voirdd cyffredinol o HOWS- confidence that the Scottish Government has nothing to do with what I did for myself and sitting on the chair. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15760 in the name of Murdo Fraser on work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press the request-speak button now. Murdo Fraser, through the motion, will speak to removing the committee on behalf of the Economy Energy and Tourism Committee. On behalf of the Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, we are grateful for the opportunity to debate what has been for us an extensive, exciting and compelling inquiry into work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market. I can at the outset take the opportunity to express my thanks to all those who gave evidence to the committee, either taking the time to do so in writing or appearing in person. Particularly, we would like to thank the members of the public who contributed to our online survey, which we will say a little bit more about in a moment, and thank the members of the public and the employers who came to the Parliament day session that we held in Paisley, which I think was a very useful means of reaching a range of opinions that might not otherwise have been available to the committee and I think was appreciated and enjoyed by the people who attended. I also want to put on record my thanks to our team of clerks for their assistance to our colleagues at Spice and finally to my fellow committee members for their co-operative approach. As this is probably the final chance that I will get to say this in the chamber this session as a convener of the committee, I would like to thank my fellow committee members for all their support and enthusiasm and general good behaviour over the past five years. In introducing the debate on behalf of the committee, I would like to begin by explaining what we knew before our inquiry, before sharing how we engaged with Scotland's workforce and some of the findings of the inquiry. We knew at the start that Scotland was emerging from a recession that began in 2008. We knew that employment levels in Scotland were at their highest level since before the recession and we knew that those employment levels had continued to increase steadily since 2010. We also knew, however, that part-time working, the use of zero-hours contracts and temporary employment were also on the increase. An inquiry that the committee did into under-employment in 2013 highlighted those trends and concluded that under-employment should be considered alongside unemployment as detrimental to a productive economy. We wanted to explore what lay behind the recent promising employment figures. In its health inequalities report, which was published just over a year ago, the health and sport committee found that socioeconomic status and work quality are key contributors to health outcomes. That committee's report suggested that simply encouraging economic growth in itself might not reduce health inequalities. As a result, one of our key aims was to explore the effect of poor quality work on health and wellbeing. First, we had to address the question, what is poor quality work? Academics and professionals varied in their definitions, but the public, whom we invited to share their experiences using an online form, seemed clear that low pay, poor management and insecure hours made for poor quality work. Although most of the 600 people who responded thankfully described their job as good, the majority also reported that their job had affected their health. Most people felt that their jobs had deteriorated in the last five years, with many describing poor progression opportunities and increased workload. I thank all the witnesses and the people who wrote to us, met us and contributed to the inquiry. That illustrates how important fair work is to the people of Scotland on the scale of the response that we had. One person, sharing their experience of zero-hours contracts, put it quite simply when they said, I cannot live like this, not knowing how much money I am earning to keep my family. At the Parliamentary Day in Paisley in September, we spoke to local employers, employers and support services, and we heard similar stories. We also heard, however, that good management, secure employment and a say in how the workplace was run could make all the difference. It is clearly not all about pay. In formal evidence and more recently in work that we carried out on social enterprises, employee-owned businesses and co-operatives, we heard that employee engagement could bolster a happy, healthy and more productive workforce. It became clear then that the use of fair working practices could be the answer to ensuring worker wellbeing and improving labour productivity. Professor Chris Warhurst introduced us to the concept of high-road and low-road economies, and the economy can lean towards high-skills and high-wages, or towards low-skills and low-wages. Evidence suggests that Scotland has a recent history of favouring the low-road. The committee was struck by the need to, as Professor Warhurst put it, pave the high-road and block the low-road. Taking the high-road as the title of our report highlights his underpinning message of all our recommendations. Those will long memories might recall a Scottish soap opera of a similar name and perhaps a matter for our creative industries inquiry instead. We are pleased to see that the Scottish Government is already lining up the cobblestones to pave the high-road. We welcome the establishment of the Fair Work Convention and I hope that the session 5 economy committee in whatever guise will take a keen interest in both the outcomes of the convention and the future policy impacts of its work. As the cabinet secretary put it in evidence to us, Scotland is already punching above its weight on encouraging businesses to sign up to the living wage. The public sector in particular has taken that message to heart. That is promising, but we heard concerns about whether those private businesses who fulfil public sector contracts can meet the challenge. We did hear powerful evidence from those working in the care sector that they would like to pay more, or they would like to pay the living wage, but they simply cannot make the sums add up because of the amount of money that they are being paid from public agencies and local authorities for care services. I know that in the recent budget, the Scottish Government has announced additional funding to help to promote the living wage in the care sector. We will be interested to learn more from the Scottish Government about how that agenda can be progressed and how we square that circle with businesses that do want to pay more who have that ambition but feel constrained because of money coming from the public sector. More