 Adwit Aldrich Llywodraeth Cymru. I would also like to say— Order, please, cabinet secretary. I'm going to hurry you along. We're well over time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. As I say, we're well over time, so I apologise to the members whose questions we did not reach and to all of those who wanted to ask supplementaries, but we have to turn to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12678, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on an end to in-work poverty. Could those members who wish to speak in this debate please press the request to A I'm pleased to open our debate this afternoon. The Scottish Green Party is campaigning for a £10 minimum wage by 2020 for all because nobody should be expected to work for a wage that keeps them in poverty, that is the point of this debate and the reason why we are campaigning. ac weithio gwybatio ond i gy securedd fel dde cyfeiriwach. Ond maes ddod o holl y recoveredd a rhyder i bobl sydd wedi wneud anod lle t quiziau. Maenai ddweud hy reasoning gwneud, mae hynny relyn yn gwneud i bobl nag am gofysyddwr arfertyn nhw. Ar y reference, mae wedi gwneud teustodol o haddau ac yn gwneud ei ffoeid hon i gwneud, eich credu cyflogion lle bizion ac yn gwneud feld i gwn, plans add up to putting an end to in-work poverty. The green's £10 minimum wage will make sure nobody works for such a wage—a wage that keeps them in poverty. For too long, we have been subsidising employers who pay poverty wages. Many of those employers are large multinationals, earning millions for shareholders, while our staff are paid poverty wages and are kept off the bread line by public money. That is corporate welfare and it needs to stop. While the majority of children and working-age adults in relative poverty live in working households, at the other end of the pay scale, there are people earning millions. CEOs in the FTSE 100 are earning 400 times more than the average wage. Are those executives really 400 times more entitled than the average worker? I do not think so, but the point is that this inequality is profoundly damaging for society and wellbeing. Ending poverty is inextricably linked to ending this vast gulf of inequality. Study the rich, not the poor is what political scientist Susan George tells us. Green's plans will link CEO's pay to the wellbeing of their lowest-paid employees. A maximum wage ratio for companies will mean that any rise in CEO's pay would require a rise for the people on the lowest pay. It is only fair. Does the member accept that there are many ways in which main board directors can enhance their pay, share options and all sorts of other things that are unquantifiable, which might well scupper that policy? I think that that is a point well made and I do think that that should be taken into account too. It means that their wages are actually larger than they would appear in their pay packet. Greens will introduce a wealth tax on the wealthiest 1 per cent, in other words, people worth more than £2.5 million. Wage ratios and progressive taxation will tackle pay inequality, but vast differences in wealth need to tackle too. Recent ONS data tells us that the richest 1 per cent of British households have the same amount of wealth as the 55 per cent poorest in the population. The amount of wealth held by the top 0.1 per cent has risen by 57 per cent over four years, whereas the total UK household wealth has only risen by 12 per cent. Our wealth tax will tackle the drastic inequality and pay for public services. Greens' plans for social security is based on the idea that, as a society, we should treat those in need with compassion, not sanction and punish the poor. The post-World War 2 generation, who built the welfare state, suffered together, fought fascism together and mourned together, but their collective will was that they should enjoy the benefits of peace together, but the welfare cuts have put people deeper into poverty. It is a gendered austerity too. Treasury data shows us that women have been hit the hardest. They are much more likely to be lone parents, are the biggest users of public services and are more likely to be affected by public sector job losses, pension changes and wage freezes, and any party continuing to talk about cuts clearly has not been listening to Scotland's women. We will make the case for rebuilding a universal system without a poverty trap for people and work. We want a welfare system that does not subsidise poverty wages, removes the stigma of benefits and promotes equality. Green plans for a citizen's income is emblematic of this approach. The Scottish Government's expert working group on welfare recognised that a citizen's income is one of the two main options for the future of welfare, the one that takes a universal approach and abandons means testing and complexity. I wonder if she would care to reflect on how full fiscal autonomy and the ripping out of £46 billion in public money would impact on the kind of vision that she has. I think that it is fair to say that we need, as part of the UK that we find ourselves in at the moment, a system that is fair and sustainable. However, a citizen's income is not a change to be made lightly. It will require a reform programme to replace almost all benefits apart from disability payments with a simple, regular payment to everyone—children, adults and pensioners. It will require consensus from a broad coalition or civic society, but it is a transformative idea and the beginnings of the system already exist with child benefit and state pensions. This week, the Scottish Government published analysis of severe and extreme poverty. It describes how people on the lowest income bands have been pushed deeper into poverty by coalition cuts. A little over an hour ago, George Osborne sat down after confirming the Tory's ideological obsession with pursuing this programme of austerity. The UK budget has just been announced. I doubt many of us will have digested the whole lot, but the austerity ideology is clear. I am pleased, however, that the issue of apprenticeships has been raised. Some young people up to the age of 25 are working 30 hours a week for a monthly wage packet of £327.60. UK Government plans are to raise that by £57p to £3.30 an hour. Any rise is welcome, but not from all sectors, even the small rises disappointed the CBI. I recall during the Holyrood economy committee's inquiry into Scotland's financial future that the CBI's then Scottish boss said that inequality was an abstract term. It also suggests that we are on the right track if the free market think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, says that the low pay commission is being used as a vehicle to reduce inequality. The national minimum wage will be increased by £20p in October to £6.70. That is also welcome, but is it enough? It has already been criticised for not tackling in-work poverty. The minimum income standard aims to define what households need in order to have a minimum socially acceptable standard of living. The reference rate that they suggest for the lowest socially acceptable standard of living is £9.20. The Scottish Government analysis that I mentioned earlier is unequivocal. They say that employment remains a protection, but is no longer a guarantee against poverty. Our plans for a £10 minimum wage by 2020 are designed to really make poverty wages history. Small businesses will need support and all businesses deserve time to plan. The change will be introduced in steps, but the days of big business paying poverty wages with a taxpayer making up the difference must stop. Another aspect to consider is the picture across Scotland. My own city of Edinburgh is at the top for paying at least a living wage, but in rural areas such as Angus and Dumfries in Galloway and post-industrial areas such as Ayrshire, between a quarter and a third of people earn less than a living wage. We need to spread the creation of jobs throughout Scotland, along with improving public transport and childcare, so that people can get to work education and training. Of course, low wages are not the whole story, but successive Governments actions have allowed even promoted the slide into a low-skill low-wage economy. We have seen, for example, the Scottish Government giving Amazon a grant of £4.3 million, with a further offer of £6.3 million. Amazon paid just £4.2 million in UK taxes last year, despite selling goods worth £4.3 billion. The excuse given by ministers is that Amazon creates jobs, but let's examine that claim carefully. How many jobs were promised compared to what's been delivered? Are those jobs well paid, satisfying and secure? What's more, what jobs have been lost as a result of such a big company being helped to dominate the marketplace? How comfortable are we that its profits do not recirculate in the local economy? We need investment in sustainable industries, paying decent wages, great quality food production, clean chemical sciences, digital and creative industries, medical and life sciences, construction, engineering and, of course, the low-carbon energy industry. We have food banks in a country with no shortage of food. We have fuel poverty in one of the most energy-rich countries on the planet. Let's take the steps that we need to redress the balance, pay all a fair wage and become the kind of Scotland that we aspire to be. Many thanks. I remind members that, if they wish to participate, they should press the request to speak buttons please. A call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak to and move them in. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8.2. Cabinet secretary, seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the programme for government, we set out a range of cross-portfolio policies aimed at reducing inequality. Those included actions on fair work, such as our commitment as an employer ourselves to pay the living wage, and also as a Government to increase funding to the poverty alliance to grow the number of accredited living wage employers. The programme for government also emphasises our commitment to empower communities by handing over decisions on key issues to them and to make government open and accessible through public participation in the decisions that we make that affect them, and that should cover what we are discussing today as well. We are committed to poverty-proofing all of our new policies and legislation through the use of poverty impact assessments whenever we make a change. We will appoint an independent adviser on poverty and inequality to hold public events with the First Minister to raise awareness of the reality of living in poverty, make recommendations to the Government on how collectively we should respond, and hold the Government to account on its own performance. We want the work of the Scottish Government to be more open and accessible, and those measures will go some way towards achieving that. We also want to build on the momentum that has been built up during the debate that Scotland has had over the past few years. However, there is a lot that needs to be done, and Alison Johnstone has already touched on a great many of the things that we will all no doubt wish to speak about while we won't necessarily all agree on the specific ways forward. In 2012-13, 820,000 people in Scotland were living in poverty, and of those, over half a million people were living in severe poverty. People do tend to assume that those in work are okay, but while being in employment remains a protection against poverty, it is no longer a guarantee against poverty. The last decade has seen a steady increase in working poverty. While the risk of severe poverty increases significantly as household work intensity decreases, even full-time employment itself is not necessarily a protection against severe poverty. In 2012-13, nearly a third of working-age adults in severe poverty lived in households with at least one person in full-time employment, as did four in 10 children in severe poverty. It is certainly the case that a higher statutory minimum wage would make a contribution towards reducing in-work poverty, but it is also important to consider issues beyond wage levels that also drive in-work poverty. Tackling in-work poverty is not just about increasing pay levels, although clearly that is one of the most important ways that one can do it, but also ensuring that those in low-skilled work have the opportunity to develop their skills and progress in employment. Unfortunately, in a lot of places, that is not what is happening. The First Minister has already called on the UK Government to increase the work allowance on the basis that, if you receive universal credit and pay income tax, a £600 increase to the personal allowance in the coming budget would boost your income by £42, but the same increase to the work allowance would boost your income by £390. That would clearly make a significantly greater difference. I welcome the increases to the national minimum wage that was announced yesterday by the United Kingdom Government, particularly the larger than recommended increase to the apprentice rate, which would be widely welcomed. I am not sure that it still goes far enough. I think that it should be going a lot further than that. Indeed, I have written to Vince Cable, reaffirming this Government's view that there is no justification for continuing to support the apprenticeship rate of the national minimum wage at £2.73, highlighting that no one, no matter their age, should be working for less than the £3 an hour, which is what has been happening. I have already called on the public sector in Scotland to ensure that all modern apprentices are paid at least the UK adult minimum wage and, where affordable, the living wage, if doing an equivalent job to someone on that level of pay. I am going to continue to press the UK Government to scrap the apprenticeship rate and to address the inequality and unfairness in young people's pay. Of course, we cannot ignore the effects of changes to the employment landscape over the past few years. There has been an increase in the use of exploitative zero hours contracts. Not all zero hours contracts are unwelcome to individuals who sign up to them, but there has been a massive increase in the exploitative use of them, and we need to look at that and address how we can deal with that. There has also been the qualifying period for making an unfair dismissal claim increased from one to two years, and the introduction of fees for employment tribunals has resulted in a dramatic fall in the number of cases in Scotland of 65 per cent. There is a combination of factors now contributing to a culture of fear in too many workplaces. Fear to speak up in case you do revert to the zero hours that week. One of the issues that I have raised with the minister before is about the use of umbrella contracts. Last week, the Welsh Assembly issued policy advice notes on the issue for the public procurement process. