 I think that will be warmly welcomed to Lentonburg to Scotland. Thank you. That ends portfolio questions. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 11395 in the name of Elaine Murray on tackling sectarianism. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press their request speak buttons now and I'll give a few moments for the front benchers in particular to change position. I now call on Elaine Murray to speak to move the motion. When, on 14 December 2011, the Scottish Government used its majority to railroad through this Parliament the controversial offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications at Bell, the Minister for Community Safety stated that once it was passed, we can get down to the difficult and long-term work of tackling sectarianism and that she wanted to begin the process of healing the divide and then celebrating the nation's differences and diversity. I'm sure that we all agree that the work of the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland is an important contribution to that difficult and long-term work. The group, chaired by Dr Duncan Morrill, published its independent advice to Scottish ministers and report on activity. In December last year, 70 pages detailing the history of sectarianism in Scotland, how it is manifest in today's Scotland, including a working definition, and recommendations to a range of institutions regarding how their attitudes and actions can help counter sectarianism. It is the most substantive piece of research carried out into this issue. The Scottish Government published its response to the independent advice in February and a number of other agencies such as COSLA have also discussed their response to the report, but, despite the Scottish Government's profess concern about sectarianism in Scotland, it has not found time to present even a statement to this Parliament, still less a debate on the report or on its response. I am aware that the minister has asked the advisory group to continue until March next year, but that is not a valid reason to postpone discussion of the independent advice by Parliament for over 15 months. Moreover, that is when the funding of the 44 core project is due to run out. The member accepts that the Justice Committee on 4 March this year took substantial evidence from the member in charge of the bill, the minister for community safety and from officials on the report. She, too, partnered with herself and asked a couple of questions. Indeed, but it is not in depth what we are talking about. It is an in-depth investigation by committees, but in particular discussion by this Parliament, given the interests of this Parliament in this piece of legislation. What we actually took evidence also was the Offensive Behaviour Act. It was not about this report that I am wanting to discuss. No, I bet a press-on sorry about that. The frustration of the anti-sectarian and campaigners Nill-by-Mouth has built up to such a stage that, before the October recess, they requested that members of the Scottish Parliament should find time to debate the report—not the bill, the report—the act. Dr Morrill himself has stated that it is vital for that the report and its implications are considered. The Herald publication, which is normally fairly sympathetic to the Scottish Government, ran an editorial on 6 October, reminding the Minister for Community Safety that she had welcomed the findings of the Morrill report and, in response, had stated that her Government will change Scotland for the better and build sectarianism-free communities to benefit all of our people. The editorial considered that, and I quote, it was bizarre that this report has not been debated in Parliament. The paper's editorial asked, how is the work progressing? Are the outcomes being monitored? Is the spending appropriate? What happens when the funding runs out next year? The good questions—many of us would be interested to learn the answers, and I hope that the minister may be able to answer them today. The advisory group recognised that Scotland was at the start of a journey and called for political leadership. That, indeed, was its first recommendation, so it is disappointing that the Scottish Government, to date, seems to have been reluctant to show that leadership, certainly in Parliament. The Government's response to the advisory group's report appeared in some ways to abdicate its responsibility by pointing out that some of the recommendations did not relate directly to Government. That is not the point. We need to know whether the Government is taking matters forward, how and the ones that are applied to it. The Scottish Government's response states that the Government recognises the need for a broad and holistic approach. We would agree with that, and it has also written to key organisations, inviting them to respond to the recommendations that applied to them. That was by the end of June 2014. In a way, that makes it even more surprising that, four months on from that deadline, the Scottish Parliament itself still has to discuss its recommendations. In the absence of the Government being prepared to use its time to initiate a debate in this important report, Scottish Labour has offered some of our time to start the process. The timing of the report highlighted some key aspects of sectarianism in to-base Scotland, firstly that it wastes significantly by geography, class, age, gender, occupation and community, that it impacts from community to community and is affected by historical, religious and antagonisms class and political associations and commercial interests, and that the people involved are not necessarily still actively participating in the faith community but have cultural affiliations that can lead to anus versus them mentality, and that sectarianism is not just overly aggressive bigotry or anti-Catholic or anti-Irish prejudice. In terms of addressing sectarianism, the report recommended, as I have already indicated, the importance of leadership at all levels. The advisory group did not consider that new legislation was required, rather that existing legislation on human rights, equalities and hate crime should be applied. Members may recall that opposition members in Parliament made this very point when the offensive behaviour at football was being discussed. The group also recognised that further research was needed to learn more about sectarian attitudes, such as the role of gender and sectarian victimisation, the role of social media, the impact of potentially divisive events, such as parades or football matches, employment discrimination and other forms of tension within sections of the Christian faith. Crucially, the report found that organisations and institutions at all levels must take responsibility for sectarianism and that, of course, includes this Parliament and the Scottish Government taking a cross-party approach. The Government amendment refers to scrutiny by the Equal Opportunities Committee. That was one session with Dr Moro and Dr Rosie. There was no questioning with the minister, no questioning of stakeholders, so that is not scrutiny nor indeed is the session in the Justice Committee about the bill or about the act. This is about the report and the responses to the report. John Mason? The committee did look at it and agreed because the working group was carrying on the advisory group that they would look at it again, which we were about to do before Christmas. We did not feel that there was any point in duplicating the work of the advisory group, but we want to build on it. Will you accept that? I need to have seen the letter from the chair of that committee. My point is not necessarily—I accept, as a member of the Justice Committee, which could also look at it—that the committees have a very heavy workload. However, the point that I am making is that the Parliament should be considering that Parliament should be discussing this. Given how important it was considered to be when that act was being rushed through, why are we not considering it ourselves? I thank the minister for facilitating meetings with representatives from the advisory group, where myself and other party-spokes people have found those meetings very useful. The Government states in its response that there has been a great deal of cross-party support for the need to tackle sectarianism and that it wants to build on this constructive and positive engagement. So do we. Dr Moir has kindly offered to meet members of the Scottish Labour group of MSPs. I am sure that it has done with members of other parties. We will be meeting at the beginning of next month. I know that several of my colleagues are very keen to take up that opportunity, but a debate in Parliament is one of the mechanisms that we can use to highlight the issues and the actions that are being taken. It is not just that the responsibility of politicians to undertake this leadership role—the moral report—also places responsibility on churches, local authorities, journalists, football clubs and community organisations. The report highlights the requirement for strategic financial support and that it needs to be provided for community activity and education, which could address sectarianism at a grassroots level. Community-based projects supported by the Scottish Government since 2012 ought to be evaluated to determine what has been successful. I know that we will hear from the Government—I must get on, I am afraid—that the Government committed £9 million over three years to research education and community-based and policing initiatives aimed at addressing sectarianism. I hope that we will hear today from the Minister whether the evaluation that the advisory group is requesting is under way. The Scottish Labour Party has consistently taken sectarianism very seriously. The Labour Liberal Democrat Government created the offensive religiously aggravated beach of the peace in the Criminal Justice Scotland act of 2004 and funded nil by mouth and sent over sectarianism. Those of us who are here at the time will recall that Jack McConnell, as First Minister, personally championed a number of measures to address what he described as Scotland's secret shame, including promoting shared campuses and twinning between denominational and non-denominational schools. Our motion also refers to the offensive behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act 2012. All the opposition parties felt that the bill was unnecessary and unhelpful. Despite the broad remit of the advisory group's work, the bill was placed off-limits by ministers and was not discussed at any point. I have five seconds left. In that time, I had a number of other points that I would have liked to have made. However, I would argue that the OBF act is an inadequate knee-jerk reaction. Many of us felt that. I suspect that the Government may feel that too, but despite that, there is no reason for the issue being kicked into the long grass until after March 2015, we must discuss the wider issues around the education-preventative measures that need to be taken to tackle sectarianism. Therefore, I move the motion in my name. I assure everyone in the chamber that this Government remains completely committed to tackling sectarianism. The level of that commitment can be seen in the immense amount of work that has been undertaken over the past three years. Elaine Murray talked at length about the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act. That, in our view, has a clear role to play in meeting the commitment that was made. There are well communications of success with decreases in offences of religious hatred and offending under the act. It is working. However, it is important to remember that the act was brought in for a reason to tackle offensive and abusive behaviour at and around football. In recent days, we have been reminded about why the act is needed through online abuse, including threats of violence and death sent to players and their families. People need to remember the extraordinarily heated atmosphere in which the bill emerged. However, we have never tried to claim that sectarianism is confined to football, which is why we have invested the record £9 million over three years to tackle the scourge through a range of activities. It has been the biggest commitment ever made to anti-sectarianism by any Government in Scotland. As we stated in the draft budget last month, I am making a further commitment to invest over £3 million to support community-based initiatives to tackle sectarianism and further develop our understanding through research, while continuing to support work to tackle racial or ethnic hatred in 2015-16. It is a pity that Elaine Murray clearly did not read that line in the draft budget. When I came into this job, I had two very clear aims for this agenda. One was to make sure that the work that we were supporting was getting into communities and tackling the problems that they were experiencing at community level. The second was to build a robust research and knowledge base on the nature and extent of sectarianism in modern Scotland so that future policy could be made on the basis of evidence and not in UNDO. I remember being quite shocked when I first came into this job to discover that there was virtually no information and evidence base at all available in Scotland. We have spent some considerable time and money beginning to put that work into place to ensure that we have the evidence going forward. That is why I have ensured that our work is a good example of what we are calling the Scottish approach informed by the Christie commission, assets-based and placing the needs of communities at the centre of the agenda. There are 44 community-based projects that are bottom-up, not top-down. They are allowing us to get to the heart of the issue as it is experienced by communities with solutions emerging being tailored to the specifically identified issues. Will the new adviser of those 44 funded projects continue after March next year, and will there be any evaluation of their successes being undertaken? Of course that is happening. No project has any right to assume that funding will continue simply without having their work and outcomes assessed. That is one of the key jobs that the advisory group is involved in doing. At the same time as the projects are taking place, our comprehensive research programme is helping us to build the most holistic evidence base on the issue that we have ever had. The outcomes of all that work have been developed in partnership with that independent advisory group that we have discussed. However, it is important to be clear that that is a new approach where time is needed to allow the projects to deliver their initiatives and evaluate them for research to be carried out and completed. There is a whole slew of research currently being undertaken or just completed. There is a vast amount of work under way, and there are timescales for delivery that will ensure the evidence that we get back from them will be robust and informative. I wholeheartedly welcomed the wide-ranging report published by the advisory group on 13 December 2013, but the point that the member has missed out is that that was an interim report. It aimed at interim recommendations at organisations across Scottish public life. Yes, we did respond in February at the same time and in recognition of the far-reaching recommendations that had been made. I did write to all the key organisations, including football clubs and authorities, Police Scotland, Cosland and religious leaders, highlighting the recommendations that they needed to give consideration to and address. A number of their recommendations, the advisory group's recommendations called for the development of a full research programme. The baseline for our research has been the Scottish Government's literature review and examination of the evidence on sectarianism in Scotland, published in 2013. Since then, we have built on the advisory group's recommendations by publishing information