 Rwy'n gweithio. The first item of business this afternoon is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body questions. Questions number one, John Finnie. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what proportion of the Scottish Parliamentary Pension scheme is invested in the fossil fuel, defense and tobacco industries? David Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I share the member's interest in this matter having been a trustee of the Scottish Parliamentary Pension scheme for over three years. The Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme can't really invest in the Bailey Gifford management pension fund and from May 2012 also the Bailey Gifford diversified growth fund. In total, these funds can't hold approximately 4 per cent of assets in oil and gas producers, 1 per cent in oil equipment services and distribution, 2 per cent in tobacco and 4 per cent in defence. I thank my colleague David Stewart for that comprehensive reply. You'll be aware that there's been very fine words about peace emanated from here, yet we find we're investing in the arms industry. There's health challenges our nation faces, yet we're investing in BA British American Tobacco. Climate challenge is a major issue, yet we're investing in BT, Total and Shell. Those are public monies that are going to corporations at the expense of citizens and will have an implication for Scotland and beyond. I think that Scotland wants to be good global citizens. I wonder if the member agrees to prepare an early report for members' consideration laying out how divestment in those unethical areas could be undertaken, please. David Stewart could I thank the member for his question? Perhaps I can give a bit more background about the scheme to try and help and answer the member's point. The trustees of the Scottish Parliament pension scheme appointed Bailey Gifford as fund managers for the scheme and have delegated the responsibility for day-to-day investment management to them. The pension contributions are invested in appalled funds, which means that the Scottish Parliament pension scheme is one of a number of investors in the funds. Therefore, under those arrangements, the Scottish Parliamentary pension scheme does not directly own any stocks and therefore cannot direct investments. In order to do so, they would need to change to a segregated portfolio arrangement, but moving to a segregated arrangement would be a decision for the fund trustees and would depend on a number of factors such as the practicalities of such a change, any cost implications and whether the value of the funds was sufficient to support a segregated arrangement. However, I will take this opportunity to write to the trustees of the Scottish Parliament pension scheme to ask them to consider this matter in much more detail. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary corporate body what resources it provides to allow members to scrutinise the Scottish Government's budget. In 2009, the financial scrutiny unit was set up by SPICE to support the committees and individual members to understand and scrutinise the Scottish budget. With pressures on public finances and with the new tax powers on their way to the Parliament, financial scrutiny is an increasingly vital function of the Parliament. I thank Kara Hilton for a question, not least in allowing me to highlight the recent development of some online interactive tools, now available on the Parliament's website, which will assist all members. One such example uses graphics to allow members to explore the budget at a very detailed level, right down to level 4, and see year to year changes at a glance. The facility allows members, and indeed members of the public, to vary rates, bans and some of the underlying assumptions in relation to the new land and buildings transaction tax. I think that the corporate body would very much welcome feedback from members and indeed the public on how useful they find these innovations. In light of the extra powers that will be on the way to Holyrood soon, what additional tools will be available to members to enable them to better scrutinise the Government in respect of new powers that might be on the way in respect of tax and welfare? I think that many of you have been asking a very valid question. I think that I will have to await the outcome of the Smith commission before we progress any more specific work in terms of the new powers and the consequences implications for the Parliament and its committees. Having said that, SPICE has provided briefing on a number of fiscal welfare issues over the pre-referendum period and has already built up considerable expertise. SPICE will also tap into expertise available outside the Parliament, including in our universities and internationally, but this is obviously a matter that we will keep under constant review over the coming months. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it plans to review the number of passes issued to people who do not work in the parliamentary complex. The Security Office, on behalf of the corporate body, continuously reviews the issuing of passes on an on-going basis. This process forms a critical part of the overall security measures and is based on the advice received from the security services. As requested by the corporate body, the security office is currently reviewing the policies around the issuing of passes, including those who do not work in the parliamentary complex. I thank the member for that response. Could the member give any indication of how many passes have been issued to non-employed members of the complex? Can he also give me some assurances that the issuing of sponsored passes will be reviewed more regularly and that we do not fall into the accusation that may be made by some that sponsored passes are another form of lobbying that has taken place in this Parliament? I thank the member for his question. I will write to the member with the specific points that he wishes to take into account, but perhaps it will be useful to give a wider picture in this issue. This year, the corporate body introduced changes to the criteria attached to the regular visitor pass category, known as the parliamentary support pass for MSP-sponsored applications. The primary change being that, to qualify for a pass that the sponsor is required to confirm, the parliamentary purpose for which the pass will be used and that the visitor will attend at Parliament at least weekly and in condition that the parliamentary support pass holders do not use their access to Parliament to act as lobbyists, paid or unpaid for any individual organisation that might seek to influence the political process. The pass is issued in the initial three months period instead of 12 months as it was under the original arrangements. Similarly, for other non-parliamentary building users, the requirement for a continuance of a pass will be challenged at the point of receipt of an application for renewal. To ask the corporate body what its position is on offering a small discount or other incentives to encourage the use of cashless payments in the garden level restaurant. Liz Smith, there are no plans to offer a discount for using the cashless system. However, we would encourage everyone who uses the restaurant to use their card as it is around five times quicker than paying by cash. The more the card is used, the better it will be for everybody, particularly when that restaurant is very busy. I very much agree with her enthusiasm for using the cashless system. I notice today that there were considerable queues and there have been polite noses there for quite a long time, which people are ignoring. I do wonder maybe a penalty then on people who insist on paying by cash. The member makes an interesting point. I have to say that that is not something that the corporate body has considered, but the member makes a good point about this issue in general, that there have been concerns in the past that sometimes we have run into difficulties because it has been so busy. I think that the corporate body is undertaken to perhaps look at the tap and go wave and pay system in the future, and that is something that we will certainly take on board. To ask the corporate body what decision it has made on the employment of family members of MSPs and whether that complies with the requirements of European laws on employment, discrimination and human rights and that the legal requirements of any consequent redundancies will be complied with. I can tell Chick Brody that the SPCB discussed the expenses schemes' transitional arrangements in respect of members employing close family members at its meeting on 4 June this year and agreed to return to the issue later in the year. I can also reassure him that the SPCB will ensure that any decision that it makes complies with the relevant legislation. In the event of job redundancies, what rules will be put in place to assist MSPs on the basis that there cannot be a like-for-like job replacement under redundancy law? How will the administrative support jobs be different? I can certainly understand the background to Mr Brody's question. I think that it is probably worth reflecting on the fact that the Macintosh review contained recommendations for a transitional provision, which was intended to allow the existing arrangements for any family member of staff employed to continue until three months after the date of the next Scottish Parliament elections. Subsequently, the date for the next election has been moved by 12 months and the corporate body is actively considering how to give effect to the intention of the scheme running until three months after the next election. We will return to that in relation to the support provided for anybody affected by that decision. The corporate body will be cognisant of our responsibilities in that respect and will provide any appropriate support that we can. However, I should underscore the fact that the Macintosh review's recommendations were subject to legal advice that was made available. If we are confident that any recommendation from the corporate body will be consistent with any relevant legal requirements placed upon us. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body what consideration it has given to commemorating and celebrating the contribution of Margo MacDonald to the Parliament. I think that everybody in this Parliament appreciates the very considerable contribution that was made by Margo MacDonald to the Parliament, just as we also value the very considerable contributions that were made to our other members who have passed away during this Parliament. Brian Adam, David McLeachie and Helen Eadie. The SPCB has no policy of commemorating the lives of members or former members who have died, but it is something upon which we are happy to reflect. Christine Grahame, I thank the member for her response. I think that there is a rationale to say that we are invidious to single out one MSP, no matter how individualistic and significant her contribution was to Scottish politics at large. However, I agree that there have been, during the course of my time here, the 15-year seven deaths of sitting MSPs in service. I would suggest that the corporate body would consider some kind of discreet plaque or memorial listing the MSPs who have died and served across the chamber in all parts. Of course, we started with Donald Dure and, of course, last of all, Margo MacDonald, but there have been others in between, and perhaps a corporate body would give some thought to this in their coming meetings. I am grateful to the member for what is a very considerate and sensitive supplementary question. I think that it is something upon which the SPCB should reflect and we can undertake to do that. Question 7, Alison Johnstone. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how many journeys between mainland Scotland and London were made by road rail co-chinair in the last year for which figures are available. Liam McArthur. Thank you very much. I can tell Alison Johnstone that in 2013-14 there were 21 return journeys between Scotland and London reimbursed under the member's expenses scheme. 15 of those were by air and 6 by rail. Many thanks, Alison Johnstone. Thank you for those figures. Speedy travel to London is, of course, sometimes necessary, but it is vitally important that we as a Parliament keep producing our climate emissions. I wonder if the SPCB has further plans to reduce air miles. For example, in my time on committee, we have had one video conferencing session. Are there any plans to expand video conferencing to increase the facilities available and to promote their use by committees and other organisations? Liam McArthur. I think that Alison Johnstone makes a very fair point in terms of our own responsibilities in reducing our climate emissions having passed the legislation in the previous Parliament. This is something that the Corporate Body takes exceptionally seriously and reports on that regularly. As I understand it, our track record in increasing the amount of video conferencing where appropriate has happened, but there is clearly more we can be doing. In relation to the specifics of the question, the choice of appropriate method of transport is ultimately the responsibility of individual members. In making that choice, members are required to act in accordance with the principles of the reimbursement of members' expenses scheme and should be satisfied that the expenses represent value for money and we are incurred having due regard to efficiency and effectiveness. It will do no harm for us to continually reinforce the message about our own responsibilities in relation to the environmental challenges that we face. As a Corporate Body, we will continue to do that. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action has been taken to clean the wall and hanging glass panels, which are above you in the chamber. The high-level hanging glass panels and walls in the chamber are cleaned on an annual basis during the February recess. Richard Lyle? That answer was not my understanding, but I will be checking that. Is this work put out to tender or is it done in house? That is an important issue. I am absolutely sure of that. One of the reasons why it is cleaned on an annual basis is because it is extremely expensive to do. In times of time, it takes five to seven days to ensure that it can be done properly. That is one of the reasons why it is done during the February recess when there is plenty of time to do that. In answer to the question specifically, it is carried out by the high-level fabric maintenance contractor, Track International Ltd. Many thanks. That concludes questions to the Corporate Body. I am sorry to the two members that I was unable to call, but we must now move on to the next item of business. I will give a few seconds for members to change places. