 The next item of business is a debate on motion 10962 in the name of Jackie Baillie on procurement. Can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press a request to speak buttons? I call on Jackie Baillie to speak to and move the motion. 13 minutes, please, Ms Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, the public sector spends over £11 billion a year procuring goods and services, billions on construction projects. I'm sure that we can all agree that that's money that should support the delivery of public services, providing decent jobs and helping to grow the economy. It's hardly controversial to say that public money should be spent for public good, but in this area I believe that we're being failed by the SNP. Instead of growing the economy, Scotland is flirting with a recession. Productivity is down, industry after industry reports massive skill shortages and growth is all but stagnant. Instead of supporting the delivery of public services, the SNP outsourced to companies like Carillion, at least 630 million of Carillion contracts with public sector agencies in Scotland. There are companies that have engaged in the blacklisting of trade unionists, companies who have engaged in poor employment practices. It is simply not good enough to say that you're in favour of public services and in favour of workers' rights when your very actions undermine them. Promises made during the passage of the Procurement Act of 2014 have yet to materialise. Guidance published by the Scottish Government to support the act is welcome, but there is clearly little monitoring of implementation. The first monitoring reports for 2017-18 are due soon, but the Cabinet Secretary for Finance will not be publishing a report until the end of 2018-19. Why do we need to wait so long? I'll take an intervention from Keith Brown. Keith Brown, I thank Jackie Baillie for taking an intervention. She made the point that it's very important that the actions that you take reflect the words that you've used. If she wants to reflect on the extent of the massive outsourcing undertaken by the Blair Government and the complete lack of action taken on the issue of blacklisting by Labour Government from 1997 through to 2010. Jackie Baillie. I would hope that the SNP would raise their game. This is about what we do with public money in Scotland and I would invite Keith Brown to think and act in accordance with what he says he believes in, because we would support him if he actually engages in fair work practices. I will remember the debates. Five times the SNP voted against the living wage being on the face of the bill, because apparently the EU wouldn't allow them to do it. A year later they would be providing the living wage to care staff, which was very welcome, after a campaign by the trade unions and the Labour Party. At the time, John Swinney told local authorities that it was still against EU procurement rules, but we would be doing it anyway. It's amazing what you can do when you have the political will. It's a shame that the SNP doesn't want to do that for all public sector contracts. Instead of investing in decent, well-paid jobs, the SNP is helping to line the pockets of directors and shareholders, directors of failing companies whose eye-watering bonuses and pensions are protected, while former Carillion employees have the rug pulled out from under them. I'll tell you about two unite workers on Carillion network rail contracts. The first work is on the Waverley station extension. These are his words, not mine. The impact of me being on a zero-hours contract is unacceptable. My partner and I have two young children under the age of 10. Since the collapse of Carillion, I've been going without work for days and weeks at a time. There is a clause in my contract that says, I cannot take other work with another company. I've been missing wages. We struggle to make ends meet. The worst came recently when having been offered no work whatsoever for two weeks, I took the hard decision to apply for universal credit. I am fit, I am able to work, however I'm now having to resort to claiming state benefits in order to keep a roof over my family's head and put some food on the table. On top of all of this, when I do work, I am having money taken off my wages due to an umbrella company's greed. This is public money for a public service. Why are umbrella companies who have nothing of any value to the project that I am employed on, profiting from taxpayers' money? Something needs to change and change very soon. Rail worker 2 is employed at the Shots, Cleland electrification project. This is what he had to say. I wait for a text every Friday to say if I will be working the following week. If I go away with my family, there's a real chance that my place at work will be taken by another worker and I'll have no work. If I take a day off, I might be replaced. If I call in sick, I might be replaced. If I don't work every shift that I'm offered, no matter how short notice, I might be replaced. I pay an umbrella company up to £100 a week to get my own wages. I have no holiday pay, no sick pay. I can't work anywhere else if there's no work for a few weeks. I also pay both employers and employees national insurance contributions. Furthermore, I can't plan a day out at the weekends in case I'm offered work. I'm paid the national minimum wage for a safety critical job due to the money that the umbrella companies take. Presiding Officer, this is a national disgrace. We desperately need an urgent review of procurement to end the exploitation of workers, but this isn't a couple of isolated incidents. The Aberdeen western peripheral route plagued by allegations of bullying and harassment. Health and safety staff have been undermined. Agency workers' regulations ignored, and they used subcontractors who have used gangmasters. Then you have agency workers. In this case, they are hired by the Scottish Government through a temp agency. Agency workers are supposed to be short term. They are supposed to allow the Government a better flexibility. Some members may recall about three years ago when the Scottish Government was rightly embarrassed by the daily record into paying agency workers the same as their permanent employees. All sorts of promises were made then by the SNP about the use of agency workers. Let me tell you that those promises ring hollow today. One of those agency workers has been in touch with me. She's been employed at Disclosure Scotland as an agency worker for five years. Five years is not about short-term flexibility. It's about avoiding making her a permanent member of staff and shame on you for doing that. She doesn't get sick pay. She doesn't get holiday pay. She's no job security. Many of her colleagues are being moved from night shift to day shift. If you're a permanent employee, you continue to receive your shift allowance. If you're an agency worker for the Scottish Government, you get nothing. Some of them are being let go due to a downturn in work. There's no redundancy payment. There's not even a goodbye. Let me remind you that she's worked for five years on a continuous basis with the Scottish Government in a temporary position, just so that you get an ideal of the scale of it. Last year, there were 80 workers on one back shift in her work. Aside from the 14 leaders, two of them were civil servants on permanent contracts. The rest were agency workers. She tells me that those being let go, they shouldn't worry, they can get work at the new social security agency down at Victoria Key, sorry, it's Atlantic Key, with the Scottish Government. They're apparently hiring a lot of agency staff. Is that really what we should expect of the new flagship Scottish Government agency? Really? Temporary staff when you could make them permanent. Here is the truth about procurement by the Scottish Government. Those are contracts signed off in St Andrew's house, leading to the exploitation of workers at shops. Those are decisions taken by the transport minister, leading to zero-hours contracts at Waverley station. Those are decisions taken by the economy secretary, leading to the use of subcontractors with a history of using gang masters. Those are the decisions of the Scottish Government, where agency workers, on lesser terms and conditions, are employed for years instead of permanent staff. That, Presiding Officer, is the SNP supply chain. Is Scottish taxpayers money that they are using to support the exploitation of Scottish workers and it absolutely needs to end right now? Presiding Officer, we have the Troubled Scottish Futures Trust. Don't let the SNP fool you. Their method of financing construction projects is a variation of PFI, a report that the Scottish Labour Party Commission from well-known economists, Margaret and Jim Cuthbert, exposes a range of problems. The current approach is cloaked in secrecy. There is evidence of secondary market sales of debt netting the equity investors up to three times the original capital that they put in. It is a bit like going to longer for a mortgage when you do not have to. We know that private financing now costs more than borrowing through the public works loans board. In fact, it is double the cost. In one second, one local authority could apparently get a loan from the public loan board for 2 per cent interest but was forced by SFT to use their private lender with an interest rate of 4 per cent. I am happy to give way and invite the member to say whether he considers that to be good value for money. John Mason. I wonder if the member would at least accept that it is better value for money than the PFI projects that Labour supported? I think that you will find if you perhaps wanted to look at the Margaret and Jim Cuthbert's report that their analysis suggests that it is absolutely the same. I suggest that you look forward and let us do something about this, because you should know that the changes made to the hub building programme as a result of the change classification of public sector projects means that there is no cap on profits, no need to meet procurement guidance and a greater role for the private sector. The result of all of this more private ownership, more private control, more private profit, less Government accountability, that is the SNP way of doing procurement for you. We need an immediate review of the Scottish futures trust. It is not delivering value for money, it is simply delivering bigger profits for the private sector. Instead, Scottish Labour would empower the public sector to deliver contracts in-house, because the SNP is not getting value for money. Just look at the example of BiFab. There is at least £3 billion invested in renewables, but just a tiny proportion of that money stays in Scotland. As the GMB would rightly point out, if more of the supply chain and manufacturing was anchored in Scotland, think about the jobs and investment that our communities would benefit from. However, there is no planning, there is no joining things up, there is no anchoring of the supply chain in Scotland, there is little consideration of SMEs who, as the FSB has said, would give a significant boost for Scottish local economies if more procurement money was spent with them. How disappointing it is that we do not simply do enough of that. We need to get a bigger bang for our buck. We need nothing short of a whole-scale review of procurement, construction projects, facilities management projects, the lot, and we need to do a lot better. Scottish Labour believes that everyone on a public contract must be on the living wage. Scottish Labour believes that there should be an end to bogus self-employment, something that employers use to save on national insurance costs. We believe that there should be no more zero-hours contracts, no more blacklisting, no more insecure work and agency workers on poor terms and conditions, no more umbrella companies and no more contracts with tax dodgers. The differences that Labour in government will deliver, investment in SMEs, anchoring the supply chain in Scotland, decent, secure and well-paid jobs, as part of all public contracts. That is the difference that a Labour Government will make in Scotland and, indeed, in the UK. Shame on the SNP for its complacency and allowing Scottish taxpayers money to be used to exploit Scottish workers. I move the motion in my name. I now call Derek Mackay to speak to your move amendment 10962.2. Eight minutes, please, Mr Mackay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Jackie Baillie has accurately said, over £11 billion a year is spent on goods, works and services across the public sector. In Scotland, that is a substantial figure and a substantial contribution to our economy. That makes procurement one of our most powerful tools in helping us to shape and deliver ambitions for an inclusive society where the benefits of economic prosperity are shared. The Scottish model of procurement, recognised internationally, takes into account a balance between cost, quality and sustainability. It has four key strategic objectives—improving supplier access to public contracts, embedding sustainability in all that we do, maximising efficiency and collaboration, delivering savings and benefits. That model has underpinned the significant progress that we have made over the past few years. When we created public contracts Scotland in 2008, it was with the aim of seeing it develop into a one-stop shop for public contracts in Scotland to be advertised. Something that, not that long ago, was transformational in opening up public spending to SMEs mentioned by Jackie Baillie. That is now a reality. The Procurement Reform Scotland Act 2014 made that a mandatory requirement. In the last financial year, public bodies advertised over 15,000 contracts on public contracts Scotland, and 75 per cent of suppliers awarded those contracts had a Scottish address and four-fifths of which were SMEs. We are also delivering savings to allow money to be reinvested in our public services. Collaborative procurement continues to deliver more than £150 million of savings per year. From the financial year 2008-9 to date, Scottish Government-led collaborative procurements have generated just short of £1 billion in savings. As members know, our focus goes beyond savings and efficiency. It is also about opening up opportunities for businesses of all sizes to be able to compete for public sector work. He talks about savings, and I cannot help but wonder if some of those savings have been made on the back of giving workers poor terms and conditions. Why does the Government not engage in fair work practices? What about the rail worker at Shorts? What about the agency worker in Disclosure Scotland? I think that that is a key point. I was just turning to that, but I think that savings and efficiency collaboration and growing and diversifying our economy is also important. Part of procurement strategy is absolutely not instead of that, because, in addition to all that, it is about supporting community benefits, creating jobs for people from priority groups, supporting apprenticeships for our young people, work experience opportunities and training opportunities as well, which is all a feature of our procurement policies. Specifically, it is about using public procurement to drive fair work practices in our public contracts. Clearly, statutory guidance published in 2015 requires all public bodies to have fair regard to fair work practices in relevant contracts. Claudia Beamish, I thank the cabinet secretary for taking that intervention. It would be helpful if I had my microphone. My concern and that of Scottish Labour is about how many of the companies that you are talking about finding this balance for the future of the economy in Scotland. How many of them are actually offering the living wage and giving the living wage to those that they are employing? Derek Mackay? I think that the point that I am trying to come to is that I actually have a great deal of sympathy with what Labour wants to achieve. The problem for the Labour Party is that it has been the actions of the Labour Party and Labour Governments that has ensured that we do not have the powers over employment legislation, employment legislation and some other matters that have impeded progress in this area. That is why, when I come to the point in the speech about the important and significant matter—I am still answering your last intervention, Claudia Beamish—it is important to recognise the legal constraints that we have to work within. Within those constraints, we have gone to the max on issues around fair work, the living wage and so on. That is why it is so important that we keep the powers that we have in relation to procurement in Scotland and not allow the Tories to have the power grab taken away from us. In terms of what we have been able to do, we have been able to include the payment of the living wage, inappropriate use of umbrella companies or zero hours contracts and recognise trade union representation of workers' voices more generally. We are currently working with public bodies to develop best practice guidance that will help them to implement the statutory guidance and promote fair work in the procurement decisions. We continue to work closely with the fair work convention to ensure that we support the five dimensions of