from the 2013 Scottish Crime and Justice Survey and Scottish Household Survey, stats on hate crime statistics, including religious hate crime from 2013-14, information relating to religion on demographics, population households and health from the 2011 census. That will all be supplemented next year with the completion and publication of research looking at the community impact of public processions, a Scottish social attitudes survey model on sectarianism, a study of community experiences of sectarianism in Scotland and information relating to religion on labour market education, housing and transport from the 2011 census. Of course, academic research itself does not tell the whole story. That is why, as I have already said, we have accepted the advisory group's recommendation to use funded projects as data sources to ensure that the real experiences of those working in communities can be reflected when we pull all of that information together. That, I am afraid, takes time. I do not believe that anyone is under any illusions that there are quick fixes here, and we need to allow all the pieces of work to complete before we can bring them all together next year. I know that the advisory group does not want their report to become a political football, so I was therefore very encouraged when Dr Morrow confirmed that he had been meeting with sports people from all political parties and the Equal Opportunities Committee to discuss this agenda. I fully recognise that there has consistently been a great deal of cross-party support for this agenda, and, as recommended by the advisory group, I would like to explore the potential for building on this in the future. We are and always have been committed to tackling sectarianism and recognise that this is an issue where we need to work together. Our work with the advisory group continues and I look forward to their final report, which I am sure will help us all to move the agenda forward. I congratulate Labour for allocating its parliamentary time to debate this important issue. Expressions of religious hatred, regardless of how they are articulated, are completely unacceptable in any civilised society, so it is deeply depressing that, in Scotland today, sectarian divisions continue in some local communities. That frequently manifests itself as so-called sectarian banter, or as terms of abuse, intimidation and harassment, which can, at the extreme end of the spectrum, develop into violence. As recently as April this year, sectarian tensions once again emerged at the Glasgow Cup final between the Celtic and Rangers under 17 youth teams. They should have provided an opportunity first and foremost for those young players to display their skills and for this to be the story that dominated the headlines the next day. Instead, the occasion was virtually hijacked by supporters of both teams who taunted and derided each other with derogatory comments and songs for the duration of the match. It is a little wonder that campaigners such as Nill by Mouth argue that not enough is being done by the Scottish Government and the football authorities to combat sectarianism. However, in seeking to tackle the problem, it is vitally important that the focus does not become narrowly restricted to football alone but rather seeks to adopt a holistic and consensus driven approach. Nor is it desirable or possible to arrest our way out of this problem, which seems to be the intent behind the deeply flawed offence of behaviour and threatening communications act 2012. That is fundamentally bad legislation, which was poorly drafted, constituting, as it did, a knee-jerk response to the something-must-be-done clamour that behaved the way for the introduction of new criminal offences by statutory instrument without full and detailed parliamentary scrutiny, and despite a distinct lack of consensus among key stakeholders. I thank the member for giving way. I just wonder if she would feel that legislation was part of the answer or can be part of the answer if it has purely got to be education. Size point now. In 2011, it was then railroaded through by the SNP majority Government in the face of opposition from Scottish Conservatives. Labour and the Liberal Democrats all voted against it. Nor were those opposition parties alone in their criticism of the 2012 act. In 2013, Sheriff Richard Davidson said that the act was horribly drafted and that, somehow, the word mince comes to mind. Funamor, his voice is only one amongst the legal profession who has spoken out against it. Where clarity is thought, the act introduces vague, catch-all offences, which some argue are very much at odds with civil liberties. In other words, the SNP response at that time to this deeply complex issue has been to introduce legislation, which has only served to create confusion. To answer Mr Mason's point, consequently, it should be repealed now. In view of the fact that existing laws that do not vilify certain sections of society could easily be used to greater effect. It is for this reason that the Scottish Conservatives will be voting for the motion and against the amendment this evening. Self-evidently, this legislation, which was SNP's top-down response, is not the answer to the problem. If Scotland's sectarianism is to be eliminated, then the root causes must be tackled. The Morrill report confirms the inherent complexities of sectarianism where it exists in Scotland. It also stresses that the impact of sectarianism varies from community to community, and it is not a one-size-fits-all issue. In particular, the report highlights the importance of community led activity as the way to overcome sectarianism. I very much welcome this approach, having been fortunate enough to see first-hand how such activity can make a transformative difference in the lives of young people when I visited the Macintosh project in Larkhall. The project that seeks to tackle sectarianism and successfully bringing children and young adults of all religions and none together to participate in collaborative activities. Furthermore, Youth Links Scotland has seen proven success by addressing the issue through youth work with its action on sectarianism web portal. Here, those initiatives endeavour to work with a local community where sectarian issues exist in order to educate rather than punish. As such, this is surely an example of the best way to overcome the sectarian divide. We can all agree that we have a problem, and we need to talk about it. The key in this debate in or outside the chamber is that this issue of sectarianism has to stop being heard through a megaphone, but it needs to be talked about. It would be great if there were a scapegoat or if we could find somebody who is responsible for the present level of sectarianism in Scotland, because that would mean we could get rid of the problem in an instant. Let's be clear, it's not going to work like that, it never does. We can all agree that this is more about than legislation only. We need some kind of cultural change, a cultural change that could be led from this parliament, and it's important to realise that we all have in this parliament responsibility when it comes to the tone we are using when talking about sectarianism. This motion from Helen Moray makes two important points that I would like to address. It first talks about the failure of our committees to address a report published by the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland. Then this motion from the Labour Party asks us to repeal the offensive behaviour at Football and Threatening Commission Act 2012. Presenting officer, let me deal with the second part of the motion first. I cannot be the scapegoat of the Labour Party today. I was not yet a member when the bill came to parliament. What I can say as a member of the Justice Committee is that I was aware of section 11 of the Bill of Threatening that states that the Scottish ministers are required to report to parliament. The minister today repeated that what we already knew, the members of the Justice Committee are aware that the report will cover two football seasons and that the evolution report will be laid before parliament within 12 months at the end of the last football season. The members of the committee heard that the minister had already ruled out an early review of the act in March of this year, and Christine Graham had been convinced that we were all there when it happened, and nothing has changed since. Presenting officer, I happen to be a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee as well as a member of the Justice Committee. Regarding the first part of this motion from Helen Murray about the failure of our committee system to address the report published by the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland, let me read you first of all the following letter dated on the 1st of April this year from our convener Margaret McHillock to Dr Monroe, and this letter is quite important because it says exactly what our committee is going to do. Dear Mr Monroe, thank you again for your attendance with Dr Rosie at the 20th February meeting. For any of the Scottish Government's response to your initial funding and given the extension of the life of the advisory group, we have agreed to wait further findings before taking a decision on carrying out more in-depth work, and this is important. My point of information is that my motion does not comment on the failure of any committee. It comments on the fact that the Parliament has not discussed the report. That is the important point. It did say committee, and the motion does say committee. Maybe the motion is not drafted properly, and then maybe you will welcome the input of the Scottish Government and their amendment. Here we are, President Officer, no failure from our convener, but a properly appropriate and cross-party approach to help tackling sectarianism in Scotland. I remember that in taking evidence and to answer your question from Shavan McMahon on February the 20th, Dr Monroe stated, as we have already said, the issue cannot be addressed as a party political issue. If it is addressed in that way, as it knows from its own experience, it becomes extremely difficult to have a serious conversation about it. We need a cultural change, one that can be led from this Government and this Parliament, and from the tone of our debates in the chamber and that committee. Ms Wallab, thank you. The forthcoming old firm march has attracted the attention of the media, even though it is three months away. While it is nearly three years since the last met, there is an understandable excitement. Supporters hope that Scottish football will get the much-needed competitive boost and that there will be a greater maturity among the small sections who are an embarrassment to their clubs and who project an image that should no longer have any place in Scotland. Of course, there is a widespread feeling that the offensive behaviour at the Football and Training Communications Act exacerbates that problem and that it should be repealed. However, when we talk about challenge and sectarianism, the old firm and other sporting manifestations are only part of that story. In many ways, they are subsidiary to the wider task of challenging sectarianism in society through prevention and education. It is that wider task that we need to speak to about today. Tackling sectarianism has and will continue to be a priority for the Scottish Labour Party. In power, we had an action plan and actively pursued an education strategy designed to tackle it. By contrast, the SNP Government pushed through a controversial law, despite widespread opposition and doubts about its effectiveness. That had been worn out by the subsequent events. The SNP also set up an advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland, but through Dr Morrow's report, which was published over a year ago, it still awaits proper consideration and debate. The supposedly concerned Scottish Government has published a response, but, significantly, that response fails to take on more recommendations about actions, which is a responsibility. The Morrow report specifically called on the Scottish Government to use powers to engage people in discussion of sectarianism and to ensure that instances of sectarianism are recognised as such. It said that the Scottish Government should provide financial support for community activity and in education that can address sectarianism at grassroots level, with the issue being part of public funding for community work, education and youth work. Yet community projects that have been set up still do not know what will happen when their funding comes to an end next year. Other recommendations include the evaluation of the existing community-based projects to see what works and encouraging schools to create anti-sectarianism partnerships. Dr Morrow claimed that many senior and influential people across Scotland have failed to show the leadership that is needed to confront the problem. He is rightly concerned that his reports are not being implemented. The question is, are the ministers opposed to wider action to tackle sectarianism, or have they just been too busy securing a no vote to separation? While allowing Dr Morrow's report to gather dust, either way, that is shameful. Those recommendations deserve better attention from the Scottish Government. Facing up to sectarianism and giving it the attention that it deserves is long overdue. Scottish Labour will do that, and in looking to become the next Scottish Government, we promise a renewed focus and effective act of sectarianism. Presiding Officer, what an utterly depressing speech from John Pentland when the thrust of the report is that we should not politicise sectarianism, there is nobody in this chamber who supports sectarianism, but to speak in such a manner lays any hope of a broad church discussing this in the Parliament in a grown-up and mature way almost to rest, albeit temporarily. To Elaine Murray, her thrust of her motion is the repeal of an act of Parliament. She is the one who focuses on the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications act, otherwise it would not have been raised by other members such as Margaret Mitchell. It is tagged on to the motion as if it is part of this report, which it is not. The member herself admits that the report says in the executive summary at paragraph 21 that we have not addressed any issues specifically relating to the offensive behaviour of football and threatening communications act 2012. We are aware that a review of the act has been undertaken at the end of this football season and a report submitted to Parliament. Let me go through some points first. I have to say that the committee did have the opportunity, so I am going to deal with that part first, as the member is well aware, at its meeting on 4 March. At 4 March the member asked two questions and she was apparently satisfied with the answers because I always allow members to ask additional questions and I am looking at the minutes of the meeting of that particular 4 March meeting because there was a decision taken in private in relation to the evidence that we have heard and the correspondence. The minutes are public and the minutes are actually said. The committee considered next steps in private during a work programme discussion later on the same day. The minutes of the meeting show that the decision was to consider the next research document on charges reported on the act that was published in June 2014. That research was circulated to members when published in June. No member requested any further action from the committee on that, so it is a bit rich to come to this chamber. I am saying that, remember, this is a committee Parliament. We are the Parliament as well. You have in your motion a reference to committees saying that we have not looked at this in depth. The member had an opportunity to bring this up in discussions on work programme and has not done it. I really look at why we are doing this today. I cannot think of a good reason to debate this day. There is a good reason to talk about the report, but the way to talk about a report like this is to have a debate without motion, to have the Parliament allow, which we have done before, to allow a very sensitive issue, very complex, very diverse to be discussed across the chamber in a responsible fashion, not bringing party political points right, left and centre, which do no favours to people confronting sectarianism in all its forms, whether on football pitches, in the streets, in work wherever. That does no service to this Parliament and it makes me so angry that the Labour Party that I used to have some regard for, frankly, has lost all regard for it now because you look for cheap party political tricks on the back of anything you can find. That is a great shame because also in the report it makes plain that there is a need for leadership on this very difficult issue. You are not showing that today. You are not showing any little whisk of that today. Instead, I think that what we are looking at is diversionary tactics from a party that does not know which way to look, that is in a busy and an internal argument and looking for something else to hit the front page of the daily record. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Scottish Liberal Democrats do welcome the opportunity to highlight the work of the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland. Scotland has wrestled with sectarianism for far too long, and debate too often has been suppressed or sensationalised, reduced to simplistic understandings and stereotypes. However, through its report of December 2013, the group's initial contribution moved matters forward significantly. I have met Dr Morrow and his team regularly since the group was established in 2012. Upon his appointment, Dr Morrow said, and I quote, "...the advisory group will work hard to ensure that our advice is rooted in real evidence and practical experience. These expectations have been realised and have been greatly impressed by their measured and thoughtful approach over the last two years. The group has given people a voice, opportunities to speak about their experiences frankly and maturely, and it has had considerable success in engaging parties across civic Scotland in awkward conversations that some would rather avoid. In considering personal, organisational and community responsibility, it has challenged them to confront issues frequently but wrongly deemed irrelevant or simply too difficult. Its report examined the complexities and nuances of sectarianism and crucially established the foundations for change through initiatives focused on prevention, building trust and understanding. Local authorities, churches, football clubs, schools, the media and community organisations and more were presented with practical solutions. Grass-roots solutions focused on prevention, building trust and understanding, solutions that will foster a long overdue culture of leadership and partnership working. For example, it identified local authorities as the agents of social change, which must embrace sectarianism with the conviction and confidence that they have approached other equality issues. Sectarianism is linked to so many other social challenges with which local authorities are involved. It impacts on community cohesion, safety, diversity and wellbeing. I am therefore surprised that so few local authorities have hardwired consideration of the problem into their planning processes. There has been a broad failure to establish a whole-council approach. I hope that COSLA and councillors have taken on board the group's recommendations and that the stark divergence in council efforts across the country will be eradicated. Attitudes towards equality issues, including racism and homophobia, have been transformed in recent decades. Sectarianism and marginalisation and resentment that it causes must be deemed just as shameful, but that will take time. The identification of progress points for each of the organisations and institutions mentioned in the report would assist in recognising improvements as the body of evidence grows. Scottish Liberal Democrats opposed the SNP's offensive behaviour at football emergency legislation, the only party to do so throughout its rust passage through Parliament. It was a flawed headline-grabbing response that I felt ignored the overwhelming concerns of Civic Scotland, and I think that it still risks doing more harm than good. However, it is important to recognise that the advisory group is engaged in a much broader discussion about how best to bring communities and key stakeholders together. It presents a much wider range of interventions than those possible or established through legislation. Of course, the 2012 act should be monitored and its effectiveness thoroughly evaluated, but Labour's decision to inherently connect it to in its motion is neither appropriate nor helpful, and it is for that reason that we will support the Government's amendment tonight. As the report notes, we are just at the beginning of the journey to eradicate sectarianism in Scotland. I therefore commend the Scottish Government's commitment to the advisory group and look forward to further substantial, impartial expert advice. Sandra White, followed by Mike McMahon. Very much, Presiding Officer, and I just thank Alice McKinnis for her contribution. Very thoughtful, and I think that it got to the absolute nub of what is happening. Thank you very much for that, Alice McKinnis. Presiding Officer, I have to repeat what Christine Grahame had mentioned about the actual motion and what it looks at. I think that if we all look at that, we look at the title of the motion as tackling sectarianism, and yet all we heard from the Labour benches was the offensives behaviour act and the repeal of that act. Nothing at all in regard to the work that is being carried out in communities. I find it deeply worrying that the Labour Party is concentrating on that part of the motion and not about the work being carried out in the communities. John Pentland touched on that a bit, but I think that I might repeat it for the sake of the Labour Party and others. Perhaps it is something to do with a report that was put forward by The Daily Record, which says that Labour pledged to scrap the act if elected in 2016. I will leave that with you, but I do not want to continue on that theme. I think that there is much more to the legislation that should be looked at also. I want to concentrate on the good, very good work that has been carried out in the communities that was mentioned by Margaret Mitchell at one point, and it was also mentioned by Alice McKins, and it is funded and provided by the Scottish Government. I have only got a small list. I would not be able to have time to read the full list out. I have picked out the ones that are in my constituent and other parts that are near the constituency. Glasgow Women's Library, Women's Experience, Exploring Sectarium, as it affects women, is a very, very big issue when you look at domestic violence. £143,928. In Cahoots, parents network, anti-sectarian workshops for parents, £69,530 in that particular area. Since over sectarianism, looking at education and community engagement, that is in greater Glasgow, is £387,597. The other one is Cambridge University technical services limit, which provides services for this. I see life skills for a changing Scotland, Glasgow, Falkirk, Edinburgh, Stirling and Inverclyde, £100,000 to that. The Contrary Anti-sectarianism project is £178,070, encouraging community dialogue against sectarianism, working on relationships within the churches and in the communities. Surely that is what we should be looking at. That is the way to tackle the issue of sectarianism. In gender, women's experience is through art and dialogue, and that again tackles sectarianism through women's experience. We have seen the issues when there is football matches on. Women have got to be looked at in that particular field about the domestic violence issues. The community engagement is £98,170, and that is through in gender. There are lots and lots more. You want to have a look at them in your constituencies. Throughout Scotland, not just in my area of Glasgow, that is where we are going to tackle the problems of sectarianism. As John Mason has said, there is a way for legislation and education. The two are not mutually exclusive. I welcome the amendment in the minister's name, because the motion that has been put forward by the Labour Party does not tackle anything, but perhaps its own inadequacies. Michael McMann, to be followed by Roderick Campbell, up to four minutes, please. As you know, a few weeks ago we had the great privilege of taking part in a visit to the Commonwealth Graves in Yprosalian in Flanders as part of the World War I commemoration event organised by the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Bippa, for those who do not know, is a body of parliamentarians from all of the jurisdictions in the British Isles, with the aim of developing and progressing the peace process in Ireland. As well as visiting the Scottish and Welsh war memorials at a number of cemeteries and the famous Men and Gate, for me, the most poignant event was the visit to the island of Ireland peace park in Mezzine, which was the place chosen by the Irish Government to permanently remember those from all parts of Ireland who gave their lives in the so-called Great War. As part of the ceremony at that day, the peace pledge, which adorns a plinth in the park, was read out. That pledge states, we repudiate and denounce violence, aggression, intimidation, threats and unfriendly behaviour. It proclaims that, as Protestants and Catholics, we apologise for the terrible deeds that we have done to each other and ask for forgiveness. It goes on to implore all people to help build a peaceful and tolerant society and to remember the solidarity and trust that developed between Protestant and Catholic soldiers when they served together in those trenches. As I stood in that, what is a now tranquil place that once resounded to gunfire and bombs, I could not help but think that, while this memorial was specific to Irish soldiers, its sentiments could equally reflect the situation in Scotland and that such words are as relevant here as they are on our neighbouring island. How regrettable it is that I find that, where the Irish look to achieve respect and reconciliation through their high-minded ambition, we, unfortunately in this place, had to deal with the knee-jerk legislation in the shape of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, which undermines the very prospect of such an objective being achieved in Scotland. On the contrary, that legislation has metaphorically driven people into the trenches and Scotland has had to deal with that hatred. Three years on from the introduction of that most illiberal, divisive and retrograde legislation that was ever brought before this Parliament, this Government has introduced it in the face of almost unanimous opposition and still refuses to concede that it got it wrong. Even after its own advisory group produced such a positive and progressive blueprint for the development of anti-sectarian policies in Scotland, the Scottish Government still cannot bring itself to even debate adequately this subject in this chamber. It is three years on—the reason why we are holding this debate today—it is three years on today when we have passed the legislation on the Offensive Behaviour Act. When Christine Grahame says that we are just using this as an excuse, it is a commemoration as well. It is reminding people that this Government, in spite of the unanimous cross-party opposition, did indeed polarise this Parliament and play politics with this issue. We will not take any lectures from them about bringing the debates here today. The Moral Report is undoubtedly one of the most important documents ever produced in relation to sectarianism, and the Scottish Government is to be commended for initiating it. However, where is the leadership that that report called for? What a pity it is that the Scottish Government abdicates responsibility for taking forward the Moral Report's recommendation and shies away from confronting the problem. It is vital now that the Scottish Government starts to show that it recognises that sectarianism is not, as the advisory group points out, the same as anti-Catholicism or anti-Irishness. Instead, the Scottish Government still shows no sign that it appreciates or understands that its attitude to sectarianism is itself part of the problem. Thank you very much. I now call on Roderick Campbell after we should move to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer, as we all know, regrettably, the scourge of sectarianism remains with us. I, for one, certainly welcome the thoughtful contribution made by the advisory group last year. From that, I note their conclusion in section 6.1 that sectarianism continues to be an active element in Scottish life, coupled, however, with their acknowledgement that many participants in the study concluded that the immediate impact of it had lessened considerably and measurably over the past decades. Indeed, Duncan Moro, when he gave evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee on 20 February this year, said that we wanted to find some more effective ways of dealing with what is probably a long-term question rather than an acute one in Scotland. I agree with that conclusion. Indeed, economic discrimination may have lessened and we are fortunate as a society that we now have legislation to protect human rights, to deal with discrimination, to address inequality and criminalise hate crime, such that I very much agree with the working party's conclusion that additional legislation is not needed at this time. I also agree with their view that there are no quick fixes or easy answers to sectarianism. Of course, the point, the present time, the vast majority of funding to tackle sectarianism comes from public funds is well made. Whilst I acknowledge the substantial contribution made by organisations such as Neil by Mouth, I think we should all recognise that much more could be done by organisations in the private sector such as football clubs and football associations who do need to lead by example. Whilst struggles for control of boards go on and indeed some football clubs struggle for their very financial existence, I think it would be all too easy to overlook the important rule that football has in eradicating sectarianism. Taking a lead in opposing sectarian behaviour remains a key and in particular recognising that what some people call banter as no place in modern Scotland. In my view, traditions should only be encouraged where they have value, but there are positives. Despite funding cuts from Westminster, the Scottish Government will be investing £3 million and indeed till March 2015 in tackling this problem. I welcome that. I also appreciate that funding needs to be concentrated where it can be most effective, recognising that sectarianism can be very localised, whilst also recognising the benefits of a Scotland-wide approach, such as the YouthLink Scotland action on sectarianism web portal. As we already heard today from the minister, changing young people's attitudes must be a priority for the future. It is clearly important for Education Scotland to ensure that any work on anti-sectarianism is being taken forward in line with the curriculum for excellence. Getting it right for every child is crucial. I also welcome attempts to promote equality in the classroom, to build good citizens for the future, helping to break the self-perpetuating nature of sectarianism. I also welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to gathering evidence to build for the future and I listen carefully to the minister's comments in her opening remarks on that. We definitely need more information on communities' experience