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 11507, in the name of Angela Constance, on progressive workplace policies to boost productivity, growth and jobs. I would be grateful if those members who wish to speak in the debate could press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I call on Angela Constance to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, around 14 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When I published the reports of the working together review of progressive workplace policies on 13 August, I welcomed the findings and said that the Government would consider its recommendations fully engaged directly with business and trade unions and prepare a formal response. Today provides an opportunity for all parties in this Parliament to contribute to that on-going process and, of course, our plans for a fair work convention. When the First Minister announced the establishment of a fair work convention at the STUC's decent work dignified life conference, Graham Smith, the general secretary, said, The STUC enthusiastically welcomes the First Minister's announcement today that the establishment of a Scottish fair work convention, a key recommendation of the working together review, signals a new approach to fair pay and industrial relations in Scotland. The approach stands in stark contrast to the policies of the UK Government. I welcome that recognition that we are focused on what is best for Scotland. I have repeatedly stressed that this Government will work tirelessly to build a labour market and economy that is resilient, adaptable and responsive to change, because that is key to ensuring that Scotland's businesses compete internationally, delivering long-term prosperity and high-quality jobs. We need to support growth that reduces inequalities and helps everyone to realise their potential, particularly women and young people. We need growth that reduces disparities between different parts of Scotland and we need growth that is sustainable and resilient. The Labour market statistics published yesterday demonstrate the impact of Scotland's distinctive policy approach. Our economy continues to grow stronger. We are outperforming the UK on employment, unemployment and inactivity rates. The gap between male and female employment has fallen to 5.4 per cent. I am pleased that we have also seen progress in youth employment, but of course there is far, far more that needs to be done. The Government is always focused on securing the best outcomes for Scotland. We believe and the working together review confirms that progressive workplace policies can help improve a firm's productivity and innovation and aid sustainable growth. Well-rewarded and sustained employment is indeed the best route out of poverty and the best way to tackle inequality. That is the context for today and indeed was the context last week when working together was discussed at the Business and Parliament conference. It was living wage week, of course, and many of the businesses present were keen to learn more about living wage accreditation. There was also a strong interest in fair work in progressive policies which boosts productivity and an appetite to learn more about the specifics of what has worked in other businesses. The focus on the living wage, as one very significant example of progressive workplace policies, understandably emerged because Rachel McEwen of Scottish and Southern Energy talked of their experiences and what it had delivered for their business. It was very heartening to hear Rachel talk of the positive feedback from the many SSE employees, not just from those who had seen a rise in their income. That is consistent with the view of KPNGs, UK head of facilities. Guy Stollard, who is on record as saying that offering a living wage is a good business sense. Jenny Marra, Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way and, I think, SSE's story about the living wage is one that is quite compelling. But Scottish and Southern Energy have given the living wage to their contractors as well, and it pains to point out that the EU procurement law is very similar for public bodies as it is for the energy companies. Will the cabinet secretary undertake to look again, in the light of SSE's progress, about how she can offer the living wage to government contractors too? I mean, Ms Marra makes an interesting point because we did indeed touch on procurement in last week's parliamentary debate on the living wage and also at the business parliament conference, and I certainly heard SSE reflect on their experiences. The position of this Government, as is clearly articulated by the Deputy First Minister, over many, many months is that we have to operate within the context of EU law. Of course, the stumbling block is that our national minimum wage, which is set in statute, is at a different rate from that of the living wage. Although we have had many debates about the limits of EU law and, of course, as a Government, we will always listen and look to learn from the experience of others. I hope that Ms Marra is reassured that it was this Government that was the first and, indeed, the only Government to introduce the living wage to all of its staff. We have currently taken a good step forward with the procurement reform bill, having been in the process of introducing statutory guidance. There are other schemes such as procurement piloting projects and the living wage accreditation scheme, so we are not resting in our laurels. We are always looking for ways to ensure that Scotland does indeed become a living wage country. Rachael McEwen also captured the mood of the room when she recognised that different approaches will work for different businesses and that individual organisations are best placed to make their own choices, working with their employees and trade unions. That said, those choices are likely to deliver better outcomes for all if underpinned by a commitment to fair work and access to information about what has worked elsewhere. That resonates with the case studies that feature in the working together review and, indeed, other examples. I recently met the owner of Get It Done Cleaning, the first cleaning company in Scotland to be accredited by the Living Wage Foundation. The owner of that company spoke very eloquently and made a very compelling case of the benefits that paying the living wage had on his business and how it led to more motivated employees, which in turn resulted in that. He also spoke further about how paying the living wage and accreditation had become a unique selling point to his customers and that helped to set his business apart from that of his competitors. When I visited Inspire in Scotland this summer, I heard firsthand from some of their workers about the vital role, flexible and family-friendly working arrangements play in helping people there to manage the twin responsibilities of work and caring. That was matched by the chief executive's own account of how much of those employees contributed to the organisation and how everybody would lose out if they were not able to offer. That balance between work and family commitments. Fair work is an important issue, Presiding Officer. It impacts directly on business competitiveness and on the lives of individual workers across Scotland. There will be a fair work convention involving trade unions and employer representatives. In my discussions with the STUC yesterday and in the coming weeks with Scottish Chamber of Commerce, SCDI and CBI are about what it will do and how it will deliver. The Working Together review group recommended that a fair employment framework should be developed through a new stakeholder body with representation from trade unions and employers. The framework should be based on what works principles and clear responsibilities for unions, employers, employees and workers. It should seek to provide support for diversity in the workplace with particular regard to women and young people. Of course, we also have to think about removing barriers to getting into work and progress in work to other members of the community, whether they are members of the BME community or workers with a disability. The Government also wishes to influence improvements in the national minimum wage. Earlier this week, the Deputy First Minister highlighted that a number of major charities such as Engender, Poverty Alliance, Children's First and the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations support our proposals for the Scottish Parliament to have control over this very important policy area. The STUC is another important advocate for a devolution of workplace regulation and I am confident that the Smith commission will carefully consider the evidence presented by all of those bodies. Drawing on all of those influences, I believe that the fair work convention should support diversity, equality and increase in sustainable economic growth by providing independent advice to the Scottish Government on matters relating to industrial relations, fair work and the national minimum wage. In discussions, I will seek views on the draft remit to develop, promote and sustain a fair employment framework for Scotland. That will include, specifically, finding and broadcasting evidence of effective industrial relations practice. Secondly, helping to improve that dialogue between unions, employers, public bodies and government. Thirdly, providing evidence-based recommendations on minimum wage rates and policies that help as many as possible low-paid workers and contribute to increase sustainable economic growth. I would very much welcome members' views on the outline of a draft employment framework, either in the context of this debate or subsequently. I would also welcome views on the STUC view that the remit should be explicit about the fair work convention's role in, for example, exploring the potential to extend collective bargaining, promoting equality and environmental reps in Scotland's workplaces, and developing a joint training programme for unions and management. Those specific proposals featured in the Working Together report and could contribute, substantively, to their four strategic themes. The first theme, members will recall, was building industrial relations capacity and capability to boost productivity and grow jobs. The second theme was supporting fair work. The third theme was helping unions, employees and employers to work together in workplaces right across Scotland. Fourthly, for an evidence-based approach, learning from what works in Scottish workplaces and, of course, best practice internationally. I endorse workplace training and development and employers and employees having a shared commitment to the future growth of their organisations and communities. In conclusion, let me stress that I will listen very closely to the views emerging from this debate. Let me also make clear that I will not compromise on the outcomes that we seek to deliver for the people of Scotland. Fair work helps individuals, families and communities. It helps companies to become more competitive. It boosts productivity and creates jobs. Well-rewarded and sustained employment is the best route out of poverty and the best way to tackle inequality. I will end with a quote from Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, which features in the Working Together report. It is this, No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. I move the motion on my name. I now call in Cameron Buchanan to speak to and move amendment 11507.1. Mr Buchanan, seven minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I wish to move the amendment in my name. This afternoon's discussion about workplace policies to boost productivity, growth and jobs is much needed. We are all agreed on the desirability of rewarding and lasting employment being available to our entire workforce. That much is clear. In addition, it is welcome to see cross-party recognition that innovation is playing a vital role in increasing productivity. However, it is apparent that forcing the advancement of unions, reach and power by spending more government funds is not in the best means of facilitating sustainable employment and healthy workplace relations. It is for this reason that I am opposing the member for Arman Valley's motion and have submitted my amendment. Before explaining the reasons for my disagreement with the motion, it is useful to highlight the successes that the Government can facilitate when it comes to productivity, pay, jobs and growth. I am talking here about the UK Government. Figures from the Office of National Statistics released only yesterday show that productivity in the UK workforce is increasing. Growth in average pays exceeding inflation and unemployment in the July to September period was down, certainly. One of your comments on the Bank of England's chief economist comment that the fall in real wages since the pre-recession peak is, I quote, unprecedented since at least the mid-1800s. Does the member accept that George Osborne has failed? That is not what he is suggesting. He has failed to protect the living standards of the people of Scotland. Thank you very much indeed. I thank the member for his intervention. I do not accept that because I think it was yesterday's news and it was really not exactly what we were talking about now. The July to September period was down 115,000 on the previous quarter. Furthermore, employment in Scotland increased by 22,000 over the three months to September to reduce the unemployment rate to 5.9 per cent. This is all occurring as the British economy is growing at the fastest rate amongst developed countries. It is obviously all good news and whilst it is further to go, I hope that my fellow members would join me in welcoming this. The Working Together Review Group certainly aimed to answer some interesting questions, but its report has come up with the wrong answers. It recommends policies that are too interventionist and too expensive. It is all very well to say that we support well-rewarded employment and effective communication, but I think practical considerations must be addressed. The recommendation of the report to require the presence of equality and environmental representatives in all public sector workplaces would at the very least be an unnecessary intrusion, I think, on workplaces. On top of this, the report suggests that all public sector bodies should be required to establish fit-for-purpose vehicles to formally engage with unions and should be required to include a section in their annual report on their approach to industrial relations. There may be a good intention, but in my experience the effective delivery of an organisation's objectives can be severely hindered by extra layers of bureaucracy. Such time-consuming impositions can all too easily lead to the opposite effect of their intentions. Resource is spent on administration rather than investment in skills and productivity that can lead to increased pay. I think that evidence internationally shows that those workplaces, with good and constructive and regular conversations and representation of their trade unions, have the highest productivity and the best working conditions. I am coming to that in my talk. That takes me to my next point, because the report casually recommends that spending of substantial sums of public money, paying for education for union representatives through colleges and leadership development programmes, as well as the provisions for equality representatives and environmental representatives, Meanwhile the Scottish government will demand significant funding from the Scottish Government that it perhaps goes beyond what is necessary. Unions are largely self-financed… … but it is clear that the Government should redirect funds from elsewhere. In addition we need to focus on the public sector, at the expense of the private sector. Indeed, Scottish Chamber of Commerce has pointed out… … a lot of Scottish government funds that have hect fearful for recent years given on the public sector, when selection is in greater control. On this note, the limited attention that the report of the working together review group gives to the private sector employees, I think, is a cause for concern, as three quarters of jobs are in the private sector and the government could do more to help. I agree completely with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce that the biggest issue affecting productivity in the private sector is the skills shortage, and the government would do well to aim policies at improving education to address this, as well as supporting business to business cooperation. I do, however, have differing views from the members of Armond Valley on workplace policies. I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I support the aim of facilitating, constructive and more effective dialogue between union employees and employers. This is important for all involved, and the experience has shown that working together can lead to outcomes in the best interests of employees, employers and the wider economy. CBI has pointed out that the economic downturn highlighted how flexible working practices and a more individualised model of employment relations enabled employers and employees to work together to keep people in work. That helped foster an environment of co-operative employment relations that was critical to the economic recovery. As the economy continues to grow, maintaining this positive relationship within the workplace is key. There are a number of ideas that could build on this atmosphere of co-operation, and it seems clear to me that the most effective avenue would be to foster conditions that enable constructive dialogue between employers and employees without dictating how and when. The crucial point is that individual businesses and public organisations are best placed to decide themselves to implement and decide the structure of workplace relations. This flexibility, I think, is invaluable, and I feel the need to repeat that movements to exert government interference would be a hindrance rather than a helpful development. Accordingly, I urge my fellow members to vote against this member for Armond Valley's motion, as it stands, because the recommendations that it endorses would direct public money towards interventions that could hinder performance and are not in the interests of employers or employees. To deliver healthy employee relations and a stronger stable economy, we must only foster the conditions for effective communication and allow organisations to decide for themselves what best practice is. Productivity, growth and jobs would be boosted by this approach, and I therefore urge the members to support my motion to this effect. I thank the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government for bringing this important debate to the chamber today. It is important because it centres on the matter of progressive workplace policies. It is important because it is about improving people's working lives. We all agree with the dignity of work and how important that is for our community. I also congratulate Jim Maither, the former minister and the STUC on producing the document and the hours of work in consultation that went into it. Progressive workplace policies are crucial for many reasons, but a central strand running through all the suggestions that are made in the review is one key theme, which is productivity as the Government and the Conservatives have already touched on this afternoon. Productivity is in itself the cornerstone of a progressive workplace policy because it bookends the elements that