the fair work framework in all that we are doing. Blacklisting has been mentioned. It is important also to highlight our action to tackle blacklisting. Scotland has gone further than any other part of the UK in addressing blacklisting in public contracts, despite employment law being reserved. Since 2016, it has been the law that the Scottish public bodies must exclude businesses from competitions where they have committed acts prohibited under the blacklist regulations 2010 until they have taken appropriate remedial action or a period of three years. That is the longest period allowed for under EU law has elapsed. I have two minutes left and we have got further remarks. I think that it is important to make. Carylion has been mentioned. Of course, recent weeks have seen the liquidation of Carylion, a major contractor with the public sector across the UK. Our first thoughts are naturally with those Carylion employees who will be concerned for their jobs. We have taken steps to support those men and women who are affected. Indeed, I understand that more than 90 per cent of former Carylion employees on the AWPR route site have been transferred to the other two contractors on the project. It is no accident that Scotland's public services are not as affected by the collapse of Carylion as those elsewhere in these islands. We have not entered into the wholesale use of private firms to deliver public services in the same way that the UK Government has. That means that our schools, our prisons and our hospitals are not at risk. The decisions around how and when to involve the private sector must be sensible and with a view to the long term, unlike the PFI projects with their excessive private sector profits that we have inherited from the previous Labour administration at 40 seconds left. Those are questions that Jackie Baillie raised. The transparency of procurement and decision making is also key. The procurement reform act requires public bodies with a significant procurement spend to publish a procurement strategy. Those bodies will have published a strategy and will shortly be required to publish their first annual reports under the act. Those will be used to prepare the Scottish Minister's overall report of procurement activity across Scotland, which we aim to publish by the end of the coming financial year. We are confident that the report will tell a positive story because we are proud of the progress that would have been made in reforming public procurement over recent years. Of course, we will look to that to see what further actions we can take. That is why, finally, the UK Government's shameless attempts to grab the power to regulate public procurement away from this Parliament, under the guise of Brexit, is not only in affront the principles of devolution but threatens to undermine everything positive that we have done in this area. In the UK, it is only Scotland that requires by law that any decision to award a contract is not based solely on price but on quality too. In the UK, it is only Scotland that requires by law that companies have engaged in blacklisting that are excluded from procurement procedures. In the UK, it is only Scotland that requires by law that public bodies consider community benefit requirements in major contracts. That is progress that we have made and should not be taken away and handed back to Westminster control. I move amendment 1. I now call Jamie Halcro Johnston to speak to you and move amendment 10962.3. Mr Johnston, seven minutes. The importance of procurement policy in how Government operates cannot be underestimated. The Scottish Government, not to mention our local councils, is responsible for the stewardship of £11 billion. Money transferred from the taxpayer to external bodies in expectation of an appropriate return. It is because of that value for money that should be uppermost in our thoughts on those issues, and I welcome that being included as a central point in the Labour Party's motion today. We are, it must be remembered, using public funds and are entrusted to ensure that those public funds are well spent. Procurement problems often end up in the national news, not simply out of journalistic desire to fill columnages, but because the public, quite rightly, gets frustrated when the youth of their money does not meet the standards or propriety that they would and should expect. A positive feature in recent years has been the opening up of the procurement system across the UK, but it is by no means perfect. While advances have been made to make procurement more accessible, it can still be unnecessarily complex and create barriers to the greater involvement of small businesses. If we want to ensure that there is an element of fairness in all of this, scale should not determine a business's ability to compete. One significant achievement from the UK level came in 2013-2014, where the pledge to procure a quarter of central government's goods and services by value from SMEs was met. Raising the number of SMEs in the third sector and supporting businesses' involvement was also a key priority in the Scottish Government's procurement strategy. It is disappointing to hear that the proportion of local authority procurement from SMEs in Scotland has fallen in the past five years. The Scottish Government's economic strategy also points to the benefits that procurement can provide, observing that it can be a driver of innovation and sustainability through the powers granted by the Procurement Reform Act. The 2014 act was a significant piece of legislation, but in many ways we find ourselves today rehashing the old debates that took place during its enactment. We must be cautious in assuming that procurement policy can be used to cure all ills in our economy. In truth, there is a balance to be struck. Procurement can be used to promote responsible business practices, but it cannot come at the cost of raising the barriers for entry into the procurement marketplace. That not only includes the price of compliance, which may be seen as justifiable, but also in terms of additional reporting and monitoring. Although the consequences of too great a regulatory burden may be unintended, they would also be inevitable. We would reduce the social good of involving small businesses, of encouraging local procurement and, ultimately, impact on the value for money that we hope to achieve. Employment standards are, of course, significant. In addition to areas outlined by Labour, there could be the opportunity to encourage more investment in skills, training apprenticeships and employee development that the modern economy will require. However, we will struggle to do this in a coherent way if the needs of businesses are not considered. As I mentioned previously, our existing procurement policy continues to be far from perfect. Some level of inefficiency will always be a feature of the system, but there are several areas where we still have some distance to travel. The fiasco of the Scottish Government's approach to IT projects has rightly outraged many. Not only have costs escalated out of control in several years, but we have also seen projects delivered years behind forecasts or dumped after considerable investment, as with the SPS finance system. Most pressing example for my constituents must be the handling of farm payment system, which cost many dearly as farming incomes were already being squeezed. Of course, there are areas in which we look to make positive innovations. Some work has taken place to uncouple large contracts to ensure that smaller businesses can compete, but it is far from enough. With broadband, we see millions of pounds administered in supporting roll-out, but a process that is slow and unwieldy delivered through two separate schemes but with a single contractor. Support for other delivery providers on smaller projects throughout the Highlands and Islands enterprise area seems to leave space for improvement. Again, in my region, the procurement of ferry services is under review, although we receive some preliminary findings in December through Transport Scotland. Here is an example of where the procurement procedure seems to have been a relative success in the past, with both local people and local businesses largely supportive of the current operators. However, it now appears that the Scottish Government might be minded to bring those services in-house again with a public operator. The Labour Party's motion refers to businesses having a supply chain that is anchored in Scotland, and I would want to steer away from any sense of the Parliament taking a protectionist or insular stance here. I do not think that that is what the motion intends. That is not a moment for crying Scotland first, but instead a way of looking at some of the benefits of local procurement, particularly at local authority level, in a way that reflects our interests in value for money and wider sustainability. In another example from my region, livestock farmers in Shetland, who had a pleasure of meeting recently, observed that they had greater capacity supply to schools, hospitals and care homes across the islands. Last year, Fergus Ewing observed that the Scottish Government could do better in that regard, pointing out that the majority of food that is 52 per cent in the public sector is sourced from outside of Scotland. I know that my colleague Brian Whittle is going to speak more detail of food and drink procurement. However, in relation to procurement generally, I would welcome figures highlighted by FSB Scotland, which show that Shetland is the top performing local authority for procurement from local SMEs, followed by Orkney. That is an area where the Highlands and Islands as a whole performs well, with Murray, the Western Isles and Highland Councils all above average. There are obvious benefits to local procurement where it is available. It reduces environmental impact, increases the sustainability of local supply chains, and we gain a greater security of supply. Centrally-directed policies should not stand in the way of measures like this, and best value should reflect those wider interests. Perhaps some of the lessons from my region would be instructional for the country as a whole, where on average only a fifth of council procurement that is being spent goes to local SMEs. Presiding Officer, where we diverge from labour is on the need for an urgent review. There is little explanation of why this demand arises. While I hope that improvements can and ought to be made, we cannot simply accept that urgent reviews need to be called in every area of government policy where there is a case. However, I welcome the Labour Party's debate today, and I hope that the Scottish Government can offer a constructive tone going forward. It would be helpful if ministers could expand on existing work in relation to sustainable procurement later in the debate. In the meantime, I look forward to progress being made on reforming procurement in a sustainable way, but it lets us take advantage of both the needs of the public sector and the wider economy. I move the amendment in my name. We now move to the open debate, and its speeches of six minutes. Time is really tight, so please be strict on yourselves. I call Andy Wightman to be followed by Willie Rennie. Presiding Officer, and thanks to Jackie Baillie for bringing this debate to the chamber. We welcome Labour's proposals as they are very much aligned with Scottish green policies, which recommend three core principles to procurement. One, the phasing out of schemes such as the Scottish Futures Trust and the PPPs and PFI's. Second, the promotion of legislation in favour of a presumption for local procurement in favour of local suppliers. Third, the preferment of procuring from ethical and fair trade suppliers. Above all, we need to introduce a best value framework for public authorities, which incentivises procurement from local suppliers and social enterprises, enhancing opportunities for workers to earn decent wages. Public procurement laws have been improved in Scotland, but they should allow decision makers to source products and services based on sustainability, equality, community benefit and local supply, not just the value of short-term costs and returns. That is one of the reasons why we are in favour of the technical exemption being applied so that public authorities can ensure that local, public loan enterprises are favoured in procurement processes. Despite my strong support for the European Union and my resolve for our continued membership of it, it is clear that current EU procurement and state aid rules that prevent member states from favouring local enterprises or supporting emerging industries are often found to frustrate green principles that I have already outlined. I take the Scottish Futures Trust for example. It was very welcome that Labour commissioned the report from Jim and Margaret Cuthbert, which called for a root and branch review of the scheme. I am deeply concerned that such a major publicly funded enterprise can be allowed to operate without effective scrutiny. That means that, despite the trust's assurances in its business plans, that its function is, and I quote, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure investment and to lead to better value for money and ultimately improve public services, end quote. It is unclear whether or not the current annual operational budget of the trust of over £10 million actually delivers, leads to delivering value for money to the public purse, value for money that should be procured via public services such as housing. Across Europe, Governments are increasingly looking to develop new innovative policies to ensure that people have access to affordable housing. However, the Scottish Government's National Housing Trust, which is a programme that is devised by the Scottish Futures Trust, offers tenants the opportunity to… Alex Neil. It is correct to remember that the National Housing Trust initiative was not initiated by the Scottish Futures Trust and is not connected to the NPD programme run by the Scottish Futures Trust. It is an entirely separate initiative. I am happy to accept that clarification. Nevertheless, we have public money going in, offering tenants an affordable rented homes. The caveat being that, after five to ten years, the homes must be sold off to pay back the Government loans. Although sitting tenants have the first preference to buy their homes at full market value, many tenants will be unable to afford that and may be forced out their homes and have to find alternative accommodation elsewhere. In Edinburgh, for example, the average house price… Sure. Alex Neil. Under the new housing act, they cannot be forced out. That is just factually incorrect. I am sorry. Andy Wightman. I am happy to have the seminar, but I am afraid that I do not agree with the member that the current private housing tenancy act allows landlords to serve an eviction notice where they propose to sell the property that is still a ground for eviction. In Edinburgh, the average house price is 42 per cent higher than the Scottish average, making this city the least affordable place to buy a home, and yet tenants of so-called affordable homes have to pay the full market price through the national housing trust model. I think that this is very short-sighted, and it is clearly not the solution to providing genuine affordable houses. There are other issues that should be self-evident. For one, we should not have to go looking for answers as to how public money is spent on procurement. Transparency is vital, and that is why, as Jim and Margaret Cuthbert quite rightly pointed out in her report, there are issues with accessing what should be publicly available information. For example, in the region that I represent, Lothian, we know that the City of Edinburgh Council will not publish details of its PFI schools contract, nor will Transport Scotland release sufficient information on the development of the Queensbury crossing, the Scottish Government and Edinburgh Council's growth accelerator model for the St James Centre remains shrouded in secrecy. FOI releases are more a piece of modern cubist art, given how much they are redacted. Such a culture of clandestine practice has now been established and enshrined in Scotland's public authorities, where it is very common for public projects to be run as if they were private enterprises, and that is unacceptable. Indeed, as Cuthbert reported in the Sunday Herald last September, a lack of information compounded in many cases by actual secrecy is a major problem in assessing how Scotland's money is being spent. Last October, I asked the Scottish Government whether it had evaluated the method of producing whole-of-government accounts, as the UK Treasury does, and if so, would it have published those results? In its response, the Government directed me to a letter from the permanent secretary to the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee concerning consolidated accounts, which, as other members will be aware, are quite a different matter and only indicate how money has been spent, rather than focusing on the wider long-term liabilities that are covered in whole-of-government accounts. Our procurement plays a vital role in delivering public services and in supporting the economy. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the limited levers that we have are robust as they can be. This evening, Greens will be supporting the Labour motion, but not the SNP or Conservative amendments as they delete key sections with which we agree. I think that Jackie Baillie provided a compelling piece of evidence on the exploitation of workers. The use of public money on Scottish public workers must be to a higher standard, and the examples of agency workers of casual employment of zero-hours contracts is deeply concerning. It deserves a better response than the typical response that we got from the minister this afternoon, who said that it was all Westminster's fault. The minister and his fellow ministers are responsible for spending public money in Scotland. They can set the standards for how those people are employed using those contracts. It is his responsibility, not Westminster's responsibility, and he needs to be clear about that, too. The deafening silence from the SNP-backed benches was striking as well. They looked in stony silence this afternoon because they knew that they had been found out on the exploitation of workers. There is glorious irony this afternoon. There was hardly a week gone by a few years back when we would not hear from the Cuthbert, the husband and wife team, Margaret and Jim Cuthbert, who were often quoted by the SNP-backed benches to support their case for more powers for Scotland or for independence, especially during the Scotland Bill in 2012. I used to enjoy my Scotland Bill Committee evidence sessions in which Margaret and Jim Cuthbert were brought before us to tell us about the latest piece of evidence that supported the SNP's case. Fates are such that they have returned to the political scene to undermine the SNP's favoured private finance model. I think that it is glorious irony that this has happened today. Their report from last autumn highlights areas of concern for the Scottish Futures Trust, for the NPD programme, the Herb programme, not just now, and the growth accelerator model. As the Cuthbert state, most of those initiatives involve setting up of various forms of public-private partnership, designed so that the relevant capital expenditure is off the Government's books. In one neat sentence, they undermined the grand deal's claims—I remember them well—of Alex Salmond in the 2007 manifesto, when he said about PFI, that it was a type of privatisation with all the disadvantages that it entails. Then a leading academic, Mark Hollowayl, pointed out that profits aren't capped—that's what they said it would be—but they aren't capped. They are priced according to the rate of return expectations that are in the market. Peer reviewed research has found that claims that the NPD model will eliminate excessive profits is not supported by the evidence. The NHS Ayrsyn Arran pointed out that the NPD model is not a not-for-profit model. It is pretty clear that the case that was put forward by Alex Salmond back in 2007 was sweeping away the PFI schemes. I will come back to that in a minute. I am trying to make this very important point that I think the minister should listen to, because it is very important that all that case that they made in 2007, that the evil PFI schemes were being swept aside, has been undermined by all those academics and their very own favoured economists. I will take the minister now if he is prepared to admit that, in 2007, they got it wrong. We can focus on the past, and it is very interesting what the Liberals were doing when administration in the past was signing up to PFI deals. My question is quite a simple one. Labour set out their stall, no more revenue financed, NPD, pipeline projects—that might mean schools, hospitals and community facilities. What is the position of the Liberal Democrats then? Is the position of Willie Rennie also that there should be no more NPD projects, because that would be bad news for those looking for more than enhanced facilities across Scotland? I am not ideologically opposed to the use of private finance in certain areas. What I am opposed to is the hypocrisy of the SNP, who stood up in 2007 and said that they were going to wipe away the PFI schemes, and the reality is that they just rock-bottomed them into the scheme. That is what they did in 2007, and they have been found out for that. Let us go through the Cuthbert report. I thought that it was a pretty good report. It said that it talked about secrecy. The operation of the hubs is regarded as being beyond the scope of FOI, despite its responsibility for handling considerable sums of public funds, including the terms of bank lending. It talked about the lack of clear definition for indicators used by the hubs. They are often non-standard forms, they said. A small number of tier 1 firms means that they will dominate large-scale construction in Scotland, limiting opportunities for others, the loss of HQ jobs, research, etc., because of those tier 1 firms being dominated outside Scotland. That is an important point. I noticed the minister said in his contribution that he had Scottish address. He did not say that there was headquartered in Scotland and that he did not bring the jobs, the research, the management jobs, the leadership jobs that all come with that. He talked about an address and he was very careful with the language that he used. He also talked about the limitations on SMEs to just subcontracting. Is the Government exercising sufficient scrutiny over the Scottish Future Trust activities? Is a big question that they ask and the sustainability of the financial commitment entered into. Is that scrutinised, too? Is the Government expertise being hollowed out within the Government when so much is being contracted out in the way that it has under the Scottish Future Trust? There are many big questions that the Government needs to answer. It needs better answers—much better answers—than the minister has provided this afternoon. I would like to begin on a note of consensus. I believe that the majority of members in this Parliament agree that public sector procurement should, to quote the motion before us, provide value for money, ensure that good employment practices are followed, have a supply chain that is anchored in Scotland and provide opportunities for businesses and jobs. That is, of course, the approach that informs the Scottish Government's procurement strategy. That is why a community benefit requirement is given a statutory definition in the 2014 Procurement Reform Scotland Act. To be welcomed, there is continued strong support for the principle that decisions on procurement should be taken based on overall economic and social value, and not simply the bottom line. However, with regard to the remainder of the motion, it displays those heroic levels of hypocrisy for which the Scottish Labour Party has become a legendary. Before coming to this chamber to level accusations at this Government, Labour would do well to recognise the PFI plank in its own eye. When Labour chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Burn stepped down, he left to successor a note stating, I am afraid that there is no money left. When the Labour Party demitted office in Scotland, we left John Swinney with a pile of invoices, which more when a decade later is costing the Scottish taxpayer £1 billion each and every year. Labour's farcical approach to procurement finances means that, over the coming years, we will have shelled out £22 billion for projects with a total capital value of £4 billion. If a Labour Party wants to be taken seriously on procurement, it should start by apologising for its reckless and short-sighted handling of public finances whilst in office. I am about to come on to something quite important that Jackie Baillie failed to take due credence to. The debate, aside from giving Labour an opportunity to polish a brass nex, would more normally contain much discussion on how EU procurement directives and ECG case law would be interpreted in a way consistent with one's own political values. I would rather be in circumstances where the debate could consider the evolving nature of the single market, but developments relating to proposed revisions of the posted worker directive and what the potential implications of President Macron's vision of a more integrated Europe R on EU procurement law. However, Scotland now finds itself being dragged out of the EU against its sovereign will, and I will give way to a pithy intervention from Jackie Baillie. Well, it will indeed be so. Can you tell me why the Scottish Government avoids EU regulations, which give temporary workers the same conditions after 12 weeks, by using paid between assignment contracts and by using agency workers? Why do you avoid EU procurement regulations by this underhand manner? I recognise that intervention from Jackie Baillie, but I am sure that my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution, will be more than happy to address those specific points. Now, the implications for our economy and our way of life as a result of Brexit are profound and catastrophic, with polling released today showing that 61 per cent of Scots saying that both our economy and a wider UK economy will be worse off as a result of Brexit. That echoes the views of expert economies that I hear week in and week out as a member of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee. Given that a growing economy is fundamental to generating the revenue necessary for ambitious public sector procurement, the devastating economic damage that would follow from a hard Brexit would have a severe impact on tax revenue, presenting huge challenges to the Government in maintaining a sustainable procurement that delivers wider social benefits. It is not just Brexit's threat to the economy that would harm procurement in Scotland, but the UK Government's power grab could make it all but impossible for the Scottish Government to deliver sustainable procurement. That is the fundamental issue in this debate, as highlighted in the amendment in the name of Derek Mackay. Without powers over procurement in this Parliament and common frameworks agreed by consent, all of our deliberations become academic. I fear that the consequences would be if power over procurement in Scotland became the sole preserve of a right-wing, hard Brexit Tory Government in Westminster. What concessions would be given in trade deals by a weak and isolated UK? What would be the implications for our publicly owned NHS? Would there be a rollback on workers' rights and protections incentivising bidding companies to engage in sharp practices and a race to the bottom? We do not have to look very far for the answers. It is clear that the hard Brexiters are driving the agenda. They know that Theresa May is asking for a cherry-picked settlement that the EU simply cannot deliver, and they are biding their time, willing the talks to fail, but so when we reach exit day in little over a year, a bonfire of regulations can commence in earnest. We in this place have a solemn duty to ensure that all powers that currently sit with this Parliament, including those relevant to procurement, remain with this Parliament. The future arrangements, laws and processes regarding procurement across the UK must be achieved through agreement and not in position. Our immediate priority must be ensuring that the powers of this Parliament are retained. Once that is achieved, however, we will then, as a Parliament, have a role to play in debating and discussing what shape the future procurement landscape should take in a post-Brexit world. For me, that must be one in which procurement continues to be used to promote the fairest and most robust of workers' rights, one that is bold and used as a lever to promote sustainable economic growth, and one that is as transparent, open and accountant as possible. I believe that they are principles on which general agreement can be found. I regret that such future discussions will be necessary, and I still hope that the catastrophe of Brexit can be averted. However, if it seems increasingly likely that we are to be torn out of the single market, then it is nice when this Parliament has the powers to shape future procurement in Scotland. Neil Findlay to be followed by Alex Neil. Species in here, Presiding Officer, but that was an absolute belter, I have to say. Talk about anything apart from the subject that we are talking about. Talk about any other Government, any other council, any other authority, apart from the responsibilities that you have for public procurement in Scotland, because it is very important. It is a very important issue. It is a very important part of your economy. No, I won't. Sit down. Very important part of your economy is sustaining many small and large businesses and millions of jobs. It is the potential to deliver a whole range of economic as well as social policy objectives, but all too often those policy objectives come way behind financial considerations. During the passage of the Public Procurement Bill, we submitted numerous amendments, including amendments to ensure that no public money was paid to contractors engaging on zero-hours contracts. No public money went to companies who were guilty of blacklisting or who were corporate tax avoiders. All of those amendments, all of them, were voted down by SNP MSPs who trotted through as usual voting in the same way as the minister tells them. Not one of them got an independent thought in their head. Today, I want to focus my comments on the construction industry. For decades, it has operated as one big scam. Main contractors do all they can to screw more money out of their clients. They then seek to screw as much money as they can out of their subcontractors. That is repeated down the subcontract in line. All of that is about profit maximisation over bill quality and the care and welfare of employees. It is important issues such as health and safety, the provision of washing and toilet facilities, and sites. Effective trade union recognition are all a barrier to profit maximisation. That is why we saw the blacklisting scandal where thousands of trade unions and environmental and social justice campaigners had their careers and families' lives destroyed by a conspiracy funded by some of the biggest construction companies such as McAlpine, Langerhort, Balfour, Beattie and, of course, Caryllian. The Scottish Government said that their blacklisting guidance would prevent those companies from getting future contracts until they had apologised, paid up and cleaned up. However, that has been repeatedly ignored. McAlpine is building the flagship V&A and D. Langerhort is building the Dumfries hospital and preventing Unite from accessing the site. Balfour, Beattie and Beattie are working on the Aberdeen bypass. Caryllian had dozens of contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds. To the cabinet secretary, I will give way to him if he can tell me how many companies have been barred from applying for contracts through the blacklisting guidance. Tell me how many? Exactly. Not one. I have also raised in this chamber the issue of bogus self-employment and workers receiving wages via so-called umbrella companies. Those companies are endemic in the construction industry, operating in publicly procured projects, funded via the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust. Workers are forced to work via an umbrella company and are paid the minimum wage that is then required to pay employers and employees national endurance contributions and pay for a pay slip. They are told to claim money back via expenses, meaning that their employers avoid their responsibilities. Those practices were at play on the fourth crossing, on the Aberdeen bypass and on many other contracts. In light of that, if Mr Brown wants to make an intervention, I will happily do so. I thank Neil Findlay for taking intervention. I wonder if he would want to associate himself with the remarks of Jeremy Corbyn, where he blamed many of those things on what he called like Nigel Farage, chief foreign labourers. Does he have the same view of some of those workers involved in disfodd intervention? Does he have the same approach to people coming from overseas to work in this country? Tell lies. Mr Findlay, do not use terms like that in this parliament, please. Mr Findlay, continue. Mr Brown should correct a record, because he knows what was said, but he uses that to twist people's words. When we look at the way in which PAYE has been exploited on contracts that you are responsible for, Mr Brown, you are responsible, take your responsibility seriously. When we look at Carillion, we are still waiting to see the full effect of collapse, the collapse. Employees scammed out of their pensions and then being signed up again by a new employer but under umbrella companies. On network rail contract, the Scottish Government should use its cash and influence to push network rail to establish an in-house contract and division to deliver those essential contracts. In 2017, Scottish Labour commissioned the report by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert on the Scottish Futures Trust and its hub activities. That report exposed the lack of transparency around hub codes, secrecy around them and who is actually investing, and it exposed pure value for money. I support the motion in Jackie Baillie's name, but I am actually coming to the conclusion that with all of what is going on in the construction industry, if we look at the Edinburgh Schools project, the trams, PFI, NPD, non-profit distributing model, the only problem is that it distributes profit. If we look at blacklist and umbrella companies and all the other stuff that is going on in the construction industry, I think that we are coming to the stage where we may have to look at a public inquiry into the way that the construction industry operates because it is a scandal how it operates. There is also a human cost to all of this. Last year, I heard from a unite rep about a group of African men working on a major public contract for a foreign-based subcontract. 