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to do that very soon. We saw what the Welsh Government issued, and officials are currently looking at that very carefully. We are always open to the possibility that good practice elsewhere can be copied here. We have in the past, however, once we have gone looking carefully at some of the things that are claimed, it turns out not to be quite as advertised. If Neil Findlay will allow me and officials just a little time to scrutinise that carefully, I will come back to him as I promised that when we had our meeting on the issue. We have fully recognised that central to eradicating inward poverty is the promotion of good-quality, well-rewarded jobs that ffosters greater innovation, co-operation and workplace democracy. That is why, in the programme for government, we committed to establishing a fair work convention, which is going to provide us with independent advice on how to develop, promote and sustain a fair employment and workplace framework for Scotland. An announcement on the membership of that is coming very soon. That will be at the forefront of ensuring that there are more well-paid jobs at all levels throughout the public, private and third sectors. When we are talking about issues to do with wage and fair work, as I was this morning at the national economic forum, there are a huge number of employers out there who really are on board with this discussion and conversation, and we need to engage with them on those issues. It is very important that we engage across the board. It is clear that there is a great deal that can be done. By working together, we can have an impact. As a Government, we have already taken action to tackle inward poverty. However, as always, we can do more. Thank you very much. I am afraid that we are tight for time this afternoon. I now call on Neil Findlay to speak to you and move amendment 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 0.35 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I move the amendment in my name? Low pay and insecure, the insecure job culture that we see at present is, I think, like a cancer in our society. It damages people. It eats away at their pride and their relationships, their morale, their health and their wellbeing. It is not just bad for individuals, it is bad for society and bad for our economy too. However, Presiding Officer, this is no accident over the past 30 or so years. The share of wages from GDP for working people has reduced at the same time as massive concentrations of wealth have gone to the rich and super rich. Is this inequality? Is what is supposed to happen when the market is left unchallenged? Professor Prem Seeker of the University of Essex in a recent lecture, I heard, rejected the term austerity. He instead called it the organised humiliation of working people, characterised by under-employment, low pay and insecurity, with temporary and zero hours contracts a key feature. We see 414,000 of our fellow Scots living on less than the living wages 785, 90,000 working on zero hours contracts. Many of them young people are just setting out in their working lives yet, at the same time, eye-watering profits are made by some of the world's biggest and most wealthy companies such as Google, Amazon, Starbucks, Apple and the like. These are companies that practice tax avoidance on an industrial scale, sucking vast sums of money out of the wedge packets of the poor and the budgets and services that we rely on. Presiding Officer, this organised humiliation proves again that this is not a moral economy, it is not just a just or a remotely fair economic system, it is a thoroughly immoral and just an exploitative model. As politicians, we can either do something about it, we can take our responsibility seriously and act, we can challenge and change the system or, alternatively, we can shrug our shoulders, blame someone else, anyone else and look the other way. If we look at our history, it has been the organised labour movement that has led with action on the big issues relating to people in the workplace. Holiday pay, sick pay, pensions, health and safety legislation, equal pay, trade union rights and the national minimum wage, all won not because of the generosity of the rich and the powerful but because working people campaign for change and with their industrial and political representatives, that change was delivered and we need the same now. In Scotland, the Scottish Government can no longer hide on some of those issues. Yes, of course, significant elements of welfare in the setting of the national minimum wage is reserved but, as we have seen with previous administrations, change can occur here if there is the political will. At our low pay summit yesterday, we heard Mark McMillan, the leader of Renfisher Council, explain how his council addressed low pay in the social care sector. Now, every one of their care staff, whether employed directly or contracted, is paid the living wage. They all get travelling time, they all have their uniforms supplied by their employer and paid for the workers themselves no longer have to pay for those things. If this Labour council can do it, then there is no reason, no excuse whatsoever for the Scottish Government not to do the same through negotiation and contract drafting across the public sector. That would give an increase of up to £2,500 a year to around 50,000 workers who are currently working on contracts issued by the public sector but who are paid under £7.85. I say to the Scottish Government that they must act, they can act, they can do better than just roll the rise and point the finger at somebody else. Last year, of course, they rejected our amendment to the procurement bill that would have ensured that all those working on public contracts would have been paid at least the living wage. They rejected our amendment to prevent companies hiring people on those exploitative zero-hours contracts that the minister mentioned. How does that fit in with the Government's stated objective to try and make work fairer? The reality is that, if we are going to see change, it will come again through the organised Labour movement. It is Labour who will redistribute through raising the top rate of tax and ending millionaires' tax breaks. It is Labour who will introduce the mansion tax, a bankers' bonus tax and clamp down on tax avoidance and close off the loopholes that exploit agency workers, something that the Scottish Government actually uses when employing its own people. It is Labour who will tackle zero-hours contracts, and we will use the procurement bill and the tax system to see workers paid the living wage. The Scottish Government can act on those issues. Unfortunately, it chooses not to. People who work hard for their families, who try to put some money aside and to make the right choices deserve rewards and the security of a decent standard of living. Creating the conditions for hardworking people to enjoy what they earn is one of the most important duties that we have in the chamber. I acknowledge that in-work poverty is a concern, but poverty for those who are not in work at all is also a concern. I have little doubt that work remains the most sustainable route out of poverty for most people. That is well reflected in the Scottish Government's most recent publication that was released earlier this week, which recognises that those who are most severely hit by poverty are likely to be the furthest from the labour market, with work-less households tending towards the lowest income desiles. Although the cabinet secretary acknowledged that it acknowledges that employment is not a guarantee against poverty, it does concede that it is a protection. It identifies starkly that, for families not in employment, there is little opportunity to increase income. Supporting people back to work must be central to any plan to reduce poverty overall. To me, it is a deeply disturbing poverty of ambition that says all that we can do for the worst often in our society is to modestly boost benefits. Let us put aside the notion in the Greens motion that our welfare system is punitive. It is a system that makes 258,000 payments every day to people in Scotland, spending more than £22 billion helping the poorest in our society in the last year. My experience of a constituent who was asked to be at the job centre and at an interview for a training course at the same time resulted in him having his benefits stopped instantly, having to apply for a hardship loan and being placed in truly dire streets. Surely that is punitive. That is certainly illustrative of an element of very bad practice in the system. I do not dispute that, but that is not to say that the system as a whole is not a workable and welcome sense of unsource of support. I do believe that a growing strong economy providing more jobs gives opportunity to those seeking work and greater choice to those in work. However, let us look at some of the specific suggestions to address in-work poverty. The motion presented today asks us to consider a £10 minimum wage by 2020. As the cabinet secretary said, as announced yesterday, the minimum wage is to rise in line with the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission. The chancellor said today that the objective is an £8 minimum wage by the end of the decade, and that is to be welcomed. The system that we have now is one of progressive rises, linked to what the economy can reasonably afford, based on recommendations by an independent body, not based on government. With the now visible economic growth that is reasonable to anticipate, the minimum wage will rise. It is not reasonable to pluck a figure out of the air without the slightest attempt to model its economic impact. However, I am pushed for time, Mr Harvey. It is of course right to challenge businesses where they are able to do so to pay their employees fairly. The living wage is a positive concept that we encourage where it is affordable. Businesses who can pay the living wage should pay the living wage, but we can also provide a model of childcare that works better than the current model, which is flexible in location, flexible in times of provision, meeting what the parent actually needs. We do not have that model in Scotland, we should have. We can also help people in work to get more of their earnings back. Someone working full-time in the minimum wage already has had their income tax bill cut in half. I want to see as much of working people's pay go into their pockets as possible. In Scotland, the increases in the personal tax allowance have cut taxes for £2.3 million, and taken £261,000 out of tax altogether. The further increases announced by the chancellor today will provide even more money being kept by the earner. That is real help. The UK Government has reduced the cost of energy bills. That is real help. The cost of transport is a major area of spend for working people in low incomes. That has been lowered, with fuel duty 20p a litre lower than it would have been under the previous Government's plans, and we have a further fuel duty cut announced today. We can do more in this Parliament. We can make social housing work better to support people. We can support further education, so drastically cut in recent years to improve skills and enhance job opportunities and choice. We can provide help and advice to people who are under-employed. Those are sustainable ways of reducing poverty. I think that all that depends on a framework of a productive economic plan that supports growth and investment and creates jobs. I am delighted to say that that is exactly what we have at the current time in the UK. I move the amendment in my name. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate speeches of four minutes. Please, Christine Grahame, to be followed by Alex Rowley. I very much identify with the tenor of the independent green motion. It is ironic to be having this debate on budget day when a column is cynical, but I suspect that the gap between the rich and poor will get even greater. I say to Neil Findlay regrettably through Labour Governments over the years that I also saw the gap between the rich and the poor getting greater. Of course, no one in work should need to apply to the benefits system to enable them to meet the level of the living wage. In principle, it is wrong. At practice, it means that the state, you and I are subsidising employers. It is plain wrong. I congratulate the SNP Government, which has made payment of the living wage to all Scottish Government employees across central Government agencies and the NHS—the living wage, not the statutory minimum wage. Of course, our powers in here are so limited that we can apply only elastoplast and not the invasive surgery to deal, as Neil Findlay said, with the cancer of poverty, both frankly in and out of work. In the Midlothian part of my constituency, 15.6 per cent of those in work earn less than £7 an hour. That comes from addressing child poverty in the Midlothian action plan 2012-17. Average weekly earnings for the Midlothian residents, both male and female, are currently significantly less than both the Scottish and British averages, and for women the picture is worse. In the Borders, even there, it is worse than the Midlothian. 19.7 per cent of workers earn less than £7 per hour. Because the low employment rates are high in the Borders, there is a lack of well-paid work, both historically and currently. But even then, as we all know, work is not a route out of poverty and there are even more barriers for people entering employment with a disability and carers as two examples. Indeed, the Scottish Borders ranks 28 for lowest pay out of the 32 local authorities. Those are the facts, the statistics, but people are more than the statistics. They are individuals trapped in low-pay jobs, zero-hours contracts, driven to applying to the state for financial assistance. As for the benefits system, to claim you must almost have a degree in mathematics, there are 42 pages on HMRC's website as a guide to the working tax credit and the child tax credit. You certainly need stamina or perhaps desperation will get you there. Even if you do claim and receive payment, it will all go skew whiff. Once, if not years later, the tax man is knocking at your door looking to claw back some quotes over payment. Added to the stress of being underpaid and hence undervalued—that is key, you are undervalued—you have this compounded by a benefits system that will grind you down even further. I take issue with Annabel Goldie that this is only one illustration given by Alison Johnstone. It is too commonplace. Still, you can always be referred to the local food bank, but, of course, having to get provisions has nothing to do with poverty and benefits cuts, according to David Mundell, our only Tory MP in Scotland, who refutes the evidence from MSPs, academics, charities and religious organisations of a link between welfare reform and the use of food banks, brought out in a report by the Hollywood welfare reform committee. There you have it. Poverty in Scotland, in and out of work, has nothing to do with Westminster's policies. You have given David Mundell's word for it. As for the Labour amendment, Neil Findlay, I have a lot in common with his sentiments, but Labour hitched itself to the Tory political wagon during the referendum campaign when this Parliament had the opportunity to have macroeconomic power, to move towards equality and to try to eradicate poverty, and you blocked it and kept the Tories in power. The Scots have not forgotten and have not forgiven. I would say to Christine Grahame that, if she is looking for evidence that the Government can act to reduce poverty, then it is the last Labour Government that you need to look to. 200,000 children in Scotland lifted out of poverty as a direct result of Government policies. Over a million pensioners lifted out of poverty as a direct result of Government policies. The sad thing is that, since 2011-13, the number of Scots living in poverty has gone up by some 15 per cent due to the policies directly coming from the Tory Government and Westminster and, sadly, the inaction of an SNP Government in Scotland. That is the fact, because what we do not have in Scotland is an anti-poverty strategy that is driven through Government that drives all departments through Government and works through into local Government and into local communities. That is what is lacking and that is what is needed if we want to go forward. In a brief four minutes I have, I was struck by the briefing that came through the NHS Health in Scotland, where it said that reducing in what poverty is likely to have a direct and indirect positive consequences on the population for health and health inequalities in Scotland. For example, an increase in national minimum wage to £7.20 an hour is estimated to result in 77,000 years of live gain and prevent 56,000 hospitalisations among the Scottish population. Low income is associated with poor mental health for adults in Scotland. It goes on to say that child poverty is associated with poorer social, emotional and educational development. You can see that an anti-poverty strategy, if we are serious, is about tackling inequalities in our communities. That is what it has to be about. If you look at the carb briefing that came out, we are talking about real people that have experienced peninsin and real difficulties day in and day out. Let me give one example. Neil Findlay's amendment talks about procurement. If you look at procurement and you look at one section that is linked to local authorities in the home care and care homes across Scotland, there are 916 care homes providing 30,645 beds to 33,663 residents. 