make a workplace progressive in itself equal and sustainable. A progressive workplace policy comes from the need for more efficient and innovative production, and successful production is a result of those progressive policies. As Paul Krugman said in his book The Age of Diminishing Expectations, productivity is not everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker. That is a fact that the Scottish Government indeed recognises. It has set its own targets for Scotland to rank in the top quartile for productivity against our key trading partners in the OECD by 2017. At the moment, however, Scotland is still ranked 17 out of 32 countries. Indeed Scotland's relative position has remained broadly unchanged over the past four years. A more innovative approach is clearly required, and I think that this document recognises that and is a good start towards that improvement. Raising the productivity of a business means that it can compete on high skill and wages in a race to the top, creating the middle-income jobs that we need to tackle the cost of living crisis. The UK Labour Government made good progress on closing the productivity gap, but there is still a great deal left to do, and Scotland and the UK are at roughly the same ranking in the OECD. This key aspect of the report is something that the Labour Party endorses wholeheartedly and hopes to see carried forward by the Scottish Government. If elected to government in 2016, in Holyrood 2, we commit to implementing the recommendations in the report. Some of the recommendations in the report cover equality. Gavin Brown Just for clarity, is that a commitment to implement all 30 recommendations in the report? Jenny Marra, and I can give you time back. Yes, it is. It is a commitment to implement the working together review. I want to come on to equality. This is crucial. As we still witness a pay gap, and despite reported improvements yesterday, it is still a challenge for women to get the skills, training and decent-wage jobs that they need. This is something that we have debated many times in this chamber. The recommendation in the report for equality representatives is a good step forward. Likewise, a fair employment framework—I was pleased to hear the minister say that she is going to listen to all parties on that. Recommendation 25 in the report would see more people with a trade union background sit on public boards and would increase female participation on those boards. The cabinet secretary knows that that is something particularly close to my heart and the Labour Party's agenda. For the reason that those public boards make so many critical decisions about public spending and services, yet they are largely unknown and not entirely representative across our communities. Many companies do not have trade union representation, so what do you suggest that it should happen to the employees vis-a-vis board positions in those companies? Jenny Marra, I think that that has to be something that we would think long and hard about. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will consider that. Equality in the workplace has been discussed in the chamber the past few weeks, but from our request that public authorities direct at least one contract to supported businesses, to our request for the living wage to be a requirement in all public sector contracts, both of those requests for legislative action to improve equality have been rejected by the Government. I would be very interested today to note how many of the 30 recommendations in that report that the Government intends to enact. The Working Together review highlighted the incredible importance of unions in driving equality in the workplace. It said that unions are not simply representatives of a sectional interest but can act as swords of justice in the workplace and elsewhere, generating positive individual and social outcomes. That review suggests closer working between the Government and the unions. It is a push for better communication and improving equality through diversity and a mutually beneficial relationship. As I have said, we think that productivity is the central crux of those things that make a workplace successful and afford our workers and the public the most basic of rights. All of those recommendations can be done with political will or enacted immediately. The powers are vested in this building and in the hands of the Scottish Government today. We can begin immediately to push this forward. For this reason, Labour is pleased to support the Government's motion today but looks forward to more detail during the course of the afternoon on how the SNP intends to implement the suggestions in the report so that we may see the potential of progressive workplaces come to fruition in Scotland. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate speeches of around six minutes. I have a bit of time in hand at the moment to recompense members for interventions if they wish to take them. Gordon MacDonald to be followed by Ken Macintosh. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Back in 1977, I picked up a copy of the SNP and you, which contained the aims and policies of the SNP. On page 12 of that document, it stated under the section Manpower and Industrial Relations, the following, and I quote, The SNP is strongly committed to the principle of direct employee participation and decision making in industry and believes that greater democratisation in the workplace is long overdue. It also promoted the establishment of an economic council representing unions, employers and government, and it established the SNP's commitment to the minimum wage by stating that the SNP supports a statutory minimum earnings level. The final paragraph highlighted that a major increase in facilities for training and retraining is essential together with a more effective planned and co-ordinated training service. It took 30 years in the election of an SNP Government before staff covered by the public sector pay policy were paid the living wage, the first Government in the UK to do so. Modern apprenticeships are at record levels and plans are in place to increase that number further, but despite those advances, we are left trying to improve the living standards of the people of Scotland with one hand tied behind our back. The problem is that employment legislation that covers the minimum wage, living wage and zero-hour contracts is still reserved to Westminster. The very issues that impact on the living standards of many Scots, but we are unable to introduce legislation here at Holyrood. However, the Working Together Review Group report progressive workplace policies in Scotland make a number of recommendations that are in tune with those earlier SNP policies. The Scottish Government established the Mather Review in February to examine how better working environments can be created for our employees across the country. The report published in August contains 30 recommendations, including a key recommendation to establish a fair work convention. The First Minister announced at the STUC conference in October that an independent fair work convention would be established to develop, promote and sustain a fair employment framework for Scotland. The fair work convention will encourage dialogue between unions and employer public sector bodies and government in order to promote good industrial relations. It will also be tasked with influencing UK policy on the minimum wage and the promotion of the living wage. The report was welcomed by the STUC, who recognised that it had the potential for extending collective bargaining and for democratising workplaces and industry. Also commenting on the review group's report was Professor Stuart Keep of the Centre of Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance at Oxford University, who made a number of points in an article published in the future of the UK and Scotland website. Firstly, when it comes to employment and industrial relations policy, the issues in Scotland are being conceived of and debated in ways that are strongly dissimilar from England. Secondly, it is not simply that the coalition government would neither be willing to commission nor act upon anything akin to the working together review and its findings, but that some within the Labour Party at Westminster would also probably find the review's report slightly uncomfortable and unsettling reading its underlying assumptions about what the accepted best practice model of industrial relations might look like are simply too radical and too strongly located within another European social democratic and social partnership position to be liable to play wealth with the neoliberal media and employer interests that politicians have become used to deferring to. Finally, Scotland's approach, at least as laid out in the review's report, argues otherwise, suggesting that, for reasons of both equity and efficiency, what happens in the workplace really matters to government and to wider society. As the review points out, many of the Scottish Government's long-term economic and social goals are unlikely to be achieved if productivity and economic performance do not improve and the fruits of such gains are not more widely and equitably shared across the population. Better workplace industrial relations have an important role to play in delivering those objectives, and the review sets out one model for how that might be achieved. The spice briefing workplace policies to boost productivity growth and jobs highlighted that, based on GDP per hour work, Scotland has a higher productive rates than most other regions of the UK except London and the south-east of England. The OECD compared the 32 developed countries on the relative efficiency using GDP per hour work. Scotland was ranked at 17th out of 32 countries with the UK in 19th place. The top three places went to Norway, Luxembourg and Ireland. If we are to emulate those small northern European countries that occupy the top three slots, we must increase productivity. That can only happen if the people who are expected to deliver that increased productivity feel that they will benefit from those increased sales and profits. The Scottish Government's submission to the Smith commission calls for powers over employment and employability to be devolved to this Parliament. With the powers over employment law and in minimum wage, we can ensure that the people of Scotland receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. With those devolved powers, we could finally complete the journey that we started with the publication of SNP and you back in 1977. The argument for progressive workplace policies for decent, non-exploitative, well-paid work is one that stands on its own. I want to begin by developing a couple of themes that emerged from yesterday's debate on welfare and the experience of some of Scotland's most vulnerable citizens. In particular, I want to pick up on a point that was put forward by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to defend their welfare reforms. Speakers from both parties pointed out that welfare spending was not falling in Scotland but increasing. At a time of welfare cuts when unemployment is falling and employment is rising, that might strike most of us as counterintuitive, but the explanation behind it is very interesting. Pensions account for much of the increase, both as the number of older people increases, but more strikingly, in-work benefits, most noticeably tax credits and housing benefit, are rising. That leads directly on to the second point, which followed comments made by Murdo Fraser in a joint interview that we gave yesterday, that work is the best route out of poverty. In the face of it, I could not agree with him more. I suspect that there will be hardly a soul on the labour and the SNP benches who disagrees with the sentiment that is expressed, except that, as a factual statement, it is not entirely true. Work does not automatically take you out of poverty. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others have pointed out, for the first time ever, the majority of households who are living in poverty in Scotland have someone in that household who is holding down a job. What is happening is that people are working, but they are either in part-time, temporary or low-paid jobs that they cannot even afford to pay their rent. In fact, worse than that, people who have been in employment for some time but have had their wages frozen or their overtime cut are finding themselves slipping backwards, they are becoming less well-off with every day's work, rather than becoming more prosperous. I do not dispute the fact that the complexity of the issue does not lend itself to sound bites, but would Mr McIntosh accept that a rise of 40 per cent in real terms in the amount spent in housing benefit over a period of 10 years of uninterrupted economic growth is not necessarily a sign of success nor, indeed, something that is sustainable. That is the whole point about welfare reform. Is that really how we want to deliver our lives in this country where you can hold down a job and yet you still cannot earn enough money to pay your rent? That is the very point that I was trying to make. That is actually not the best use of taxpayers' money. The whole point is now that taxpayers—the rest of us—are having to not just help families, but we are subsidising employers to maintain employment practices that we wish to end. That is the point that I am trying to get to. We are actually paying for things that we do not want to see in the workplace. I agree exactly with what Mr McIntosh has said. It is just to take him back to where he says that the motion is somewhat inconsistent with what he has said, but I would point out that the motion recognises that well-rewarded and sustained employment is the best route out of poverty. The motion is not exactly inconsistent with the point. It makes us just make that point gently. I actually agree with what he is saying. I am not arguing against the motion. In fact, I think that we are voting for the motion, so I am not quite sure. I take Mr Hepburn's point. The point that I was trying to make was building on yesterday's welfare debate and trying to make a point that we are spending a lot of money—a lot of government money—supporting practices that are actually not just bad for people but that are bad for the employment practices and the sustainable employment practices that we wish to see—any number of reasons, Presiding Officer—why we wish to see progressive, fair, sustainable employment policies. It turns to the key question, however, of what we can then do about it. That is where it becomes slightly trickier. I do not doubt that many in the SNP have approached the issue in good faith. Alongside the very good work of our former parliamentary colleague Jim Maither in leading the working together review group, John Swinney was responsible for establishing the national performance framework. For those who are still unfamiliar with the NPF, it is akin to Oxfam's humankind index or other such indices that focus on measuring our wellbeing rather than on other less helpful determinants such as GDP. For me, the NPF is an attempt, at least, to relate the decisions around Government spending more closely to outcomes, to the way that we lead our lives, to policies such as tackling poverty, reducing inequality or, for example, in supporting improving employment practices. There are other initiatives to the STUC's decent work campaign in particular, but I would also mention the ethical finance round table that is driven by the Islamic Finance Council and Tod's Murray, to which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has offered at least exploratory support. I see many of those initiatives sitting alongside our debate today and certainly part of what I see as our mission to build the moral economy. However, how do we translate those good intentions into actions? That is where I am afraid I find the Scottish Government's record at its weakest. The NPF, the national performance framework, for example, has yet to become a budget tool in terms of application. In other words, it is very difficult to see any specific budget decision that has been taken as a result of the NPF, as opposed to traditional policy process. For example, we have had any number of opportunities through the procurement bill, not just to take stronger action on the living wage, but on wage differentials. I think that there is a disjunction between a Government party, which often talks about how strongly it opposes PFI or PPP projects, yet invests billions of pounds, huge sums of public money through the Scottish Futures Trust, in exactly those sort of schemes and, in some cases, clearly employing firms, as Neil Findlay pointed out yesterday, which are suspected of being blacklisters. Do ministers not recognise the contradiction between all of us agreeing here today in tax transparency, for example, in all of us, not just individuals but companies, paying their taxes and then giving tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to companies such as Amazon, who do not or will not pay their taxes, and worse, who fail to recognise trade unions and who use zeroes contracts? Even on supply side measures, none