30 or 40 of them living in a one-house paying £400 a month. One of the men's wives, who was living in Portugal, died during childbirth and so did the child, and the employer done nothing. The men who worked with them, his colleagues, had to whip around to send them back home to deal with that tragedy. That is on a Scottish public sector contract. It should be ashamed. I recognise that members' passions around high needs debates please refrain from using unparliamentary language at all times, Mr Finlay. That means you specifically, Alex Neil. I have come in at the right time to calm things down, as usual. I would hope that we could all agree on certain things. We want to ensure that everybody gets their trade union rights. We want an end to blacklisting. We want an end to zero-hour contracts. We want an end to unfair treatment for agency workers. We want to make sure that there is maximum transparency on how the public pound is spent. We want to ensure that profits from any kind of contract are not siphoned off into offshore funds at the expense of our country. We want to make sure that umbrella companies should not be allowed to misuse their legal status for immoral purposes. I do so in a non-partisan way, but Labour has to practice what it preaches. I listened to Mr Leonard's speech to the Labour conference on Saturday afternoon in Dundee. One of the things that he was rightly advocating is that we should try to do what we can to drive down the cost of existing PFI contracts. Indeed, that is something that I tried to do particularly when I was the health secretary and we had some success. However, let me say that that message has not reached some Labour-controlled councils like North Lanarkshire. For example, during their budget discussions in the last month, the SNP and others have been urging them to do exactly that in relation to the massive payments paid out in PFI contracts on behalf of the taxpayers of North Lanarkshire in relation to the school building programme over the last 10 years. Every single Labour councillor refused to review the PFI contracts. I say to the Labour Party that, before you start criticising everybody else, look in the mirror at what Labour councillors are doing. Look at your track record. You are sitting next to Lewis MacDonald, a fine man, who has got a lot of time for Lewis. However, I am in here long enough to remember when Lewis was the deputy minister of health under Andy Kerr, who was the minister of health—it is a pity that Willie Rennie is not here—to listen to it. I thought that you were supposed to listen to the rest of the debate after you had spoken. I remember when Andy Kerr, the Labour minister of health, tried to privatise a GP practice in Lanarkshire and tried to privatise Strathcastle hospital in the north-east of Scotland. We will not take any lessons from the Labour Party. It has a shameful record, not at the moment, but particularly in PFI, the lights of Hare Myers, where it is going to cost five times what the actual cost was to build it. That was all initiated under a Labour administration. In fact, Jackie Baillie was a minister at the time that Hare Myers contract was signed. Jackie Baillie. I am always grateful that the member allows me an intervention. I think that he will find that history might prove him wrong. I was not a minister for that long, but I wonder if he would tell me whether the schools in North Lanarkshire were actually built under SFT and whether, in fact, they were not operating to the very rules set by your own government. I think that you will find that they were mainly operating to rules of PFI. I never said that you were a minister for long, but I said that you were there at the crucial time when the deal was done. Therefore, it must have been part of the collective cabinet responsibility for that gross misuse of money to privatise a resource, part of the deal of which—by the way that I will in a minute, Mr Scott—was that, unlike the NPD projects, those PFI projects, such as Hare Myers, at the end of the project, are privatised because their facility then goes into the ownership of the private contractor, where, as under NPD, at least it ends up as a public sector asset. Mr Scott, I am dealing with all the theories on links. John Scott, there is still only a minute and a half left. Thank you for taking the intervention, Mr Neil. Since you mentioned that Minister Andy Kerr, who famously was doing all that work under PFI, is a constituent of mine, but is also representing the Lanarkshire area, do you remember the things that Mr Kerr was seeking to close at that time, namely Ayr hospital in the hospital in your area? Perhaps you might wish to comment on that. I am not sure that that is relevant, and Mr Neil, you have less than a minute. Can I say that I have a good memory as John Scott? He is absolutely right on that point. Would you ask him to close, Presiding Officer? Unfortunately, therefore, I have to close. Can I just enclosing, however, to the Government that there are reforms that are needed? Let me just briefly mention two. One is that I am not convinced about the use of framework contracts, and I think that we need to review those. I also think that, particularly when it comes to housing, where the procurement is very diffuse, we are missing a big trick. We should have a national house building agency to get the scale into house building through procurement in Scotland to create manufacturing opportunities in relation to modular housing and the like. They would create added value, real jobs and boost the economy, particularly as I would hope that it would be located in my constituency. Can I thank Mr Neil for reducing the political temperature? I am delighted to get the opportunity to speak in this important debate. In fact, to be quite honest, I am delighted to speak in any debate these days where the SNP Government has actual competence. I thank the Labour Party for bringing that to the chamber. A year ago, I led a Scottish Conservative debate on public food procurement after researching where food for the Scottish schools and hospitals came from. As I reported last year, the Scottish Government Central Excel contract was importing £1.2 million of chicken from Thailand, it was importing mashed potato and root vegetables and fruit in daily produce and meat, all of which are also produced right here in Scotland. Pre-packaged foods would process food source from outside of those shores, and it is far too prevalent on the meal tables in our schools and hospitals. Our farmers produce the highest quality food and are charged with the custodianship of the countryside and paying the living wage and ensuring the highest of animal welfare standards. When it comes to public procurement, we find that a high proportion of our food for schools and hospitals, much of which could be sourced locally, comes from cheaper imports. Of course, that is a huge implication on the obesity strategy, on the mental health strategy and just about every other strategy that the SNP brings to this chamber, but somehow those dots are never joined up. That is support to where food producers remain unanswered by the SNP, because despite bringing it to the chamber last year, there has been little improvement despite the promise of a good food nation bill, and I wonder where that has gone. I wanted to move on, if I may, to the ICT sector. It is another area where public sector ships public money out of Scotland. Overspend and overrun in the Government ICT projects is a recurring theme with the final bill, especially in the higher value projects and delivered by a small group of offenders, according to Audit Scotland report. Scotland has been awarding all its major local ICT Government contracts to global foreign companies who have added no value to our economy. We have a company who has hoovered up north of £600 million for ICT projects from the public purse, with Edinburgh Council awarding the initial contract and Glasgow and Borders piggybacking on to that contract without a public procurement exercise, which I thought was illegal. That very same company, incidentally, is currently responsible for the debacle that is the Scottish Government's cap payment system, which is still unresolved, despite currently being five times over the original budget of £29.5 million. It can be done, because the Manchester Council has dramatically increased spending in the local economy by some 20 per cent. It made a conscious decision to increase where possible the spend on Manchester companies from 51 per cent to 72 per cent. In monetary terms, that has a value of £123 million, but crucially, nearly 60 per cent of that spend went to SMEs. That is so important, because the public procurement process for MSEs is vital if Scotland is to grow its companies from that SME to major international companies. It is a stepping stone, and we are all too aware that Scotland has an over reliance on that high propensity of SMEs and is disproportionately short of a major global players. That speaks directly to labour motion and that value for money anchored in Scotland, supply chain. In ICT, nearly three times as much money is spent with non-Scotish SME companies compared to Scottish SMEs, and for every £15 of Scottish public money that is spent on ICT, only £1 is spent in Scotland. Overall, only 4.8 per cent of the ICT spend in Scotland stays within the country. We need to attract that talent from schools and universities. In ICT, we have a skills gap centre around software development skills, but the ITC industry requires far more skills than that specifically across project management, quality and contract management and infrastructure delivery capabilities to name but a few. We need a strong indigenous ICT sector for our universities and college graduates, not to mention the need for apprenticeship places. I was also pleased to see the construction that was specifically mentioned within the labour motion, because I have been repeatedly approached by the construction industry in Scotland, intimating that public contracts are being awarded to companies outwith our borders, only to be subcontracted back into Scotland and Scottish companies, minus a hefty slice of that pie. The same issues are evident in every sector that we look at. When Audit Scotland highlighted that when it posed the question around numbers, including how many contracts are awarded to whom, it is a written question that I have also submitted to the Government in my time in this place, Audit Scotland and I found that the Scottish Government were not readily available to give any kind of substantive answer. Now we know why the Scottish Government are reluctant to release those figures. Against the general lack of support and investment by the SNP Government and the subsequent low levels of trust or confidence in the local supply chain, it is not surprising that the ICT industry struggles to attract talent to deliver the outcomes that it can. Now, that brings me to the SNP's amendment, the Danny Mackay's amendment and also to Tom Arthur's rambling. In my time in this place, that might be the most ridiculous amendment that I have ever witnessed. The SNP Government has found the most strangled route to somehow get the UK Government in Brexit in and to suggest that they lead the way in promoting sustainable procurement beggars belief. They currently have all the powers that they could possibly need to ensure that Indigenous Scottish businesses, at the very least, get a fair crack of the whip and refuse to use them. Contracts for public services are farmed out to North America, New Zealand, India, South America, the Far East and Australia, to name but a few. Unless I am mistaken, none of those countries are currently within the EU. It is absolutely pathetic, but it is consistent that the SNP would rather use all the energy to find a way to blame somewhere else for their failings, rather than use Government powers to support Scottish businesses. Better for Scotland, I think not. Scotland is the biggest exporter of public services in Europe. It's that time. I will leave it there. John Mason, to be followed by Monica Lennon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Procurement is always going to be a challenge. It's a balancing act on a variety of fronts. Do we want something now and take on the debt to pay later? Or do we wait and save up and buy it at a later date? Do we purchase the cheapest option, sometimes called value for money? Or do we pay a bit more and support local businesses and the economy? In past times, Labour councils would apparently give contracts to companies that they had a very close relationship with. They paid over the odds and more frequent delays than we see today. Then, PFI or PPP was the bright, shiny new thing. I was a councillor in Glasgow and was not happy about the PFI projects to renew all the secondary schools in the city. What was perhaps most galling at that time was that Labour councillors would not admit that PFI was the only option, and they were doing it reluctantly. Rather, the Labour councillors pretended that they wanted to do PFI all along. We did get some good new schools, but we paid well over the odds, and new problems arose, such as who was responsible for which repairs, was it vandalism, was it wear and tear, and school facilities also became unavailable at a reasonable cost for out-of-hours clubs and activities. No, if Mr Findlay would give a bit more respect to this Parliament, I think that he might be given a bit more opportunity to speak. I remember particular problems around schools in Glasgow, where senior officials did not have the IT expertise to deal with the PFI companies, and we ended up with a senior officer from the Education Department resigning his post when it went seriously wrong. Labour's record on procurement for services in Glasgow has also been far from perfect. I remember that the Labour council put money advice out to Tender, and we nearly had all the CABs in the east end of Glasgow closing. PFI and PPP, and to some extent NPD, have been devices on a positive sense to bring in additional funding, but also in a negative sense, devices to get round accounting rules on debt. But any way you look at it, lease the schools or borrow for them, the money has to be paid back some time. I would argue that the Scottish Government has done its best, providing much-needed infrastructure across this country, while having to live within a range of restrictions that include keeping to the EU rules on borrowing and procurement, and maintaining future repayments at a reasonable level, which is currently 5 per cent. One of my big fears if Labour ever got back into power—let me finish this point—based on its history of borrowing recklessly would mean that it would not stick to a 5 per cent or other prudential level. I thank the member for taking intervention. Are you going to blame the EU for the Scottish National Party Government giving so much ICT contract to North America? If you have a specific contract to ask about, then by all means ask the relevant council or Government minister, whoever it is. The point is that the EU has restricted us from awarding contracts to more local Scottish companies. The bad side to that is that that has not helped our companies. The good side has been that it has been fairer, and we all know that some other European countries, at least, would not allow Scottish and British companies in if it was not for those rules. It may be that there are some tiny silver linings within the huge Brexit cloud, and maybe leaving the EU can remove some of those restrictions. Maybe we can favour Scottish companies more, but we have to be realistic as there can be a downside as well. Positively, we can spend money with Scottish organisations and that money is more likely to be recycled in the Scottish economy. However, it may also mean that we pay more for things. If we reject a cheaper product from Germany, China or chicken from Thailand, if we are to pay more for goods and services or infrastructure, then we are going to have less money and presumably less infrastructure to show for it. I am obviously delighted if we can favour Scottish organisations, but we have to think through how much we are willing to pay for that. Would we pay 10 per cent more for a Scottish product than what is available elsewhere? Would we pay twice as much? What if the Scottish product is very different or much less popular, like Scottish wine? I wonder if Labour is going to argue that all the wine in Parliament should be from Scotland. One of the key lessons that I learned in economics class at Glasgow University was that trade can benefit both countries. We are better at producing and selling salmon, whisky and financial services. Others are better at rice, bananas, wine or whatever. If we are to restrict important goods and services as Labour suggests, we should not be surprised if other countries cut the amount of Scottish goods that they buy. That could seriously damage whisky and other sectors, so we have to be a little bit careful here that we do not all lose out. Before we lecture others on how they should behave, let us think about how we personally are setting an example or not. Do all the members in the Labour benches buy Scottish meat all the time, Scottish butter all the time, Scottish beer in the pubs? Are they willing to take their holidays in Scotland? I think that we all need to set an example if we want others in the public sector to do that. If I could just mention the SCVO briefing, which I thought was helpful, I am certainly positive about the four principles. They suggest that all procurement professionals must feel able to move away from a risk-averse approach. I broadly agree with that, but the risk is that we go back to where we used to be, with Labour councillors apparently giving contracts to their chums, either in the private sector or the public sector, and the public then loses out. I call on Monica Lennon to be followed by Jenny Gilruth. I am glad that the member is so keen on Scottish produce, but I wonder if he is still boycotting tonnarch's tea cakes. Perhaps we will find out. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for securing time for this debate. As we have already heard this afternoon, public sector procurement is worth £11 billion a year to the Scottish economy. As Derek Mackay said, it is a powerful tool. This is money that should be getting used to deliver high-quality public services in providing decent, well-paying jobs and ensuring inclusive growth of our whole economy in order to reduce inequality. Willie Rennie is right that Scottish ministers should be setting standards, but instead, as we heard in a blistering speech by Jackie Baillie, the Scottish National Party Government is failing to make full use of the powers that it has over public procurement to make that a reality, and as a consequence, we are missing out on huge opportunities to balance our economy in a way that is fairer to all. Frankly, it is a scandal that the Scottish National Party Government has consistently refused to support the extension of the living wage to public sector contractors. The Government's lofty rhetoric on progressive values means very little when they quite literally have refused on numerous occasions to put their money where their mouth is. Extending regulation of the living wage to all public sector contracts is well within the competence of this Parliament. It is a practical way to lift living standards. The failure to do so means that our constituents are missing out on fair and well-paid jobs. Therefore, we should immediately stop awarding billions of pounds of public contracts to companies that do not pay the living wage. The procurement reform act was a massive missed opportunity in that respect. Likewise, it is an outrage that billions of pounds worth, in a second, billions of pounds worth of public sector contracts are still regularly being handed out to companies that use zero-hour contracts and have been known for notorious anti-worker blacklisting practices. I will give way to Alex Neil. I thank the member for taking the intervention. I was the minister who took the bill through into an active procurement reform. You know my attitude to Brexit. I tried every possible way legally to build it into the bill. EU rules would not allow it. Do you not agree that one of the many benefits of Brexit is that we will have the ability to have far better, more flexible procurement rules? I thank the member and the former minister for his intervention. However, I am aware that John Swinney was able to do it for care. I will defer to colleagues in the Labour benches who were here who have already mentioned today that SNP members voted down Labour amendment after Labour amendment. However, turning to local government and other favourite topic of Alex Neil, reform of public procurement has the potential to improve how services are run. Harnishing the collective procurement power of Scotland's 32 local authorities in a positive way could have a transformative effect on our local services and economies, and on city region deals. The procurement power of local authorities would work in this respect too. City region deal investment in Scotland has huge potential, but without strong leadership, particularly on acceptable employment practices, city region deals could further miss opportunities to reduce inequality and promote inclusive growth, a concern of the local government and communities committee. We could see a reinforcement of the status quo and a further rewarding of private companies with huge profit at the public's expense. For example, the procurement process for more than £100 million of public investment in Glasgow city region deal is now under way announced just last week, but what guarantees are there that that money will be spent on companies who treat their workers fairly? As a convener of the cross-party group on construction, like many members who have watched with horror the troubling collapse of Carillion and its effect on the Scottish economy, I associate myself with the comments by Neil Findlay. It has affected more than 1,000 workers in Scotland who are involved in the delivery of at least eight major public sector contracts. The risk to jobs and the cost to the public sector to keep services running caused by the collapse is an acute example of the problems with private sector involvement in public sector contracts when private stakeholders put profit before people. I am not sure how much time I have, but I am happy to take the intervention. I thank Monica Lennon for taking the intervention. It is just to ask the point that construction in the industry was mentioned. MPD in that particular model brought a lot of additionality to the sector. Many have argued that it kept it out of a recession when there was a pipeline of investments. How do you think that construction would fare if there was to be no further revenue finance projects, as argued by the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland? That is why we need a root and branch independent review of public sector procurement that is set out in the Cuthbert report. There are real concerns about NPD and the Scottish Futures Trust. People have raised concerns about the secrecy around some of those contracts. There are extremely serious issues around the future of funding for Government contracts, and we need transparency. Research that was published was also revealed at one-third of Scotland's economies owned by overseas companies. That is 10 per cent higher than when this Government first took office in 2007. We believe that we should make better use of procurement powers in Scotland to secure the Scottish supply chain with well-paid, secured jobs that minimise the risk of wider economic shops or collapse. That is why, in this debate, Labour set out a plan to do things differently. Public contracts should only be awarded to organisations that meet a minimum standard. No blacklisters, no zero-hour contracts, commitments to tackling gender segregation, the living wage and trade union recognition. In conclusion, Labour has announced our commitment to enter into no further PFI contracts using that money instead to invest in services. We believe that we can do public procurement differently, more effectively and fairly, and that is why I am proud to support the motion in Jackie Baillie's name. I call on Jenny Gilruth to be followed by Alexander Stewart. Ahead of today's debate, members were all sent a briefing on behalf of unison entitled procurement. The email contained a fairly brief paragraph, which surmise that it is hardly controversial to say that public money should be spent for public good. We should always be aiming to get best value. It is not simply a matter of ensuring a high-quality service but of delivering social value at every point. I do not think that any MSP could disagree. The briefing goes on to describe the Scottish Government's overall approach as disappointing. There is a hyperlink attached. I would encourage members to click on said hyperlink if you have not already done so. There, you will see a far more detailed briefing on the issues surrounding procurement, dated April 2016. 23 months ago, Barack Obama was still the President of America. David Cameron was Prime Minister. Yes, a lot can change in two years, Presiding Officer. Believe you me. So, while it is disappointing that unison has not updated their parliamentary briefing on procurement to reflect the times, it is even more disappointing that Scottish Labour appeared to have drafted their motion today in a similar time vortex, with not one mention of the potential impact that Brexit could have on procurement and services. We know that this is of particular importance given that, on Friday, it was confirmed by the Cabinet Office, who stated that the regime provided by the EU procurement directives covering public procurement contracts for supplies, services, works and concessions above certain financial thresholds awarded by the public sector and by utilities operating in the energy, water, transport and postal services sectors would be affected. I digress. Today's motion also comments on the use of procurement by the wider public sector. Almost exactly this time last year, I spoke in another Labour Party debate that focused on education. In 2017, I spoke about my experiences working for the Labour-controlled Fife Council at the time, about my being driven as a middle manager in a school to purchase school materials from predetermined providers, even though those were available cheaper elsewhere. I spoke about my discussions with headteachers in my capacity as a constituency MSP, and the number that I met who had been forced to pay Fife Council, their employer, £3,000, just to paint a classroom. Even though those headteachers knew that they could have the painting work done more cheaply through a local company, because of Fife Council's procurement practices, they were not allowed to do so. Another headteacher in my constituency told me that she had to use her school budget to pay for her entire school to be linked up to Wi-Fi, whereas in new schools across Fife, Wi-Fi is provided free of charge, and our counterparts do not have the cost deducted from their school budget. However, I do not want to just be the former schoolteacher who only moans about the price of jotters, so let's now turn our attention to another presently devolved matter, healthcare. The Parliament's Health and Sport Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry into the impact of leading the European Union on health and social care in Scotland. I would like to continue, please. Although the Labour Party has struggled to solidify its unique approach to the constitutional crisis in which we now find ourselves, the issue of public procurement has been directly highlighted by the submission in our committee received from community pharmacy Scotland. Perhaps Brian Whittle should read his committee briefings more carefully in future, because, as they observe, although I would like to continue, although technically devolved to your homework next time, the process and rules for public procurement of products or services over a certain threshold are set by EU regulation. Community pharmacy go on to note that Scotland has little policy freedom to deviate from pan-European arrangements, but that this is not necessarily a bad thing, because, and I quote, EU legislation creates a truly level playing field and clear instructions for business in all member states. It opens up many more options for local government and public authorities when going through tender processes. It also drives improvement of industry as feedback on rejected tender applications must be given if requested. Imagine that, on the issue of public procurement, Scotland's industry has been protected by the EU. I see no proposal in today's motion to continue that safeguard and can therefore presume that the protections built into EU legislation will disappear when the UK leaves the EU and is not supported by the Scottish Labour Party. Community pharmacy Scotland's submissions continue stating that the concern that Brexit will bring is that a deviation from EU procurement rules could unfairly advantage or disadvantage given businesses and may make the UK a less attractive place to apply for contracts. That would even be the case for each of the home nations if a common framework is not agreed. Any deviation from EU procurement law, which would allow more aggressive bargaining by public bodies, could accelerate any decisions such as this and would have many unintended consequences, including employment and research and development laws. The Conservative Party are intent on rolling back the clock on the devolution settlement. As a result, public procurement is now up for grabs, but that is not the first time that a Conservative-led Government has attempted to undermine the very principles of devolution. How do we know that? Last year, Wendy Alexander confirmed as much, commenting ahead of the 20th anniversary of devolution at the time. It was a battle because many Whitehall departments were highly sceptical of whether it made sense to devolve back to Scotland areas that had hitherto been in charge of. There was a huge amount of official scepticism about whether matters beyond those of education, health and housing should come to Scotland. Friday moved us beyond that scepticism. As today's Scottish Government amendment makes clear, sustainable procurement is at threat from the Brexit negotiations, because devolution itself is at threat. Make no mistake. Today's Labour motion talks of providing opportunities for businesses and jobs, but depressingly predictably it makes absolutely no mention of the impact that leaving the European Union could have on those things. Brexit is the single biggest threat to jobs and business growth in Scotland today, and when they have the opportunity to debate it, the Labour Party shut the debate down instead of dragging out something that it first demoned back in October 2017. Real change sounds like the same broken record. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be able to participate in this afternoon's debate. As we have already heard, each year the Scottish Government spends over £11 billion on goods and services across the public sector, considerable amounts of money going into our economy. With a level of expenditure this high, it is incredibly important that we get best value for money when we are tendering public contracts out to other organisations. It is extremely disappointing, therefore, that the current Scottish Government's record on public procurement is such a disaster and such a mess. At this moment in time, the Scottish ministers seem to be presiding over one disaster after another. What we want is effective, efficient practices, but that is not happening under this Government's watch by any stretch of the imagination. Allocating financial resources to projects and contracts that ultimately fail is simply throwing taxpayers' money away and showing that this Government is not prepared to do what it should do. The sheer scale of waste is quite simply unacceptable, Deputy Presiding Officer. A prime example of the SNP's aptitude is its record when procuring IT systems. The system for delivering the common agricultural policy payments ended up being £79 million over budget, and the system for the NHS 24 not only ended up being £55.4 million over budget but was four years late. Four years late? How can that be effective and efficient? Moreover, the problems of procurement across the public sector could be seen clearly when the Scottish prison service wasted a staggering £440,000 of taxpayers' money trying to build a new finance system. The new electronic procurement system was stopped during its pilot phase. It only got as far as its pilot phase before it had to be stopped and cancelled because of the prison service could not establish why it had failed. Sadly, however, the staggering overspends are not limited to IT systems very far from it. The Edinburgh sick is also done— Excuse me a minute, Mr Stewart. It is your own front bench as well as the front bench opposite. You do not have conversations across and disrespect the member speaking. Please continue. The Edinburgh sick kids hospital is another prime example. The project was signed off back by the then First Minister in 2008 and will cost an extra £100 million of Government estimates. The addition of this while is scheduled to open in 2013, and it is best that it may open later this year, which is five years late. It is quite clear, and we understand that no one can deny that projects of the scale might sometimes go over budget. We also acknowledge that no one denies the fact that there may be delays, but under this Government's