70 per cent of care home workers work in the private and independent sector. I remember being very proud as the leader of the five councils when we introduced the living wage. However, I realised that the majority of care home workers in five did not work in the council sector. Indeed, the workers who did work in the council sector that were caring for people were being paid well above the living wage, but for the majority of care workers across Scotland in the private sector, they are being paid the minimum wage. There is an area where we could act and focus in that now if the Government was willing to. We should do that. We should work together with local government and imagine if we could achieve a living wage in Scotland. That would be a major achievement to lead the rest of the UK by bringing about a living wage. We have to start that someplace. We could start that if there was a political will for this Government to work with local government to look at procurement, and there is no better place to start than in the care homes. How much is a care worker worth who cares for her elderly when they need support and care? How much are they worth? Right now, for the majority of them, they are worth no more than the minimum wage. We have to address that, and we should at a minimum be looking for a living wage. We could achieve that, and that is the point in terms of having those kind of debates. If we are going to have those kind of debates, we need to look at what action we can take to be able to bring together Government, bring together the political will and drive a strategy that will move us to be talking about those issues, to actually do something about those issues. Let us work together, let us aim for a living wage across Scotland and unite on that. I have to say that I am very grateful to the Greens for the motion that they have in front of us, which covers far too many things that we are trying to deal with this afternoon, and I apologise for that. I am going to have to pick on just two or three issues. Can I start with the idea that the Tory policy is doing something to reduce inequalities? Of course, the Tory policy that we are living with at the moment is absolutely nothing to reduce inequalities, but I have just heard Alex Rowley telling me that he has finally understood why reducing inequalities is what it is all about, because there are huge benefits well beyond any financial ones, and I welcome one more to the fold who understands that. Evidence that Tory policy is not doing anything for inequalities comes from a report that discussed the welfare reform committee only last week. The authors, Christina Bity and Steve Fothergill, Sheffield Hallam University, told us that families with dependent children are one of the biggest losers. In all, families with children lose an estimated £960 million a year, approaching two thirds of the overall financial loss in Scotland and, crucially, for this afternoon's debate. Nearly half the reduction in benefits might be expected to fall on those who fall on in-work households. Will the member acknowledge that that statistic includes families who are earning with a wage earner over £60,000 a year who have lost their child benefit? I recognise the wrong manner of complications. I am about to tell the member about some of them. Before I get to that, let me pick up on the issue of the Scottish Government and the living wage. Let's be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government is doing what it can with the living wage. I am hoping that others might talk about that. I would like to put on the record, Presiding Officer, the words from Commissioner Michel Bernier, who said, and I quote and I can't give you the entire context, that the court held in the Laval case that requirements regarding the level of wage, payable in this case to posted workers, may not go beyond the mandatory rules for the minimum protection provided for by the directive. A living wage set at a higher level than the UK's minimum wage is unlikely to meet that requirement. Forgive me, I do not have time because I do want to get on to the other issue. Apart from noting on the way that Scotland's inequality index—there's a Gini index, G-I-N-I, well worth looking up—Scotland does do better than the rest of the UK principally because of the things that the Scottish Government is actually doing. Let me bring myself therefore to marginal tax rates or what would appear to be the marginal tax rate. There seems to be a lot of difficulty in the rich recognising that maybe they should pay 50 per cent at the top end. I am grateful to the Association of Certified Accountants who came up with an entirely credible occasion when somebody on a low wage is actually paying a 73 per cent marginal tax rate. I would like to draw your attention to this, Presiding Officer. It's as a single person with no children working 40 hours a week and earning £10,000 during 2013-14. He's in type 4 maximum working tax credit. The numbers are there, as his income exceeds the threshold of £6,420. If he receives a pay increase of £1,000, they then do the calculation, which tells you that he's going to pay an extra £730 in tax and national insurance. That's a marginal tax rate for someone earning not very much at all of 73 per cent. I take Alex Johnson's comment that there are some complications in here, tax credits, child growth benefits and all sorts of things, but could we please sort out the system? A marginal tax rate of 73 per cent when your income is £10,000 is simply not acceptable. I thank the Green Party and independent members of the Parliament for committing what for them is limited and therefore precious debating time to the subject matter. We may not all agree on how in-work poverty has reached the scale that it has and how it should be tackled, but there is, across much of this chamber, more, if we set aside the usual tribalism that unites us on it than devises us. However, it's good to have the opportunity to shine a light on the disgrace that is in work poverty and what a disgrace. 53 per cent of adults and 110,000 children living in poverty reside in a household where at least one person works, 18 per cent of employees, more than 400,000 people in Scotland are paid less in the living wage. As Alex Johnson highlighted, the situation is worse in rural areas where costs of transport and heating are also higher. It's incumbent on all of us to push the living wage as far as we can and be seen to push it. The Scottish Government has taken a lead by ensuring that all staff, covered by the public sector pay policy, receive at least the living wage and bring influence to bear beyond that where it can, most notably in the case of the new ScotRail franchise. The Parliament has followed by becoming an accredited living wage employer joining more than 140 others. A number of MSPs, myself, Linda Fabiani, Christina McKelvie, Drew Smith, Willie Rennie, Jim Hume and Neil Finlay, have, as of today, gone down that road as individual parliamentarians employing people within the institution. I urge colleagues who haven't already done so to join those of us who have and reinforce the message that paying at least the living wage, which currently is 21 per cent higher than the minimum wage, although the latter is a cost of increase by 20 per cent anewr come October, should become the norm. I suspect that the vast majority of MSPs, if not all of us, would qualify to become accredited. Why not make it official? It might only be a relatively small gesture, but it is one that plays its part in moving Scotland to the point. John Wilson Member for Giving Way, what would the member say about the use of interns in this parliament who don't get paid anything? I can say to the member that it is not a practice that I personally support. The Scottish living wage accreditation scheme, which shortly celebrates its first birthday, not only ensures a fair wage for employees, it also helps to promote the benefits of paying the living wage to the employer. Personally, I didn't need to be told of the benefits. There might be in this for myself as an employer. I, as the other participants in the scheme, will no doubt have done it. Simply viewed it is not only the right thing to do, but also supporting a message worthy of endorsing. Human nature being what it is, especially in tough economic times, large-scale employers will want to know that there is something in it for them if they do the right thing as it were. Research indicates that 80 per cent of employers who have introduced the living wage believe that it has enhanced the quality of their employer's work. Employers also report a quarter less absenteeism than before they introduced the living wage, and 66 per cent of employers thought that it made a difference when it came to recruiting and retaining staff. That message needs to be spread because there are too many paying the minimum wage or employing, if that is the right word, people on zero-hour contracts. I was struck, no doubt, as others were, by two examples offered of the impact of zero-hour contracts ahead of this debate by the CAB. The laundry worker laid off for three weeks due to a mechanical breakdown and having to be referred for food parcel support. The individual who had only three days' work in the last month, which earned him just £150, was also directed to the local food bank. How can that be considered acceptable in this day and age? Many thanks. That concludes the open part of the debate, and we now turn to the winding up speeches. I call on Alex Johnston for minutes, please. It's a pleasure to speak in this debate, but it's one of those debates where, I was going to say sadly, but I suppose in reality, we each bring to this debate a different experience, a different background and a different understanding of the situation that we are describing. It's ironic that, during the course of this, we've heard Labour take the year zero approach again, one that suggests that everything in the garden was rosy under the last Labour Government, although perhaps it was in 2005 or 2006. However, the refusal to understand their part in the process, which happened between 2008 and 2010, unfortunately puts them on to very thin ice. However, I will continue my suspension of this belief when we talk about some of the other contributions that have been made in this debate. I'm very proud of the record of the Conservative Government. I genuinely believe that the Government that we have in Westminster today and the many Conservative Governments that went before it have done all they could to further the objectives of the welfare state and the provision of the national health service. When the national health service, for example, celebrated its 50th year, we have to remember that of those 50 years, 35 of them had been under a Conservative Government, and the 15 years during which the Labour Party had taken responsibility had not been distinguished in any way. I knew one 17-year-old student nurse who, in 1978, tore up her union card and had to fight her way across the picket lines to take her responsibility to look after her patients in Aberdeen royal infirmary. She later joined the Conservative Party and, sadly, married me. That circumstance demonstrates that the Conservative Party has a great deal to be proud of. Even today, before today's budget announcement, there had been 2.3 million working people in Scotland who had seen a tax cut. There had been 261,000 people, no thank you. 261,000 people had been taken out of tax altogether, and at the same time 187,000 jobs had been created, three quarters of which were full-time. As we approach the concept of the living wage, it is something that I have spoken about in this chamber before. However, it is something that we need to address. We as Conservatives believe that the living wage is a worthy subject for pursuit. We have seen the UK Government increase the minimum wage, but the living wage is significant, yet we must recognise that, for many, it is an impossible dream. Vast numbers of people within the Scottish economy are self-employed. Many of them are with family businesses to support. Many of those businesses fall within what we can loosely describe as our immigrant communities. Many individuals, if they employ anyone at all, are struggling to do that and maintain any kind of standard of living for themselves. It is the case that, whether in the self-employed sector or perhaps in the public sector, where money is also tight—we all know—if we increase the payments that are made to achieve a higher living wage, there is a significant danger that we may see the number of jobs available reduce very briefly. Mr Johnson says that money is tight. Money is only tight for some people, because Mr Urban Osborne gave every millionaire a £43,000 tax cut. Money is only tight for people at the bottom end of the scale, not those at the top end of the scale. Alex Johnson began to conclude. As was pointed out in today's budget speech, the wealthiest 1 per cent in the United Kingdom today pay a significantly higher and increasing proportion of the total tax take. Let me address the issue of universal credit. I am afraid that you would need to address it very quickly. It is very much the case that the imposition of universal credit will have the effect of supporting those who are in work and minimising the marginal tax rates that have been described. Frank Field, who is the author of this under a previous Labour Government, has made a significant contribution by being the architect of the system. It will work when it is introduced and it will support those in low pay to make sure that they get a reasonable overtalk. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I now call on Sifon MacMahon, four minutes, please. Thank you. Like most members in the chamber this afternoon, I am disheartened by the figures that we have been discussing today. We have heard during this debate from Graham Day that there are now 370,000 people in poverty in work in Scotland. Those people are living in households where at least one person works and that equates to 45 per cent of those living in poverty in Scotland. In addition, there are 110,000 children in poverty who are living in households where at least one adult is in employment. Furthermore, it is estimated that there are 940,000 households living in fuel poverty in Scotland, which is the equivalent to 39 per cent of all households. One further dismal statistic is that, in 2014, 10 per cent of all employees in Scotland earned £6.79 an hour or less and 20 per cent earned £7.85 or less. Those figures are thoroughly depressing. However, we know with the right policies and ambitions that those figures can change. For instance, under the last Labour Government, the number of people in work poverty fell by 30,000, nearly 10 per cent. I do not believe that that figure is good enough, but what it demonstrates is that we can do something about the life-destroying issue, rather than just talk about it. The Scottish Government's report into in-work poverty has stated that it will require action in three main areas—low pay, the number of hours worked, and action on the life-between-earned income and the rate at which benefits are withdrawn, not at the moment. The cabinet secretary, Roseanna Cunningham, said that full-time employment is not a barrier in itself to poverty. That is why we need a more joined-up approach to tackle that problem. I hope that the cabinet secretary will look at her own policies in relation to those and undertake socioeconomic impact assessments on them in order to get the real impact of legislative changes. That might be the start to an anti-poverty strategy that Alex Rowley spoke so passionately about. Alison Johnstone spoke of the welfare state and, in particular, the benefit system. That was an important point. For many in Scotland today, they have to claim benefits to top up their salary. We need to make work pay, but we also have to make sure that benefit payments for people unfit for work, as Christine Grahame pointed out. People in that position should not be subjected to a life of poverty. Incidentally, I do not say that that is the advancement of the welfare state. All the issues that I have spoken about today are issues that affect people across Scotland on a daily basis. We in those benches do not want to just talk about the issue anymore—we want action on it. That is why we have put forward our own plans to tackle the matter head on. As Neil Findlay said earlier, 400,000 to 1,400,000 people across Scotland would benefit from a living wage promoted by Scottish Labour's plans. Given that 14 per cent of men and 20 per cent of women earn less than the living wage last year, I believe that that is a step in the right direction for the workers, but it is not a magic bullet. We know that there are a number of contributors to in-work poverty. One cause of that is not often discussed, but it is under employment, which is a huge problem for men in Scotland today, and Annabel Goldie spoke to in her speech. According to a spice briefing, there are an estimated 58,600 