of us wants Scots to go into dead-end or low-skilled jobs, yet the most striking feature of recent SNP budgets has been the way that they have targeted Scotland's colleges. Those are the very institutions that do most to build the skills that we need, the very institutions that would do most to invest in the people, to give them the confidence to succeed, and yet they are the very institutions who have suffered the largest cuts. I will not end on that note, because I have no doubt that there is a strong majority for progressive employment policies here in the Scottish Parliament, particularly across the Labour and SNP benches. Today's debate is yet another step in the right direction. The Fair Work Commission, alongside the working together review, are positive moves that will lead to recommendations on which I hope will then lead to action, and any such moves will have Labour support. I welcome the debate today. The key word for me in this debate is productivity. I also welcome most of the working together review paper produced by the review group under the esteemed leadership of Jim Mather and, of course, the SCUC. Presiding Officer, I hope that the chamber will forgive me if I seek to draw on my personal experience of running companies across eight countries in Europe and my attendant education in their workplace matters. That, and then, as a company troubleshooter doctor, calls what you will on returning to Scotland to assist where I could some companies that were facing financial or managerial difficulties. It became clear from both of those experiences that to achieve growth, to sustain and grow employment, to optimise profitable growth, to secure greater returns for employees and owners, and employers and all stakeholders alike, that the potential for conflict between capital and the form of owners and shareholders, and in some cases management, and conflict with labour in the form of trade unions and or non-union as employed, still on-going regrettably in some quarters of the UK had to be eradicated or at least minimised. Based on that experience, Presiding Officer, primarily with work councils in Germany, that to bring capital and labour together, working together, working more closely, required a greater participation of employees, not just in the formulation of working practices, but in encouragement for some decision making and, indeed, maybe minor equity participation in the company of which they were a part. In Scotland, in Fife, one company with which I was happily involved and associated in turning round, we secured a situation where, having got rid of the board, employees with more than one year's employment with the company were allotted, they had these board shares, a minority shareholding, but still shares and involvement in the equity of the company. There was no pension fund, but the capital growth in the shares in the company's profitable revenues have grown three times most of that since I left. Over the past 80 years, the company was under strong and key management, who were indeed former management in the company. That capital growth for the employee should secure, will secure a port of income when they retire and sell their shares back to the company. It might well say, well, that's the private sector. What about the public sector? There was once a proposal that, if the public sector organisations had a committed cost base that, in the event of the organisation coming in below that committed cost, there should be a reversion of part of that financial benefit to the employees who, as I say, should be in the public sector participating in the decision making. There is no greater evidence, the kind of participation in the rapidly burgeoning social enterprise sector, which is now producing 5 per cent of Scotland's GDP, where there are many employee stakeholders. That is an indication of full participation in developing the productivity and, thereby, the contribution to employees through the productive benefits of the companies. That contribution and others can only come about by the further enlightenment of shareholders, management and employees, be they unionised or non-unionised in the workplace. An enlightenment that is highlighted in the review group paper on developing capability in industrial relations. Communication and understanding of what, ostensibly, should be a capital and labour joint operation in promoting success is absolutely key. Just as the review paper requests that the SDUC skills developed in Scotland, the funding council should lead the charge where employees, again union-led or not, and indeed middle management, are securing the learning to fulfil and meet the ever-changing demands and economies of the workplace in the community and, indeed, the democracy within it. Gavin Brown is grateful to the member for giving way. He said at the start of his speech that he agreed with most of the working-together review. With which parts of the review does he not agree? I did not disagree with that. I regret that there are many situations where there are companies, as I mentioned in my question to Ms Mara, where there is no trade union base and we have to encapsulate within the democracy, within the organisations and encourage employee elections of representatives to the, dare I call it, the works council. The employee's voice must be heard and that too is in the interests, I believe, of the owners and the shareholders, because that voice, that shared commitment, does boost productivity, as indicated by what I have said. They all become stakeholders, partners in the enterprise, be it in private or by addressing the public sector as I have in terms of a revenue base but a committed cost base. Participation in decision and equity share and communications are pointers to, I believe, a fairer, more equal and constructive work environment. The establishment of a fair work convention to promote that equality, that partnership, that co-operation will be the foundation and the basis of how we will face the social and economic challenges, not just the challenges, but also the opportunities that the global economy and our place and success in it will throw up. It is not just about securing fair pay, although that is obviously key, but about the embracing of the financial and relationship dividends that will flow from that convention, certainly but also, I believe, from the provisions that I have suggested earlier in my speech. Of course, Presiding Officer, the success of any business demands recurring innovation, product renewal and diversification, capital investment and efficiency, strong marketing and selling, but it has to be underpinned at the end of the day by the ethos that to have a high wage, high productivity economy, which we, I believe, we all want, marry to a sustainable growth and employment demand, necessitates fair, just and equal industrial relations borne out of good process and good communication. Finally, the onus on all employers, on management, employees and the public and private sector alike have to make that communication and process an urgent priority. The working together review group has taken a good step forward. We have to move now very fast. Thank you very much. Given two members substantially over the time for interventions, can I just point out that I have a little bit of time for interventions? Liam McArthur to be followed by Bob Doris. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I too welcome the debate and also add my thanks to Jim Maitha, the STUC, for the production of the report. It was good to see Jim back in the Scottish Parliament last week, no doubt, sharing with those of us attending the business and the Parliament event, the latest gems from his most up-to-date reading list. Nevertheless, Jim Maitha, in his forward to the report, speaks of the pressing need to reverse inequalities, to expand the pervasiveness of constructive industrial relations to create gains for all. He goes on doing so. He argues that we will help us to face all future challenges with the confidence that our most important resources, our people, are being given every opportunity to realise their and our fullest potential. That is a point that Jenny Marra underlined in her remarks. I couldn't agree more. It's why the Liberal Democrats have put the pursuit of a stronger economy, a fairer society, and creating opportunity for all at the centre of our policy perspectives. I think that it's now generally agreed that most consistently successful businesses and organisations here and across the world are characterised by progressive workplace practices, the way in which their employees are treated, are valued, are encouraged and supported to take on responsibility. The cabinet secretary used the example of SSE and I was delighted to hear of their experience and congratulate my good friend and former colleague Rachel McEwan, who I think was also right to point out that it's horses for courses, that different approaches will work for different companies and different organisations. I think that there is also much to be gained from sharing from the good practice that is quite clearly out there. However, as Cameron Buchanan's amendment encourages us to do, we should see the debate in light of yesterday's continued good economic news. Unemployment down, employment up £2.6 million, Scots are now in work. After all, the report itself was about progressive workplace policies to boost productivity, growth and jobs. I think that it would be unfortunate that SNP members to claim credit for the upturn having blamed everyone else for the downturn and condemned any or most of the measures taken to try and get our economy back on its feet after the crash in 2008. I think that Ken Macintosh in a characteristically reasonable appraisal of welfare reform, I think the point that I was making in relation to housing benefit, for example, is that what we've seen is a vast increase, 40 per cent in real terms in housing benefit during a period of labour administration where we had uninterrupted economic growth and therefore it was something that was long overdue for challenge, not I think to deny some of the concerns that he has about in-work poverty, which I think are clearly still evident now. So it's right that we consider how we wish to see the economic growth that is emerging shaped going forward and I think in that respect the report is exceptionally helpful. Lib Dems in coalition have done much to make workplace the workplace firer, the economy stronger and our future more certain as a result. We've listened to the low pay commission recommendations and we've seen a real terms increase. We've seen the income tax threshold raised to £10,000, giving a tax cut to over £2 million low in middle earners and lifting £220,000 out of playing tax altogether. I also welcome the working together reports focused on equality. The Royal Society of Edinburgh concluded that the doubling of women's high-level skill contribution to our economy would be worth as much as £170 million per annum to Scotland's national income. The number of women in work has risen to, I think, a historic high in recent times. There are 427,000 more women in employment and almost 100,000 more women in self-employment since May 2010, but clearly there is a great deal more we can do given the base we were coming from. We've seen progress in terms of sheer parental leave, a key demand of the tapping, all our talents report that again was front of mind at the Science and the Parliament event yesterday. We've seen a new tax-free childcare scheme that could benefit almost 160,000 Scottish families from next year. I think that those have helped, they continue to help, to build a more stable labour market and a larger labour force, but to build a resilient labour force we need to focus unremittingly on the issue of skills. Again, the review group makes some helpful observations in that respect. They talk about needing to ensure that unions are fully involved at a strategic and operational level in the implementation of the excellent wood group, and I'm sure that the cabinet secretary would be wholehearted in her support of that. It is regrettable, however, that we've seen cuts to the college sector, which have borne down most heavily on women workers, on older workers, a reduction in part-time courses. There, I think, is inhibiting the efforts of many of those seeking to upskill and remain or get into the labour market. I think that in terms of gender equality as well, the college sector in terms of the appointment of regional college boards has not necessarily punched anything like its weight. Deputy Presiding Officer, I think that there is a shared purpose here. We may disagree on certain aspects of the report or the conclusions we draw from it. There even appears to be some disagreement within the Government ranks, and that is much to be applauded. Maybe this is the new dawn that we're all being promised with the election of a new leader, but never will. The report says that we can learn from many high-performing countries, private and public organisations. We should continue to do that to ensure that we pick up on evolving best practice and innovation. We need to work with the unions, representative organisations and across all sectors to find innovative solutions that can help us to address the challenges that we face. The report is a sound foundation for that continued effort. Again, I thank Jim Mather and the S2C for their contribution to the debate and for helping, as we seek to achieve, our collective objective of creating a stronger economy and a fairer society. Many thanks. I now call Bob Doris to be followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to be speaking in this afternoon's debate looking at the working-together-review progressive workforce policies in Scotland. I read the report the other day, and I have looked at the 30 recommendations. I agree with them, but I'm not just globally accepting them. I think that we do the drafters of the report at this service. We have to engage with them constructively and develop them and take them forward. Otherwise, they are just words for the sake of themselves. They have to be implemented and be meaningful. Saying that we accept them does not mean that we can just roll it out and get on with it. That is not how those things work. However, I would like to pay tribute to Jim Mather and other review members. Actually, I wanted to read a little quote from Jim Mather on quite a powerful forward to the report, which I think sums up the need for this review. He said, in recent years, I have thought deeply about the matters at the core of our remit, and that has forced me to read widely and do my own research. Increasingly, that meant that I was somewhat overdue in making my own contribution to this debate. I hope that the report helps to rectify that omission in the most constructive way, because it is better and more comprehensive than any solo effort that there could have been. Can I just say that Jim Mather is a man who has made a huge contribution to public life, but before he started the review, he still felt that, as an individual, there was more he could have done, but he could not do it on his own. It had to be teamwork, and that is precisely what the review and the report give us, with a broad range of skills from a broad range of sectors contributing to these recommendations, and I think that that is vital. I would like to look at some of the recommendations. Recommendation 11 talks about a fair employment framework that should be developed through the stakeholder body that, of course, quite rightly should be set up. It focuses in on, and I understand why women and young people have particular references, and I support that. It has been the community of the cross-party group in racial equality. It expects me to ask what about black and minority ethnic workers as well, and given welfare reform, it expects me to ask about disabled workers in the workplace. That is not to slight the very, very specific challenges that women and young people have within the workplace, but it should have a more rounded picture to it and some more information on how we develop targets and outcomes for women and young people that do not make disabled and black and minority ethnic workers feel somehow undervalued with a mainstreaming of equalities within that approach. I would like to draw attention to that, but I support the recommendation. Likewise, in terms of that mainstreaming recommendation 8, there is a single minister, a single point of contact in Scottish Government in relation to dealing with worker-workforce relations. Again, I think that that is an excellent idea. Again, just a little caveat in terms of mainstreaming. Every minister, every cabinet secretary has a front-line duty within their remit to make sure that they are getting things right as best they can, but I do think that an individual minister having a cross-cutting remit could be a very powerful device working partnership across portfolios, but it has to be meaningful and there has to be direction to that. I will give you one example of that from my own experience. The cross-particle and racial equality identified that apprenticeships via Skills Development Scotland was not particularly reaching