generally, we would like to hear more from the Scottish Government about how that and other fair working practices can be passed down through the public procurement chain. That would help to pave the higher road. The committee also welcomed the Scottish business pledge, but we cannot ignore that the fact that businesses have not been following over themselves to sign up to it. We are concerned that the language used to describe the pledge is not clear. Here we come to the question of blocking the low road. We would like to see a definition of exploitative zero hours contracts that makes it clear that those are not welcome in a fair work Scotland and the businesses that use those will not gain business pledge accreditation. Indeed, it was clear when we took evidence that the definition of what was an exploitative zero hours contract was not clear. That is an issue that I raised with the First Minister when she came to the convener's group and she could not give me a definitive answer at that point. She subsequently wrote to me as convener of the committee. We welcomed that clarity, but of course there was a whole period before that. We were asking businesses to sign up to the business pledge when we were not clear and they could not be clear what that definition was. It is important that that clarity is obtained and it is important that we do not have that confusion arising again in any similar or related matter. We know that the business pledge is being actively promoted by the enterprise agencies and here we have further concerns that the low road is far from being blocked. We have all heard in recent years negative press about alleged poor working conditions at Amazon's Scottish sites and yet this is a firm that receives significant regional selective assistance grant through Scottish enterprise when establishing itself in Scotland. The question that we have to ask is what expectation lies now on Amazon to use fair work practices? Do we expect it to reject the use of zero-hours contracts, for example, which it has become so notoriously associated with? The committee would like to see the Scottish Government review the process for awarding these big ticket grounds. We want to see funding go to employers who will not only create jobs in Scotland but will create fair and appropriately paid and secure jobs in Scotland. In conclusion, the committee would like to see fair work principles embedded across policies covering employment practices, procurement and business support. We believe firmly that in doing that we can encourage a more productive, more resilient economy for Scotland and we hope to see a commitment to those aims reflected in Scotland's performance framework. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary's response to what I am hoping will be a lively debate that holds the wellbeing of the Scottish workforce at its heart. I thank the committee for its report and for the invitation to me to give evidence to the inquiry. I listened to Murdo Fraser with some interest, and I have noted down a number of specific points. I think that one of them almost sounded like a conservative call for increased public expenditure, which might go down in history, as perhaps the first time I have heard that. Murdo Fraser said that he was only speaking in his role as committee convener. I say, Presiding Officer, that since my appointment as Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training, promoting fair work has been a key focus of the Government. It is very helpful that the committee has taken up through the inquiry. Our programme for government sets out our vision for creating a fairer Scotland. We are committed to promoting a culture of fair work. The committee's report highlights key areas where the Scottish Government has already taken action. One of those is, of course, the living wage, which was one of the issues raised by Murdo Fraser. I am sure that many in the chamber today have, like me, heard first-hand what the living wage can offer to people working in Scotland. I ought to say that when I talk about the living wage, Presiding Officer, I am talking about the true living wage and not the enhanced minimum wage, which the Government is currently in the process of introducing for over 25s. It has made a difference to individuals from being able to afford to decorate a nursery, for example, to having savings in the bank, perhaps to go on holiday. Those are the simple things that without the living wage would just not have been attainable for some people. Of course, it is not just the employees who can benefit from the living wage. I have often spoken of the benefits that it can bring to both employers and the wider economy. Indeed, it is not unusual to find employers who will tell you the difference that it has made moving to living wage, to their own productivity, to the reduced turnover of staff, to the reduced absenteeism and its part and parcel of the whole package of work. The Scottish living wage initiative is now accredited as of yesterday over 477 organisations in total, which means that we are on course to reach our 500 target by the end of March. The wider picture on wages is positive, too. According to a resolution foundation analysis published in January, pay in Scotland has grown faster than any other nation or region in the UK over the past two decades. We know that Scotland has the second highest proportion of employees paid the living wage or more as compared to the countries and regions of the UK. Last month, we made a decisive commitment to enable payment of the living wage in the social care sector. That is an important action that we believe will help to deliver fairer workplaces and better quality care in a sector sometimes characterised by low pay. Although I have to say that there are companies operating in the care sector who are signed up accredited living wage employers. I encourage other employers to follow that lead. It is not just about wages because, of course, fair work is about much more than that. The results in the workplace can often be tangible. Another area in which the committee welcomed the work of the Scottish Government was procurement. Again, the convener discussed that in his opening remarks. We are seeking to address a number of fair work issues through public contracts. From 1 November last year, all public bodies must consider how they can address fair work practices when preparing tenders to go out to competition. The new statutory guidance makes it clear that the Scottish Government sees payment of the living wage to be a significant indicator of an employer's commitment to fair work practices. That is one of the clearest ways an employer can demonstrate that it takes a positive approach to its workforce. However, the convener is absolutely right to point out that that is