watch it has been appalling what it has looked after, what it has presided over and what it continued to preside over and are prepared to stick their head in the sand as if nothing is wrong. The issue is the sheer magnitude of the overspends and the length of delays. Nobody wants a Government that is managing on that day-to-day basis, but we have a Government that is managing on that day-to-day basis right here in Scotland right now. The factors demonstrate that public procurement is yet another area where the Scottish Government is utterly incompetent. Unfortunately, the failings are not only the problems of the current public procurement system. Similar to all small and medium-sized firms who are trying to get into some of those contracts, they are having real difficulties getting into those markets and getting into those contracts. The most recent statistics revealed that part of the local government-backed benchmarking framework showed a drop in the percentage of procurement that is spent at local level and with local companies. We should be doing all that we can to expand and support our local communities and our local businesses. That is not happening when we are spending billions of pounds a year in our own country. As you have already heard, it is not even being contracted here when Scotland is going elsewhere, and it is being subcontracted back. That is not effective and that is not efficient for us either. Recently, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity said of the Scottish Government that it could do better on this issue. He acknowledges the problem, but no-one else seems to think that there is a major issue here. You all turn up and tell us that we are getting it wrong or that Labour is getting it wrong, but it is actually you who is getting it wrong. I welcome and acknowledge the fact that he was prepared to speak that statement. Our procurement policy should, wherever possible, aim to increase the participation of small and medium-sized businesses and encourage the use of local suppliers. In conclusion, we in the Scottish Conservatives are committed to getting procurement right and stopping the wastage of hundreds of millions of pounds by the Scottish Government. No, I am in my last minute. When undertaking any procurement process, it is essential that we as elected representatives keep the principle of getting the best value for taxpayers at the forefront of our minds. That is what the public and voters would expect of us in this institution, to do the best that we can for them, their finances and their resources. Under this Government, I am afraid, it is not happening. Thank you, Mr Stewart. In your passion and commitment to your speech, you used the term you, which means that you are accusing the chair of flaws—I have none. You referred to the member in this chamber. I see there are some skepticism around here. I call Bob Doris, with all of my alec Rowley. I acknowledge our flawless, Presiding Officer, for making my opening comments. We have heard absolutely much about ordinary workers being exploited, given uncertainty or given poor terms conditions due to certain public procurement procedures and processes. I think that that has been much of the Labour proposition here. This afternoon, it will not surprise anyone listening to the debate to find a distinct lack of balance or self-awareness from Labour in making that contention. Let me give two examples of that balance to put a more even-handed approach to the debate here this afternoon. Let us look at the city of Glasgow and at Cordia, the city's carer arm, the Allio. It is to be brought back in-house under full democratic control. There is an estimated recurring cost to bringing it back in-house of £2.5 million. That is because low-paid, predominantly female workers working with Cordia are on poorer terms and conditions. Puerer terms conditions placed there by Labour. It has taken an SNP councillor in Glasgow to step in and to do the right thing and to make sure that those women will be paid properly. That is balance within this debate. Everyone should get their house in order. Let me give you a second example of balance. In Glasgow, if you were contracted by Glasgow City Council and the third sector to look after the elderly in a care home setting, you were not necessarily paid the living wage. In fact, you probably weren't paid the living wage. That goes beyond Glasgow and, thanks to £125 million investment by the SNP Government through integrated joint boards, everyone in the residential care sector is now paid the living wage. That is real action taking forward some of the issues that people today have been shouting about just to make party political points. Let's get some balance into the debate. Here in Glasgow, under Labour, until an SNP intervention contracted out care provision on poorer terms and conditions, that's just a fact. Everyone should get their house in order and have balance within this debate. Jackie Baillie, I always share his concern about low-paid female workers. On that basis, would he agree with me that the use of agency workers by the Scottish Government on a continuous basis, most of them women, not on the same terms and conditions as civil servants, is something that he would want to see end? Bob Doris. I would hope to address that point further in my speech if I've got time that there's something in there on that. Of course, I haven't spoken about Glasgow's equal pay scandal that Labour, for decades, has been sitting on. Can I, in a more constructive part—because the rest of the speech is hopefully constructive—we got to the stage when the living wage was paid in relation to care workers. Through partnership with COSLA, through a negotiated settlement of what the costs look like, that's the real politics delivering benefit. I think that we should make sure that we actually will get to whoever we want to be if we work together. Let's look at some of the things that are there that have helped. The Public Contract Scotland regulations 2015 seeks to ensure companies that blacklist companies are excluded from public contracts. I know that Mr Finlay's concerns will return to that in a second. I also know that the collaborative procurement is set out in the Scottish Government strategy on contracts and frameworks. That's got a buying power of £800 million every year. In the eight years that that's been in existence, it's actually delivered £615 million of savings to the public sector. That's a success in terms of public procurement. If you also want to look at successes in terms of public procurement in amending PFI, the Scottish Futures Trust in the last financial year has saved £138 million to the public purse. Had we used PFI rather than the Futures Trust under an SNP Government, had we used the Labour's preferred model when Labour in power would have cost an extra £6.7 billion, there's actually successes under procurement by an SNP Government, but the procurement reform Scotland Act 2014 is the matter that I really want to focus on. The chamber will debate how successful that has or hasn't been, but it was brought in under an SNP Government and it's brought in with a legislative requirement for a procurement report card. That first procurement report card will expand from January 2017 through to March 2018, so the Scottish Government has to assess where the successes have been and where the weaknesses are in terms of procurement. In terms of all the concerns that I hear here this afternoon, there's actually a legislative process implemented by the Scottish Government to tackle some of those issues. I think that my urge would be to use that process, to wait to see what that report card looks like and to try to work together in a degree of consensus to try to build on that. Mr Neil made some important points about things that could be improved. Mr Finlay raised some points in relation to his on-going concerns in relation to blacklisting and Ms Bailey raised some of her concerns as well. There's been so much good and so much progress in relation to procurement. Nobody's perfect, including the Labour Party. I think that that's clear in relation to this debate, but let's come together as a Parliament to try and improve public procurement for everyone here in Scotland. Thank you very much. I call Alex Rowley to be followed by Tom Mason. Mr Rowley, please. I wish to speak in support of the motion in the name of Jackie Baillie, and in doing so, we'll draw on examples from five where I believe that procurement of services through a market approach is not working. I am sure that money would question the role of the market in providing health and social care within our communities. I want to draw Parliament's attention to the decision of Fife Health and Social Care partnership that it will tender for palliative care as part of a larger contract to provide social care in Fife. The end-of-life services is currently delivered by Marie Curie, who informed me last week that they had reluctantly taken the decision not to tender for the contract and that they would no longer provide their services to families beyond the end of May this year. While Marie Curie says that she supports Fife Health and Social Care partnerships, quoted objectives to ensure that individuals have access to support that aspires to the highest level of quality and promotes the right of each individual to direct their own support, they do not believe that this can be delivered, and they say and I quote, with the maximum early rates quoted and no margin for extending these, we do not believe appropriate levels of quality care can be provided to achieve these objectives. The rates quoted would not allow Marie Curie to retain a sustainable, highly trained and experienced workforce that could deliver on the ambitions of the tender objective. The level of risk transferred to us in terms of the financial structure, rates and payments does not align with the delivery and performance requirements of a specialist health provision. Is this really how the Scottish Government wants to deliver end-of-life care and for end-of-life care to be organised and delivered? I sincerely hope not, but it is not just in care. Let me now focus on further education. In October 2014, the then finance minister announced £140 million of investment to enable Falkirk and Fife colleges to build new campuses in Falkirk and in Dunfermline. Whilst Falkirk is going ahead, Fife colleges have been told that they are not getting the money. As the college principal told staff in a letter two weeks ago, the deputy first minister is now encouraging the college to explore a private finance schools hub option with Fife council, which would include two high schools alongside the college. The college principal stated in his letter to staff that, following further careful consideration of the private finance hub option, including constructive discussion with Fife council and with government agencies, I wrote to the chief executive of the Scottish funding council on 29 November, setting out the college's concerns over the private finance school hub option. Those concerns included whether the procurement route is legally competent with the potential for it being subject to legal challenge, the requirement for complex and costly legal and governance arrangements to be put in place, a very real risk of a loss of direct control of its main campus by the college compromising its ability to deliver its strategy, the potential that investment already made in the existing project will have to be written off some £2.5 million, significantly higher overall costs of the private finance investment versus public investment. The principal went on to explain that on 12 December 2007, the chair wrote to the Deputy First Minister, reinforcing the college's concerns on the hub private finance route. On 9 January this year, the Deputy First Minister responded to the chair, stating that his officials and the Scottish funding council officials would be in touch with the college to address the college's concerns on the private finance hub model. He then goes on to state some three months later that we have not received a formal response from either the Scottish Government or the Scottish funding council to our concerns. I have to ask myself, is this really how we are trying to fund investment in the future of our country? Is this the only way that we can build for the future in further education? The approach is failing done family, it is failing five and it is failing to build for Scotland's future. Don't let the SNP feel you. Their method of financing construction projects is a variation of public-private partnerships, but private financing now costs more than boron through the public loan works board. Indeed, it is double the cost. That is why we need an independent route and branch review of how public procurement is operating in Scotland, including the Scottish Futures Trust, and we need it now. Thank you very much, Mr Rowley. I call Tom Mason to be followed by Angus MacDonald, and Mr MacDonald will be the last speaker in the open debate. Fair warning. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Public procurement is an issue that should showcase the attitudes that we have when spending money taken through taxation. Indeed, the motion today to its critic does recognise that one of, if not the prime concern, should be providing value for money for taxpayers. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government has not got close to fulfilling such an objective. The catalogue of waste going back years with hundreds of millions of pounds taken from the vital public service that we need. We need only to glance at the record of the SNP to realise how far they are from providing value for money. An IT system for farm payments is £79 million over budget, and an NHS 24 IT system is £55 million over budget and delivered four years late. Edinburgh's Kidd hospital is more than £100 million over initial estimates and, five years late, Motorway and Boomer is going over their original budget by £165 million, project after project, spiralling over budget. Think how much healthier our national finances would be if we had a Government capable of adequate long-term financial planning. There is, of course, a silver lining here. I have only got six minutes to relay all the problems that we have. However, the difference is clear even in passing. The only part of you who would deliver such value for money for taxpayers is the Scottish Conservatives. We would scrutinise all the local authorities' spending choices to ensure optimum value, and where the SNP has failed to spend carefully enough in the NHS, in farming and in prisons, we would cut the waste and stop throwing away money provided to the Government by hardworking people of Scotland. Moving on, it would appear from the text of the motion that Labour wishes to use public procurement to first protect Scottish industry. I am all for boosting our economy and creating better, high-paying jobs here at home, but it can only be a bit of a slippery slope if it is not done properly. There should, I think, be a place for companies based outwith Scotland in our supply chain. Forcing public contracts to use Scottish-based businesses may not always be as efficient as other sources, so I think that it is worthwhile having other options available, if you wish. John Mason I wonder if the member would agree then with his colleague Mr Whittle that we should be paying more to buy Scottish chickens rather than Thai chickens. Would that be value for money? John Mason I am yet to understand why we go out to Thailand to buy chickens, but it needs careful consideration. It comes down to value for money, and value takes a broader spectrum and just the cheapest. Seriously though, I would welcome a debate on how best to equip Scottish industry and how they can challenge for such contracts without giving Government intervention. A key element of that is to do with small and medium enterprises. It has been noticed that, over the past five years, local authority spending on SMEs has dropped. That should be deeply concerning to members across the chamber. I echo the comments made by my concerted colleagues that we should be aiming for better results here, with policy that aims to increase SME participation in the procurement process. The motion also refers to the Scottish Futures Trust. Indeed, in his respect, I noted a few similarities to Jackie Baillie's speech to the one that she delivered in the Labour Party conference at the weekend. I cannot be alone however in finding it somewhat curious that Labour is calling for an urgent review of something that the Audit Scotland is due to review later this very year. I happen to trust the abilities and opinions of the Audit Scotland, so, with that in mind, I think that we should let them get on with it and work in the west way that they see fit. Yes, as you wish. Jackie Baillie, I have quite rightly listened very intently to speech after speech from the Conservative benches, actually arguing that procurement is not working and it could be improved. Do you not think that, given that Cusbert's report was from last autumn, there are very real live cases here? Do you want to share our ambition to expand to the SME-based procurement that the best way to do it would be to