people from the black and minority ethnic communities when we looked at the data for that. When we identified that to Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland, they sought to address it, but it was our cross-particle group that sought to identify that to them. Even with the best will in the world, there are always emissions on those issues, and that is directly a workforce issue, of course. I would like to stay on the issue of apprenticeships, because one recommendation talks about union-led learning. I am proud to say that the Scottish Government has signalled its intention to boost even further the current record levels of apprenticeships and how we funnel that through businesses and through companies in the private and public sector in conjunction with our union partners and colleagues to identify workplace priorities for apprenticeships. That is pretty vital and important. That is how we bring meaning to that, and we could link in our growth in apprenticeships to union-led workplace-led learning with unions in the driving seat. I intend that debate to be consensual, but I make a point previously about Labour's comments on apprenticeships. I do not mean it in any party political way, but it is about developing the issue further. However, when figures came through to say that a lot of people who were getting apprenticeships were already in jobs, the Labour Party jumped on that and said how terrible that was, but careers—I think that the Labour Party acknowledged that they were just wrong about that, and that was big of them to do that. I hope that you identify your wrong and you have learned the lessons, because it is about skills progression, whether you are unemployed or in work. Apprenticeships should be available to all sectors in the workplace, and it is not just for people who are unemployed. I think that the unions have got a hero to play in developing apprenticeships in the workplace. I am happy to talk offline from my Labour colleagues at Look Confused and explain to them why that was wrong at the time. I would also like to—briefly, yes— Ken Macintosh, please. The only intervention was just to prevent the Scottish Government claiming that every apprenticeship was a job, which the Scottish Government was trying to do. I will talk offline rather than waste the precious time. I have got left to develop a serious point, Ken, but I think that there is wrong in relation to that. I would like to talk about recommendation 23 and 24. Recommendation 23 says that all public sector bodies should be required to include a section of their annual report on their approach to industrial relations. Quite rightly so, in the impact that policies have on workers and workforce matters, section recommendation 24 talks about worker reps in all public sector bodies. The word local authorities jumped out at me in relation to that, the huge reforms that they are going through, the huge amount of outsourcing that they quite often do to allios and third sector organisations, which are sometimes seen as a way of cutting paying conditions, quite frankly, to certain workers as well. I do not make any point on that other than the fact that how do you make sure that unions are actively involved at a senior level within local authorities when they are debating structural change? I think that we have to find a mechanism for doing that. Finally, Presiding Officer, there was some positive analysis within the report in relation to how the public sector has dealt with structural change. I was going to talk about Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the huge reforms—do not worry, Presiding Officer—I am not going to, but I was going to talk about the huge structural reforms that they have had to deal with. It has been commended, not perfect, but commended in a practical way in how they have engaged with workforce representatives and trade unions to see through what could have been a tricky and painful reorganisation for another being. That has benefited patients and the workforce. I now call Alex Rowley to be followed by Rob Gibson. Presiding Officer, I rise to speak in favour of the motion and welcome the report today. I also welcome the fair work convention that has been announced, but I think that it is important that we see some kind of timescales being put on to this report. Otherwise, the danger is that it is something that has kicked into the long grass and many meetings take place. At this time, we need to see that there are recommendations in here. I am sure that the majority of people in the chamber would agree with that they could move fairly quickly in terms of being implemented, so a timetable would be something that would be important. I am grateful to Mr Rowley, just as a point of information. I think that I am already on record as saying that I will be coming back to Parliament at the beginning of the year with the Government's final response to this very detailed report. That is certainly to be welcomed. I hope that it is part of that response. We will have a clear timetable in terms of how those recommendations can be taken forward and put into place. If you look at the current situation, I want to draw attention to just a couple of issues. There is an increase in the use of agency workers taking place right across Scotland. Indeed, I think that Unite, Union and UCAT have a lobby of this Parliament to try to highlight that increase that is taking place across the country, particularly in the building sector. However, a constituent approached me just a few days ago and told me his current situation, where he has a former miner and has been working for a number of different agencies. The tragedy is that those agencies tend to employ people and they take a cut, but they then tend to pay people after a period of time. Last year, this constituent had worked for Amazon and had worked up until Christmas on this contract and then had been extended for another month. He was recently paid off and went along to the agencies, only to be told that he was on a list—an Amazon list—not to be employed this year. That is not the way to treat any workers, and certainly something needs to be done about that. The Government has put millions of pounds into Amazon, and therefore the Government should be able to have an influence on the kind of employment practices when it is putting millions of pounds into those types of companies. I thank the member very much for taking an intervention. Will he agree with me and agree with what he said about Amazon? Will he agree with me then that, when the submission to the Smith commission in regard to employment law should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, he may be able to stop the practice that he has said, and I agree with him completely? I cannot comment on the input that our party is having in terms of the Smith commission. Those discussions need to take place. What I can say is that I hope that all the parties are going into those discussions with an open mind, and if that is one of the key issues that is coming up there, certainly our party should have an open mind in looking at that. I could also talk about the living wage. The living wage in terms of policy employers, the poverty alliance, have reported employers who say that they have reported where the living wage has been paid a 25 per cent fall in absenteeism. 80 per cent believe payment of the living wage has enhanced the quality of the work of their staff. Two thirds say that it has had a significant impact on recruitment and retention within their organisation, and 70 per cent of living wage employers felt that paying the living wage had increased consumer awareness of their organisation's commitment to being an ethical employer. Those are all major benefits of paying the living wage that lead to better productivity, which is at the core of the report, as Jenny Marra said earlier. If you take, for example, the care sector, I did table a question to the Government some months ago to ask what discussions the Government had had with the care home sector in terms of the implications of introducing the living wage. The response was that there had not been detailed discussions. I highlight that because I had a constituent come to my surgery in Lokelley just a few weeks ago and talked to me about his wife who suffers from dementia and has a private company coming in and providing care. Over 10 months, there were 10 different carers who had been coming in. If you pay lower wages, people will try and find work elsewhere. The point about retention and being able to retain workers is one in the care sector that is really important. We know that 400,000 workers in Scotland would benefit from the introduction of the living wage. In the care sector, there are around 29,000 workers. I often say as somebody who, in my family, has experienced care and has experienced care being given, how much is a care worker worth, and they are certainly worth more than the living wage. If the Government says that they cannot do that, my colleague Hugh Henry, who is not on the chamber today, would point to Renfrew Council, who is looking at the levels of care and the balance and mismatch of care introduced the living wage. If Renfrew Councils could do it, I would assume that the Scottish Government could do it. Yes, the report is to be welcomed, but we now need to make progress. I welcome and look forward to a timetable being brought forward in January. He thanks. Six-minute speeches now. I now call on Rob Gibson to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I suppose that, like many other people, I am a member of a trade union. I have been a trade unionist all of my working life. First of all, I am a teacher and now in the musicians union. In fact, they serve very different kinds of bodies that their members work for. Trade unions have a great variety of roles in our life today. Unfortunately, many more of the trade unions today are representative of workers in the public sector and far fewer in the private sector than there were in the past. Their work as organised bodies that represent important trades and professions mean that they have to be involved in the decision making of their respective workplaces. The recommendations that were suggested in the report that we are discussing, for example, that the trade union portfolio in the Government be the focus for a cabinet member, is something that bears responsibility. I heard my colleague Bob Doris saying that all ministers are responsible, but I would suggest that having a focus for that would be a good thing, not just in delivering the aspect of social justice but extending it into the more progressive means of employment that worker ownership involves and, indeed, are a step beyond what is dealt with in this report. Unions have a strong part in championing working people and have a lot to offer as they work on issues such as gender equality, diversity representation and bettering working conditions. We have to ask ourselves why we need to have that particularly now. Oxfam pointed out that the UK's five richest families now own more wealth than the poorest 20 per cent of the population. The obvious need for us to find models of work where the workers share a fair part of the proceeds is something that I think we have to move into in a big way. That is why I think that it is long overdue for us to look at the beneficial models in Scotland that we have and, indeed, are mentioned in this report. The case study of Tullus Russell and Unite and Fife is a very good example where the unions are closely involved but also because it is a worker owner organisation that has been very successful in this age. I think that we should recognise that that step on is something that is very good. Employee-owned companies not only solve the problem of company succession by eliminating the possibility of the founder or owner leaving, but they also keep business more localised. The all-nest-based AquaScot in my constituency began its transition to employee ownership in 2008, with a goal to complete the transition by 2016, so it is not something that happens overnight. Its founders decided that they would leave first of all at 2016, and they wanted the workforce of over 100 people to run the whole proceeds of what is an important producer of food in our area and, indeed, for wider supermarkets, market-like waitros. AquaScot is a community of professionals in the food sector dedicated to high-quality local production. At the halfway point in 2012, the employees owned 42 per cent of the company's shares and the turnover and staff numbers have risen. We know when it comes to customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction that the John Lewis partnership at the big end is one of the best examples throughout Britain. The point about that is that we have got to find out the reasons why that is so. It is important to recognise that trade unions, having moved on a bit from, I remember, debates with the SDUC in the 1970s, where employee ownership was not something they favoured at all, are very much more open to finding newer models to take this on. We have to look at the German model in particular, where companies as large as Volkswagen have workers councils and workers directors, where, in fact, they have much better labour relations and, indeed, they have much better pay. The integration of those things is so important for achieving the kinds of productivity that we all wish to see. Scotland needs to see far more worker owners. The AquaScot concept can be played out a good deal further, but the Scottish Parliament, working in the interests of all Scots, must seek means at an early stage to develop a strongly progressive employment policies, as has been discussed in the report. However, I would argue that we need to go further, as I have explained. I believe that the trade unions and the Government working together are the best forces to take that forward. I also recognise that we are being attacked from the neoliberal right with the idea of individualised relationships, as was mentioned by the Tory amendment proposal, between workers and managers. That is the death of progressive wages and the death of the kind of atmosphere in the workplace that is so essential to making a progressive employment situation. From top to bottom, we need to narrow the level of pay between the top and the bottom, as it is in the Nordic countries. It is widest in the Anglo-Saxon countries in the developed world, so I think that there is a big lesson from this report to be learned. I welcome and support the fundamental principles and assumptions of the report, which I take to be that, first, increased productivity and better workforce relations are complementary. Secondly, the economic and social challenges are more likely to be addressed successfully in an environment where unions play their full part. Of course, there are already good examples in the public sector and the private sector, and I hope to at least talk about at least one of them in a moment. I agree with the cabinet secretary that the draft framework should broadcast effective industrial relations practice. The more we know about that, the better. On the other hand, we all know of the problems and the bad practices. We have heard quite a lot about low pay. The UK leader of my party today has been talking about zero-hour contracts among other matters, and those are very serious problems for many people in Scotland and the UK. Other workplaces, perhaps the same workplaces, have problems of bullying and stress that have to be tackled. Endemic across workplaces is a lack of employee voice and involvement, so those are the challenges that have to be addressed. I think that the report goes a long way to dealing with those problems. I was delighted to hear Jenny Marra say from my own front that Labour was committed to implementing all of the recommendations. It would be good in the summing up to have an indication whether the Scottish Government will equally implement them all. I hope that the report can be a focus for public debate about the current state of industrial relations in Scotland and, indeed, across the UK. When I read the report, I was very keen on the recommendation that there should be a stakeholder board to provide leadership and that the board should develop a fair employment framework. I take it that that is what the convention is going to do. If I have misunderstood that, the cabinet secretary will no doubt correct me. The framework should certainly seek to provide support for diversity in the workplace, in particular in regard to women and young people. Like Jenny Marra in her speech, I am keen on having the equality and environmental reps in the public sector workplace. Perhaps it was Cameron Buchanan or someone else who said, well, what about the private sector? The reality is that some of the recommendations in the report can more easily be implemented in the public sector for which the Government has direct responsibility. It is not to say that such reps would not, of course, be desirable in the private sector. Of course, there is also a recommendation that we should legislate to ensure that effective worker representatives from representative trade unions on the board of every public sector body. I