not the only measure. We are sending a clear message that exploitative practices such as the inappropriate use of zero-hour contracts and umbrella companies are not acceptable. You indicated that there is fair use of zero-hour contracts. Could you give us a definition of what would be fair use of zero-hour contracts? There has been quite a discussion around that. I am not quite sure, because I am not up on my football and budge from hearts, to make the point that she uses zero-hour contracts about half a dozen times a year to get staff in for very specific events that she would not be able to put them on a broader contract. We just have to be a little bit careful that we do not expand the definition so far as to include things that people consider to be perfectly okay. It is a difficulty of definition. I appreciate that. It was a specific issue raised by the committee in connection with the Scottish Business Pledge. We did have an interesting discussion at the committee on that. The programme for government makes clear that, in 2016, we will continue to raise awareness of the Scottish Business Pledge. More than 200 businesses have signed up since May last year. I want to see many more, and I welcome the committee's broad endorsement of it. I also acknowledge the committee's further advice in that area. For example, text on zero-hours contracts taken from the committee's report is now being added to the pledge website. Although zero-hours contracts can, in some cases, have offered one example, offer people the flexibility that they want, too often they become exploitative, such as when employers deny staff regular or sufficient working hours or unfairly penalise them for being unavailable or not accepting offers of work. The Government is taking steps to ensure that we are leading by example. We do not directly employ people on zero-hours contracts. I am going to run out of time. I wanted to say something about the pregnancy and maternity discrimination issues. We do not have Scottish-specific figures yet, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission reported that, across Britain, over one in 10 of new and expectant mothers reported having been dismissed, made compulsorily redundant, where others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly that they felt they had to leave their jobs. That is an issue that many of us will have assumed disappeared decades ago and, in fact, it does not seem to have. Now, it is unlikely that Scottish figures will be much at variance from this, so we have moved to take some action that I announced a few days ago, and I hope that members will go and have a look at that, because it is important that we take that seriously as part and parcel of the whole fair work portfolio again. I will not say anything about the trade union bill, because I want to say something very quickly about the fair work convention. It will be reporting just in a few short weeks. I think that the committee's report has been very useful for the fair work convention as well. There is a lot of material relevant to the work that the convention is doing. It will report to us. That will provide a practical framework for employers, employees and others, and, of course, we will go into the new Parliament with those recommendations in place, and they will be given full consideration. In the meantime, I look forward to continuing to work with all interested parties to promote fair work in Scotland. Just in my dying seconds, Murdo Fraser discussed the issue of Amazon. I hope that he is happy to hear that I will be visiting Amazon staff tomorrow to discuss with them some of the issues that have been raised directly about their practices. Many thanks to the committee for what I think is an important and timely report building on the previous work that the committee did on under-employment. Just how necessary a piece of work is, I think, is brought home by the rather alarming extract in the report from the cabinet secretary's evidence, where the cabinet secretary told the committee that she did not like any of the definitions that she had seen of fair work and felt that it was highly subjective, suggesting that it was much easier to see a bad job than to provide a hard and fast definition of a good job or fair work. Therefore, the cabinet secretary for fair work admits that she is unsure what fair work actually is. There is a temptation to go down the kind of rhetorical route of asking whether the cabinet secretary for education knows what education is or the cabinet secretary for justice has any idea there. I think that that would be a bit unfair, because I felt that there was some welcome honesty from the cabinet secretary for fair work around the complexities of the area. It would be good if the Government demonstrated the same honesty when it came to the monthly reporting of the labour market statistics. We see when those statistics come out very often—quite sometimes hyperbolic claims—about return to pre-recession levels of employment, record employment in particular areas and so on. The committee report makes it very clear that there is rather less of that than meets the eye. The report says that the majority of evidence suggests deterioration in job quality. In particular, we heard of an increase in poor quality, low-paid and insecure work and a worrying prevalence of the use of exploitative zero-hours contracts. In other words, there may be more jobs, but the quality of those jobs leaves a great deal to be desired. That is something that, in those benches, we have been saying for a long time now that, when it comes to the labour market statistics, we have to look behind the headlines, not just because the numbers tell us something different, but because behind those headlines are the real-lived life experience of many people in Scotland struggling to get by on low-quality, poorly-paid jobs. I was struck in the report, as you might expect, by one example that happens to come from my constituency in East Lothian, a legal secretary who explains that she was taken on in 2008, with the promise of being trained as a paralegal. However, when the recession hit in seven years later, she is still an unqualified secretary. She cannot get a job elsewhere, but she has not progressed in this one. I am given too much responsibility, but no reward. She paid just enough not to be entitled to any tax credits, but not enough to live off or work towards a mortgage or pay off any debt. The company that I work for takes full advantage of the fact that people are terrified to leave, but there is no future in the role. That is the reality behind those statistics. We should not lose sight of the recommendations in the report about improving the quality of the labour market statistics. The cabinet secretary is quoted in the report accepting that the