advocacy and advice, which will be coming to the Scottish Parliament, but also enforcement and redress. Part of how I am trying to approach the Scotland Bill provisions is to find ways in which we can look at cohesive ways in which policy can be taken forward to ensure that we are able to deliver on the expectations of members of the public. The point about cohesion is a very strong point that Mr Thomson has made. His second point is on the whole nature of drawing together local authorities into co-operative and collaborative units by voluntary co-operation. I hear his words of caution about how successful that approach might be. Notwithstanding what has happened in the past, this type of co-operation is going to become essential in the future. Local authorities are going to have to work more closely together and to share services and to collaborate more widely, because that will be the necessary element of how we deal with the financial challenges that we face. If local authorities do not do that and do not try to safeguard and improve services as a consequence, then what will happen is that there will be a diminuation of the services to people in Scotland. Dr Murray does not want that. Mr Thomson does not want that. I do not want that, so we will work with local government to achieve as much as we can in this area of policy. Question 2, Patrick Harvie. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on allowing mixed sex couples to form civil partnerships. The Government issued a consultation on the review of civil partnership on 22 September. In that, the Government indicated that we are not persuaded that mixed sex civil partnership should be introduced in Scotland. However, the consultation invites views on that position. As the member who proposed when civil partnerships were first being debated, that when they were created, they should be created on the basis of equality, open to mixed sex couples as well as same sex couples, I, like most MSPs, was very happy to welcome that principle of equality being applied to marriage. There is now no legal bar on same sex couples marrying on a basis of equality to which most of us agree that they are entitled. It seems to me bizarre that we do not apply the same test to civil partnership. Why does the minister feel that a mixed sex couple whose neighbours a same sex couple can choose cohabitation, civil partnership or marriage based on their own values and priorities? Why should that mixed sex couple not feel discriminated against in law by having a legal barrier placed against them to one of those legitimate options? I take a moment to join Patrick Harvie in welcoming the support that this Parliament did show for same sex marriage. It was a real landmark moment of this session that many of us were not just happy to see but were personally very proud to be involved in. The consultation is setting out three options here, one of which is the introduction of opposite sex civil partnerships. It carries with that the view that having considered it we think there are arguments against. We think that there would be issues over low demand, about limited recognition in particular elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the lack of necessary understanding about opposite sex civil partnership and indeed the rather liberal rights that we do have around marriage in Scotland which puts the couple at the heart giving tremendous flexibility over where it may be held, how it may be held and who can officiate at that. The great challenge for this Parliament has been to legislate for the same sex marriage and we have done so. This is another issue that we committed to considering, we are now considering it and I would invite anybody who does think that way to give their views to the consultation. Mr Harvie? If low demand and the prospect of limited recognition overseas were legitimate reasons not to act then no country would have been the first to introduce equal marriage for same sex couples. They would have anticipated both arguments and they would have taken no action. The minister is right to say that these three options are presented in the paper but option one no change and option two of closing down future civil partnerships both have the arguments for and against presented. Option three of mixed sex civil partnership doesn't have those arguments fairly represented. Can the minister confirm that, if the response to the consultation comes back and shows that there is an argument, a strongly held argument in favour of mixed sex civil partnerships, the Scottish Government remains open to the option? The Scottish Government's position is that, having looked at the evidence, we are not persuaded that mixed sex civil partnership should be introduced in Scotland. Clearly it is in the consultation and we are inviting comment. There have been many consultations over the years that state an outset position that invites comment on them and the Government considers that. The Government will fully consider everything that comes into the consultation. I would draw a parallel, for example, with 2011, where we produced a consultation at the start on same sex marriage, which indicated that the Government tended towards the view that same sex marriage should be introduced, signalling a view while still allowing everybody to give their views. Again, I encourage everybody who has a strong view on that to submit it to the consultation. The equal marriage pledge supported by a majority of members on all sides of this chamber says, I pledge to support the equal marriage campaign to lift the ban on same sex marriage and mixed sex civil partnerships in Scotland. Do the Scottish Government appreciate that, if the Parliament accepts its opposition to mixed sex civil partnerships, we are breaking our promise to the people of Scotland? The central and overriding issue of the pledge was to introduce same sex marriage. As I said, we are all proud to have done so. The Government, as opposed to MSPs, has been clear all along in that. As part of that process, civil partnership would be reviewed and that is what we are now doing. As I said, there are three options on the table that we have given an initial view and I would encourage everybody to respond.