support that, but I would also point out that, of course, that is already the case in the NHS and has been from the time of the last administration. Obviously, I am speaking here having had some involvement in that. I am very pleased that the extensive NHS partnership working that was developed and then legislated for in 2004, developed under the last administration and legislated for in the NHS Reform Act 2004, is praised so highly in the report. It is not well enough known that there is a Scottish Partnership Forum at a national level and other bodies dealing with specific matters and at local level. There is a complex partnership arrangement in the NHS that has been there for, really, started to be developed right at the start of the Scottish Parliament in section 4.295.21 and 4.30 in the report refer in glowing terms to this. Recommendation 12 says that perhaps it should be translated into other sectors. I think that we have a very good example of this working in practice. Perhaps, if Cameron Buchanan looked at some of that, he might be a wee bit more positive about the potential of this partnership working. One example in section 430 is the partnership information network. Again, that goes way back to the early days of the parliament. Unions employers are working together to develop model employment policies. There is a whole series of them. For example, embracing equality, diversity and human rights, dealing with employee grievance, supporting work-life balance. There is so much good practice there. If my final statement, and this could actually be a quote from partnership in NHS Scotland by Nicholas Bacon and Peter Samuel, says that, in our view, partnership in NHS Scotland has matured into probably the most ambitious and important contemporary innovation in British public sector industrial relations. It is a shame that more is not known about that. I have to declare a certain personal interest in involvement in that, but the current Government has developed that. The word in that quote is matured, so I think that the current Government can certainly claim credit for that particular word. I think that I have a little bit of time left just to talk about the development of union-led learning through Scottish union learning and its development and learning funds. That is very important indeed. The Scottish trade union currently has skills development in Scotland, and the Scottish funding council should agree an approach that ensures that union-led learning fulfills its full potential in addressing Scotland's workplace and workforce development challenges. That is a quote from the document. I have not really got time to say all the things that I wanted to say about that, but I note that there was a Scottish union learning and STUC report in 2011 that highlighted the role of trade unions in ensuring effective schools utilisation. Among other conclusions, it argued that effective skills utilisation has to allow workers a voice in the development of skills utilisation initiatives. It repeats the theme that when employees and employers, when workers and management are involved collaboratively in working together, it has many benefits in terms of the development of the workforce and in terms of this report, crucially, in terms of increased productivity. Many thanks. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for welcoming this debate. I do believe that it is important that we as a society have industrial relations that ensure co-operation between employers and employees. I very much welcome the work of the working together review, and I would place on record my thanks to those who were involved in that work, particularly their chair, our former colleague Jim Mather. I think that all those who have served in Parliament with Jim would testify to the energy that he brings to any task at hand. It is clear that that has been the case with the working together review, and it is great to see him continuing to contribute to public life in Scotland. I would particularly welcome the very term that we are working together encapsulated in the review's title. I think that it is the sense of working together that should typify the co-operative industrial relations that we should be striving for. The Government has a good record in that regard. I note that it has styled that as a debate about progressive workplace policies, but I particularly look forward to that time when we view the sentiments that have been expressed in the motion of capacity building, dialogue, shared commitment and real opportunities for unions, employees and employers to work together, not being viewed as progressive, but merely standard practice. Rob Gibson was very correct to identify other parts of Europe, where we see that model far more than is the case here in the United Kingdom. Germany, which is Europe's biggest economy, meets that co-operative model far better than anyone who suggests that the approach that sees better trade union recognition stymies economic activity should only look to that example to see why they are wrong. That should not be viewed as progressive per se, Presiding Officer, but not the normal practice of other countries that we should be aiming for. I mentioned the Scottish Government in terms of its own track record. I think that its own employment is a pretty good one in relation to good relations with its workforce. We have the policy of no compulsory duns. We have the policy of the Scottish Government paying the living wage for all its employees, a policy that covers 180,000 people in Scotland working for the Scottish Government, its agencies and the NHS, and we know that the new rate will apply from next year. That has been set out in the budget. We also know that the Scottish Government has good industrial relations with the unions. We saw that when the FBU in England and Wales went in strike due to the attitude of the Administrations in those jurisdictions during discussions and dialogue about the union's concerns about changes to pensions. The FBU in Scotland did not go in strike due to the good dialogue that was taking place with the Scottish Government. We have also seen when Francis Maud Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster general instructed UK Government departments to review the provision of trade union check-off facilities, which are arrangements to collect trade unions subscription directly from salaries. John Swinney explicitly ruled out that approach. That was welcomed by Lynn Henderson, the PCS general, the PCS Scottish Secretary, who said of John Swinney that, by not following that lead, he had demonstrated to tens of thousands of PCS members and hundreds of thousands of trade union members throughout Scotland that the Scottish Government refuses to impose vindictive Tory ideology on organised workers and trade unions. Of course, unlike Westminster, the Scottish Government has not reduced trade union facility time. The Scottish Government is acting in a manner that I would like to see all employers in Scotland doing as a bear minimum. Of course, we have seen the Scottish Government work to promote the living wage. Elsewhere, we are funding the poverty landscape to deliver a living wage accreditation scheme to promote the living wage and increase the number of private companies that pay it across Scotland. However, I would like to see us being able to go further, of course. The expert group on welfare reform suggested that the minimum wage should be raised to the level of the living wage in Scotland. The Scottish Government is sympathetic to that outlook. We are now in the area of looking at the process of further devolution. I hope that we can see powers vested here in this part to look positively at the recommendation of the expert group on welfare reform. The welfare reform committee and finance committees have taken evidence on that matter. Yesterday, they saw Professor Jim Gallacher, who advised the Labour's Devolution Commission, to say that he was against minimum wage powers being devolved. Equally, Professor David Bell told the welfare reform committee that powers could be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Given that Westminster has been poor to act to ensure that the minimum wage keeps pace with the cost of living, I believe, we should be able to legislate in this area. I want to welcome a number of recommendations, the key recommendations of the working together review, where they have recommended that a new body should be established by the leadership and industrial relations, including the sharing of best practice, union involvement and implementing the recommendations from the commission for developing Scotland's young workforce legislation to ensure worker representation on the board of every public sector body, and that public sector bodies should include a section in their annual report on their approach to industrial relations. I welcome those and many other recommendations within the working together review report. I look forward to the establishment of that fair work convention. I hope that we can look at those recommendations, and moreover, I look forward to us moving towards becoming a fair work society. I now call on Sandra White to be followed by Mark Griffin. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I also want to thank those who took part and produced this review. In particular, as was mentioned previously, Jim Mater, someone whom we all know very well, produced a very important piece of work that really will enhance and improve the working environment for all involved. In particular, the areas such as they have highlighted in the report about opportunities for innovation in the workplace, existing good practice and opportunities to promote collective bargaining, which I think is very important. Workplace, democracy, diversity and equality are another important aspect, including the participation of women. A number of members have already mentioned that particular aspect of it. As a former shop steward myself, I welcome the fair work convention. I think that it is a very exciting proposal. I fully agree with the STUC and others that the Scottish Government and the STUC should review the memorandum of understanding and seek ways to improve engagement between unions, Governments and agencies. When I say that, I do not just mean the public sector, but I also include in that the private sector, which I think is really important to insert in aspects. I think that Alex Rowley touched on that when he touched on care homes, etc. A number of care homes are privately running. They are not due to bound of legislation as a publicly run care home. I think that it is important that we include the private sector and the third sector. That is sometimes forgotten about, but the third sector employs an awful lot of people also. I would like to see the memorandum of understanding with the Government and the trade unions involve not just the public sector but the private sector and the third sector. However, I want to concentrate my remarks on the involvement of young people. I know that a number of members have just touched on that. Markham Chisholm and Jamie Hepburn have also touched on that part of it. I think that it is very important that there is involvement of young people, particularly in the working environment and unions into schools and colleges. The youth committee of the STUC, who is working very hard—possibly members here in the chamber have had contact with the youth committee, certainly in my area in Glasgow Kelvin—have arranged to meet them. They are working very hard to produce and push forward the youth agenda in that particular aspect of it. The reason that I picked on that particular part about youth involvement is that, if we think back just a couple of weeks ago how the referendum really engaged young people in schools, colleges, universities and basically everywhere that we went about, I really believe that we should expand on the interests that they showed in the referendum, particularly in politics. By saying that, I am not meaning party politics, I am just meaning the fact that they were so open to talk about what was going to happen within the referendum in the Parliament and how that would affect their lives. I think that it is something that we should be capturing whether there is still this massive interest in that particular thing. I would like to see, as suggested in the reviews, if I could just quote from some of the recommendations in the reviews. The recommendation one is that the Scottish Government should continue to support the development of union-led learning through the Scottish Union Learning, development and learning funds and obviously publicise the benefit of both of those. The Scottish Trade Union Congress, Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council. I think that it is very important that we do not forget that those are working at the moment and that they should be enhanced also. One of the recommendations in recommendation 2 is that training for union representatives, shop stewards, learning reps and health and safety reps should be provided through further education colleges and should be funded through a fee remission arrangement. Recommendation 5, the STUC education in Scotland should work collaboratively with appropriate providers to develop a union leadership development programme to enhance the capacity of current and future union leaders. I think that that is actually important because a number of us, myself included when I became a shop steward, it was simply because I was interested in what was happening on the shop floor and whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. I was elected by my peers to be the shop steward. I did not really get any training for it, so I think that it is a great idea to bring forward some form of training and I fully support that as well. As I said, I think that those recommendations should be taken on board. I would also like to suggest that the issue of trade unions and young people's knowledge and involvement with trade unions would be greatly enhanced if the review's recommendation were appropriate. Could perhaps be included in the curriculum for excellence? I know that it is not the minister here's responsibility, but perhaps he could raise it with the cabinet secretary of education. It is something that would be very interesting to young people within our schools. As we are talking about the curriculum of excellence and putting forward esotete intervention. I am sure that the member is aware that the STUC is currently undertaking a programme of visiting schools and letting senior pupils engage with the kind of values and work of the trade unions. Does she agree with me that that is an important programme across Scotland? I agree with Jenny Marra, because I think that it's a better way to work in Scotland, as the programme that the S2C teaching resource has called. It's going through secondary schools and I think that it's a great idea. Sometimes we concentrate too much on the fact that young kids in schools have to get the qualifications and have to get out of work, but they can understand how trade unions work and how it can enhance their workplace and how they are working life. I think that it can only be something for the good, so I absolutely agree with Jenny Marra. In that final moment, I'll close in that. As I said once again, I think that it's a great report and I look forward to the recommendations being taken on board. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call on Mark Griffin to be followed by Jim Eadie, six minutes or thereby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate this afternoon on progressive workplace policies and how they are used to boost productivity, growth and jobs. I also welcome the publication of the report from the Work Together Group review group and the chance that we get today to scrutinise those recommendations, expand them and express their support. Employment for me is a key part of who we are, of our own personal identity. Whenever we tend to meet someone new, one of the first few questions that we ask will quite often be, what do you do or where do you work? With that in mind, it's important that we take pride in our work, we take pride in who we work for and for a large part of that is how valued we feel by our employers. That's why the issues that are addressed in the report are so crucial. Those progressive policies that are implemented properly give people that sense of being valued and create a sense of pride in their work that can't be bought. That sense of being valued then leads to that happier workforce, a healthier workforce, a workforce that has less sickness absence and a more productive workforce boosting growth for the company and the country. That means that the Government should rightly be taking the lead on tackling issues such as low-pay, eco-pay, zero-hours contracts, blacklisting and the living wage in public procurement. I mentioned blacklisting because it still is an issue while we have companies who have operated blacklists being awarded multi-million-pound contracts from local government, the NHS and hubcos. The companies who have been involved in that practice have pushed people into poverty and despair. They have wiped out a whole lifetime of working experience and all because they stood up for their fellow workers. Those companies have yet to issue an apology for how they have operated and have yet to agree on any level of compensation. We should be looking at why they continue to win public contracts when those issues are unresolved. I look forward to the Government's guidance, which I hope will give public bodies more power and confidence in taking a stand against blacklisting when they are procuring goods and services. A key part of developing the right policies in a particular workplace will come from a positive relationship between trade unions and employers. It is important that we talk to young people to enter employment or to enter employment about the importance of being a trade union member. That is a point that has been covered by more than one. In the report in recommendation 13, in particular, it says that the Scottish Government, local authorities and the STUC should engage appropriately to expand the reach of the determined to succeed better way to work unions into schools and colleges initiative and should ensure that unions are fully involved at strategic and operational level and the implementation of the recommendations of the commission of developing Scotland's young workforce. I was able to take part in one of those union into schools sessions in my old school and come on all to give my perspective on why I felt that it was important to be a trade union member. I would gladly take part again. Most of the pupils that we spoke to initially did not really have a sense of why they would join a union. They generally knew that their parents were members, but they did not really know what they got from it and sometimes read into some of the right-wing press that trade unions went on strike when they felt like it and caused a general unnecessary disruption. They also did not know about the rights that they had or would have at work, even the pupils who worked part-time. They did not know that there was a minimum wage for 16 to 17-year-olds and that young workers were entitled to a 30-minute break if they worked for more than four and a half hours, that young people had the right to time off to go to college or do training, and they had the right to time off to do exams. They were quite surprised by those things that were in place to protect and support them, the policies that were in place because of trade union campaigns. However, when I asked them what they would do if they were in work and their boss asked them to work late when they had school the next day or what they would do if their boss asked them to come in the day before they had an exam or what they would do if their boss was asking them to work a six, seven, eight-hour shift continuously, what would they do? Most of them said that they felt that they probably would have had no option other than to do what their boss told them, and that is when the importance of joining a trade union became clear. When pupils realised that they needed the strength of their fellow workers to make sure that they were confident enough to demand what they were entitled to, I think that that highlights that when we come to progressive workplace policies, we all want to see that unless workers are aware of their own strength through their membership of a trade union, then all the policies in the world for progressive workforces can sometimes be meaningless. I hope in particular that the Government takes forward the recommendation from the working group with regards to union learning in schools to continue those generations of pupils who leave school and become active in their trade unions. Thank you. Thank you very much. We now move to the final speech in the open debate from Jim Eadie, after which we will move to the closing speeches at six minutes, thereby, Mr Eadie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The working together review that we have been debating this afternoon is an important contribution to the wider debate about the kind of society we want to build in Scotland. It compels us to consider what kind of Scotland we wish to see and in so doing to ask what kind of Scotland is possible both economically and socially. That question is in part answered by the recommendations contained in this review, which signpost us to what better workplace conditions should look like through the promotion of such practices as collective bargaining, workplace democracy, respect for diversity and equality, and the participation of women on equal terms with men within the workforce, a point made by my colleague Sandra White. On that last point, I was pleased that five out of the eight members of the review group chaired by Jim Mather were women. That sends out its own positive message. One of the key themes of the review was developing capacity and capability in industrial relations. Here, the use of the term industrial relations rather than employment relations is about more than semantics. It is about defining an employee-employer relationship that is soundly based on genuine dialogue and partnership working for the benefit of both employees and employers. The background, of course, is that the UK's record on industrial relations is not a good one. The UK has the lowest level of industrial democracy among 28 European Union countries, only Lithuania is worse. That is measured by the European Participation Index, which looks at board-level representation, collective bargaining participation, as well as trade union membership. One illustration of the lack of good industrial relations is the absence of a strong employee voice in the boardrooms of our companies, something that stands in stark contrast to the experience in other countries, most notably Denmark and Germany. Rob Gibson spoke of Volkswagen as a model of good practice. Denying workers' democratic power in the workplace has gone hand in hand with a deterioration in the quality of working life experienced by people in the United Kingdom. The UK has a second lowest pay among advanced economies, the third longest working hours in Europe and a lack of job security among workers compared with workers in many other countries. Strengthening the democratic voice of employees and embedding that within the structures of companies can bring positive benefits, the improved productivity and innovation that the cabinet secretary spoke of earlier. Gordon MacDonald spoke about democratic participation in the workplace. One of the ways in which we can develop capacity and capability in industrial relations is by developing board-level representation for employees. That issue was highlighted in the report published by the Jimmy Reid Foundation, working together, a vision for industrial democracy in a common-wheel economy, which was co-authored by John Duffie, Gregor Gull and Jim Mathur. The report states that board-level representation should begin at companies with 35 employees or more. All board representatives, employee and shareholder should have equal rights and access to information. They suggest that one employee representative should be delegated by the recognised trade union, one should be from a works council where that is appropriate and the rest should be directly elected by all employees. The report goes on to advocate a co-operative rather than a coercive approach to fostering this form of industrial democracy and stated, we believe that a model of this sort is beneficial for both employees and employers. However, we believe that a national consensus should be sought so implementation has the widest possible support from all sectors. Therefore, we propose a large inclusive process to secure that support from both sides in industrial relations. That, I believe, is the correct approach and one that we should support. Mr Reid has clearly welcomed the recommendations of the report. I am just slightly unclear whether the SNP, following Chuck Boyle's remarks earlier, does the SNP support the implementation of all 30 recommendations? Is that Mr Reid's understanding of the SNP's position? I do not speak for the Government. There would be no point in commissioning a piece of work of this kind and then not taking seriously those recommendations. I would expect the Government to take forward as many of those recommendations as is practicable to do so. I welcome the reviewer's recommendations, since we are talking about those, on union-led learning, training for union representatives and the development of equality and environmental representatives within public sector workplaces, as well as the development of a union leadership development programme, which other members have referred to, which would enhance the capacity of current and future union leaders. The review group looked at ways of supporting fair employment with a number of recommendations, and I think that critical here is a recognition of the legitimate role of trade unions within workplaces and wider civil society, such as the partnership working, which has been developed in NHS Scotland, and the extensive partnership working, which Malcolm Chisholm spoke of. Alex Rowley spoke about the home care sector, and the review itself refers at point 4.33 to Unison's ethical care charter, which I think is a positive way forward in terms of committing authorities to buying home care services, only from providers who pay their living wage. Chick Brody spoke about the need for good process and communication. Liam McArthur said that the most consistently successful economies and companies were those who adopted good progressive workplace policies. Jamie Hepburn, in what I thought was an excellent speech, expressed his aspiration that the co-operative approach to industrial relations would not be seen in time as progressive, but, in fact, as the norm, as indeed it is in much of Europe already. Jenny Marra spoke eloquently about the role of trade unions, and, of course, the review said that much of that turns on the quality of the union management relationship. In conclusion, I would just say that, while that statement about the quality of the union management relationship may appear axiomatic, of course it is in contrast to a relevant direct experience here in Scotland at Grangemouth and at Shipyards in Govan, Scotsden and Fife. That, for me, is the reason why we need to have a co-operative form of industrial relations in this country, and that is why I fully support the review group and the work that it has taken forward. We now move to closing speeches, and I call on Gavin Brown. Seven minutes are thereby, please. Thank you. I think that this has been a very worthwhile debate, I have to say, and I'll start by striking a note of consensus that seemed to be approved by all parties in the chamber. That's to, I think, thank Jim Mather for the work that he did in this report. Having shadowed Jim Mather for four years in the previous Parliament, he is always somebody worth listening to, whether you agree with him or not. I think that the group that were pulled together to do that report, too. Again, while I'm not agreeing with all the conclusions of the report, the calibre of the individuals involved are beyond reproach, and I think that they are not to be thanked for the work that they did. One of the most interesting points in this debate has been the fact that the Scottish Government still at this stage doesn't seem to have a position in relation to this review. We're in the unusual situation of the Labour Party having a rock-solid, clear policy position and a Scottish national party that appears to be all at sea. We heard almost nothing from the cabinet secretary in her opening remarks about their response to the 30 recommendations. We had some fairly rebellious statements from SNP backbenchers today, some going as far as that they only agreed with most of the report and not all of it, and one even daring to say that he didn't speak for the Government in terms of taking part in a debate in this chamber. I think that it's quite important that I'm happy to give way to Mr Brody. Thank you for taking intervention. Just for clarity, in terms of agreeing with most of it, it doesn't mean to say that I agree with all of it. What I said was that it can be extended to those who don't have union representation. Just as Jim Eadie referred to companies with more than 35 employees, who may not necessarily be to a union, we don't want a division in society. Presiding Officer, if you understand where Chick Brody stands on the issue, you're a better man than I am, and it's no wonder that he describes himself as a company troubleshooter doctor, an exciting title, if ever there was. I think that it's important in closing from the Government that we do hear where they stand on the issues, because people were, including me, a little sceptical about the timing of this review, if I may say so. It was set up in advance of the referendum and we know that they were pressed quite firmly to make sure that the report came out in August ahead of the referendum. Mr Mayther, in his forward even states, it had to be done in a short timescale. Forcing them into reporting in a moment, forcing them into reporting in a short timescale, but then doing almost nothing with the report in the three months since it has actually been published, will make cynics like me just a little bit more sceptical about the timing of the report, but I'm happy to give way to the cabinet secretary. I wondered if Mr Brown was going to address any of his remarks about the failed car report that the UK Government undertook at the same time, because the Mayther commission came up about this time last year, as did the car review, which made no recommendations because, on the basis of the rather pejorative ideological response of the UK Government that was trying to set up a car review, which was all about kick-and-trade unions. Mr Brown, that is a typical intervention, I have to say from the Scottish Government, completely ignore their report, completely ignore any criticism of what they are responsible for and try to deflect all of the attention on to somebody else and on to something else. I think that the Scottish Government in closing should focus on their report and what they intend to do with the responsibilities that they have. My colleague Cameron Buchanan pointed out a number of our responses to the review, but there were, I think, some positive aspects to it as well. I think that it's right that we learn from best practice whether that is in a workplace, an organisation or a country as a whole, and I think that the report makes a helpful note of NHS Scotland and what they have done over the last 10 years. It's difficult to disagree with recommendation 1 that you ought to continue to support Scottish union learning. Having visited Aegon earlier this year, I have to say, I was quite impressed by what I had to see. I thought that they were doing a pretty good job. Having a single minister to take responsibility is perfectly sensible, too. With the caveat that it has to be an existing minister, and it shouldn't be a fresh appointment, increasing the size of either the cabinet or the ministerial team as a whole, but to have one minister who is currently, a post that currently exists, bringing it into one portfolio makes perfect sense. The idea of reviewing the memorandum of understanding regularly seems fair enough, too, and the idea of improving data quality so that all of us have a better idea of the issues that are facing workplaces across Scotland. Again, it's difficult with which to disagree. I think that, most of my colleague Cameron Buchanan touched on the areas where we have some disagreement with the conclusions. He suggested that in areas it could seem to be bureaucratic, and I think that that may well be true. If I look at some of the ideas, the idea of having an environmental rep in every workplace who would need time off for training, who would need to have cross for training, I do question what the value would be of enforcing that on every workplace in the public sector and beyond. I think that the issue of procurement, where it suggests that it ought to be part of the procurement process, came up. That issue has been with us for months and months in terms of going through the procurement bill. It's something on which the Scottish Government adopted a clear position, and I'm assuming that that's one area that they do not intend to take forward. I think that we could get bureaucratic if we start having legislation for board representation for trade union members. The idea of setting up a policy group to specifically increase the number of board members with a trade union background, too, again strikes me as a bit bureaucratic. There are costs, of course, as my colleague pointed out. There are demands on costs, whether it's setting up an environmental workplace fund, an industrial relations modernisation fund, or an industrial relations learning academy. Who would pay for all of this? What would the cost be to each of those proposals? Would all of them really add value and would all of them do what we want to see, which is increasing the productivity, which I think was again something that everyone within the chamber thought was the most important thing to do. There are some positive aspects, but there are other