and attitudes, and I do not know what impact analysis of the demography of the 2011 census will reveal, but I await that with interest. What about marches and parades? Do they cause fear, alarm, public disorder or are they simply families enjoying a day out, as some suggest? At a meeting of the Justice Committee on 4 March to which we referred earlier on, I inquired what the position was in relation to research being conducted by Stirling University to the effects of parades and marches. The Government official at the time said that a report was expected by summer 2014. I have not been able to access this report. I don't know if the minister has any update on that in her closing remarks. Finally, in relation to the question of the Act, the Offensive Behavior Act, we are now three months after the review period ended. We are approximately nine months before August 15, the deadline to lay a report before Parliament. I, like others, await the evaluation report with interest, but I don't want to prejudge it. I don't know what the comments would be, and with respect to the Labour Party and indeed to the Conservatives. Let's just wait and see. It's not long grass. It's careful consideration. Well, maybe the report will be laid before Parliament earlier. Let's hope so. But, although I accept that the Act has become a party political football, just remind ourselves again what Dr Morro said. The sectarianism cannot be addressed as a party political issue. I have one point of agreement with Christine Grahame. I think that there is a tension at the heart of the Labour motion this afternoon. On the one hand, calling for more action from the Scottish Government to tackle sectarianism and implement the Morro report, on the other hand, calling for a repeal of the measure that brought forward the Offensive Behavior Act. On the broader issue of sectarianism, I've always objected to the way some politicians have sought to portray this as Scotland's shame. Maybe it's always just been a part of my life experience growing up on the east coast of Scotland, but I do not share the view that sectarianism is endemic across the whole of Scottish society, and many people I know resent us all being tarred with the same brush. That is not to say that sectarianism is not a problem in some communities in Scotland or in some situations, but it is the problem of a small minority, and we should stop damming the great majority by association. Any measure to tackle sectarianism should therefore be targeted and proportionate. That brings me on to the Offensive Behavior in Football and Technic Communications Scotland Act 2012. If ever there were an illiberal, unnecessary and nonsensical piece of legislation, that was it. Throughout the passage of the bill, the Scottish Conservatives opposed it and our view has not changed. In that respect, I am happy to agree with the wording of the Labour motion calling for its repeal. It is both illiberal and unworkable. It is illiberal because it criminalises, in essence, people's opinions. As it happens, I believe that, in general, people should be nicer to each other. People should not say things to each other that cause offence, but that does not mean that people who break those rules should necessarily be criminalised. Religiously motivated discrimination should be against the law, but it is not the business of government to criminalise private thoughts or prejudices. In the words of Queen Elizabeth I, we should not make windows into men's souls. It is simply nonsense to prosecute people just for singing songs that other people might find offensive, particularly when the reasonableness of that offence need not necessarily be in question. We end up in the ludicrous situation where people are sitting in their homes watching a football match on television and hearing songs being sung by the fans in a stadium where they are nowhere near, then telephone the police to make a complaint that they have been offended and that falls under this act. If that act were simply illiberal, it would not be that different from lots of other acts that have been passed by this Parliament. Its foolishness is compounded by the fact that it is also confused. When the bill was going through Parliament, my colleague John Lamont questioned the minister as to whether singing our national anthem, God Save the Queen, could be an offence to which she had to reply that that would depend on the circumstances. She was on to say that a fan of Celtic football club making the sign of the cross could also be deemed to be offensive and fall under the ambit of this act, depending on the circumstances. It seems to me that it is a basic principle of law that it should be certain so that those who might be at risk of breaking it are aware in advance of the consequences of their actions. That legislation fails that basic test. Last year, the High Court of Distillery considered the case of Joseph Cairns, a Celtic fan who had attended a match against Ross County in Dingwall, and was filmed by police officers singing two Celtic songs, neither of which I have any direct familiarity, Deputy Presiding Officer. I believe that there were the role of honour and the boys of the old brigade. That led him to being prosecuted under the act. However, that was a victimless crime. No-one was offended by this man singing. No-one was incited to public disorder, and Mr Cairns, with one of several thousand other Celtic fans, also sang these songs, and yet he was singled out for attention. On no definition of the term is this justice. Presiding Officer, in a modern, free, liberal and democratic society, we should not be criminalising speech or opinions, and this Parliament should not be passing confused legislation. This is a bad law, and it should be repealed. I welcome the contributions that members have made to this debate, though I am surprised that I have heard more positive suggestions of other work that could be done. I want to reiterate here that we will listen to any good suggestions from wherever they emanate. It is just a shame that we have not really been hearing anything of that. I said at the outset that the Scottish Government has been and continues to be fully committed to tackling sectarianism. Depressingly, however, a number of members this afternoon—and that includes Margaret Mitchell and we have just heard from Murdo Fraser— seemed to want to rerun the debate that we had on the Offensive Behaviour Bill. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act was brought forward for a reason to tackle sectarianism and other unacceptable behaviour around football and to address unacceptable religious and other threats, whether posted on the internet or sent through the post. It did not come out of a vacuum. Some members, such as Margaret Mitchell, called for the bill's immediate repeal. Really? Would that be despite the fact that the act is currently being reviewed, following the correct parliamentary process and that that review is in its final stages? What a bizarre suggestion. We should not be pre-empting the findings of that review. Doesn't she accept and realise that it's an unwelcome distraction taking up resources when existing law would do the job so much better and we could focus on community-based services? The debate suggests that it's working. I would suggest that the member wait until the review is completed before coming to a conclusion. As this debate has demonstrated, however, it's utterly wrong to see that act as the start, middle and end of the work that this Government has done to tackle the issue. I need to re-emphasise that there has been a record £9 million investment over the last three years and further £3 million in the 2015-16 financial year doing exactly what many members called for, such as John Pentland, who clearly doesn't listen to a single word that I said in my opening remarks. It has allowed us to take a radical new approach to tackling this issue, one that is starting to make the progress that we all want to see. Our 44 community-based projects continue to get underneath the issue in communities across Scotland and tailor solutions to specifically meet the needs identified. The research programme is helping us to build the most holistic understanding of the nature and extent of sectarianism in modern Scotland that we have ever had. The close and very positive working relationship that we and a number of you in this chamber had with the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland is testament to the fact that, by working together, we can most effectively address sectarianism. I'm grateful to Alison McInnes for discussing that particular aspect in some detail. That need to work together seems to have bypassed a number of members in this chamber. The most important point that I want to emphasise is that the work that we've been delivering over the last three years has been specifically designed to take us from a position of having very poor quality data, information and evidence on the nature and extent of sectarianism in modern Scotland to one where we are able to make informed policy decisions based on expert advice and comprehensive evidence. That's why we've commissioned a wide range of academic research and we'll bring this together with real lived experiences through evidence gathering from the funded projects and through specific initiatives, like the one being delivered by the Scottish Storytelling Centre, which will allow the voices of those who experience the everyday reality of sectarianism to be heard. I've got some depressing news for Murdo Fraser. This isn't only confined to Glasgow and west central Scotland. We've set ourselves on a path to achieving the best and most robust evidence base on sectarianism in modern Scotland that we have ever had, and we will deliver this. The final report of the advisory group will play a central role in focusing our future approach to tackling sectarianism and continuing to build our evidence base. We've worked with the advisory group and the voluntary action fund that's the grant managers for this area of work on the development and delivery of an effective evaluation tool that will allow us to robustly assess the impact of those projects to ensure that future decisions are informed by the evidence gathered, and funding is focused on areas where it will have the greatest impact. Minister, we all welcome the projects. When I was in your position as minister, one of my concerns was that we did not make decisions quickly enough to allow and prevent redundancy notices going out on successful projects. Could I urge her to make sure that the decisions are reached in December, rather than January, when redundancy notices will have gone out to excellent projects that we all support? I'm very conscious of the pressures on all voluntary sector organisations when it comes to rolling over government funding. The member may be aware that we are not able to do it for the next three years. We've only got one year of funding coming up, which is a challenge. The impact and assessment of all projects is continuing to March 2015. All information that is collected will help us to build on the current evidence base of sectarianism in Scotland. However, the project work will also begin to highlight the interventions that do and, in some cases, do not work for communities to tackle sectarianism as they experience it. I, for one, am excited by the positive direction of this agenda and the fact that, by working together, we really can tackle sectarianism once and for all. 2015 brings us two huge pieces of work on this issue—the final report of the advisory group on tackling sectarianism and the review that was provided for in the offensive behaviour legislation. Those are two enormous pieces of work for us to deal with next year. Believe you me, we will deal with this next year. I now call on Graham Pearson to wind up the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Murdo Fraser mentioned earlier that he rejected the notion of a secret or hidden shame across Scotland. It is in that context that Scottish Labour will continue to bring this subject matter to the chamber and to the committees of this Parliament because, for far too long, it has been a hidden and secret shame that has affected the lives of people across Scotland. Secondly, I would indicate to Sandra White that she either misheard the contribution from Elaine Murray or misrepresented elements of it because, on this side of the chamber, we acknowledge the hard work that is being done by those who would contribute to partnership working and influence the very cultures that affect our country. Today's debate, for all its fine words and good intentions, has demonstrated clearly that Scotland has a problem at the very heart of many of our communities. The Government, by its legislation, characterised sectarianism as a problem largely related to football and encouraged by a few groups. That Government has perpetuated a view that sectarianism is a scourge, particularly in the west of Scotland, and is fuelled by working-class men. Evidence of that comes from the front bench of the Conservative Party only this afternoon. That misunderstanding of a situation is something that needs to be met head on. Little acknowledgement is made of those who exercise sectarian influences in employment, in the conduct of day-to-day commerce, in our places of education, in our social clubs and pubs and in the very housing estates in which our children are brought up, not to mention the foul expressions that some will emanate from the expensive seats and hospitality boxes across the countries on match days. In that failing, ministers flawed understanding of the initial issues that we would grapple to deal with, knee-jerped with the declaration of that match of shame, where fewer arrests and a crowd of many thousands of fans occurred, but it was followed by a summit meeting and a rush to legislate to provide this nation with an ultimate response. It did not meet the mark. In the faces of pleas from inside this Parliament and from communities three years ago, we wanted to address the wider issues of research, of education engagement, engagement with the voluntary sectors and churches, with football supporters to deal with the source of sectarianism, a hatred for our fellow citizens. The very elements referred to in the advisory group report a report that we welcome and give great energy and support to. A minority of Scots have developed a particular passion to hate. Whether that be on the grounds of gender, colour, race, sexual orientation, disability, physical or mental and even now in our political lives, we have developed a commentary enabling concepts of unionism and nationalism to attract pejorative values. We endure members of our community who indulge their ability to target, to despise, to abuse their fellow human beings but all beings open to them through violence, utterances, texts, emails, social media and indeed through the media itself. As a result, we now have uniform police and a national unit bearing the emblem anti-sectarian initiative on our tabards. What must the wider world think of us when they view us in world football? The failure at the heart of the Government lies in the fight. I am happy to give way. I thank the member for giving way. I would be really interested in mentioning football on a number of occasions. Perhaps he would give us his view on the fines handed down to clubs for their fans by UEFA for offensive songs or what they consider to be offensive songs. I will come on to indicate that I would welcome all football authorities to take direct responsibility for the behaviour of their fans within that environment. As I recognise, the failure at the heart of the Government lies in the fact that they sought to legislate and criminalise without taking the difficult decisions, the steps suggested by their very own advisory group members, steps that could have been actively pursued in the three years that have gone past. Ministers need to be honest about the