people aged between 16 and 24 who are regarded as under-employed. That equates to around 19 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds. I believe that we need to do more to utilise our workforce, and I hope that the Scottish Government will produce a report on how that can be achieved. One simple way of doing that would be to introduce more flexible working practices across our public sector. That is something that we could be doing now, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen to that suggestion. In conclusion, by increasing the minimum wage and extending the living wage, by buying an exploitative zero-hour contracts and taxing bankers' bonuses to guarantee jobs and training opportunities, we can tackle in-work poverty. Those policies will make a difference to people's lives, and I urge members to vote in favour of our proposals tonight. I should, perhaps, at the outset, move the amendment in my name, which I omitted to do in my opening speech. I am very sorry for that. I think that I need to say this so that we get a full picture that just over 80 per cent of Scottish workers are currently paid the living wage or higher. I think that we need to remember that. We should celebrate that, and we should commend those employers who are doing that already, because that number does mean that a great many employers are doing that. It is actually a higher figure than for the rest of the UK as a whole, and it is more than anywhere else in the UK outwith the south-east of England. I think that we should, at the very least in context of this debate, acknowledge that we are, perhaps, in many places pushing at an open door. That begs the question from me why they are not accrediting, and that is a conversation that I pursue with many of them who are holding themselves out to be living wage employers—a conversation that I need to have to establish exactly what the basis of that is. One of the issues that Arlo pay summit yesterday was the accreditation price, so if you are a charity or a third sector organisation having to pay £200 for instance to do such a thing, it is a barrier for that, and it is a price to accreditation. Yes, there is a cost to accreditation, and that may be a barrier for some people. It is not a barrier for some of the much bigger employers, however, who are, we know, paying the living wage and are not accredited. It is part of my job to make sure that that accreditation process does work. I want to set that to make sure that people understand that global context, because what we are talking about here are those people in that 19 per cent who are earning less than the living wage and in some cases considerably less than the living wage, and are therefore in difficult circumstances all round, and that is what is contributing to in-work poverty. I have to say that Alex Johnson somewhat stretched the bounds of credulity with his congratulations for the conservative care of the welfare state. The hollow laughter in the chamber at that point rather says it all. However, his comments boil down to an argument that says that paying wages that do not actually allow people to live properly is okay. Well, it is not. The state simply ends up subsidising those low wage rates and those low paying employers, and that is a crazy cycle for us to be in, so we need to try and intervene in that crazy cycle and break it. However, that is invectively the import of the conservative position today, and I do not think that it makes sense. It does not make any logical sense, and it does not make sense for the people who are currently living on those poverty or trying to live on poverty wages. First of all, her interpretation and position is wrong. However, does she factor in the increased cost of public services in Scotland today if we were to elevate the payments of the least well-paid to the level that is contained within the green motion today? However, she is still falling into the trap of justifying a situation and an economic model, which is predicated on the basis of paying people less money than they need to live on. At basic level, that is what needs to be challenged, and it needs to be challenged across the board. Neil Findlay was, as always, passionate about this, but he is somewhat careless about recognising the constraints that exist. He knows that right now there is a consultation on going on procurement guidance, including fair employment practices and how to promote the living wage in the public sector. That is a very current conversation that is being had around procurement. However, I need to say to Neil Findlay that Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council in a response in April last year to an FOI request stated that, at present, the EU regulations do not allow the living wage as a mandatory requirement within our contracts. Glasgow City Council operational delivery scrutiny had said that, even earlier, it would be considered anti-competitive by the European Union to require bidders to pay the Glasgow living wage rate. Labour-controlled councils Renfrewshire, West Lothian and Inverclyde all responded, in a minute, to the FOI request, stating that their contracts do not, in fact, include a mandatory requirement that suppliers pay the living wage. Neil Findlay, briefly, is giving advice from the Scottish Government that that was the case, but it is not the case that they can individually negotiate on that, like Renfrewshire did. So what is the reason that the Scottish Government is not doing that? Of course, and what makes you think that we are not having these negotiations, of course we are, but they have to be individually negotiated, they have to be looked at carefully and they are being currently—well, right now, on the back of Alec Rowley's comments, can I suggest that he considers the work that the health secretary is currently doing with regard to precisely the issues that Alec Rowley raised in terms of the care sector? It is not the case that those things are being ignored by government. Alec Rowley spent quite a lot of his allotted time talking about the low wage rates in the care sector and I hope that he asks Shona Robison for a conversation about that so that he does understand what is happening. Now, I am run out of time, Presiding Officer. I am sorry though, there is a lot more I would like to have said. This is a complicated problem. There is no simple answer that will immediately work, not even bringing the living wage in immediately, which I noticed that not even the Labour Party is suggesting for a single minute and what we need to do is work together. This Government is committed to it. I know that Labour is committed to it, less certain about the Conservatives and all the Greens are on board. I hope that we can have this conversation constructively. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so, Presiding Officer, and I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I am reminded of a much earlier debate. It might have been one of the first that the Greens brought in the 2003 to 2007 session, one of the first in which we were trying to explore the notion, which is core to the purpose of the Green Party, that growth is not the same as wellbeing, that economic activity alone does not create quality of life. We were told one thing, put very bluntly, and it stuck with me, earning a wage gives you dignity. Having a job gives you quality of life. This very simplistic argument was put to us almost as though we should go away and talk about trees or fluffy animals or something that we were expected to talk about in those days. I wonder if anybody would seriously make this argument today that earning a wage gives you dignity and having a job gives you quality of life when we know the lived reality of too many jobs and too many people on poverty wages. I remember a couple of people who were being interviewed on the radio this morning. One who is on a zero-hour contract gets a text message, anything up to 20 minutes before his shift is due to start, please take another rest day. Very often he is already at the door of his employer, he has gone into work. He was saying, I have a work ethic, I want to work, but turning up the door of his employer only to find that they have just sent a message that he is not required. Someone who could end up after his basic living costs had been met with £40 a week, and that was on a good week. Some weeks, £8 a week disposable income, and never knowing ahead of time on the Monday morning what his income would be by the end of that week. That job does not give that man quality of life. That poverty wage does not give him dignity. Bizarrely, the Conservative amendment comes close to repeating this simplistic argument. It asks us to acknowledge that increasing employment, growing the economy and creating opportunity remains the most sustainable way of moving people out of poverty. Maybe, in some circumstances, it can be. Increasing well-paid, secure, dignified employment can lift people out of poverty. Growing the economy might lift people out of poverty if we ensure that the wealth that is generated is shared fairly across our society instead of hoarded by the lucky few. Those can lift people out of poverty, but all too often, as history has shown, that has just not been the case. I welcome much of what the Scottish Government had to say about this debate, but there were elements in which I think that there is not enough follow-through. Ensuring that there are more well-paid jobs, that, Roseanna Cunningham said, should be one of our priorities. Ensuring that there are more well-paid jobs does not necessarily mean that there are no poorly paid jobs. We need to end the situation where any jobs in our society are paid such poverty rates. There was a focus on skills and progression, making sure that people had the ability to move through employment and find a better job. That still leaves the poverty-paid job behind them for somebody else to endure afterwards. We need to eradicate that kind of undignified, exploitative employment practice and make sure that everybody has enough to live with dignity. As for the Labour contributions, Neil Finlay was absolutely spot-on with one argument. He said, that this is no accident, quite right. This is our current economic system, working as it is supposed to, working as it is designed to, and that is why we need to challenge the basis of that economic system and ensure that something better happens. Our generation has such an opportunity. Our generation of politicians can see the failure of that economic system. Over the past few years, that failure is manifest, not just in this country but around the world. We need to take the opportunity to say, enough is enough, let's stop digging ourselves deeper into that hole and build a fairer system. There were many aspects of what Neil Finlay and Alex Rowley focused on about the contribution that their party has made to progress. I understand the passion with which they claim those achievements. I suspect that both Neil Finlay and Alex Rowley in private moments would be as willing as I am to acknowledge the bad as well as the good of what happened during Labour's last tenure in office. Yes, the creation of a minimum wage is an important step, but it was allowed to stay static for far too long. It was allowed to fall behind living costs for far too long. The purpose of the welfare state was turned from one of basic wellbeing into one of bullying people into low-paid work and subsidising that low-paid work. That has created the situation that is being fulfilled by the current UK Government's disastrous welfare policies. Neil Finlay? He acknowledges good stuff that Labour has done and criticises things that we have not done. Could he name one thing that his party has delivered? Patrick Harvie? Even from the point of opposition, we have managed to persuade the Scottish Government to spend a great deal more on measures that will reduce people's living costs, for example, on the energy side. However, I welcome the day when he can quiz us on our record in government. I am sure that he will relish the opportunity. Look, there is a need to begin a debate about repurposing these systems. Work and welfare need to be based around the idea that everyone's dignity matters. I do regret that all three of the amendments that have been moved today delete the specific measures that the green and independent group has brought for debate to the chamber today. A £10 minimum wage, Annabelle Goldie asks us to consider minimum wages only if the economy can afford them, suggests that there has been no attempt to model the impact. I wonder who it was who assiduously modelled the impact of the systematic hoarding of the majority of the country's wealth in the hands of the smallest number. That is the change that has been happening since the beginning of the 1980s. The incredible accumulation of high incomes and of wealth in the hands of a minority. Did anyone model that? Did anyone ask whether the economy can afford lavish remuneration at the top? I do not think so. I think that they just went in for what they could get, frankly. I think that they just did it quite right. That is the situation that we need to turn around. Wage ratios we have mentioned as well, because we are not just going to solve this problem by talking about safety nets at the bottom. We are going to address the question of inequality if we address high pay as well as low pay. We have mentioned a wealth tax in our motion as well. The Government briefing, which is at the back of the chamber, makes it very clear that, in terms of wealth inequality, Scotland is doing extremely poorly, with the wealthiest 10 per cent of households over five times wealthier than the bottom 50 per cent of households combined. Finally, we have mentioned moves towards a citizen's income. Again, because everybody's dignity matters not just hard-working families. I commend the green independent motion to the chamber. I will be voting against all of the amendments today and I move once again the motion in my name. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. That concludes the debate on an end to inward poverty. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12677, in the name of Gene Urquart, on celebrating Scotland's diverse communities. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Gene Urquart to speak to and move the motion, Ms Urquart. You have 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In a world that is more interconnected than ever and where historically our societies have developed as a result of the transnational mobilisation of cultures and peoples, it is intellectually moribund that we rarely hear politicians or the media make the positive case for immigration. It is with alarm that we are witnessing the development of increasing hostility, xenophobia, discrimination and intolerance towards immigrants. I am gravely concerned at the tone of public discussion about immigration as contributing to a climate of hostility and fear. In that regard, we risk facing a race to the bottom. It is, it seems, politically fashionable to oppose immigration and increasingly the whole concept of multiculturalism. However, I am proud today to be one of those who is making the positive case for immigration, not just highlighting the economic benefits but the cultural enrichment that flows from embracing it rather than proposing an agenda set on creating resentment and division. A stand as an advocate for multiculturalism recognises the benefits of viewing integration as a two-way process, where we learn and develop from our fellow citizens that hail from other countries and bring with them their own heritage and traditions. The world is a more interesting place and our communities are made more vibrant and outward looking if we encourage understanding and tolerance and adopt a welcoming attitude to immigrants as citizens in equal partnership. However, we barely hear such arguments. Instead, we are faced on a daily basis with a toxic barrage of headlines, demonising immigrants, and an increasingly xenophobic politics stemming from UKIP. However, now it seems that it is infecting the mainstream parties, particularly in Westminster. The whole debate has been shifted rightwards as it becomes increasingly popular to make opposing immigration a political principle. Even those who may have stood up for multiculturalism in the past find it difficult to do so now. That tide must turn, and we must challenge ourselves to testify for a modern, inclusive and humanitarian approach to immigration. Of course, the scapegoating of immigrants at times of economic crisis is nothing new. Throughout history, immigrants have been a useful section of society for powerful interests to blame in order to rationalise their own failures. Far better that our attention is focused on blaming immigrants for their lack of job opportunities and deteriorating living standards than on our unbalanced economy, corruption in the banking sector or indeed the political establishment. In terms of economic facts, which are rarely exposed rather than representing a drain on Britain's finances, European migrants make a net contribution of £20 billion to the Exchequer between 2000 and 2011. However, in those circumstances, organisations such as UKIP thrive. They build on the fears that emerge as a result of economic precarity and on the anti-immigrant sentiment popularised by sections of the media. The two have a near symbiotic relationship, all set within a policy framework that has been shifting away from embracing multiculturalism and immigration for many years under successive Westminster Governments. UKIP now advocates the scrapping of the racial equality laws, a move that would regress race relations by decades. Unless partisans of diversity and racial equality make a positive case for immigration, challenging though that may seem, we risk sliding down the slippery slope of an inward-looking xenophobia. This is a xenophobia that detracts from our culture, economy and that important sense of human solidarity that has always been the bedrock for making progress in society. I believe that the majority of our population can be one to such a perspective if only we unite our voices to amplify our case beyond the parameters of the current stale, stultified and one-sided debate. We hear so often that tiresome mantra repeated throughout the decades that immigrants are stealing our jobs but we should ask the question why is the jobs market so poor? Why not ask how it came to be that our society is so unequal or ask why access to well-paid jobs so privileged? We hear of immigrants taking our houses but we must ask why our housing stock is so inadequate and underfunded and why we don't have the necessary investment into building more high-quality affordable homes. Why not inquire further with a critical mind to unearth beneath the waves of anti-immigrant headlines just how much of a contribution they really do make to our country? Let's talk about how much our communities have gained from immigration, all of the doctors, nurses and public servants that help us in our time of need and without whom we would be much worse off. Let's talk about the music scene or our constantly renewing creative culture and the extension of our palette into the world as each period of immigration if embraced emboldens our human need to experience more than ourselves and to explore the things we don't yet know about in the pursuit of knowledge. Immigration far from being a burden is a gateway and we in Scotland should know this. Surely it is part of our DNA. Scots being immigrants themselves and who are dispersed around the globe. Scots who found and created work, who shared their culture and made their home in another country. We should be among the first to recognise that the flow of immigration adds momentum to the progressive aspects of human history and excites the potential in all of us regardless of where we were born. Thus I share the concerns of the Scottish Refugee Council at the recent poll conducted by the BBC Scotland on Scottish attitudes to immigration and have signed Christina McKelvie's motion questioning the methodology, outcome and timing of the poll. I was taken aback listening to BBC Radio Scotland's morning news programme a few days ago to hear the Spanish immigrants in Inverness referred to as, I quote, an invasion. That only confirms for many that the BBC is not acting impartially. It is time for a wholesale change in approach as to how we discuss immigration and realise its benefits. That is why I don't just want our Polish friends to be able to learn English. I want Scots to be able to take advantage of the diversity in our population and learn Polish. Imagine how our nation can develop when we cut through the headlines of the Daily Express and the false narrative of Nigel Farage and recognise the potential that exists. It is time, is it not, to move on as a society to stop repeating time and again the age-old fallacies around immigration. To move into a period of enlightenment where rather than creating fear and division around difference and the scramble for resources, we work together to solve the economic problems that we face and at the same time enjoy our distinctive and valuable cultural identities. Referring to immigration, it said, UKIP said, are said to be making a bold stand, where the truth is the opposite. It is those who stand up for the rights of immigrants and champion the benefits they bring to a multicultural society based on social progress that are the trailblazers of the 21st century. Presiding Officer, many members in the chamber today would have joined with Sheena Wellington at the formal opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and saying the words of Burns that man to man, the world hour shall brothers be for all that. It is time now where we can show that there is a difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament by making and profiling the positive case for immigration and celebrating Scotland's diverse communities. I now call on Alex Neil to speak to and move amendment 12677.2. Cabinet Secretary, you have up to seven minutes, please. Thank you very much indeed. I am delighted to be able to speak in this important debate and thank Jeane Urquart for lodging the motion. If I may say so, delivering a very eloquent speech indeed in introducing it, the Scottish Government will be supporting her motion and we will be supporting all the amendments put down by ourselves and other parties. I formally move my own amendment. It is very important that, from all sides of the chamber, we send a loud and clear message today from this Scottish Parliament as a Parliament about the need for diversity, to treat immigrants properly and to treat each other, as Jeane Urquart finished up by saying, we are, at the end of the day, all on this planet together, living together, and Scotland itself has been described by Tom Devine, our most imminent historian, as a mongrel nation. I think that that is the kind of spirit in which we are all conducting this debate. I want to start by emphasising the Scottish Government's view that diversity is a strength and that it is something to be celebrated and welcomed. Scotland is becoming a more ethnically diverse country and the emergence of an increasingly multi-ethnic population that has been warmly welcomed by the Scottish Government for a number of reasons. It continues to help with the growth and prosperity of our country, gives rise to a younger workforce, many with international connections and in turn boosts innovation and enterprise. More importantly, it enriches our culture to create a more diverse Scotland and helps to ensure that our dynamic, progressive country continues to evolve. Our work to create an equal Scotland reflects that diversity, seeking to ensure that all people who live here, regardless of race, religion or any other differentiating characteristic, can flourish. Despite the cuts that we have suffered in recent years, we have provided over £60 million of funding from the equality budget during 2012-15 to help to tackle inequality and discrimination, with over £8 million of that money supporting initiatives that address issues of racial equality. Celebratory events such as last year's multicultural homecoming programme and this week's Islam Awareness week provide us all with fantastic opportunities to meet and learn about each other and even more importantly, as Jeane Irkins said, to learn from each other. They help to dispel ignorance and break down stereotypes and to challenge and change attitudes by celebrating equality and diversity. Scotland is a multi-faith and multicultural country. There is no place for prejudice or discrimination either in Scotland or in any other part of the world. Everyone, without exception, deserves to be treated fairly and be able to achieve their potential in the place where they live. Like Jeane Irkins, we would challenge the claims made in last week's BBC Scotland poll that suggested that attitudes to immigration are similar on both sides of the border. There is clear evidence that there is a much more tolerant approach in Scotland than there is in other parts of the UK. Scotland needs immigrants because of our ageing population and to fill skills gaps. It is not just about welcoming them, we actually need immigrants. We were able temporarily to allow people graduating from Scottish universities to remain for a short period in Scotland to get work experience as an exception to reserve work permit rules. That highlighted the importance of the Scottish Government being able to set that kind of different policy to meet the needs of Scotland. We would like to see a similar plan reinstated by the UK Government. We will always welcome people who want to come and live in Scotland. We know that minority ethnic people still experience barriers or negative attitudes resulting in unequal opportunities and that racism and discrimination come in many shapes and forms. None of us can afford to be complacent about the outstanding challenges that we still have in terms of the degree to which we still have some degree of that kind of backward attitude in Scotland. Racial discrimination and harassment are still too common and experience for minority ethnic people in Scotland today, ranging from verbal abuse to sickening acts of extreme violence. David Coburn's shameful comparison of Humza Yousaf to the convicted terrorist Abu Hamza is nothing short of disgraceful. His totally unacceptable smear cannot be excused as a yw kit banter or a joke. It is racist, it is Islamophobic, it is just plain wrong and has been rightly condemned by all parties in this chamber. I hope that the amendment in my name about David Coburn will therefore be passed unanimously. David Coburn does not represent the views of the Scottish people and I seriously think that, as an MEP for Scotland, he should seriously consider his position. There is no place in Scotland or elsewhere for the depiction of Muslim people as terrorists. I very much welcome the statement that was made by Jean Urquhart about xenophobia and, in particular, the launch of the campaign by Jean Urquhart of not my xenophobia campaign. It is too easy for the media and politicians to make comments that are xenophobic and deeply offensive without being called to account for them. That campaign can make a great contribution to tackling that issue by highlighting such comments and forcing those who make them to face up to what they have done. I very much hope that that will make them think about the consequences of their actions and change their future behaviour. In our work to develop a new strategic approach to racial equality in Scotland, one of our priority areas will be tackling discrimination and hate crime so that everyone is free to fulfil their potential. We will focus on shifting negative attitudes, celebrating the different contributions that people make in Scotland, fostering good relations and tackling discrimination, racism and hate crime. I hope that my opening remarks have made clear the central importance that race equality in Scotland's diverse communities have for the Scottish Government. In conclusion, although we have made some good progress, there is much more that needs to be done. I welcome opportunities like that to progress that important work and look forward to continuing in partnership with our key stakeholders, including all parties in this chamber and communities over the coming year, and I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Ken Macintosh to speak to and move amendment 12677.3. Mr Macintosh, up to five minutes, please. I thank Jeane Irkart and John Finnie for bringing forward this important debate and for yesterday's launch of not my xenophobia campaign, which I was also happy to support. It is very important that we address issues of immigration and diversity using more positive language. It is a matter of real worry that we should find ourselves today having to defend the very idea of taking a liberal approach to immigration and immigrants. Immigration is not a new topic. It is a subject that has sparked political debate and provoked forthright views on all sides for decades, if not centuries. Although we have made huge strides in tackling overt racism in our society over the course of my lifetime, what concerns me is that it feels as though we have gone backwards, certainly when it comes to discussing immigration, over the past five to ten years. There are reasons for that, which we should at least acknowledge. Populations are ever more geographically mobile and, at the same time, in our country at least, less socially mobile. The world is shrinking before our eyes and successive generations think nothing of upping sticks and making new home for themselves on the other side of the globe. Most of that movement is to be celebrated, and various studies have shown the economic benefits that immigration has brought to the UK. Just one example, research from University College London, published by the Royal Economic Society four months ago, demonstrated that European immigrants to the UK have paid far more in taxes than they have ever received in benefits. Such migrants helped to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers. They positively contribute to the financing of public services, according to the report's authors. Change to any community can bring tensions and pressures, too. It is important that they are addressed for what they are. If people express their concerns that they are being priced out of the labour market and their wages and conditions are being undercut, that has to be addressed in economic terms, not in terms of people's nationality. Poverty wages are unacceptable whether they are paid to immigrants or native citizens. Exploitation by unscrupulous employers is unacceptable whether the employee is from this country or not. If others complain about the pressure on public services, that should be addressed in terms of our public service, not in terms of someone's country of origin. Yes, the health service is under pressure, but, as we all know, we are more likely to be treated by a doctor from a different country than we are to wait behind someone from another country in the doctor's surgery. One think tank recently estimated that 11 per cent of NHS staff and 26 per cent of NHS doctors are non-British. Our national health service, this country's pride and joy, could not begin to operate without immigration. The difficulty is that, for some in politics and for some in the media—I just make it quite clear that I do not believe that Gynarcher's motion condemns all in politics on the media, and we, like the Government, will be sporting all motions and amendments before us today. But for some in the politics and some in the media, the impact of immigration in our society is a fear and an anxiety that they can play to rather than address directly. How we react is where it gets complicated. If we overreact, if we condemn every person who expresses their worries as racist, we provoke the very backlash that we are trying to address. People need to have and to hear the political language that expresses their anxieties, not to be told that they are wrong. The real test of our political leadership is to give people the opportunity to discuss their vulnerability and highlight our common humanity rather than pandering to any sense of otherness. Quite simply, diversity makes Britain stronger. We are richer, stronger and a better country because we have welcomed people from across the world. Here in Scotland we are fortunate to live in a vibrant society that, for the most part, has a welcoming approach to immigration. Outside of two big cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, my authority of East Renfrewshire is Scotland's most ethnically diverse area. I am proud of the fact that I live in such a tolerant and multicultural community, but I am not blind to the hostility and negativity that can lurk in the very same neighbourhoods. In 2013, more than 4,500 racist incidents were recorded by Police Scotland. That equates to around 90 recorded racial incidents per week. I was