areas where we clearly disagree with what has been put forward, hence the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague. Trade unions are a central part of Scotland's economic, social and civic landscape, with around 700,000 members in Scotland in 2013. Unions are Scotland's largest civic movement, and we all know the vital role that they play in our communities. As the review we are debating today states, by engaging at a national level, unions can positively influence wide-ranging social and environmental policies to encourage greater fairness and sustainability. Issues such as education, youth employment and climate change can be addressed in this manner. It is the role of the Scottish Government to maintain a clear dialogue with our trade unions to see the best results from such potential. This dialogue illustrates the essence of the quality that must run through all progressive workplace policies in order for them to be successful and sustainable. A constructive dialogue between our trade unions and the Scottish Government will also help to achieve some of the areas of improvement that the working together review outlines—the need to improve facilities, management of change, workplace learning and health and safety. By working together, employees, employers, unions and the Scottish Government can enrich civic society and drive the change towards progressive workplaces. With progressive workplaces, as we have illustrated here in this debate today, I think that comes a more equal society. As Gavin Brown just said, productivity is absolutely key to this. I think that innovation also. I was pleased to hear the departing First Minister touch on innovation in his opening speech for the business in Parliament conference on Friday in this chamber last week. The importance of innovation productivity in our workplaces cannot be ignored. This is good for businesses, for employees, employers and for the job market. I turn to some of the contributions that have been made today, because it has been a very interesting and informed debate. I start with Liam McArthur, who highlighted how progressive workplace policies make for productive workplaces. He underlined the importance of women's work to the economy, the best-out-of-any-speaker today, the importance of women's work to the economy. The need to focus unremittingly on the issue of skills is an interest that he and I share. He was right to highlight the cuts to colleges. We know that there are 140,000 less places since this Government came to power. The kind of skills and the kind of workplaces that we are talking about should be the powerhouses of that modern industrial economy. Liam McArthur is right to point to that very important issue. The cuts to colleges, as I have said to the cabinet secretary on many occasions, have disproportionately affected women, older workers and part-time courses for people returning to the workplace. It would be foolish of us to talk about progressive workplace policies if we are not talking about opportunities for the skills and training that underpin those progressive workplaces. Liam McArthur was also right in the vein of equality to point out the Government's recent appointments to college regional boards when I think that I am right in saying that 10 out of the 12 appointments for those chairs of college boards were given to men, just two of them, to women across this country. That is indicative of the Scottish Government's commitment to the gender equality. I hope that, when we hear the response in January, we will see more commitment come forward. Alex Rowley gave a very interesting and good speech today. He welcomed the fair work convention, as I do too, and everyone on the Labour benches does. He suggested timescales on the report, and I think that it was a very good point that my colleague made. Some of the recommendations could be implemented fairly quickly. All authority recommendations could be implemented now, as the power is in the Government's hands. Angela Constance said that there will be a response at the start of next year. Alex Rowley rightly pointed out that he expected a timetable to be part of that response. I hope that the cabinet secretary can commit to that timetable in her closing remarks this afternoon. Sandra White made an interesting speech. I always enjoy listening to Sandra White's contributions in the chamber, because she raised her own valuable experience of being elected as a shop steward. However, being elected to that role, probably because of her innate passion and commitment to what was going on in that workplace and to her fellow workers, but having no specific training for that role. I see this at my own surgery, where trade union reps have come and feel that they need more training actually from their unions to properly represent their members. Training is key, and I think that Sandra White is right to point that out. Properly trained union representatives in our workplaces make life better for both employees and employers and the success of our public services and businesses. Malcolm Chisholm, as always, made a very eloquent contribution this afternoon and highlighted the real issues of bullying in the workplace. I think that he was the only speaker to do so this afternoon, but I hope—and I am sure that the cabinet secretary will reflect on that very important issue as she develops the recommendations in this chamber. He also highlighted the work that the Labour Administration did when we were in government here on working representation on NHS boards. It seems to me now in retrospect that it is perhaps a bit overdue that this initiative is extended to other public sector bodies. That is recommendation number 24 in this document. I certainly hope that, if the Government is not committing to all the recommendations this afternoon, that that will certainly be one of them. That brings me to the point, Presiding Officer. How many of the 30 recommendations is the Scottish Government signing up to, or will we wait until January to hear that? I think that, if the cabinet secretary could address these this afternoon, that would be useful. Finally, I think that the Government's announcement of a fair work convention is very welcome. However, I would sound a note of caution on that. It cannot just be a talking shop. This Government, for all the warmth that is shown today to this document, came up short when it asked to vote for the living wage in public sector contracts just a couple of weeks ago and to use procurement to bolster supported businesses just two weeks ago in this chamber. The Christie commission, although lauded by the SNP at the time, is by and large getting dusty on the shelf. No major reform to public service since it was published in 2011 and welcomed by the SNP Government. The SNP Government has not seen any of focus with the great intensity on the preventative agenda that the Christie commission recommended and which would in the long term save money. The test for this review and the test for the fairer work convention, like for Christie, is how willing this Government is to drive policy, make change happen and legislate where that is necessary. Cozy consensus in this chamber is all very well, and the majority in this chamber stand full square behind this review and the Government motion this afternoon. However, the proof is always whether we can make this change happen in our communities and in our workplaces, and the will to drive that change is largely in the hands of the Scottish Government. The Labour benches are delighted to support this review, its recommendations and the Government motion this afternoon. Thank you. I now call on the cabinet secretary Angela Constance to wind up the debate. Cabinet secretary, you have until five o'clock. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to start by once again putting on record my thanks to Jim Mather and each and every one of the members of the Working Together review commission. It was indeed a commission that had 50-50 representation between employers and trade unions. The employers were evenly split between the public and private sector, and as a review body it even had 50-50 in terms of representation from men and women. I think that that is certainly a marker on the way to go for the future. I suppose that, like Liam McArthur, I am always very impressed by Mr Mather's reading list, although he will appreciate it as a busy working mother. I enjoy listening to Mr Mather, but very rarely get the opportunity to read the books that he has the time to read. This debate is an important part of the Scottish Government's engagement process. It is important that members across the chamber get an opportunity to identify their own options and ideas, and that they are able to shape and influence the Scottish Government's response. I will speak a bit more in detail as requested by members about our response in more detail. It is important that we work together to build consensus, and this afternoon has indeed mostly been constructive and consensual. Although I have to say that I was somewhat stunned at the beginning of the debate by some of Mr Buchanan's comments, I was somewhat surprised that, at one point, he fell asleep during proceedings. However, a particular comment that I was particularly surprised at was that he felt that the Scottish Government was forcing the advancement of trade unionism, and that to me sounded like a comment from a different era. If perhaps I can leave him with this quote from Joseph Stiglitz that says that unions are vilified, and in many states there are explicit attempts to undermine them, but there is no recognition of the important role that they can play in countervailing other special interests and in defending the basic social protections that are necessary for workers to accept change and to adjust to the changing economic environment. The Scottish Government, like most MSPs in this chamber, is very much in favour of effective trade unionism and fair employment practice, not just because it is the right thing to do but is actually the smart thing to do for the sake of our economy. It will not come as any surprise to Mr Cameron that I will not be supporting the Tory amendment this evening because the amendment fails to welcome the working together review and also crucially it fails to endorse the establishment of a fair work convention. The view of this Government is that economic competitiveness goes hand in hand with social justice and there is indeed a direct connection between well rewarded and sustainable employment, productivity and innovation and economic growth. It was Graeme Smith that described the working together review as one of the most important pieces of work, and I would concur with that. It was Bob Doris who got to the heart of the matter, and that is about social partnership. That is about the Government, employers and trade unions working together. It is not at this stage for the Government to be prescriptive about that model of social partnership, but it is imperative that we work together, both as Government, trade unionists and indeed employers from all sectors, employers large and small, to devise our own system of social partnership here in Scotland. Surely there is a very compelling case for collective working together and working in common cause to ensure that we get that quality and productive dialogue between the Government, employers and indeed trade unions. I say to Alex Rowley, Jenny Marra, Malcolm Chisholm and indeed Mr Brown to reiterate that the Government will give its final response in January. Of course we will be mapping out the way forward, you can call it a timetable if you wish. I have to say to chamber that there is no recommendation in this report that I am adverse to, and in particular I have welcomed the comments that people recognise that we have made quick progress with the announcement that we are going to establish a fair work convention. We have to recognise that many of the requirements do indeed require discussion, further discussion with both employers and trade union colleagues. I will perhaps give one recommendation that it is not for me to give a view on, and whether or not there is a single minister in charge of industrial relations, that is entirely a matter for the First Minister and the new First Minister in particular. Jenny Marra and others spoke of the importance of productivity in Scotland. Of course productivity in Scotland has increased from 94 per cent of UK levels in 2007 to 101 per cent in 2012, so progress is moving in the right direction. One moment, minister. One moment. There is just far too much noise from people just coming into the chamber. Please extend the courtesy of listening, minister. It is important to emphasise that productivity levels in Scotland are moving in the right direction. We are indeed making progress, but, of course, there is much more to do, and that is why the working together review and the fair working commission will help to make further improvements. Rob Gibson and Malcolm Chisholm enlivened the debate with very pragmatic case examples from their constituency and their own experience. Malcolm Chisholm is right to highlight the importance and the effectiveness of the NHS governance models, having the employee representative as directors on the board, and this is something that this Government is most certainly looking seriously at, and to see how that good practice could be extended elsewhere. It was Jim Eadie who spoke of what kind of Scotland that we want to be, and many members touched upon the Smith commission and the desire for more powers in this Parliament. It was Gordon MacDonald who did that in particular. While I am not going to speculate about the outcomes of the Smith commission, all parties are participating in that process productively and maturely. It is important to highlight the survey undertaken by the Poverty Alliance that 91.5 per cent of respondents felt that Scotland should have the power to set and enforce the national minimum wage. I would call on all parties, like the Deputy First Minister did earlier this week, to commit to supporting those very positive proposals that have come from the major charities and third sector organisations in Scotland to get in line with Civic Scotland and recognise the importance of this place, being able to have the power and make recommendations regarding the national minimum wage, because Ken Macintosh was right that the cost of living has rocketed, wages have stagnated and in-work poverty is very much the issue of today. It is quite simply not acceptable for folk to have to work for their poverty. If I can encapsulate the aims of the Fair Work commission, which is indeed to exert greater Scottish influence over the national minimum wage, to champion good industrial relations, including the payment of the living wage as the expectation and not the exception, for the Fair Work commission to be a powerful advocate of the partnership approach that characterises Scottish industrial relations at their best, and for the Fair Work commission to highlight the fact that business productivity goes hand-in-hand with proper pay, with decent pay, with fair and equal pay. My hope for the future is that the Fair Work commission and indeed this Parliament will most certainly not be a talking shop and that will be organisations that will indeed have teeth and the power to implement, because it was Mark Griffin who spoke about how work is part of our identity, it is part of who and what we are and we must ensure that all of our people are valued, rewarded, engaged in their work and we must allow everyone to feel that they have a stake in the success of their workplace, their community and indeed their country. The Scottish Government is working to build that sort of economy and working to build that sort of society and after the energising process of the referendum Scotland will never be the same, it will indeed be a better place and we have the power to act and when we as a Government have the power to act, we certainly must do act to make a difference. I hope that all members, as they have intimated today, will get behind the Fair Work commission and make sure that it will make a difference to the working lives of people the length and breadth of Scotland. Thank you minister, that concludes the debate on progressive workplace policies to boost productivity, growth and jobs. We now move to decision time, there are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 11507.1 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, which seeks to amend motion number 11507 in the name of Angela Constance on progressive workplace policies, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament's not agreed, we move to vote, members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11507.1 in the name of Cameron Buchanan is yes, 11, no, 93, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 11507 in the name of Angela Constance on progressive workplace policies, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament's not agreed, we move to vote, members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 11507 in the name of Angela Constance is as follows, yes, 93, no, 11, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.