data is very broad brush and she agrees that it would be hard to break it down to a useful level and that even somebody working one or two hours a week would be classed as being in employment. It is very welcome that the report I hope that Ian Gray is going to acknowledge with me that the data that comes is the UK-wide data broken down for Scotland. Those are official statistics on which all of employment information is based across the whole of the UK. I do accept that, but two points to be made are, firstly, that the report makes clear that the Scottish Government does in fact pay on us to do additional work in order to provide more detail at Scottish level. The capacity is there to improve the statistics that we have. Secondly, the caution that needs to be applied when political points are made on the basis of the statistics in which the report says does not always bear examination. However, it is fair to acknowledge the work that the cabinet secretary and her colleagues have done towards increasing fair work, particularly around the fair work convention. However, I also just want to do the thing that the cabinet secretary ran out of time and was not able to do. There is no doubt that the possibility and chances of work being fair in high quality are increased in those sectors in which we have good trade union organisation and recognition from employers. It is extremely welcome that one of the final recommendations of the bill is that this is not quite how it is put in the committee report. This Parliament should continue with its opposition to the new trade union legislation, whether we do that by changing standing orders or by addressing the human rights issues around the implementation of the legislation in Scotland and by the Scottish Government. That should be and will be central to the degree that we can promote fair work in Scotland. I think that this was a pretty comprehensive and effective report produced by the economy committee. It took a huge amount of evidence, 11 panels by my account, a full day away in Paisley, and more than 600 responses. It is important to engage with experts who would not be considered to be academic experts and engage with a number of people who have probably spoken to the Parliament for the first time. All of that should be welcomed, and that engagement is reflected in the overall quality and substance of the report that was ultimately produced. In terms of the overall conclusion, some of them, I guess, were predictable and some of them were disappointingly predictable. The overall deterioration in job quality since 2008 is something that all members across the chamber, I suspect, will recognise and will have seen in their own constituencies. We should all be doing what we can to try and reverse those statistics. However, there was some light at the end of the tunnel most recently about a month or so after the report was published, because it was published on 14 January. The February 2016 labour market statistics coming out from the Scottish Government at least had some elements in there that could give us something to think that we might be last on the right track. If you look at under-employment, up until the recession of 2008, it hovered around about 10 per cent mark. However, after that, it shot up to 13 per cent, and it has broadly stayed there for a five-year period. However, last year, for the most recent statistics, it appears to have dropped from 13 per cent down to 12 per cent, which does not sound like a huge amount, but you are therefore talking about tens of thousands of people. In terms of looking at the shape of the graph, it would appear that if those statistics follow in the same vein over the next year or two, we could have at least a fighting chance of getting back to the under-employment levels that we had prior to recession. Although the results, I am sure, are correct from the committee, it looks on the face of it, at least on the most recent set of statistics, that we might be making movements in the right direction. I particularly like the quote that Murdo Fraser came out with today, paving the high road and blocking the low road. Today, at least, when he mentioned it, though he did not try to claim credit for it himself, he did quite rightly attribute it to Professor Warhurst, unlike in previous private conversations where he gave the impression that it was his own idea. The committee, as he whole, quite rightly wanted to see fair pay, security, safe conditions, respect, training and engagement. What I would say to the Government, and what I would be genuinely interested to hear in the closing submission, is just a bit of the detail in terms of the Government's response to some of the specific recommendations in the report. I am aware that there is not a formal written response yet, and I understand that the deadline is some two weeks hence, but given that we are debating the subject today, it would be good, I think, useful for the chamber and for Parliament to get a flavour of the likely Government's response to some of the specific issues in the report and other areas where we can make progress now instead of waiting until the next session of Parliament. Clearly, some of them will take until the next session. Some of them may well rely upon the report that we get in a couple of weeks' time in relation to the fair work convention, but perhaps there are items in there that the Government can respond to positively today and say quite clearly that they back them, or perhaps ones that they quite specifically do not back. For example, there were points in there about how we genuinely extend and improve the labour force data that we get. The exchange between the minister and Mr Gray pointed out some of the difficulties, but is there a way, if we put our heads together, of getting a more Scotland-specific workforce and job quality survey? I think that all parties would welcome that, because if we want to propose the right cures to the ills that we face, we need to ensure the accuracy of the data and so that we get the accuracy of the diagnosis. If we are reading the wrong data, or if we are not getting the right level of data that we require, it is more difficult for political parties and Government to get the right results. What is the Government's response to that? In relation to the national indicator for the national performance framework, what is the Government's specific response to that? It seems on the face of it a pretty sensible and fair conclusion that we ought to have some form of fair work index as one of the national indicators. We have 50 national indicators. Can we have 51, for example, if the Government sees fit, or do we have to remove one of the indicators because the number is capped at 50? I am not sure what the answer is to that question, but, again, in principle, what