scale of a task ahead and the minister has acknowledged that to some extent this afternoon. To engage with opposition parties, anti-sectarian charities, educators, wider civic Scotland, dealing with hate crime more generally and work together to take forward and leave this prejudice behind. The moral report properly identifies leadership and research as major elements for future strategies. I would invite the minister to ensure that the Government provides visible leadership, a focus on sectarianism on a month-by-month basis, to ensure that I will take it intervention. I am perplexed with where the member is going with this, because when you talk about leadership, the minister was clear that over £9 million for 44 projects just last week I hosted a reception for the Mark Scott Leadership for Life Award, which gets £600,000 over three years from this Government. Can you not acknowledge that and see that we are providing the leadership and the finances? I am happy to acknowledge the finances that have been given, but it took the Labour Party to bring this debate to the chamber today. I would have liked to have seen the minister coming forward and leading on this issue from their front benches. As Alison McInnes indicated, she should play their part in demanding leadership from COSLA, from the football authorities and to all elements of Scottish civic society in recognising the way forward. I would also invite the minister to give assurances in public that she is prepared to consider the repeal of the legislation that is referred to in the motion when evidence provides the negative impact that has been delivered across Scottish football and the impact on its supporters. Finally, I invite the minister to revisit earlier proposals seeking to ensure that football authorities and Scottish clubs particularly play their full part in education and delivering two cultural changes in their grounds, and find themselves accountable for the behaviour of those supporters. I find it difficult to finish that contribution with the continued sniping from the front bench. If the minister wants to ask me something, she merely needs to ask and I have taken interventions up till now, so I would welcome the minister ensuring that the Government should not take responsibility for the duties and responsibilities of the football authorities and should have ensured that those authorities play their full part. In closing, I would indicate that, as much as I welcome the report and the positive contribution that many people have made to the way forward on this issue, I hope that the Government will redouble its efforts in terms of leadership and visible leadership in showing us the way forward for the future. That concludes the debate on tackling sectarianism. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 11398 in the name of James Kelly on the living wage. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. Mr Kelly, when you are ready to make your contribution, you will have 10 minutes to do so, and if indeed you are ready now, then I would call on you to do so. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and it gives me great delight to open this debate on the living wage on behalf of the Labour Party and to move the motion in my name. Labour wants to use this debate today to promote living wage week, to welcome the new rate of £7.85 and to discuss as a Parliament how we can take this issue forward so that we can ensure that more people within Scotland are paid the living wage. The report produced by KPMG at the start of this week, which details the fact that there are 413,000 people in Scotland who are currently not paid the living wage, they are paid the minimum wage or greater but not the living wage, shows that we still have some way to go in Scotland in order to try and lift those people out of poverty. The £7.85 living wage is what is required to allow our family to be provided decently and adequately, so we need to strive to do more. Among those 413,000, over 64 per cent are women. Over a quarter of a million women are not paid the living wage and there are 150,000 between the ages of 16 and 24 key groups within our society. It is not just about the statistics, it is the real people who are struggling on the ground. It is the cleaners in Canberra Slang, the care worker in Curnusty, who are struggling to bring up their family with the added burden of rising food prices and energy prices and trying to get by on a wage that is not adequate. The focus of the debate has to be what we can do to move that forward. First and foremost, let me begin with the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has put themselves forward as enthusiastic supporters of the living wage, but, as we know, earlier in the year, when given the opportunity under the procurement bill to extend that living wage to everyone on public contracts, the members on the benches voted that down. That was a hammer blow to those more than 400,000 people who are not paid the living wage. It was a missed opportunity because of the £10 billion purchase in power that the procurement bill and procurement, which the Scottish Government fronts up, has the opportunity to therefore influence companies that are paying the living wage. The reality that we now have is that, as well as some of the companies that the Scottish Government awards contracts to not paying the living wage, and Scottish Government locations, cleaners at Atlantic Key and cleaners in Scottish prisons are not paid the living wage. That is an issue that has to be addressed by the Scottish Government. If you want to brand yourself seriously as a supporter of the living wage, you need to make sure that everyone in Scottish Government locations is paid the living wage, and that should be an absolute priority. We heard earlier on in the year that it was not possible because it would be subject to a legal challenge. Quite frankly, I said at the time that that was a smoke screen, and the more the issue develops, that is becoming absolutely clear. We only need to see last week that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has announced that all their workers and all their, crucially, all their subcontractors will be paid the living wage. We are always hearing from the SNP about Big Bad Westminster. I have got to question why it is that one of these Big Bad Westminster departments has been able to do what the Scottish Government is not able to do to pledge that all the subcontractors will be paid the living wage. Why is it on this issue that the SNP and the Scottish Government are so timid and people like Boris Johnson are able to be more committed on the living wage? If we are really serious about Angela Constance, you should do something about it within the powers that are within your remit just now. What has interested me in observing the SNP deputy leadership contest is one of the contestants. It seems to be very little differentiation between the candidates, and I have seen in recent TV appearances that Angela Constance has been very keen to support the idea of cutting corporation tax. However, on the issue of the living wage, it seems to me that the silence has been definite. Let me give a bit of free advice to Angela Constance in terms of the deputy leadership contest. Why do not you look for something that is a bit different from the other candidates? Why do not you come forward and say that you are committed to the living wage and that you want to see all the subcontractors and all the people and all the public contracts being paid the living wage? That would set you out from the other candidates. I think that that would appeal to a lot of the SNP members. There is a real opportunity for you. Mr McDonald. Mark McDonald. I note that the member is one of the brain's trust behind Jim Murphy's leadership campaign, which I suggest already calls into question Mr Murphy's judgment. Nonetheless, would he accept that perhaps one of the ways that this could be taken forward would be for minimum wage powers to come to this Parliament, to allow us to ensure that anybody is able to be paid a living wage, not just those who are covered by the public sector and public sector contracts? Mr Kelly. I think that he should be a bit more cautious in terms of calling for minimum wage powers. If he cannot even use the powers that he has to give Scottish Government cleaners and Scottish Government locations the living wage, use those powers first before asking for more powers. One of the disappointing things about the Scottish Government's attitude is that they are not providing proper leadership. One of the big challenges in this is that 93 per cent of the people who are not on the living wage are in the private sector. If we are going to try and encourage private sector organisations to pay the living wage, we need more leadership from Government. We need the Government to be more aggressive in promoting that. We saw in the referendum campaign that the SNP was quite aggressive in terms of promoting independence. Why is it that we do not see the same energy and aggression around the living wage? If we look at some of the sectors that are involved in retail and catering, they need that support. At the moment, it is building on it. Only last week, we saw Hart's Football Club declaring that we are going to pay the minimum wage. We have seen organisations such as KPMG saying that they would pay the living wage. There are real advantages in terms of fallen absenteeism, staff retention and increased recruitment. What all those things mean to businesses is that it improves their bottom line and their performance as a business. There are real opportunities there, but the Government should be doing more to be up front about it. I also suggest that what is required to take that issue forward is that we need a proper living wage unit that will monitor the wage levels in the country and monitor the sectors that need attention. We also need a living wage strategy from the Government, something that it can bring to the chamber so that we can all discuss and have proper consultation on and regular updates to Parliament. I think that it is absolutely right that people are entitled to fair wages. It is time that this Government got serious about the living wage. It needs to take your responsibilities and provide leadership. The living wage is an idea whose time has come, but let's see the Scottish Government play their part in its delivery. Let's see the Scottish Government stand up and be counted, and let's see the Scottish Government roll out their activities so that we can see some of the 400,000 people currently not on the living wage being taken out of the poverty trap and taken forward on to decent wages. I now call Angela Constance to speak to and move amendment 11398.2. Cabinet Secretary, up to seven minutes please. I was looking forward to a nice consensual debate this afternoon. I was very interested that Mr Kelly wants a living wage strategy and a living wage unit, but of course he and his party have ruled out the devolution of employment powers to this Parliament, which is very interesting indeed. Of course, the Scottish Government welcomes the opportunity to participate in this debate, particularly during living wage week. Indeed, I welcome every opportunity this Parliament has to make its voice heard on tackling poverty and inequality, and I recognise how crucial this is to achieving our vision of a successful and fair Scotland. I want to begin by unequivocally stating here today that, in this Government's view, paying the living wage should be the expectation and not the exception. Given that it is the living wage week, I also note the very clear call from the major third sector organisations for more powers in Scotland to address the issues around pay and conditions, and in particular the devolution of the national minimum wage to ensure fairness at work for all. I suggest that it is Mr Kelly and his colleagues who are rather timid. In the Scottish Government's draft budget, Mr Swinney focused on three key goals—to make Scotland a more prosperous country to tackle inequalities and to protect and reform public services. He also set out commitments to tackle the poverty and inequality that can cripple our society. Those include increasing spending on welfare reform mitigation, providing additional investment in housing with a strong focus on affordable and social housing, and crucially confirming our commitment to the living wage and the wider social wage. We recognise the real difference that the living wage makes to people in Scotland—I will take you in a minute, Mr Kelly—and that was reiterated on Monday when Mr Swinney supported the announcement of the new increased living wage rate of £7.85 an hour for 2015-16. I thank Angela Constance for taking the intervention. You spoke about the Government's commitment to the living wage in the Scottish budget. Do you accept that there are workers at Scottish Government locations who are not being paid the living wage, and what action are you going to take in the forthcoming budget to address that issue? That leads me really neatly on to the next point. I think that a plank of the success of this Government is indeed our public sector pay policy. That is our public sector pay policy that has at its very heart tackling inequality and low pay, and our commitment to implementing the living wage is long-standing. To answer Mr Kelly's point directly, we are the first and the only Government in the UK to make the living wage an integral part of our public sector pay policy and have done so for five successive years. That is guaranteed to support the living wage and this policy for the duration of this Parliament provides a decisive long-term commitment to those on the lowest incomes. It truly sets us apart going well beyond any measures that the UK Government has put in place for the lower paid. Do you accept that the workers that I was talking about are not covered by the public sector pay policy near other subcontractors? I can ask again what action are you going to take to address that deficiency? Where we have power to act, we act. Unlike Mr Kelly, this Government will not participate in gesture politics, because I am pixac of the Labour Party, always asking this Government, procurement being an example, to do things that are illegal for us to do so. They need to stop being mischievous and misleading. Where we have the powers to act, we do indeed act. Our record compares very well to the record of the previous Government, because unlike the past Labour Government, we have implemented the living wage as part of our pay policy. We practice what we preach, Presiding Officer. No thanks, run out of time, Mr Henry, but we want to go further, because we believe that employers should reward their staff fairly. That is why we are calling on all companies across Scotland to follow the Scottish Government's lead and to introduce the living wage. As well as setting an example in our own pay policy, we have indeed funded a pilot by the poverty alliance to promote the take-up of the accreditation scheme and increase the number of employers paying the living wage in all sectors in Scotland. That campaign is rolling out over 2014-15. I was delighted to hear that the poverty alliance announced yesterday that the number of accredited living wage employers in Scotland has tripled. We are also using our powers on procurement to encourage the payment of living wage. The Procurement Reform Scotland Act demonstrates our very clear intention to use our powers to put the living wage into public contracts while acting within EU law. The act will require public bodies to outline their living wage policy in their procurement strategies. It will also see Scottish ministers publish statutory guidance on how workforce matters, including the living wage, should be a factor when selecting those bidding for a contract. That will be the first time statutory guidance has been put in place to address that issue. As well as the legislation, we