support review and to support our motion this evening? The Audit Scotland commission is doing a review and we just let them get on with it and then we'll wait to see what happens. We don't want any additional reviews. After all, they are the experts, aren't they not? It is with that in mind that I urge colleagues to support Jamie Halcro Johnston's amendment today. Presiding Officer, our choices in public spending reflect the attitudes of those who make such choices. When government waste money, it shows content for the people who work hard, pay their taxes and provide income for the state to spend. That has, I think, been a little too much of that bug recently, which is very offensive to me. There are undoubtedly improvements that we can make in how we go about the process of public sector procurement, but it should be done in a balanced and responsible way that provides high-quality public services but also value for money for the taxpayer. Those are the priorities for the Scottish Conservatives and they would serve Scotland very well if they were adopted. I thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am actually quite pleased that Labour brought this debate to the chamber this afternoon, not least because there are some good news stories that I can highlight from my constituency with regard to successful procurement, if I have time. For example, the four NPD high schools in Falkirk district, and I was proud to be part of the SNP administration in Falkirk that delivered them. Before I touch on the success stories and the disaster that Labour's earlier PFI deal for another four high schools in Falkirk district, I would like to bring some positivity to this afternoon's debate and highlight the forthcoming good food nation bill, which will hopefully allow us to set into legislation soon the principle of sourcing our food locally. I was pleased to receive yesterday the education sustained promote document via NFUS Scotland, who have launched the agricultural industry's vision to produce a good food nation in conjunction with other industry players, including the Scottish beef association, the national sheep association Scotland, the British egg industry council, and Scottish quality crops, among others. The document rightly highlights that once the UK is no longer a member of the EU, public sector food procurement can do more to source greater volumes of food and drink from within Scotland, and it has already been proved that it can be done. Recent regulations enacted in France, which put our requirement on all schools, hospitals, prisons and other state institutions to source at least 40 per cent of their food locally, is expected to shorten food supply chains, stimulate local economies and have emissions attributed to the agricultural sector, which is an issue close to the ECCLR committee's heart in this place. I believe that it is perfectly feasible to introduce a similar target in Scotland that applies to all public bodies, which would demonstrate a clear commitment to Scottish produce, as well as having clear positive effects in terms of sustainability. The good food nation bill will give us the opportunity to prioritise public sector procurement of food. We just need to seize the opportunity, and I look forward to the support of Brian Whittle's party when the time comes. I am happy to give way. Brian Whittle. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Does he recognise, as I do, the work that has already been done with in councils such as East Ayrshire, who are already doing that and have no need for any change in EU regulation to be able to procure locally? I encourage more local authorities to embrace the good work that is on-going in certain local authorities throughout the country. Of course, it is not just the good food nation bill that presents us with the opportunity to improve our procurement practices. We have also got the circular economy bill to work on in this session of Parliament, which will safeguard Scotland's resources. To do that, Scottish Government policy makes increasing the supply and demand for circular products and services a key priority. In addition, the Scottish Government's circular economy strategy recognises the important role of public procurement in supporting a transition to a more circular economy. To help to meet those objectives, Zero Waste Scotland has already developed procurement guidance to support circular economy purchasing decisions and outcomes across the Scottish public sector. The Zero Waste Scotland procurement guidance now in circulation includes category and commodity guidance across key areas of public sector spend, including catering, construction, electricals, furniture and medical devices. The document sets out the rationale for making purchasing decisions with product life extension in mind. The guidance is intended to equip procurement professionals, decision makers and budget holders with practical guidance on incorporating the circular economy across stages of the procurement life cycle, together with examples of how other contracting authorities have approached circular procurement through case study examples. The member is a regular user—a pucit member, given weight—a regular user of ferry services to his home in Western Isles. Would he support Labour's call to use technical exemptions to directly award contracts to companies such as the David McGrane Group? I think that there is work under way with regard to that issue, so maybe you should watch the space. There may be an announcement. There may not. I am not saying it. There is no doubt that Scotland's public sector produces a huge amount of goods, and services, and capital items, which have already heard totals £11 billion per year. There are potentially enormous gains to be made if the substantial sum could be deployed to purchase products and services with good circular credentials. I and my committee colleagues look forward to both those bills coming to the Eichler Committee over the remaining months and years of this session. I hope that we can all seize the opportunity to move sustainable procurement in Scotland. I will quickly turn to the NPD schools in Falkirk district. The difference in approach between the method of funding capital investment and the Omni shambles has turned out to be the legacy of Labour's PFI. There is no doubt that the contract in Falkirk PFI contract was controversial when it was introduced. There were five schools built—Braise, Bones, Cairngrayn, Special School, Gdemhae and Larbert High. According to the numbers, the initial capital investment cost of those five schools was in the region of £65 million. However, when we look at the legacy, those schools under PFI are tied into a 26-year contract. The average unitary cost of Falkirk Council each year, two-calf Falkirk Council is £12.05 million, and the total payable over the 26-year period is well in excess of £300 million. It was one of the first PFI deals in Scotland, and frankly, it is one of the worst. I now move to closing speeches. I call Miles Briggs to close for the Conservatives six minutes, Mr Briggs. I am pleased to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I would like to put on record my thanks to organisations that provided very helpful briefings for today's debate. It does not feel like we have not really got much out of this debate today, apart from maybe Angus MacDonald leaking the Government's plans around the future of ferry policy, but that is very welcome. However, today's debate is, I think, extremely important. We have heard in terms of the procurement of good services and construction projects by the Scottish Government, and the wider public sector is a massive and integral part of our nation's economy, underpinning a huge number of local and national contracts and businesses all associated with jobs across our communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Jamie Halcro Johnston rightly highlighted the absolute importance of some of the key principles that should be woven into our procurement policies, namely that they should provide value for money for the taxpayer, ensure that the good employment practices are followed for all employees undertaking contracts, have a supply chain that is wherever possible anchored here in Scotland and one that encourages locally sourced products and provides genuine opportunities for local businesses of all sizes on an open and transparent basis, which encourages them to actually apply for contracts in the first place. On that latter point, I share the concerns that have been expressed that we have seen a decline in recent years in terms of the percentage of procurement spend that local authorities have contracted out to our smaller and medium enterprises in Scotland. We need to look at this and really look to reverse this decline. Brian Whittle focused on food procurement, a really important area, and I commend him for the excellent work that he has done since he was elected to this Parliament in highlighting local authority and health board food procurement practices. Given Scotland's rightly high and very high international reputation for the highest quality food and drink in our world-class food sector and welfare standards, Brian Whittle has been right to question why millions of pounds are being spent by our public services on imported foods. That is something that the Scottish Government has for years been talking about, but we need to see the moving forward now of what will be— I thank Mike Miles-Briggs for taking intervention. I also understand the point that he is making. He will know that, of course, today it has been announced that there is record exports—6.1 billion pounds of food and drink from Scotland. Is he proposing that the Scottish Government should tell local authorities to do that, or does he have something other process in mind by which it could be achieved? Miles-Briggs Thank you. If you are going to be looking towards us being a good food nation, I think that it is important that we are using that food here in our nation as well. I welcome those export figures, but in terms of the supply of food to our public sector, it is quite clear that this Government is going backwards under its watch. That is something that all public procurement contracts need to look at as well. The number of members who highlighted problems with projects in their constituencies and regions as a result of this type of contract negotiated was quite striking. Alexander Stewart really brought home this issue in the Scottish Government's record in the procurement of complex IT projects, such as in the prison service NHS and in administering cap payments as specifically poor record on that. I think that everyone across the chamber can see that. We have also heard that there are a number of concerns around NHS projects such as the cost of car parking at hospitals across Scotland. Here in my own Lothian region, I have repeatedly spoken out about the lack of car parking spaces at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and the huge waiting list for staff parking permits there, which is hitting staff members incredibly hard. Some junior nurses and doctors have told me that they are even considering applying for jobs elsewhere as the cost of having to pay for parking at the RIE is eating into their take-home pay. I think that this is something that the Scottish Government really needs to look at, especially here in Edinburgh. When negotiating contracts, fundamentals such as the ability of key public servants such as our nurses and doctors to be able to park at their place of employment without facing unreasonable costs surely needs to be embedded in procurement as well. Another issue that I would like to hear more about from ministers is how we can improve and promote regional procurement, for example, where a number of health boards or local authorities are pooling resources and constructing regional centres to provide better value for money. Health ministers have already indicated to me that they expect NHS health boards to work to plan new and future NHS investments regionally, and I support that approach. However, it is clear that we need to see more progress and clear frameworks to how that will be achieved. One example is the important example for me, certainly, and that is the Edinburgh and South East of Scotland cancer centre at Edinburgh's western general hospital. Following recent questions that I have raised in Parliament, £26 million has been allocated to address some of the concerns with the current state of that building. NHS Lothian is in the process of developing a business case for a new world-class cancer centre, but we need to see how that will be taken forward on a regional basis. That is exactly the point that the cabinet secretary was making regarding transparency. It is important that the Scottish Government and health boards move towards a regional approach to plan and fund new developments for our NHS, but we need to make sure that we are able to see how that is spent and how taxpayer value for money will always be achieved. In my closing minute, I would like to highlight and mention what I thought was one of the best speeches that we have heard, and that was from Alex Neil today. Brexit does hang over this debate on how we will move forward as a country in the future. It is something that all of us at some point will have to see, and as Alex Neil mentioned in the chamber yesterday, others on the SNP benches may be talking about the opportunities from Brexit. I never voted for Brexit, but the decision taken by voters across the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is something that we have to respect. How we make sure that we deliver a stronger Scotland post-Brexit is something that I would have hoped the Scottish Government eventually will come round to recognise. If it is only Alex Neil, I welcome that. To close, I support the amendment in my colleague Jamie Halcro's name. It rightly highlights the role of good procurement in minimising wasteful spending. I again welcome today's debate and the focus that is brought to this important subject. I call Keith Brown to close for the Government. Cabinet Secretary, seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Despite the fact that we have had a relatively heated and contentious debate at points, there is a substantial degree of consensus between the parties, not least on what procurement is able to deliver in terms of ambitions that we may have for an inclusive society and also for benefits from economic prosperity. The Scottish model of procurement, which is recognised internationally, takes into account a balance between cost, quality and sustainability. I think that it was Hugh Halcro Johnston who made the point during his speech that it is not possible for procurement to satisfy all those things in equal measure and that we have to continually understand ways in which, of course, it can be improved. I should say that, in relation to some of the comments that have been made and, rather than repeat the things that have been said before, I will try to address the points that were made first of all first. To say, a number of speakers certainly on the benches here made comments about the absolute hypocrisy with which the Labour Party has approached this debate. The Labour Party is, above all else, the party of PFI. This is the party that failed to take action on blacklisting. They knew all about it. One of the excuses was that we did not understand how significant it was. Maria Fife in 1988 tried to take a bill through the House of Commons, so she had known about it for that long. Despite that, 13 years in government, 97 to 2010, did not take the actions. The Labour Party is a party that is determined to leave employment law to the Conservatives. She said in her submission to the Smith commission that it was critical that employment law stayed at Westminster in the hands of Conservatives. That, of course, has consequences. Yes, I will. Jackie Baillie, I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary. He is responsible—the Scottish Government is responsible—for employing agency workers. That is something that he controls. Will he make a commitment now to end the scandal that is the misuse of agency workers in Scottish Government employment? Can I say a different information from Jackie Baillie on that point, that we do not use those in core Scottish Government employment? If Jackie Baillie, if she allow me to answer the question, if she is able to provide me with details and I am more than willing to look into that, we do not use a Swedish delegation that allows that to happen in terms of core Scottish employment. Just to go back to the point that no Jackie Baillie is keen to hear what the Labour Party's support for leaving control over those things with the Tories means, that is true in relation to blacklisting. That is true in relation to the living wage. Those are the reasons why we cannot take the action that she says she would like us to take. Jackie Baillie says in all fairness that all people on public sector contracts should be paid the living wage. That is what Jackie Baillie said. That is the point of difference between the SNP and Labour. We believe that everybody should be on the living wage, not just those on public sector contracts. It