is the Government's response to that? Time is running out from my opening contribution, but I would close by saying quite simply that it was an excellent report. The more details that we get from the Government today, the better informed the debate will be. We now turn to the open debate. There is not much time in hand, I am afraid, and it is speeches of four minutes. Gordon MacDonald is to be followed by Johann Lamont. The overall employment situation in Scotland continues to improve. The latest figures highlight that we have record levels of employment higher than the UK. Average weekly wages are higher than in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, with more than 80 per cent of employees paying at least the living wage, and we have more graduates per head than any other nation of the UK. The committee heard in evidence that Governments opt to either support a high-skill, high-wage economy or propagate a low-skill, low-paid economy and insecure work. I believe that the Scottish Government is opting for the high road, but it would appear that the UK Government is aiming for the low road. The difficulty for Scottish workers who are in poor-quality low-paid work or are employed using exploiter of zero-hour contracts is that employment law, health and safety and industrial relations are all reserved to Westminster. Legislation in this area is in the hands of a UK Government that focuses on restricting trade unions rather than tackling bad employers. As Warwick University stated in evidence, poor quality cleaning jobs in hotels can get worse when workers are shifted into temporary work agency employment or retail workers put on to zero-hour contracts. With the poverty alliance highlighting the impact that this has on employees, those on zero-hour contracts can also face confusion about their rights to holiday, sickness and maternity pay, and fluctuating hours can make it difficult to access benefits. It is also normally at four minutes. It is also difficult to imagine how anyone is meant to manage their finances week to week with no idea of what their earnings will actually be. The Scottish Government, despite employment law being reserved to Westminster, is promoting fair work practices at issued statutory guidance last autumn that requires public authorities to consider how they can address fair work practices and discourage the use of inappropriate zero-hour contracts. The business pledge encourages employers to pay their living wage and Scotland now has the lowest proportion of employees paid below the current level of £7.85 per hour of any of the other UK nations. It was announced in the Scottish budget that £250 million is to be invested in social care, allowing councils to commission on adult social care from the independent or voluntary sectors on the basis that care workers are paid the new living wage of £8.25 an hour. It is not just an area of pay and insecure work. We have to focus. Devolution of the work programme will provide an opportunity to improve the existing scheme, creating a simpler and more efficient service to those out of work. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that half of men and a third of women who claim jobseekers allowance do so with six months of a previous claim ending. A significant section of those individuals will have moved into and out of work during this time. The committee was concerned about the lack of clarity between the DWP's policy of offering jobseekers zero-hour contract posts and the sanctions regime. Our concerns are that some people may have been forced into accepting unsuitable work from exploited employers. Any new programme must take into consideration individuals and their circumstances, otherwise we will continue the current revolving door of short-term employment, facing some of the poorest paid in the country. Finally, as Professor Chris Warhurst said in evidence, we should laud the good employers and set them up as exemplars, which is what can be done. We should provide support for the willing employers, we should educate the indifferent employers and we should regulate for the bad employers. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on what is an important report. Naturally, regardless of the characterisation of it by the previous speaker, it was marked by the way in which committee members came together, listened to testimony on people's experience and tried to respond to that. I think that there are very important issues and recommendations in this report, and I would urge those who will be in the Scottish Parliament after the next election to revisit this very important report, because I think that all of us were unified in the idea that we did not simply want to describe the scale of the problem, but that we want to have an influence on finding solutions to those problems. At heart, of course, in this report, there is a central truth. The issues around low pay, job and security zero hours contracts, lack of involvement in decision making within the workplace, those issues matter not just because they are bad for the health of individuals and their ability to plan for and support their families, but poor working practices are also bad for the economy and the capacity of the economy to be strengthened, to create opportunity and a better life for all. I do in passing say that there is nothing, I think, more despairing in this report than actually the recognition that there are people working unbelievably hard every day out doing their very best and very, very important jobs, but without significant reward, without even the guarantee that they can meet the needs of their families. That must surely be a spurt to us all. In the limited time that I have, I just want to highlight a number of issues. First of all, there is the whole question of flexible working, which sounds like a nice term, but there was a story and a description of one woman's experience within the report, which I think is worthy of reflection on. This is a woman who worked at the supermarket, has worked there all her life. At this time in her life, she has responsibility for the care of her mother and would need to be available round about 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock at night to ensure that her mother is able to be put to bed and is comfortable. However, she was advised by her employer that she had to be available from 6 o'clock in the morning till midnight, even though she might only be working 15, 16 hours in the week. At irony of that, she was unable to respond to that lack of flexibility. She could have ended up in a position that if she does give up her work, she is therefore less productive and able to support her own family but also faces the risk of sanction. That can surely not be just. As Karen Whiteford said, it seems that too often