reminded how far we have come at a dinner earlier this week when the right hon. Peter Hain spoke about his family's efforts during apartheid and talked about the role Scotland played at that time. However, in 2013, the employment rate for people from minority ethnicity groups in Scotland sat at 56 per cent, compared to an overall employment rate of 71 per cent. That is not right. Scotland's national ethnic minorities organisation, BMIS, recently concluded that we should be striving for a Scotland where ethnic minorities are not only passively recognised but where they are actively incorporated into the way that Scotland is imagined to be now and in the future. Yes, we should be tackling overt racism and the dog whistle politics of the immigration debate, but we must also do much more to ensure that our society is reflective of those who live in it. Our neighbourhoods are changed, our communities are the better for it, but we need to tackle poverty, close the employment gap and reduce inequality for those from an ethnic minority background. It is a long struggle, still ahead. I now call Liz Smith to speak to him and remove amendment 12677.1. Five minutes are thereby please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I move the amendment in my name and also indicate that we are very happy to support other motions and amendments? Maya Angalu, the American author, poet and civil rights campaigner, famously noticed that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength. I do not think that the vast numbers of people who walked the streets of Glasgow during the Commonwealth Games and Scotland's festivals last year could possibly disagree. Such was the very rich display of culture and social diversity. In particular, I was struck by what was happening in many of Glasgow's schools, schools where nowadays pupils are speaking a multitude of different languages. They were celebrating diversity and they were working towards improving cultural awareness. Indeed, I think that some adults have much to learn from these children who intuitively reject insularity and prejudice and intolerance of the way that others choose to live their lives. I note exactly what Jean Urquhart's motion is saying. I have every sympathy with her sentiments, most especially about the repugnant comments, and they are repugnant comments, as the minister has said from David Coburn, who has absolutely no place in any democratic society. However, I think that we have to be very careful not to imply that it is all sections of the media and politicians who are making the inflammatory remarks about immigration and immigrants, because that is not true. Indeed, I actually think that there have been some measured debates in recent weeks about immigration, which is clearly a very difficult issue and we need to respect that. Yes, it is true that there has been some completely unacceptable media sensationalism and, undoubtedly, there is a very small minority of politicians who over the years have made completely unacceptable remarks, but they are not the majority by any means, as I think is demonstrated in this Parliament, and that is why we have amended the motion to provide that balance. Ken Macintosh rightly said when he spoke that immigration is a sensitive topic, and anything that we can do to ensure that our debate is based on fact, on good quality evidence, is helpful. Within the analysis of the Social Attitudes, the 2013 British Social Attitude Survey, it showed that in London, which is the most culturally diversity in the UK, there is the lowest level of racial prejudice in the country. Furthermore, the survey highlighted that the largest rises in racial prejudice over the last decade have occurred in Scotland and northeast England, the areas with the lowest level of diversity. Indeed, in London, it was the area with the falling racial prejudice over the last decade. Perhaps that tells us something, but, of course, it does hide very substantial regional variations. Again, we have to be very careful about how we temper that debate. I think that the main message of the pupils that I met in Glasgow last year was that they were very clear that it is usually ignorance about other cultures that leads to intolerance, and they were in no doubt whatsoever about the importance of education when it comes to a better understanding and to dismissing the stereotypes that can be so harmful and become the nourishment of the bigots and the racists. I think that when I had the privilege on Saturday morning to be in this Parliament to witness the model United Nations taking place, I was very impressed by the young people there who were debating what to do about the current issues in Islam, and they spoke with tremendous affection for Islam. Their understanding, I think, was far greater than many who have, unfortunately, taken to the newspapers and to social media in recent times, and there was a genuine understanding about the cohesive society that we all seek to find. How diverse are our communities in Scotland? The short answer across the board perhaps is that they are not particularly diverse. The 2011 census showed a doubling of Scotland's minority ethnic population to 4 per cent since 2001. That figure is less than a third of England and Wales's ethnic minority population, but, of course, that very much hides the regional disparities. I do think that one of the things that we can do is to lead by example. I am absolutely convinced that the reason for bringing this motion to Parliament and the reason why we have had such an inflamed debate—unnecessarily inflamed debate—about this topic is because people have not been careful about the language that they have used. They have been very guilty of an intolerance that, as I say, has no place in a democratic society. I will finish on the point that we have to be very mindful of what we are seeking to try to do. That is perhaps one of the most complicated and complex political issues that we have to deal with. That makes it even more important that we speak with a tolerance and an understanding and an ability to seek out the facts rather than to be carried along on a tide of emotion. We are very happy, as I say, to support the motion and to support the other amendments. Many thanks. We now move to open debate. I call on Bruce Crawford to be followed by Hanzala Malik. Four minutes or thereby, please. I thank Jeane Irker for bringing this motion to Parliament today and for the tone that she set for the debate in the afternoon. I very much welcome that, Jeane. The diversity of the people that make up the population of Scotland is, for me, one of the reasons that makes our country such a wonderful and exciting place to live and work in. How boring the world would be if we were all the same. Diversity gives us as individuals a chance to gain a new perspective on the lives of others in their own society, as well as other cultures and societies around the world. Every one of us in this chamber is different. It has had different life experiences. Those experiences make us who the people we are. Celebrating our differences as well as our common interests helps to unite us all as the people of Scotland. For my constituency of Stirling, we have had an interesting and diverse community with thriving Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, African and Polish communities. All those communities have managed to keep their own traditions alive while, at the same time, integrating into an increasingly diverse community that is Stirling. One of the privileges of being an MSP is being able to meet people from all sorts of backgrounds. The whole has been a pretty positive and nourishing experience for me. However, I have had darker and more negative experiences. Following Friday prayers at the Islamic Centre in Stirling recently, I was standing on the pavement outside to tune the cud with some of my Muslim friends when a car full of young white males drove by. The obscenities and racist taunts that spued from their mouths of those young white males made me once both angry and deeply ashamed. My Muslim friends, although obviously disturbed by the instant, shrugged it off because it was not an unusual experience for them. However, their reaction only served to make me even feel more ashamed. I have no doubt that the attitudes of those young men who have sprung from ignorance, as was already alluded to by Liz Smith, are a lack of education, but that is no excuse for them and their behaviour. I have no doubt that their attitudes and behaviours have been covered by some in the media and I stress some like others I have done who have had the output and portrayed Muslim immigrants in particular in such a negative fashion. Of course, the reality is that the Muslim community is much a part of the rich mosaic of people that makes up Scotland as any other people living among us. The same goes from those from Eastern Europe or increasingly Spain who have recently come to Scotland in order to make a new and better lives for themselves and their families, while at the same time contributing significantly to the economic and social wellbeing of Scotland. Just as Jean Urquhart said, just as our forebears did in the past when they left Scotland to go to the ends of the globe in order to improve a lot of themselves and their families, I would say to those who want to be involved in racist taunts that those who have chosen to make their life and their new home here in Scotland are now our own folk and we must stand with them like we would with any other. It is our jobs as politicians, parents, brothers and sisters to ensure that we fight back against prejudice and racism from whichever source it comes. Liz Smith quoted from Dr Maya Angelou, the celebrated American poet and civic writer activist, but the full quote of what she said is quite interesting. She said that it is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength. What she was really saying was that education and learning are the tools that we need in order to root out our own prejudices and the racism that exists in our society from whichever poison well it draws its strength. That includes David Coburn in the context of this debate. Many organisations do fabulous work across Scotland, particularly with young people, trying to address preconceptions and myths truths that are often spread in relation to diversity. I want to say that much great work is being done, but there is much more work that still requires to be done. Let us get on with that, united and together. It is an honour to be talking about celebrating Scotland's diverse communities. As many of you know, I have been involved in equality and diversity for over 40 years, so I have some experience in the field. I found the motion very interesting as it discusses negative attitudes to immigrants and immigration, and no doubt in response to the UKIP and the negative media stories. However, as a UKIP MSP, shamefully commented about my fellow Glasvision, and that is the important Glasvision, Hamza Yousaf, shows that we have to deal with the plenar issue, which is downright racism. Sadly, there are still major issues for ethnic minority communities who are born and brought up in Scotland. The most recent figures show that the 3% higher rates of incidents reported for racial incidents, records for Police Scotland, which is around 90 per week. That is far too many, I have to say. Despite forming over 4% of the Scottish population, people from minority ethnic background make up only 1.1% of local authority staff. Similarly, 1.1% of modern apprenticeships in 2013-14 were from the minority communities. One of the poorest performances in is our fire service, which has improved performance during the Strathclyde days. However, since becoming Scottish-wide, it has only 0.8%. Yes, only 0.8% of its fire service staff are from the minority communities. Let's talk about poverty. Figures show that people from minority communities are significantly more likely to live in real poverty at 25% for the years 2012-13, compared to only 4%, 14% from the wider British groups. The Scottish Government's recent report on severe poverty states that ethnic minorities are at greater risk of severe poverty and deprivation. It's shameful to think that how poverty and minority communities are being served today. As this week is Islamic Awareness Week, it is a good time to embrace diversity, but Scotland still has a long way to go and I want to see change in education and employment outcomes for minority communities. Not only just posters and campaigns that say that we are nice to each other and should be nice to each other but actually deliver on the ground, I think that's more important. I appreciate any campaign that aims to challenge anti-immigrant attitudes. I would like to call upon all my colleagues and all the parties to look again at the public sector equality duties. Scotland has the potential to lead the UK in putting emphasis on requiring public authorities to take action to tackle inequalities instead of simply reporting them to us year in year out. Before I demand equality and service, let me truly wish you and me the best of luck to work across Scotland in terms of equalities and defeating inequalities, not only in race but in education, employment and all aspects of our citizens in Scotland. We are a nation, we need to be strong and the only way we are going to be strong is if we protect, love, support and look after one another. Let's do that together. Thank you very much. Many thanks. Now I call on Rob Gibson to be followed by Christian Allard. I am proud to say that, back in the 1990s, I think that it was that one of the branches in my constituency, SNP, put forward an amendment to recognise not the people of Scotland but the people of Scotland. That is a starting point from which we in this debate across the parties take our bearings. Having said that, I believe that we understand now how difficult it has been over Scotland's history to live up to the potential of that. Professor Tom Devine was mentioned earlier his view about us being a mongrel nation. That was our thoughts when that amendment was put forward. However, if you read his history of Scotland, some of the integration of Irish people, Lithuanians, Italians, Poles, Chinese and, through to the present day, the small Jewish population and now many people from African countries has, to some extent, been prefigured by the difficulties that we have in celebrating diversity on the one hand and promoting a living together approach. I do not want to use the word integration because I think that we are talking about something more profound than that, but it was thought of in the 19th century as integration. Tom Devine points out that those people came from deprived and distressed communities, brought low by corruption, discrimination and economic problems. They came to Scotland, a land of economic possibilities, and then they met the problems of becoming part of this multicultural nation. Some of them had a real difficulty in doing so. If I mention particularly the recent coverage of the Spanish people on the highlands, I think that the slip of a word is one thing from the BBC, but the poll that they conducted earlier than that on immigration was flawed indeed. However, the coverage of the Spanish migration to Inverness and learning English was quite interesting because, in the morning radio programme, Filomena de Llema, who is the director of the Centre for Remote and Rural Studies in Inverness in the United Nations, said that we had to have a lot more research into the host community and how it sees those things and how it is attuned to thinking about the adaption of people from many places. That was not covered in the television version of the same story. I think that it is one of the keys to talking about the way in which we can break down the barriers to allow people that better chance to integrate. One of the key things that we can see is that many of the people who come here, be it EU citizens through free movement, are prepared to come here and work hard because they are prepared to earn regular pay in places such as fish processing factories, which will not be particularly well paid, but they will work regularly because they want to either send money home or they want to bring their families here. Therefore, that part of what they do for Scotland is a vital ingredient to our diversity. The fact that other Scots will not do those jobs is something for the host community to think about very carefully. It needs to adapt to the fact that there are always going to be jobs at various different levels. It is too much to say that it is an easy thing for us to promote living together and integration. Education is at the key of it. That is what has helped many groups forward. I have to say that if we are going to move forward from where we are now, we must learn from some of those things in the past. There is plenty of space and room in Scotland for unity and diversity and for all the peoples of Scotland. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. That is not the first thank you that I am going to say today. I love to say a lot of thank yous and formalities when I have. First of all, thank you very much for the Green and the Independent Party to bring this to the chamber. It is very timely and it is very important that we debate this issue. Of course, immigration is a debate that we must have. We must have it regularly, not only in time of election, but we must have it regularly. We have to see the two sides. We have to see immigration, the people coming in and immigration, people coming out. It is very important that we don't debate one in a vacuum. A lot of people and a lot of contributions have talked about the BBC and I love maybe to dampen a little bit my views on the BBC. There is, of course, I heard the programme that Gino talked about, which was on Monday morning. It was appalling, absolutely appalling, particularly. I am not saying it is a contribution, I am not saying it is a phone-in, so a lot of people are coming and have their views and we have to have their views. It is very important when we do. What is appalling is the presenter, Kay Adams. It is appalling the way that she portrayed it, she related it and she agreed with some of the comments which were not at all. Anybody with any sense would not agree to. I am very annoyed because BBC is a fantastic organisation and the last contribution that you just heard about the BBC may be interrupted and said that BBC Alhapa, for example, is a fantastic organisation. I will be on it this week or next week speaking in French. BBC Alhapa loves languages and speaks a lot of languages and wants to have a lot of people who live in Scotland who speak different languages to participate. It is good and it is very bad and I would say to Kay Adams, no thanks, not anymore. It is something I would like to thank. I would thank Scotland 2015 when we did the debate in Tuesday last Tuesday this week, was it? No, last week. It was an important debate on immigration and even if the poll was maybe not as good as it should be and Christina McKelvie is absolutely right, we have had a very good debate. I was sitting to this UKIP MEP and you will be surprised to know what quite it was and our consensus, we had a consensus between the members. The audience was very, very good and diverse but it is something really I was shocked about is that it did not expect me to be there. It expected our minister for Europe and international development to be there and I think what happened in the rest of the week was exactly this. He couldn't develop his argument live on television because he has a wrong SNP MSP next to him. He had a Frenchman, a migrant but it was not about migration he wanted to talk about. He wanted to talk about Islamophobia. He wanted to talk about what's happening today with blaming a particular religion all over the world and it's what he wanted to do. My skin was too white, I didn't have the right religion so of course he didn't engage and that may be explained what happened afterwards and what I would like to say I would like to say thank you to the press because the press thereafter has been fantastic and I would like to take one particular journalist Alan Rodden from the Scottish Daily Mail. Alan Rodden from the Scottish Daily Mail. Two of that phone call from the same EP couldn't be clear when he came on television. It was extremely clear that the phone call which was only a 15 minutes chat was not a joke. Nobody was laughing, he was not laughing, David Coburn was laughing, it was not a laughing matter. It was not bantering in a pub, it was a chat between a journalist and a politician and if it is something that we have to remember is some of our Scottish press are just fantastic and rally very much on the same spirit that this Parliament is doing today. So we should be very, very proud, we should be very proud that this Parliament, our Scottish press are really having a fantastic reaction of what happened this week. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Canon to speak for four minutes, so thereby please. Thank you Presiding Officer. Sorry, today's discussion is about celebrating Scotland's diverse communities. It's a welcome opportunity to highlight in this chamber the importance of a vibrant community life. In the Lothian region that I represent, there are very many examples of active local communities working inclusively that set an example to us all. In addition, we should celebrate that immigrants of various nationalities continue to make a wonderfully diverse cultural contribution to Scotland. However, this debate also provides an opportunity to discuss how we can enable local services to be more flexible in the face of rising populations. I would also like to express my support for Liz Smith's amendment because the media should act responsibly and truthfully but we also want to make sure that in this Parliament we do not direct blame in a generalised blanket fashion. When I visited the Broomhouse Centre in Edinburgh with its cafe, kitchen, teaching room and various other facilities, it was clear to me that I was seeing community spirit at its best, with many different nationalities in training. Whether they wanted a cup of tea, a hot lunch or an embroidery class, all comers were offered the warmest of welcomes at the Broomhouse Centre, situated at the heart of the local community. More importantly, the centre provides in-work training to many locals and other people who would otherwise struggle to gain extensive work experience. This inspiring and inclusive example of both providing for and giving back to all members of the local community is exactly what we should be celebrating today. I would also welcome to have the chance to celebrate the contributions that immigrants have made to Scotland's culture, whether they arrived in the last century or the last month or the last week. They have come from across the world or from closer to home. As a former consul for Iceland, I have extensive knowledge of the fantastic expertise Icelandic people have brought to these shores in culinary matters and music, among others. As well as this, there are numerous examples we could reference, unique shops opened by Scandinavian immigrants, South African chefs at popular restaurants, Spanish classes held by teachers from across the Spanish-speaking world and, of course, of all the brilliant international contributions to Edinburgh's arts scene during the festival and throughout the year. I could go on with many more examples, but at this point, Presiding Officer, there is much that we should celebrate. After all, the Italians were at the first race who came here, and the cafes and restaurants and fish and ships were all started by them some hundred years ago, although they are not considered immigrants anymore. I would also like to touch on the issue of increasing local populations in terms of how Scotland's communities are impacted by and respond to it, be it through immigration, internal migration, new housing developments, or demographic changes, local services across Scotland can be faced with significantly increased demand. However, both the cause and the result of increased demand can vary significantly between different cities, towns and villages. As a result, it is apparent that the best way to respond to this is to grant local areas and their councils the flexibility to adapt and respond to each other demand in the way that they think that it is most suitable. Finally, I think that it is important that the media report on immigration accurately and responsibly, while making sure that they do not casually stray into the aforementioned xenophobia. We ourselves must not seek to demonise the entire media, as Liz Smith's amendment states that it is only in some quarters of the media that we need to be wary of. Accordingly, Presiding Officer, I would like to finish by reiterating my conviction that inspiring examples of community spirit such as the Broomhouse Centre should be celebrated in this chamber and across Scotland. In addition, I hope that we can all share in celebrating the diverse cultural contributions made by immigrants across Scotland from wherever they come. We should also consider that local authorities and local services need to be allowed the flexibility to assess local needs, set out local priorities and deliver local improvements. I would like to express my agreement with all the sentiments that are expressed in every amendment, and I urge all members to vote for it today. I suspect that, when Jeane Arkart decided upon the topic for debate today, she had little idea just how topical the choice of subject would be. I thank her for putting down the motion for today's debate and also for launching her campaign. As she knows, I wasn't able to be at the launch yesterday, but she has my wholehearted support. This has been a very consensual debate and it has been worth having to demonstrate that Scotland's Parliament is united in its view that new Scots enrich our country and that the increasing diversification of our country and indeed our Parliament is most welcome. Of course, that view stands in stark contrast to the views of David Coburn, or, as I like to call him, that ignorant racist, whose views should have no place in a modern Scotland. Sadly, Presiding Officer, we know that those views are held by a minority of the population as the election of Mr Coburn has demonstrated, but we, as elected representatives here, have a duty to challenge it whenever we can, and today's debate has given us an opportunity to do just that. Those who know my constituency and my affection for it will know that it is enormously diverse and all the more joyful and creative and dynamic for that. I would like to draw the Parliament's attention once again to the excellent work of the Maryhill integration network, which has worked with the local population and with new Scots to help with integration and support since 2001. The Maryhill integration network does that by bringing people together to celebrate what they have in common and not to focus on what might make us different. It recognises that language can be a barrier and so it encourages the sharing of food, of dance, of music and culture to bring people together. Over the years, I have had the privilege and the pleasure of attending many of their events and celebrations and it is wonderful to see people who perhaps do not speak one another's language—at least not their spoken language—finding that they share the language of dance, of food or of music and that they can work and learn together. We need more organisations like that and we need to make sure that we support them and properly resource them. I am also proud that my home city Glasgow is the only local authority area to which asylum seekers and refugees are dispersed but, of course, that brings with it its own challenges. On Monday, I met a group of wonderful women from a selection of countries and one of the difficulties that they identified was the shortage of Aesol classes. Those were in the main educated women who want to work here and to make a new life for their families, but their first hurdle is acquiring the language. That difficulty is brought into focus by looking at some of the numbers. There are now 130 different languages spoken by children in Glasgow schools. Some schools have as many as 40 languages and every year 1500 foreign nationals arrive in Glasgow and need to be integrated into the school system. That is the equivalent of more than one additional classroom per week. To support that, Glasgow employs 110 full-time equivalent EAL teachers at a cost of some £5 million per annum, estimated to be the same as the total number employed in the whole of the rest of Scotland. However, it still is not enough, because the mums and dads—the women that I met this week—the mums and dads of those school-aged children need help, too. The organisations in my constituency who provide English as a second language course are inundated with people who need those courses to help them to find their way in Scottish life and in our communities, and to help them to play their part in building those strong, diverse communities that we all want to see. Some organisations that had previously operated an open door policy now have waiting lists. Although the pattern of emigration has changed over the years, I recall when Chilean people came to Scotland because of the political difficulties in that country, but we are now seeing the pattern of where people come from changing over time. However, what is not changing is the number of people coming to our country. As people flee Syria and others, for example, escaped from Eritrea, where mandatory conscription to the army for more than 10 years is the norm, and where young people see no future for themselves unless they can leave their country, it is clear that we have to do more to support those communities. The motion is correct in identifying the importance of the context in which we have this debate. That is the general election. We all have a duty and a responsibility to challenge the views of those who seek to drive a wedge between the communities in this country. They must not be allowed to seek it. Very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I think that the tone of this debate has been absolutely excellent and shows the Parliament in its best light. Particularly as we are all united against the right across the chamber in terms of the sentiments of what we are trying to express in each of the motions and the amendments. I think that the latter point that was made by Tricia Ferguson is an important one just to make. As we all know, seven weeks tomorrow, we all go to the polls for the Westminster general election. As the original motion put down by Jean Urquhart demonstrates, it is very important that, in the heat of that election campaign, that we all stick together in terms of promoting exactly the values that we have all been sharing this afternoon and to conduct ourselves in a very civilised manner that can do our nation proud. I am very conscious of the points raised also by Tricia Ferguson in terms of sometimes the challenges and pressures that are put on public services when we have a high and in some geographical areas a concentrated number of people coming in to Scotland. We have to face up to those challenges. That in no way should be seen as a reason for not encouraging people to come and emigrate to Scotland. Actually, it is a good opportunity for us to demonstrate our commitment, not only that we welcome those people, but that we want to make sure that they have a chance of getting a decent job, a decent house and sharing the public services that they share in contributing to the cost of providing. As has been pointed out by a number of speakers and all the work that has been done, and there has been quite a lot of work done in recent years on the economic contribution of migrants to the UK and indeed to Scotland, every single one of those studies has shown that that contribution is very positive indeed. I think that we all know instinctively that that is the case. Ken Macintosh mentioned the number of people who are immigrants who work in the national health service and particularly doctors. It is a very high percentage indeed. Of course, that goes back to a long tradition between countries like India and the UK in terms of bringing people here for training and then going back, some of those people going back to India and providing medical services of a very high quality in their own country. That is what it is about being a global economy, being a global people, being involved in the world where we benefit ourselves and benefit others by those historic and future relationships. The important point is that the kind of prejudice that Bruce Crawford indicated in the example that he quoted in Stirling, I think that there are two points to be made about that. First of all, the reality is that there is still too much of that kind of behaviour happening in Scotland on too regular a basis. It behoves us all to do everything that we possibly can to stamp out that kind of