are conducting a pilot project on Scottish Government contracts, which encourages bidders to take a positive approach to their work-face package, including the living wage, but also, importantly, other terms and conditions. Those measures clearly show that this Government is already doing substantially more than the act has been done by current UK Government and previous Labour Administrations, both in Holyrood and Westminster. Following the publication of the Working Together review, the First Minister announced the establishment of a fair work convention, which will provide leadership on industrial relations and encourage dialogue between unions, employers and public sector bodies in Government. The convention will exert greater Scottish influence over the minimum wage, while also champion other aspects of good industrial relations, including payment of the living wage. It will indeed be a powerful advocate of a partnership approach to industrial relationships in Scotland, and I move the amendment in my name. Much of many of the media are currently saying that politics is changing in Scotland, and if they listen to the opening speeches, we have the Labour Party advising SNP candidates in the leadership bid, and we have the Labour Party praising Tory Boris Johnson, and we actually have the Conservative Party agreeing with the Labour Party's motion and the SNP amendment. In fact, I found myself, I had to read the motion in amendment a few times, and I thought, I agree with most of what's there, so I went along the corridor to my friend Alec, assuming that I would get a huge amount of disagreement, and even Alec agreed with most of what was there. I hope that the five minutes that I have will be a bit more consensual than the previous two speakers. Thank you very much to the Labour Party for today's debate on the living wage, and we also commend the contribution that the Scottish living wage campaign has made to thousands of individuals and families in Scotland. We too welcome the rise in the living wage to £7.85 per hour from April next year, but I would like to go back to a point that I have actually been raising now since about May 1999, and that is where the Government subcontracts to the care home sector and also subcontracts to the childcare sector, because whenever we talk about low wages in this Parliament, Presiding Officer, we tend to talk about care workers and we tend to talk about childcare workers. So, for too long, the sectors have been highlighted for low pay, and I think alongside that there is a lack of value for the people who work in these sectors. At a meeting that I attended prior to the referendum, I heard that private nursery providers can be paid as low as £2.71 per hour per child to provide childcare. The person at this meeting came from Aberdeen and was highlighting the difficulties of recruiting and retaining staff, not just because of the oil jobs etc, when they were limited themselves in the amount that they could pay. I thought that this was untrue, so I asked Spice for a briefing on it. According to Spice, the National Day Nurseries Association Scotland states that nurseries are making a big loss on local authority-funded childcare places, losing an average of £1,032 per child per year on funded places for three to four year olds, and there is currently not a level playing field on per child cost allocations between public and private provision. I go back to what the minister said, which was where the SNP have power to act, they will act. I highlight that because the National Day Nurseries Association goes on to say that, in adequate funding for nursery partner providers for three and four year old places is getting worse and varies widely across 32 local authorities, the lowest rate recorded being £2.71 per hour per child. The knock-on effect is arising, the cost of parent paid for hours at nurseries are forced to make up for the losses incurred. I understand that the costings for the current expansion of preschool to 600 hours include an assumption that partner providers will be paid at £4.9 per child per hour, and I believe that that is based on a recommendation. I would like to highlight that sector, but also the care home sector. I saw Richard Simpson nodding, and I know that this is an issue that he has raised in the past. The care home sector, the independent and voluntary sector are limited in the amount that they can pay for care workers because of their funding from government. I carried out an FOI some months ago, and it was the case that many councils still fund care home places in the council at a significantly higher rate than to pay the independent and voluntary sector. Some in the independent sector per person per week was about £480, and for a place in a council home over £800. My point is that we can all agree that it is right to pay employees the living wage. I have less than 20 seconds left, but when that wage depends on public funding, the funding should be at a level to allow the operators to pay the living wage, as well as meet the quality training standards, care inspections, health and safety and staff to patient ratios. I am pleased that I have had a chance to speak in this debate in four minutes, so I will leave it there. I now move to the open debate. I call on Joan McAlpine to be followed by Ken Macintosh, very tight for time today, up to four minutes, please. I listen to James Kelly with a growing sense of bemusement, because Labour has absolutely no credibility whatsoever on this issue. The simple way to ensure that everyone gets a living wage is for the national government with responsibility for employment policy to set the minimum wage at the level of the living wage. Labour did not just fail to do that, it set the minimum wage too low in the first place and it failed to protect the minimum wage in line with inflation for three out of the last four years in which it was in government in Westminster. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation under both Labour and its Conservative allies, it would already be £7.48 per hour compared to the £6.31 per hour that is paid under the minimum wage. The Scottish Government, by contrast, has an excellent record on living wage, again, unlike Labour in office. All staff, covered by public sector pay policy, as the minister said, are paid at least the living wage, as well as a no compulsory redundancy policy as part of the social wage, which also helps low-paid families with things like free prescriptions, for example free tuition at university. The kind of policies that the Labour Party has also opposed from time to time in this Parliament, suggesting that it was something for nothing. With regard to public procurement, it is very clear that the Scottish Government has gone as far as it legally can within its existing powers to deliver fair wages to contractors. As has been most recently demonstrated in the award of the ScotRail contract Abilio, which instead of welcoming Labour condemned, the Scottish Government has, of course, explored the possibilities of making the living wage a legally enforceable aspect of every public contract. The Government went so far as to write to the EU commissioner for internal market and services, Michel Barnier, who replied that in his view, a contractual condition to pay a living wage set at a higher level than the general minimum wage is unlikely to meet the requirement not to go beyond the mandatory protection provided in the post of workers directive. There is also case law to back up that position from the court of justice of the EU. I thank Joan McAlpine for taking the intervention. Can Joan McAlpine perhaps explain why the Department of Energy and Climate Change at Westminster is able to ensure that all its workers and subcontractors are going to be paid a living wage, but the Scottish Government is not able to do that? That is not through procurement, but I will address those issues. It is not just the Scottish Government, the EU commissioner and the EU court of justice who take that view. The Labour-run Welsh Assembly take the same view. They do not pay the minimum living wage as part of their employment policy. Labour-run councils in Scotland, including Glasgow, Renfrewshire, West Lothian and Inverclyde, have all responded to FOI requests, stating that their contracts do not include a mandatory requirement that suppliers pay the living wage. They also say in response to their FOIs that that is for legal reasons. If I can quote Glasgow's 2014 reply to the FOI, at present the EU regulations do not allow the living wage as part of a mandatory requirement. That is Labour-run Glasgow council. I am in my last minute and I am in the intervention if you sit down please. That advice gives me no pleasure, Presiding Officer. For that reason, I echo the minister and I very much hope that the Smith commission will heed calls from enlightened voices in the third sector for powers not labour, of course, because they did not ask for employment policy to be devolved, but I hope that the Smith commission takes heed of more enlightened calls for employment policy to be devolved so that we can set this thing to rest. I remind members that it is only the prerogative of the chair to invite members to sit down. Of course, they can refuse interventions freely, but other actions are for the chair to dictate. Mr Macintosh, up to four minutes please. I suspect that, like me and like most members in this chamber, you walked past the Child Poverty Action Group display in the hall outside this afternoon. I also suspect that most of us will have stopped to talk and whatever our political party will have shared a common anxiety about the prospect that CPAC flagged up—that of rising poverty. It is already to our communal shame that around 220,000 children in Scotland still live in poverty today. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, that figure could increase by as much as 100,000 over the next five or six years. The question for us is, what are we going to do about it? I would argue that at least part of the answer must lie in the living wage. Again, like many others in this chamber, I have long believed in the power of work on making sure that people have a job so that they can look after themselves and those they care for. However, the nature of employment has changed so much in recent years that a job does not always guarantee a route out of poverty. In its recent report, A Fair Start for Every Child, it says that children estimate that 125,000 children in Scotland are living in families where their parents or carers are earned below the living wage. I accept that in-work poverty is a complex issue. In fact, in some ways, the problem of increased underemployment has left us damaging a legacy as the actual joblessness caused by the recession of 2008 onwards. We now have huge numbers of people working part-time who would rather have a full-time job. Thousands of Scots have been forced to take on work with no security, no prospect of advancement, and more than 130,000 Scots now work without any permanent contract. The number of workers with second jobs is on the rise. In his work in the national performance framework, I am also aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has outlined the importance that he places not just on creating jobs but on creating good, sustainable jobs. Labour colleagues will back him in that task just as we want him and the SNP to back us in promoting the living wage, using procurement or any other tools at our disposal. I am grateful for taking the intervention. I think that the member has just gone somewhere where I was trying to ask him to go. Surely what is required is not only a sustainable job and the living wage but also a full-time job, because part-time is simply losing money. I hope that Mr Don will join me in supporting the work of the STUC in the campaign for decent work, which is crucial to end exploitative conditions of employment, including zero-hours contracts and other things that the Government could do something about. An excellent report that came out last week, which I endorsed to all colleagues, was from Oxfam, entitled, Even It Up, Time to End Extreme Inequality. It argues that inequality is not just damaging to the poorest amongst us, it damages the very fabric of our society. Amongst the many findings that it highlights, it reports that, in 2014, the top 100 UK executives took home 131 times as much as their average employee. Yet only 15 of those same companies have committed to pay their employees the living wage. Reports such as that remind us that poverty and inequality are not inevitable, they are the result of policy choices that we make here in the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday was equal pay day, the day in the year in which, because of the gender pay gap, women stopped earning relative to men. The gap in pay between men and women is not narrowing, it has been widening in Scotland since 2010. It is yet again an issue that we can do something about. Say that children highlighted that, as well as supporting living wage, we could use childcare policies to develop affordable and accessible routes back to the labour market. Children first have pointed to the impact of high housing costs in creating more relative poverty in houses for children. Will you draw to her clothes, please? Presiding Officer, whether it is housing, childcare, health, social services or wages and pay policies, we have the tools here in the Scottish Parliament to make a real difference. Many thanks. Now call on Mark McDonald to be followed by Christina McKelvie up to four minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that these debates would be improved a lot if we could start from the premise of recognising firstly that it was this Government that introduced the living wage in Scotland. I pay tribute to those who campaigned for its introduction and brought it to the fore, but also that this Government has continued to increase the living wage and I welcome the latest announcement of an increase and is doing everything that it can to promote the living wage within the powers that are available to it. I am afraid to say that, for Mr McKelvie to say that because the Department for Energy and Climate Change has secured the living wage through subcontracts, it is probably through the exact same method through which ScotRail employees will receive the living wage as part of the Abelio contract, i.e. it was not bundled up in the procurement clauses but will have been reached as a result of discussions that took place and a guarantee from the employer on that basis. I think that that is the spirit in which we can move forward within the limited powers that we have until such time as we either receive the clarification or a change in decision from Europe or we get to the position where this Parliament has powers over employment policy such as a minimum wage as has been put forward in terms of some of the submissions that have gone before the Smith commission. I want to make some progress if Ms Marrow will allow me. I think that the other point that is important to make is that we have got a situation where the minimum wage has not kept up in terms of the cost of living. That is simply the case, otherwise it would be being paid right now, as John McAlpine says, at around about £7.48 if it had kept up in line with inflation or it would be at the living wage level had it been established as a living wage in terms of the legislation at Westminster. I think that the problem that I have with the approach that the Labour Party is taking on this is that they say that they are advocating an £8 minimum wage, but it will only reach £8 an hour by 2020. By the time 2020 comes around, if we take the view now that the living wage in 2014 is £7.85 an hour, that would suggest to me that the living wage is going to need to be significantly higher than £8 an hour by 2020 simply if you factor in inflation. I think that the Labour Party needs to look very