now flexibility is all on the side of the workforce and not the employer. I think that we need to reflect on that question. The lack of involvement of people in the workplace is a direct consequence for health and safety and for the protection of people in the workplace and the work that they do. It is most obvious in the oil and gas industry that we did hear evidence that people were reluctant to complain in case their jobs were on the line at a time when jobs were at risk anyway. It is important that we recognise that it is an important part of the participation and particularly the critical role of trade unions, perhaps in terms of wages and conditions, but as important as giving a voice to those in the workforce who can improve the quality of the work that is done if they are paid attention to. It is not an accident in the report that we linked pay and conditions and recognised that in terms of the issue of low pay. We recognise the potential of the use of the living wage, but we also have to recognise that it is not sufficient just to have the living wage if those on that living wage become more and more overstretched, doing more and more work, filling gaps and filling in for those who have lost their jobs. That is something that is happening more generally in the care sector, but with cuts to local government, we will also see that the badge of the living wage will not be sufficient to give people security and good quality work if they are having to do more in the time that they have been given. In conclusion, I just really wanted to flag at the point that the DWP is very important that they are not directing people to employers with bad working practices and then to sanction them for not taking those jobs. However, I finish at this point to the Scottish Government on the question of the business pledge. I understand the need for it at this stage to be voluntary, but if that pledge is to matter, it is to ensure that those who want to be good employers, who want to take the high roads, are not undercut those who cynically choose the low roads. I think that the business pledge that Government decisions around contracts are significant in rewarding those who would aspire to the good quality jobs that the report identifies. That is where, I think, Scottish Government action in particular is critically important in recognising its power to reward those who want to do the right thing. I wanted to talk about the title and maybe congratulate the committee and its convener for the choice, but of course Gavin Brown is stopping me to do that. It looks like it did not come from the committee. Because taking the high road is a fantastic title, it is very much a Scottish title, it is telling us what we want to know about the kind of society that this Parliament, this Scottish Government, want us to be. I read what Professor Chris Warhurst as the director of Warwick Institute of Employment Research said, what he had to say on the choice of what Governments make, because it is a question of choice for Governments, a lot more than choice about employers. There is a clear choice before us taking the high road economic option focusing on high skills or taking the low road economy's option focused on low skills and low wages. We know that this S&P Government wants us to be on the high road with many of our European neighbours. After what Gordon Michael said, I would like to go in the same direction and make it clear that I lived here for 30 years and the 30 years I lived in Scotland. I saw successive Westminster Governments who took us down the low road of low wages and low skills. President Professor, all debates we had in 2014 and all debates that we will have this year in the Scottish election campaign and thereafter in the EU referendum campaign are about the road we want to take for our economy, the road we want to take for our well-being, the high road or the low road. Sometimes we worked a lot on when I was in the committee that the idea that productivity is key to promote the benefits of a higher wages society for workers as much as for employees. Strathfag university professor of work and employment relations professor Patricia Finlay said to the committee that there is indeed an increased interest amongst policymakers and academics in linking job quality and productivity and here is the key. I agree that the discussion around jobs quality, around well-being at work must focus on job quality, productivity, innovation and competitiveness. The report talks about EU data identifying that there are relatively low numbers of workplaces in the UK where staff engage in problems solving activities. I can agree with that, our continental neighbours are a lot better at giving employees and employers the space to engage and work collaboratively. In the office, you would see for example many international and local energy and substance firms engaging with their employees. Some would say like never before and it's rightly so that we should do so. At the cross-party, a recent cross-party group, and all in gas, we heard about Nixon who gave us a great example of how to achieve better productivity by engaging employees and that's a good example to follow for employers. Nixon has a 30% improvement in productivity in just six months time. Engagement was the key and the offshore workforce found the solution to better productivity. We were told of a cross-party group that Nixon adapted the marginal gains theory, a system created by the British Olympic Cycle Team. One, the French Olympic Cycle Team must have missed somehow. Nixon encouraged staff to break down routine work activities in a bid to identify small gains. The move will see an addition of 140 million barrels of oil for Nixon and I'm delighted that Patrick Harvey is not here to hear that. It seems that everyone agrees when giving evidence for this report, Stephen Boyd from Scotland's Trade Union Centre, the STUC said that industrial democracy is weaker in the UK than across the EU. I agree with the trade union movement, the importance of effective partnership between trade unions business and given this key to the future of our economy as much as we are well-being. To conclude, I would maybe like to take a quote from the departing chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Professor Alan Miller, who said in the Holyrood magazine that Scotland has withstood extremely well the toxicity of the Westminster debate and reading the committee report, Scotland clearly has what it takes and we must keep a positive debate focusing on taking the high road. In general, I welcome the recommendations of this report, which backs up many of the things that Scottish Labour has been saying for some time. The Scottish Government has also made supportive noises but has not always taken opportunities when they were