is also worth pointing out that, despite the fact that Labour want the Tories to have the power over that, 94 per cent of all people on Scottish Government contracts are paid the living wage. 94 per cent. It is also true that, of all the four UK countries, the higher proportion of people paid the living wage in Scotland than any other country. Just to go back to the point that was made by Angus MacDonald and I think also by Alex Neil, if you go back to Labour's first blush and go into PFI, the Falkirk deal with the five schools was the biggest PFI deal in the UK at that time. The point is that not only was extraordinarily expensive, not only was it hugely profitable to the companies, but at the end of that contract, all five schools revert back to the private sector. The council is going to have to build another five schools in order to replace that. That was Labour's attempt at PFI, so that is why we will not take lectures from Labour on PFI. The point that was made by Jenny Gilruth was a very important point. It has not really received very much attention during this debate and it should have done. That is the point about the extent to which you have got this procurement power grab coming from the UK Government. The implications of that are absolutely extraordinary. The implications that I would have thought Labour would be concerned about because, as Jenny Gilruth pointed out, the potential for attack on working conditions and terms of conditions of employers on these public sector contracts. If the UK gets this power and they start to decide, does Labour believe that they will do, they start to attack the working conditions of people involved in these contracts. It will be those people who pay for that. I would have thought that the Labour Party would have had a bit more to say about it than that. That is actually forgiving way. Talking about Labour initiatives, it was the Labour that put for the technical exemption the direct award of ferry contracts to public sector companies. It was the Labour that got the advice from the European Commission. What is the Government view on the technical exemption? I think that it has already been acknowledged that that work has been taken forward just now. If it is the case that you are saying that we should have done this right away, why didn't Labour do it? Labour looked at it and said that they wouldn't do it. Have a bit of self-awareness, please. I can also say that, in relation to the points that were made by Alex Neil, there was, at least from one sector, a positive suggestion in relation to a national house building agency. We also have had other suggestions as part of this debate, for example a Scottish national infrastructure company. I am not saying that we are going to do those things, but I think that those things are worth looking at. I also think that a point that was made by Hugh Halcro Johnston was about how we can use the system to try and improve the access for SMEs. I agree with that. I think that, particularly if we look at the consequences of Carillion, much of which, in terms of the pensions, reporting and company law, we do not have control over, but if we look at the implications of that, I think that that is a fair point. How we can try and make sure that SMEs, we have tried to do in previous occasions, and some of those who are criticising the procurement act from 2014, of course, voted for that act as well, again, a lack of self-awareness there, but if we can improve those things, it would be my view that, of course, we should try and do that. There is a review currently under way to make sure that that should happen. Of course, we have mentioned from Derek Mackay about the strategy, which will be published shortly, which they are required under that act to produce annual reports, and that will happen very shortly. It will also be used to prepare the Scottish ministers' overview of the report of procurement activity across the whole of Scotland, which we aim to publish by the end of the coming financial year. The cabinet secretary is in his last minute, and I apologise, I know he is. Please sit down, Mr Briggs. Apologies, perhaps next time. I will also take the view that the report of procurement activity, which we aim to publish by the end of the coming year, should allow us, of course, to look at the consequences and end of the ways in which we can improve things. We are very confident that we have a very positive story to tell. We are proud of the progress that we have made in reforming public procurement over recent years, which is why, just to come back again to the point that Jenny Gilruth raised, this is why the UK Government shameless attempts to grab the power to regulate public procurement away from this Parliament, which should rightly concern everybody in this Parliament, under the guise of Brexit, is not only in affront to the principles of devolution, but it threatens to undermine all the positive things that we have sought to do in terms of procurement. In the UK, it is only Scotland that requires by-law that any decision to award a contract is based not solely on price but on quality, too. In the UK, it is only Scotland that requires by-law that companies that have engaged in blacklisting are excluded from procurement procedures. In the UK, it is only Scotland that requires by-law that public bodies consider community benefit requirements in major contracts. If people of Scotland deserve better than to have public procurement returned to Westminster control, I would ask for support for the amendment in the name of Derek Mackay. I have to protect the time for Labour, because it is their debate in this, so I call on Lewis MacDonald to close with Labour until 5 o'clock, please. We have made the case today for a change in public procurement policy, and it seems to me that contributions from around the chamber have vindicated Labour's approach, particularly those that focused on the choices that face ministers today. The contributions of Andy Wightman and Willie Rennie were certainly welcome, so, too, was Alex Neil's call for a review of framework agreements. Tom Arthur also helpful, read out Labour's objectives for procurement policy and agreed with everything except the need for a review. Perhaps he can explain to John Mason why it is that a supply chain anchored in Scotland is a policy supported by parties right across this chamber and not an alternative to an open economy. I am sorry that Angus MacDonald, having started so well, seemed eventually to be uncertain about future procurement of ferry services. I could almost see his hopes of a Government-inspired question being holed below the waterline before he sat down. Conservative and SNP members have had different priorities this afternoon, but their amendments have united around one thing. Both those parties have said that they will resist Labour's proposals for urgent review of public procurement policy, of employment practices and public sector contracts, and of the Scottish Futures Trust. Although some Tory speakers did at least recognise the case for change. Perhaps our review proposals will have to wait for another day if Tory and SNP MSPs do indeed unite to vote them down, but the case that we have made will have to be answered sooner or later. For thousands of people working on Government contracts in Scotland, the sooner the better. It does not matter much to those workers whether the contract they are on is one designed in Whitehall on the authority of Tory ministers or designed by Keith Brown and Derek Mackay in St Andrew's house. What matters is whether the rights and conditions of employment of those workers are protected and whether their jobs are secure. The continuing prevalence of zero-hours contracts of employers failing to pay the living wage of umbrella companies who are ripping workers off are not acceptable anywhere, least of all, on public contracts, and so they have to change. The Government has said that it does not want a comprehensive review and see no need to do anything urgently. It promises instead to report on its own legislation a year from now, a business as usual approach. Keith Brown made the point about sustainable procurement and about the threat posed by Brexit. Of course, there are issues that need to be addressed around continuity across the whole range of policy, but the truth is that for 11 years the SNP has had responsibility for procurement policy. Responsibility for those decisions they have made lies with them because they have been in government for that period of time and they cannot at this stage put the blame for shortcomings on anyone else. SNP speakers, both front bench and back bench, have suggested that it is enough to set out guidelines and aspirations, but the truth is that fine words about fair work do not deliver for workers such as those that we have heard about today. When Keith Brown said that 94 per cent of workers are on the living wage, he has responsibility too for the other 6 per cent on government contracts, and he needs to take action on those as well. Grateful to Lewis Macdon for taking intervention. At least, could he acknowledge that we could deal with the other six per cent had we the legal powers that Labour wanted to diffuse us, and would he also be willing to accept to correct the record when Jackie Baillie said that the new social security agency staff would be agency staff? That is absolutely not the case. The intention is that they will be core Scottish Government staff. I hope that Keith Brown's last claim is proven to be true, but the reality is that this agency worker whom Jackie Baillie quoted was told directly by her agency that they were recruiting for the social security agency. However, of course, if today's debate has achieved nothing else, if we can bring an end to agency working in Scottish Government departments and agencies, then that will be a big step in the right direction. There have been plenty of other examples across a whole range of projects, and many of the issues are exemplified by the largest road construction project in Britain today, the Aberdeen Western peripheral route. It is, of course, now more than 15 years since a Labour-led Scottish Government committed to build the WPR, which is a long time to build a road, and it is little wonder that those who hope to travel on it are impatient to see it finished. But because of the model adopted by the SNP, it will also be a long time to pay for it, and it will cost a lot of money to do so. The Scottish Government's own figures from January make clear that the burden of unitary payment charges will be with us for the next 30 years, nearly £1 million a week for the Scottish taxpayers of the 2040s, many of whom have not been born yet, a total of £1.45 billion over those 30 years, compared with a capital value funded by those unitary charges of £469 million. Nearly £1 billion in payments then, over and above the actual value of what has been built. Can I ask Lewis MacDonald then, because the wording of the resolution does not necessarily match what the Labour Party said at the weekend? Is the Labour Party now saying that it will not support any further revenue finance projects in Scotland and will oppose them in terms of new build and support for our community and transport infrastructure? The Labour Party is saying very clearly to the Government today that time has come for a routine branch review of public procurement. There is an opportunity for Derek Mackay today to vote for Labour's motion and allow that to happen, and then that routine branch review can examine seriously all the options that we face going forward. Because the truth is that it is not just the cost of public-private partnerships like that in the WPR that we need to focus on going forward. There are other issues that have been exposed on the WPR and elsewhere. The collapse of Carillion has exposed many aspects of contracting company culture to public view in a way that has not happened before. Here were company executives changing their own rules so that their bonuses could not be clawed back if the company failed. A multimillion-pound business where revenues fell so far short of commitments that there was not enough cash left at the end even to pay to put the business into administration. More than that, an insight into a culture among companies where such behaviours were clearly not unique and good reason for Government to think again about the public sector's relationships with contractor companies and to consider what they should be going forward. Of course, we recognise that there are many good companies in that sector of the economy. There are many companies whose practices are right, employers who train apprentices and do it well, who employ workers directly rather than through the type of employment agencies that charge workers for collecting their own wages, pay the rate for the job and always the living wage, recognise trade unions rather than blacklisting trade unionists. We want to ensure that the purpose of today's debate is to ensure that the Scottish Government in future awards public contracts to that kind of company and not to businesses that are only interested in short-term profits, whatever the long-term costs. That is why we call for an independent review. I'm looking at some of the immediate opportunities that the Government now has. I turn again to the example of the western peripheral route. The failure of Carillion has left two other partners in the Aberdeen roads consortium, Balfour, Beattie and Gallifordtry. Gallifordtry has acknowledged that the additional funding obligations arising from this contract are going to cost that company or force that company to raise an additional £150 million. Balfour, Beattie has not acknowledged anything of the sort at least not in public, but what they have done instead is to continue to bid for the next available roads contract at the Hudigan Junction in Aberdeen was announced by Transport Scotland just yesterday, but at the same time the same company is telling local staff in another part of their business that they are to lose their jobs. The electricity substation design team at Contour, which works across the Scottish electricity network, is due for closure and if that happens those jobs will be offshoreed out with Scotland. A company like that ought to be in a position to sit down with its own workforce and their trade union and talk about a way forward. I was glad last week that the First Minister agreed to talk to Balfour, Beattie, about that threat to jobs, but that needs to be a robust conversation. A contractor company that wants to work on public sector contracts on Scotland's roads network for proposing to offshore jobs on Scotland's energy network bidding Carillion style for one more contract to make up for losses on the last one while making its own directly employed staff redundant. Companies can surely not be allowed to benefit from Scottish public sector contracts while taking no responsibility for the wider Scottish economy or for fair employment practices, and that is one more reason why the time has come for a radical change in Scottish public procurement and a Root and Branch review. That concludes our debate on procurement. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 10987, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Can I ask if anyone objects to this question being put, or the motion? I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 10987. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No member objects. Can I ask the questioner the story that motion 10987 be agreed? Are we all agreed? Thank you. The next item is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 10988, on approval of an SSI. Again, I could ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion on behalf of the Bureau. Moved. Thank you very much. We turn to decision time. I would remind members that if the amendment in the name of Derek Mackay is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston will fall. The first question is that amendment 10962.2, in the name of Derek Mackay, who seeks to amend motion 10962 in the name of Jackie Baillie on procurement, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to amend to a vote, and members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 10962.2, in the name of Derek Mackay, is yes 61, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 10962.3, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, who seeks to amend motion in the name of Jackie Baillie, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division. Members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston is yes 90, no 33. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 10962, in the name of Jackie Baillie, as amended on procurement, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division. Members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10962, in the name of Jackie Baillie, as amended, is yes 36, no 87. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 10988, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I'm glad that members are in such a happy mood. That concludes decision time. We'll move to members' business in the name of Monica Lennon on incinerators, public health and planning. We'll just take a few moments for members to change seats.