carefully at what it is proposing in terms of the minimum wage and how that tallies with the commitment that it has to a living wage. The other thing that is most important—I think that Ken Macintosh, in his usual way, brought some very interesting points to the debate. I think that this is wider than just paying the living wage because there are people out there who do not have work at the moment and we have to find ways to create the jobs for those people to get into. When we see those jobs being created, we have to have a situation where those people are being paid an appropriate wage. That is why the minimum wage is the important factor. We can talk in this chamber about use of procurement and about using the powers that we have to ensure that those in the public sector are paid the living wage, but we lose sight of the fact that there are a whole range of people employed outside of those spheres who that will not capture. Until such time as the minimum wage catches up with that, that will continue to be the case. We either have a situation in which we have to hope that the powers that are in Westminster will do something radical in terms of the minimum wage and even the policy that the Labour Party has put forward that we can probably conclude is not going to get to that standard or we have the opportunity to perhaps do something radical if the powers are transferred here alongside the fair work commission that this Government is establishing. The last thing that I would say that I was interested by the point that Mary Scanlon raised around those poor individuals, those poor companies in the independent care sector. All I would say is that I find it very difficult for those companies to claim that they can't afford to pay their staff a living wage because they don't seem to have any trouble paying their chief executives a decent salary and perhaps they need to take a look at how they're distributing the funding that they receive and ensure that it's going to the front-line staff who are doing a fantastic job in many parts of Scotland. I now call Christina McKelvie to be followed by Dr Richardson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The concept of a living wage isn't too difficult to grasp. Surely, it's obvious that no one should be expected to carry out a job that doesn't offer enough money to live on. The living wage is about fairness, it's about equality, it's about human rights, the vital services to each of us needs for our health, our homes, our children, our elderly relatives, people with special needs, whether we're disabled or have a learning disability. A living wage is the right to earn enough money to support yourself and your family and to be able to do so at a reasonable level of comfort and security. So why is it so difficult for Westminster to understand? Is it really so much to ask that Ed Miliband does a bit more than drop two pence into a homeless person's paper cup when he realises the cameras are on him? David Cameron admits that he has no idea of the price of a loaf of bread. I have a bread maker, he says. He uses cotsweld crunch flour at £30 a kilo. That works out at £1.88 pence per loaf. Let's say that you have a family of four or five, so that means a cost of £8 a week just for bread. Never mind the cost, because he has a bread maker. For us, normal people, a loaf costs around £0.50 pence, depending on what offers are available, and that's the normal reality. I would say, get real Westminster. Stirring in the face is the brutality of the gap between the rich and the poor, not so much a gap as a chasm. Did you know that the richest 25 families in the UK own the equivalent of 12 million ordinary folk? The Living Wage Foundation says that there are about 60 Scottish-based companies who have signed up to the rate, including Standard Life, RBS and the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, who are all accredited employers. However, it's not enough. We need to do more, much more, to prove that work is the surest way out of poverty and to win the buy-in of many, many more companies. Research shows clearly that living wage is good for business, the quality of work is enhanced and absenteeism is reduced, recruitment retention is better. For families, a living wage can mean the difference between being able to feed the kids or running up decks that they can never pay. The living wage is one important component of this Scottish Government's determination to create a further, more prosperous and more equal society, a Scotland that begins to close the gap between the rich and the poor, a Scotland that values its entire workforce. Let's compare that to Labour. James Kelly has yet to tell us what Labour's plans are for the living wage. £8 by 2020? That's not bold and it's certainly not courageous. In February 2012, the Labour Administration at Midlothian Council rejected the SNP proposal for a living wage. Those workers had to wait until an SNP administration came into power. The very first decision that they took was to introduce the living wage. Although Labour whined from the sidelines with fake concern for the workers and did nothing in Government, the SNP Government implemented the living wage for 180,000 workers and Government, its agencies and the NHS, Labour voted for welfare caps. Although Labour whined from the sidelines about the illegal amendments that the SNP Government made sure that the living wage is paid to workers at all levels of the ScotRail franchise, I have yet to hear a Labour Party member say, especially Mr Kelly, that they welcome that fact. Although Labour supports Tories to run Scotland, they could not even ensure that their own Smith commission submission went far enough to give this Parliament the power over the minimum wage or the living wage or any employment policies. We will take no lessons from the Labour Scottish branch office on supporting Scottish workers. The SNP Government will put them first, will always put them first, and we will have a living wage with or without Labour's fake concern. Thanks. I now call on Dr Richard Simpson to be followed by Nigel Dodd. I start by welcoming him and the opportunity to speak in this debate. However, after that last speech, I really wonder—I must ask Christine where she gets her loaf for 50p, because it is not the same world that I live in—a 50p loaf would be brilliant. The lack of a living wage under employment, as Ken Macintosh has said, and zero-hour contracts are terms that we should strive to banish to the history books. How can it be that so many hard-working people are either living on a breadline due to the failure of employers to pay a living wage or find themselves having to take multiple jobs? It is appalling that one-fifth the Scottish working population has paid less than £7.85 an hour, and it can be no surprise therefore that many of the lowest-paid staff are having all too often to rely on food banks. 20 per cent of the referrals to the trustal trust last year were from people on low pay. We can no longer accept that men and women going out to do a hard graft can then find themselves almost immediately after payday, struggling to keep their heads above water or resorting to payday loans or worse. Many of my constituents have shared in the light in the last few days of Creative Scotland awarding £100 million of taxpayers' money in the form of grants to arts organisations across the whole of Scotland, including the McRoberts Centre in my area having a £3.2 million grant. When public money is awarded, what safeguards are in place by the Government and the bodies that they fund to distribute the public money to make sure that those companies and organisations are responsible employers and paying a living wage to all their staff? I wonder therefore if the minister shares my deep concern that in the case of the many hundreds of organisations that are in receipt of the public money from Creative Scotland, they are not paying their staff the living wage. I thought that the minister was going to intervene, but she is not. Why has the Scottish Government not taken action to stop this from happening? I hope that my constituents will question the organisations and the person selling the ticket and ushering them into a seat to say, are they being paid the £7.85 an hour, and, if not, press the management to do so. All cultural bodies are subject to and must comply fully with the Scottish Government's public sector pay policy, which includes payment of the Scottish living wage as a minimum for all staff. In that case, those questions are particularly pertinent, because the information that I have is that this is actually not happening. So it will be really interesting to see if that, in fact, is the case. We will have to get spiced to check it up for it. I want to move on briefly to social care in the time remaining to me, Mary Scanlon's right. It has been a prolonged interest. We have debated it in the first Parliament about the fact that unless you actually have staff that are valued and that part of that valuation is waged, then we are never going to improve the social care contract. That is absolutely vital to our future. The Stirling Council is currently encouraging all its providers to sign up to the unison ethical care charter, and we are examining aspects of that charter to see what can be delivered just now. There is no doubt that living wages, as others have said, have boost morale. East Renfrewshire has all its independent care providers providing the living wage now. Those providers have shown that absenteeism has dropped, that agency staff numbers of requirement have dropped, that their need to recruit new staff has dropped because retention is better. Those all offset the costs of the living wage. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I want to commend Stirling Council, who last year backdated the living wage. Christine McKelvie quoted an SNP group that didn't get it in Midlothian. Well, the SNP group with Stirling didn't introduce it. It took a labour group to introduce it. We can all quote areas where it is not working. 86 per cent of those living wage people were women. I think that is a critical fact in promoting the living wage. Any thanks. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I would like to follow particularly where Mackintosh went earlier. I need to start with Richard Simpson and pass through. Note that my constituency, like I fear all of our constituencies, has food banks. I asked myself why, and when I get the answer, I get quite cross. There's not much that makes me cross actually. What Richard Simpson failed to pick up, and I'm sorry he did, was that almost half of those who were researched by the Trust for Trust didn't mention low income specifically, but mentioned benefit payments. I do think that we cannot talk about the living wage and poverty within our society without recognising that a great deal of the problems that present themselves immediately to food banks are due to the way the benefit system has been messed around with quite simply, and it's still not working properly. If I can reflect on that and just go back to thinking about what does that mean, if you can't feed your children, what are you doing about heating the house or buying clothes? Food is actually quite high up the list. People who are quite literally without food are in a seriously bad place. They're children in a very, very bad place, and it's got to the point, of course, where they then turn to payday loans. Boy, does that now mean the never, never, because those loans will, frankly, largely never be repaid. We need to sort wages, yes, but we also need to sort benefits, and on the way through, of course, we need to do something about housing quality. I'd like, Presiding Officer, to spend my time looking just slightly further afield and looking at the research that's been done more widely. I note, and John Swinney commented when introducing the budgets about what Adam Smith had to say, I note that the wealth of nations also, and I quote, no society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. I think even then he knew that equality was important. I don't often bring a visual age, but the spirit level should be familiar to absolutely everybody, and I say that as a challenge. If members have not read that, do not know what that says, they really, really should. It's world-leading research done relatively recently because the data has only recently become available, and it compares most of the developed nations on the planet and, incidentally, all of the American states. It takes comparable social data and it demonstrates beyond any debate worth having that a more equal society is better for absolutely everybody, be you poor or the richest member of that society. It really, therefore, is incumbent on absolutely everybody to understand that and to act. Why would government not act? I think the only reason that I can see is because they believe it is in their personal interests not to act, and it might just be that those Governments and the Government in Westminster is certainly one of them who have sufficient wealth themselves personally may see that this is not the way to act. They would still be wrong, and I think that what's in there should really be understood by everybody if we possibly can. I'd like in the remaining time, Presiding Officer, just to pick up on the point that Ken Macintosh made about the Oxfam Even It Up report, which I thought was a brilliant piece of work, and again I would commend that possibly to the Executive Summary to everyone who has not yet read it. Trickle Down doesn't work. What it does need is some international public policy, particularly on taxation, and I would leave us with a quote from the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Without deliberate policy interventions, high levels of inequality tend to be self-perpetuating. They lead to the development of political and economic institutions that work to maintain the political and economic and social privileges of the elite. We have it from the top. We have an international problem, but we have to solve it locally. We now move to closing speeches, and I call on Alex Johnson up to four minutes, please, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. My old friend, David McLeachie, will be whittle in his grave tonight because the Conservatives propose to abstain on both the Labour motion and the Government amendment. Worse still, the reason why we're going to abstain on both is that we actually pretty much agree with both of them, and we don't want to take sides. However, we have a position which we have to make clear, and that is that we have grave concerns about where we could go if we get the issue of living wage wrong. It is vital that we pay appropriate attention to making sure that we don't drive up wages in certain sectors of the economy and leave other sectors behind. A divide in our economy is something that serves no purpose and one that we should avoid, and that's why I would commend the Government for its very strong stance during the procurement bill earlier this year, to make sure that it did not have the effect of doing exactly that. The Labour Party says in its motion today that the living wage in the private sector should be supported and actively promoted. I fully agree with that, but my concern would have been that if Labour had got their will and forced in a clause to the procurement bill requiring the payment of that living wage, many companies in Scotland would have been excluded from public contracts, and I would not wish to have seen that happen. The reason why that difference in opinion took place was that there is perhaps a failure to understand the true nature of certain parts of the Scottish economy. I would like to take the opportunity to say a few words about the tens of thousands of Scots, many working within Scotland small and micro businesses who will never achieve the living wage, who will probably never achieve the minimum wage and are working for less than that