presented, and hopefully this report will be a spur to move beyond lip service in such areas. Having said that, I acknowledge that the big obstacle to the report's first recommendation, which calls for better research and improved data that can be used to establish a fair work index, is not the Scottish Government itself but the UK-wide Office of National Statistics. As the SDUC noted, the Scottish Government praised the weak hand dealt by the ONS very well. It presents ONS data in an accessible and up-to-date fashion, so it is the serious pressure applied at the UK level that is needed to improve the quality of labour forces statistics and enable the Scottish dimension to be properly explored. Of course, the Scottish Government needs to have a clear idea about how research and analysis should be extended. Perhaps it is just as well that the next recommendation gives the Scottish Government a steer on that, namely to ask the chief economic adviser for advice on what research would be useful and to ask the Scottish Government what it would do with such research. I am glad that the committee believes that the scope exists to place stronger emphasis on the living wage and fair work practices through the public procurement process. It is just a pity that the opportunity for the procurement bill was missed. If that opportunity had been taken, we might now be in a stronger position rather than merely encouraging public bodies to explore options. Mental health, of course, needs much greater support. Unfortunately, that is an area where the Scottish Government's progress is disappointing in several respects, including funding, waiting times, young people and workers in high-stress employment such as NHS. Better support for mental health services is not just the right thing to do, it is also an important factor in other respects. We need monitoring of mental health in the workplace to become more effective, otherwise we are more likely to suffer economic and organisational failures as a consequence of not addressing the problems of mental health in the workplace. Temporary contracts, zero-hour contracts and the lack of job security contribute to the stress of employment. Secure and stable working arrangements should be the default, not the exception. I welcome the approach of the Department of Work and Pensions, but again it is a pity that the opportunity of the procurement bill was allowed to pass by. The action against the clarification of exploitative zero-hours or short-hours contracts is both welcome and overdue. As a trade unionist, I clearly oppose the Tory attack on workers' rights in the trade union bill and regret that the Scottish Parliament was not allowed to take a stronger stand against it. I believe that good industrial relations are in the workers' and employers' best interests, so any help that can be given to get employers to see the light is very welcome. Like others, I look forward to the minister's response to the recommendations in the report. I begin by saying how delighted I am to be speaking on this debate today on the work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market, particularly as a member of the EET committee in this Parliament. I also compliment the convener on his balanced speech. It is important that all workers are entitled to a living wage, and I would suggest a living weekly wage, safe working conditions and secure employment. I support the actions that the Scottish Government has taken to improve employment standards in Scotland, including the promotion of the living wage, currently £8.25 per hour. Since the Government introduced the requirement to pay the living wage as part of its public sector pay policy, it has invested over £1.5 million per year in the living wage rate across the relevant parts of the public sector, which has directly benefited around 3,000 workers. Through the Procurement Reform Act 2014, the Government has promoted fair work and practice. The statutory guidance addressing fair work practice goes further than any other administration. It makes clear that paying the living wage is an indicator of employers' commitment to fair work practices and that doing so can have a positive impact on the quality of work. The act also requires public bodies to consider where any procurement exercise can include a question on fair work practices. I note that the Government has taken action to eradicate unfair working practices. The introduction of the Scottish Business Pledge has seen numerous companies sign on. Those companies have pledged to pay the living wage, abstained from using exploiter zero hour contracts, encouraged diversity in the workforce and adopted progressive workplace policies. Additionally, the Government does not make use of zero hours contracts and seeks to eradicate exploitive ones in order to create access to justice for all workers. The Government has committed to abolishing fees for employment tribunals under the Smith commission proposals. The UK Government is set to devolve employment tribunals to Scotland. However, the committee believed that the UK Government's draft legislative clauses fell short of a fully implementing in the recommendation of the Smith commission. As a member of the Health and Sport Committee, I commend the Scottish Government's efforts to improve health and wellbeing by improving quality of work and employment. Research shows a socio-economic gradient of health and employment, with many of those in low-skilled jobs suffering from poor health. Employers can take steps to improve workplace health by paying a living wage, involving workers in management, offering flexible working opportunities and providing opportunities for advancement. Furthermore, I again note that the Government has taken action to improve working conditions for those in the health and social care sector by promoting the living wage and the fair work practices. Over the course of this last year, the SNP Government has provided £12.5 million towards those ends. This year's draft budget sets out plans to invest a further £250 million per year through health and social care partnerships to protect and grow social care services. The SNP Government has also provided resources to local authorities to ensure that they have been able to commission care services that pay workers the full living wage. The fact that employment legislation remains reserved to the UK Government provides a challenge for this Government and the EETC committee. The UK Government's national living wage is well below the real living wage, which is calculated by the Scottish Government to address the basic cost of living. In addition, the UK Government's trade union bill threatens Scotland's positive relationship with trade unions. The working days lost per 1,000 employees to industrial disputes in Scotland is at the