behaviour. It requires a multifaceted approach. Part of it is about bringing some people to justice, part of it is about education, part of it is about changing culture, part of it is about adopting policies that will lead to greater integration between different communities and better understanding. The work of organisations like Interface Scotland is absolutely crucial to that kind of work. The work of Bemis, the work of the refugee council, all of those organisations make an enormous contribution to achieving that objective, but it must be our determination to eliminate the kind of prejudice that Bruce Crawford sampled in Stirling. Secondly, what we have to do is make sure that, in encouraging people to come to Scotland, we are doing so on the basis that they come here as full citizens, and they use the word citizens in the fullest sense of the word, that they play their full part in every aspect of Scottish culture, Scottish life, Scottish economy, right across the board. That means that we have the kind of diversity that we have. If you go back to the history of Scotland, we are all descendants of immigrants because, by definition, somebody of our ancestors had to come and immigrate to Scotland for us physically to be here today, as what Tom Devine meant when he said, we are a mongrel nation. We are all descendants of immigrants and this country isn't owned by us just because we had to be here earlier or earlier generation came before the current generation of immigrants, and that's to the benefit of Scotland. Also, we have a reputation internationally, I think, of being a very tolerant nation, of being a seafaring nation, of being an internationally aware and conscious nation, of a nation that punches above its weight in terms of our international contribution, whether it's in Africa, Asia or elsewhere. All of that is part of the same fundamental philosophy that we all believe in, right across the chamber and right across Scotland, that we're all joke-tamsons, bairns and the words of the rabbi. I think that it's in that spirit, Presiding Officer, that this has been a very good debate and, I think, sends out a loud and clear message to the David Coburnsers of this world and to the people that Bruce examples of the kind of ignorant prejudice that they showed that that is just not acceptable in modern Scotland. It will not be tolerated. We believe that we want to see people come and live and work here as immigrants and we must treat those people as equals in every aspect of our living. Excellent. Thank you very much. I now call on John Finnie to wind up the debate, Mr Finnie. You have eight minutes. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I'd like to, on behalf of the independent green group, to thank members for their contributions to the debate. As many have said, I think that it's been a very consensual debate and very constructive debate. I'd also like to thank the Scottish Refugee Council for the briefing that they provided in which they used the phrase, this is politically an ideologically charged terrain of identity and immigration that we've been discussing there. Now a colleague, Juner Kerch, starts the debate by talking about transnational mobilisation of cultures and peoples and that's exactly the point that the cabinet secretary picks up on then there. It was ever thus there has always been this movement and of course what the debate was being about is the tone of public discussion that's taken place about immigration and whether that's contributed to the hostility and fear that does exist in our sections of our community. I think that Juner Kerch and many others did make a very positive case for immigration and I don't think that that is the bold case. That should be the default position that we welcome people. Grateful that the cabinet secretary spoke in the debate. He talked about sending a loud and clear message and I think that the Scottish Government, by their participation in this debate and the manner in which they have sent a very strong message and that's certainly as welcome from this part of the chamber and I'm sure across the chamber. Used the term mongrel nation which again has featured a number of other speeches and talked about diversity being strength and that's certainly how we do see things, it is a strength that makes it would as someone else said. I have no doubt come to be a boring world if we were all the same. The cabinet secretary also talked about it continuing to evolve and that is the position. He name-checked the not my xenophobia campaign that my colleague Juner Kerch launched yesterday and thank everyone for their support for that. That's very welcome. Ken McIntosh and Ken Mr McIntosh did attend and represented the Scottish Labour Party at yesterday's launch and very grateful for that. He talked about the political leadership and that was displayed both yesterday and today. When he talked about the use of language and how important that is and the concern he had that things were perhaps going backwards, talked about the racist incidents but I think significantly brought some facts into the equation, the detail of which I didn't know but it was about tax paid relative to benefits claimed and very much the country to what might be the perception of some and the portrayal by others. Very grateful to Liz Smith and the Scottish Conservative Party used the very nice phrase beauty and strength of diversity which I think is what we would all recognise in here. Talked about the importance of education and that was a recurring theme throughout and the requirement to understand the facts and the facts of this case are that we should be welcoming. Again, grateful for that contribution. From Bruce Crawford, and it was indeed Mr Crawford who said that we would all be boring if we were all the same and we certainly sensed his pain when he related an unpleasant incident that he had been partied to in his own constituency and that is the shameful face that we don't want to see. Next, we heard from Hamzana Malag talking about his 40 years in diversity and I loved his referral to his fellow Glaswegian as that a fellow Glaswegian because that is the obvious identity he would have with your colleague there and talked about real poverty and also finished by mentioning that they need to protect love and support and I think that's terribly important. Maybe words people are uncomfortable using but that's precisely the terms that we should be using. Robkid Ribson talked about the peoples of Scotland and how that had featured in a previous political intervention. That intervention actually came from a young Jean Urquhart who put forward that and I think it's an important term. Also quoted from Professor Tom Devine as did others and mentioned Filomena Dilema. I know Filomena as an academic in the Highlands and Islands who's done a lot of research and I think it's important when she talked about the host community. I look forward to his speaking in French on BBC Alipa. That will be worth listening to and talked about the need for debate and regular debate and that certainly is the case. I want to make passing mention to something that hasn't been mentioned in the debate and that is reports of a hunger strike inside Dungebel and I certainly have to say that this is alarming to me and I hope MSPs will follow the view of the S2UC and demand access to that centre to visit detainees because that is of concern. I think, Presiding Officer, it's evident from what we've heard that this Parliament thinks we should celebrate diversity. I think that there has been wide recognition that there are negative attitudes expressed and we wonder whether it is the chicken and egg situation, whether the media coverage is being driven by the politicians or indeed the politicians are responding to the media coverage. We know that those demonising immigrants choose the worst carefully and they're very a falling foul of legislation indeed they would like to abolish and we've all agreed that there's been a very positive contribution. I do believe there's such a thing as a society and I think there is much of people and cultures we have that's made Scotland much the better for it. The same can't be said of some of the lurid headlines and I don't think we'll do them credit by repeating them but I think it's important that we don't become complacent. I think there's evidence that the way that communities in Scotland treat their Gypsy Travert community shows that there's no opportunity for us to be lax about how we react to this. As regards the Government's amendment, the EU process pretty much determines who five of the six MEPs are going to be. Scotland had the opportunity to elect a highly talented immigrant woman from Africa as the sixth representative of the Scottish Green Party's Maggie Chapman. Scotland chose an ignorant individual who's been mentioned and meantime at least Scotland will have to live with the embarrassment of being represented in Brussels by a party that I won't be alone in considering to be racist. The strabling to Maggie's campaign was and I quote, a just and welcoming Scotland and the contrast I think couldn't be starker. I'd like to thank Labour Party for their amendment as someone sitting on the justice committee dealing with a human trafficking bill were aware of the levels of exploitation and these equally apply to people who have not been trafficked. A recurring theme in that evidence has been the preeminence of immigration and the decision making process and again we wonder if that is being driven by the political agenda. Language is terribly important and that's frequently been mentioned and if I give an example there for instance people who have been trafficked and involved in the production of drugs many of them will be referred to as they accused when indeed they are witnesses and I think that the reporting of things is terribly important. It's for that reason that I raised with the UK border agency how they portray their raids and indeed I asked why when they made high profile raids which subsequently found that the people they arrested were innocent of the charges to they didn't change their website. They told me it was because they don't release individual names there's no detriment well and they didn't envisage a situation where an update would be required but the detriment of course comes from the association and the negative associations and the stereotypes that brings up so I think that's very unfortunate. What to finish by talking about the highlands which is a much richer place culturally than when I was young and as many have said our health and care services would collapse without immigrants. There's concepts such as citizenship have been touched upon and there's rights and responsibilities go with that. Scotland's demographics show that we need immigration and the people and music of the highlands are the way I like them they're a very rich mix and to the Spanish people I'm told are invading in Venice. Can I see one thing? Falsu y lyduniau you're all very very welcome. Scotland's landscape is beautiful I looked at the term belonging there's a lovely quote belonging has been part of the landscape like a tree. I like trees I like forests let's reject negative attitudes let's celebrate our diversity let's be that just and welcoming Scotland. Thank you Mr Finney the next item of business is consideration of 11 parliamentary bureau motions. Can I ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motions number one to six eight five to one six sorry one two six nine four on approval of SSIs on block and motion number one two six nine five on the designation of a lead committee. Moved on block. The questions on these motions will be put a decision time. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number one two six eight three in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau sitting at business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against those should press a request speak button now and I'll call Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number one two six eight three. Moved. No members asked to speak against most of the fur. I now put the question to the chamber the question is the motion number one two six eight three in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick to be agreed to are we all agreed. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion one two six eight four in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau sitting at an extension of the stage one time deal for the air weapons and licensing Scotland bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request button now and I'll call Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number one two six eight four. Moved. No members asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber the question is that motion number one two six eight four in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed to are we all agreed. The motion is therefore agreed to. Before we move to decision time I'd like to call Liz Smith to speak. Thank you Presiding Officer. I wonder if I could seek permission to ask the Parliament if I might withdraw my amendment from this afternoon which has obviously been moved and debated. This is on account of some misinformation that was provided earlier about the admissibility of one particular amendment and the way that my amendment impacts on that. So I wonder if I could seek your permission to withdraw my amendment. Thank you Mrs Smith. Liz Smith is seeking leave to withdraw her amendment S4M 12677.1 on celebrating Scotland's diverse communities. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member has objected the amendment is therefore withdrawn. There are nine questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 12678.2 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham which seeks to amend motion number 12678 in the name of Patrick Harvie on an end to inward poverty be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed we move to vote members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12678.2 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham is as follows. Yes, 63, no, 54, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 12678.3 in the name of Neil Findlay which seeks to amend motion number 12678 in the name of Patrick Harvie on in-work poverty be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed we move to vote members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12678.3 in the name of Neil Findlay is as follows. Yes, 33, no, 85, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 12678.1 in the name of Annabelle Goldie which seeks to amend motion number 12678 in the name of Patrick Harvie on in-work poverty be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed we move to vote members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12678.1 in the name of Annabelle Goldie is as follows. Yes, 14, no, 100, there were four abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12678 in the name of Patrick Harvie as amended on in-work poverty be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed we move to vote members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12678 in the name of Patrick Harvie as amended is as follows. Yes, 62, no, 51, there were five abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 12677.2 in the name of Alex Neil which seeks to amend motion number 12677 in the name of Jean Arcart on celebrating Scotland's diverse communities be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 12677.3 in the name of Ken McIntosh which seeks to amend motion number 12677 in the name of Jean Arcart on Scotland's diverse communities be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed to. Amendment number 12677.1 in the name of Liz Smith which seeks to amend motion number 12677 in the name of Jean Arcart on Scotland's diverse communities has been withdrawn. The next question is at motion number 12677 in the name of Jean Arcart as amended on Scotland's diverse communities be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. I propose to ask a single question on motion number 12685212694 on approval of SSIs. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. No member has objected to the question that is at motion number 12685212694 in the name of Dolfitt's Patrick on approval of SSIs be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12695 in the name of Dolfitt's Patrick on the designation of a lead committee be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members shall leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.