today, and they are the proprietors. Many of Scotland's small businesses today operate on a model which allows people to work at significantly less than what we would call the minimum wage. Many of them are in a rural economy. Many of them are in towns and retail in the catering sector. Many of them are family businesses. In fact, many of those family businesses are in the hands of and run by members of our ethnic minority communities. Those are people who struggle to make a living today. Where they employ others, it is necessary for them to control their wages. That is why we have to dig deep. We have to avoid inequality by going to the very bottom of our economy and working our way back up to the top. It is essential that we focus our efforts ideally on a cross-party basis and one that does not lead to political slagging marches across the chamber, to work together in the chamber and across the United Kingdom to push up wages at the low end of the wage scale, to ensure that we can deliver results for the least well-off in society, the working poor, and deliver that on an across-the-board basis. What we are trying to do today from the Conservative side of the chamber is to indicate that we are not against that effort. We support that priority and we will look for ways to achieve it. However, we will bring to that discussion our understanding of how the economy operates and the desire to ensure that whatever happens, nobody is left behind. I think that Nigel Don and Ken Macintosh very usefully made contributions that lowered the temperature of the debate by rightly focusing on the impact of low pay on children and families. With that in mind, I want to highlight the briefing that was sent to us all by children's first, who very eloquently put it that we need to ensure that parents are better paid and have less of a need to work longer hours in order to make work pay, because that puts a real strain on relationships with parents struggling to spend any meaningful time with their children. We also know that low pay also results in poor access to mainstream financial services, which in turn results in reliance on services such as payday loans, causing issues with debt and further depressing already low incomes. Families also in low paid work are increasingly suffering from food poverty, as mentioned by many members, and are having to rely on food banks to be able to feed their families. We know that the cost of heating and lighting bills are also pushing far too many families into poverty. We are all agreed that work is indeed the best way out of poverty, and there were certainly a few members who very rightly made the connection between the living wage and equal pay. I very much, as the women's employment minister, want to see the resolution of equal pay cases in both the public and private sector. As a Government, we have offered the facility a consent to borrow—in other words, capitalisation—to insist our partners in local government with settling those equal pay claims, not just now. I have also noticed that, in the UK, the second largest retailer, ASDA, is now facing a massive legal action in the largest of its kind. Whether in the public or the private sector, as an employment minister, I very much call on all those organisations to get this matter sorted. I hope, through the good work of the fair work commission, that we can indeed build a consensus working in partnership between employers and trade unions, and pursue that vision of increased employability but also tackling inequality in the workplace. I, of course, bitterly regret that this Parliament does not have the powers to make it happen. Mr Kelly spoke about DEC in his opening remarks. I very much understand what the UK Government Department is doing, and I understand why it is doing it. I also understand what it is not doing. It is not making it mandatory to pay the living wage as part of procurement. It is one very small part of the UK Government, and the UK Government do not pay all of its staff the living wage. It is indeed the Scottish Government, the first Government, the only Government in the UK that pays all of its staff the living wage. Maybe later on, we have 3,000 staff that have benefited from the living wage increase, and 30 per cent of Scottish Government staff will benefit from the minimum increase of £300. After ensuring that all of our own staff are paid the living wage, part of our public policy is now considering all of our contracts through pilots on the living wage through procurement. That is having very positive results indeed and will help us to move forward and inform statutory guidance, which was very welcomed by key figures. I was very interested that no-one in the Labour benches mentioned Ed Miliband and his proposal to increase the national minimum wage by £8 by the year 2020. I wonder if that is because Ed Miliband is now more unpopular than David Cameron in Scotland. Of course, we know that 65 per cent of Labour supporters no longer feel that Labour represents them. I think that it is very salutary that the former Labour minister, Alan Milburn, who chairs the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, described Ed Miliband's proposals as not at all ambitious, as it implies a slower rate of increase in the national minimum wage from 2014 to 2020 than there was between 1999 and 2014. The shameful part of the UK Government's record, whether it is Tory or Labour, is that the national minimum wage has not increased in real terms for a decade, because if it had, 63,000 people in Scotland would have earned £600 a year more over the past five years. The problem with everything that we have tried to do in procurement is that the national minimum wage is set in law, and it is at a lower rate than the living wage, which is not set in law. If I can end, Presiding Officer, by just kindly reminding my colleagues and Labour benches that it was they, not I, who stood with the Tories to campaign against this Parliament having all powers over employment. My challenge to them is whether they join with us now in seeking all the powers to tackle low pay in this country and to equip the Scottish Parliament with all the powers to create more jobs, to tackle inequality and to protect public services. Will they, like us, join with the major voices and the major third sector organisations calling for the devolution of the national minimum wage, key welfare policies and significant tax powers, reflecting that broad consensus that exists in Scotland, that we need to be setting our own direction? We have an opportunity to act where Westminster has failed. Thank you very much. I call on Jenny Marra to wind up the debate, Ms Marra, until 5 o'clock please. Thank you Presiding Officer. Labour is delighted to introduce this debate today in Living Wage Week. I would say to the cabinet secretary that she makes her first mistake of today, but I think of her whole political career and her deputy leadership campaign, in fact, by confusing power with political will to make change happen, because all of her colleagues today have made this confusion that if you have the power vested in one place, then change and change for the better will happen. I would like to correct the cabinet secretary on that today, that there needs to be political will and economic and social analysis, which her party does not have to raise wages and make social change. Power is not exactly a direct answer to that. No, I will take interventions later. James Kelly made three asks in his opening speech this afternoon. The first is that the Scottish Government used the power that they have in their hands to use their procurement to give the living wage to contractors. He also made a second ask for a living wage unit in government—a very easy thing for Angela Constance to commit to this afternoon. His third ask was for the Government to put together—I will give away—a living wage strategy. I come on to the first point about procurement and contractors. The SNP this afternoon has said that they do not have the legal power to do this. That is simply not true. It becomes clearer by the day and by the hour that they have the power in their hands. We came here for a debate six months ago, and I said to Nicola Sturgeon that she had the power. She said that she did not, but Alex Salmond was going off to Brussels on Monday to ask for it. He went to Brussels, and he was told by the EU that there was no European law in place, because he cited European law. There was no European law in place that prevents the Scottish Government from going ahead with its proposal to give the living wage to contractors. No reason at all. That was reported in the press. I will give away in a minute. I will give away. Just this week, we saw the Department for Energy and Climate Change give the living wage to all employees, including third-party contractors. Will the cabinet secretary accept that cleaners down in Westminster and DECC will get the living wage, but the cleaners down in Atlantic Keeper, her Government, will not get the living wage? I wonder if Ms Marra would find it in her hard heart to welcome the announcement made by the First Minister last week about a fair work convention that is about how we can move forward together on many of the issues raised by Mr Kelly. Will she not accept some facts that the correspondence from Commissioner Barnier, the posting of Worker's Director, the Rufot European Court of Justice case law all identify that the problem is that our national minimum wage is set in law and that it is lower than the living wage? Surely to goodness she can accept that the real issue is about this Parliament having powers over the national minimum wage. How do you affect change if you don't have the power to do so? No. I do not accept what the cabinet secretary just said. Of course we welcome the work commission, that is a very good thing, but the decision by the ECJ was not on contractors, it was on collective agreement, not mandatory legislation. The decision in that case was actually completely different, and the Deputy First Minister cited it in this debate six months ago. It is not relevant to the point. Or, if it was, why would the Department for Energy and Climate Change go ahead and award the living wage to their contractors? Would the member not accept that the agreement that was reached by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, like the agreement that was reached by the Scottish Government, was not about procurement? That is the point that has been made repeatedly during this debate. It was not part of the procurement process. I would say to the member that the Department for Energy and Climate Change is awarding the living wage to all employees, including third party contractors. If they can do it, then the Scottish Government can do it as well. It was just last week that the SNP keeps shouting for more powers, but they will not use the power within their own hands. It was just last week when I argued that they should award contracts to sheltered workplaces in Scotland using the precious procurement powers in their hands. They refuse to do so. They issue guidance. Again today, the cabinet secretary says that she is only prepared to go as far as to issue guidance to contractors to pay the living wage. She is not prepared in the face of legal evidence to actually go ahead and do it. Let me clarify for the record that there has been much said this afternoon about the Labour party's record. In 1997, the Labour Party won a majority across the United Kingdom. In the face of opposition from the Conservatives, from business, from the CBI and many quarters against the minimum wage, we marched through the House of Commons, through the lobbies that night. Where were the SNP? On the most ground-breaking anti-poverty wage-related legislation that we have seen in this country in decades, the SNP were asleep in their beds. I will take no lessons from the cabinet secretary or any of our back ventures on our record on this. For nine years— Mark McDonald. I wonder if the member can advise the chamber. Did Tony Blair vote in that very same division? I seem to recall that he was absent from it. Jenny Marra. If that is the best that the member can come up with, then I am very disappointed that it might not have folks that Mr Salmond is not here for. Here we are again. The legal case on this is absolutely clear, and it becomes clearer again with the actions of the Department for Energy and Climate Change this week. Despite this, the SNP still refuses to use the generous power of procurement to raise wages in this country and to raise the wages for people who are even cleaning their offices down in Edinburgh. The SNP says that they need more powers, but they are not even using the powers that they have on important poverty wages in this country. It is an absolute disgrace, and I think that they should be voting for the Labour motion this evening. That concludes the debate on the living wage. We now move to the next side of business, which is consideration of business motion 11409. In the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, we are setting out a business motion. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press a request to speak. In moving the business motion, I think that there is some very important business on Tuesday. We have human rights on Wednesday and welfare benefits for people living with disabilities. I was not sure that I was going to have some extra time here, and on Thursday, it is a very important debate on progressive workplace policies to boost productivity, growth and jobs that mis-conscience will lead on. That was admirable, minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 11409, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next side of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I would ask Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion 114010 on the designation of a lead committee, and motion 11411 on the office of the clerk. The questions on these motions will put decision time to which we now come. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 11395.1, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, which seeks to amend motion 11395, in the name of Elaine Murray, on tackling sectorianism, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 11395.1, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, is as follows. Yes, 68, no, 49, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion 11395, in the name of Elaine Murray, as amended, on tackling sectorianism, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on motion 11395, in the name of Elaine Murray, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 68, no, 50, there were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. The next question is that amendment 11398.2, in the name of Angela Constance, which seeks to amend motion 11398, in the name of James Kelly, on the living wage, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 11398.2, in the name of Angela Constance, is as follows. Yes, 64, no, 39, there were 15 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is that amendment 11398.1, in the name of Mary Scanlon, which seeks to amend motion 11398, in the name of James Kelly, on the living wage, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 11398.1, in the name of Mary Scanlon, is as follows. Yes, 15, no, 103, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion 11398, in the name of James Kelly, as amended, on the living wage, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on motion 11398, in the name of James Kelly, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 64, no, 37, there were 17 abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion 11410, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the designation of a lead committee, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion 11411, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the office of the clerk, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.