lowest of all the reasons that are in the UK. Therefore, if Westminster does not withdraw the bill, Scotland should be exempt. Finally, the SNP Government has established a fair work convention that will produce a framework for implementing fair work. The framework will support the Government's objectives of economic growth and inequality reduction. I welcome the publication of the fair work convention framework so that the SNP Scottish Government can continue to work to improve the standard of living for workers throughout Scotland. Many thanks, and I call John Wilson to ask you to keep to your four minutes, please, Mr Wilson. Firstly, I will make a declaration that my member of Unite the Union and, speaking in this debate, is a former director of the Scottish Small Pay Unit. I would like to commend the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and its members for bringing this debate to the chamber today, because it is quite important that we continue to keep this issue at the forefront of everything that we do. As has been mentioned already and is covered in the report and findings of the committee, it is important that we continue to ensure that people across Scotland are in high-quality work that pays well. It is rewarding and has good working conditions where individuals feel respected and well treated in their work. Employment numbers alone are not enough to measure the success of the jobs market in Scotland. There is no point in having high numbers of people registered as employed if their work does not provide them with adequate pay, gives them too few or too many hours, or does not provide them with secure and dignified work. The work wages and wellbeing online questionnaire found that 68 per cent of respondents stated that the quality of their work had deteriorated over the last five years. 14 per cent felt that I had stayed the same, with only 18 per cent saying that the quality of their work had improved. The results are clear. Even if employment is up, the quality and standards of work is not. What good is it to provide jobs if those jobs do not offer the dignity, security and finances that employment should guarantee? It is clear that no one who works full-time should be in a situation where they find themselves in work poverty. The current national minimum wage is simply not enough. The UK Government's so-called living wage is not adequate and it makes the distinction between the UK's living wage and the Scottish living wage in this context. Although that pay boost is welcomed and still falls short of the minimum that is required to pay an appropriate living wage, coupled with the Westminster Government's attack on the welfare state, the so-called living wage fails to provide a decent rate of pay for the average worker. That is why, in terms of the campaign going forward, the campaign for a £10 minimum wage by 2020 should be supported. The UK Government has further attacked the rights of workers through the introduction of the trade union bill. The rights of workers have been attacked by every opportunity and I am attaining that still as the case. The right to collective action and bargaining is crucial for continued employment rights and welfare. Individuals have a right to be secure and confident in their employment and, as such, employers should have to work with trade unions to secure good working conditions. Casual and agency staff in short-term contracts are no excuse to ignore employment rights. Employers should be challenged to show that contracts are justified and working conditions are fair. Employment has the ability to offer people both financial and personal rewards. However, this is, unfortunately, not always the case, as we have heard through the report and we hear every day in the press. In modern-day Scotland, no one should be a wage slave or self. We must ensure that work is decent, honest and fair, that it provides good wage and good working conditions. In a country such as ours, that is not too much to ask. I look forward to the report's impact in future parliaments, but especially in relation to asking employers to consider seriously the issues that have been raised and the recommendations that have been made. I also look forward to the Scottish Government responding to the report in a positive light to ensure that we root out all the bad employment practices that unfortunately continue to exist in Scotland today. I remind members who participated in the debate that should be in the chamber for closing speeches. I ask members to keep to their time, please. Colin Gavin Brown, four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That has been a pretty interesting debate. I want to return to some of the excellent contributions that were made. Before I do that, there are two points that I want to pick up on. The first one is the criticism by the Scottish Government that the UK Government national minimum wage is not the same as the living wage. Of course, today that is absolutely correct, but by the end of the parliamentary term at Westminster, I suspect that it will not be correct. However, I will point out that the national minimum wage by the UK Government is higher than the SNP that we are proposing at the general election, and indeed it is higher too than was proposed in the white paper where we are to be an independent country. They are correct to point out the fact, but I think that a bit of context is probably necessary. The second point is one that was made by Gordon MacDonald and Christian Allard. A point that I think was absurd and in some ways lessened the quality of the debate, saying that the UK Government over a 30-year period has intentionally taken the low road when the Scottish Government has taken the high road. No Government wants to take low road deputy. I do not think that there is a political party in this place that wants to go down that track. Of course, Governments have got things wrong over the years, but if what they said was true, the Scottish share of income tax receipts would be far higher in percentage terms than the UK share of income tax receipts, and we all know that that simply is not true. I am happy to give way to Mr Allard. I thank the member for giving way. I am talking about taxation, I am talking about high road and low road, and I gave some EU example. We do not agree that when France gave Google a bill of £1.3 billion for in-pay taxes, the UK Government has settled for a fraction of its £130 million for the same period. That is exactly what we are talking about, a low road and a high road. I genuinely do not understand the point that the member is making. I point out a whole host of areas where successive UK Governments of different political stripes have pushed hard to try to bring in high-quality jobs, whether that is inward investment, whether that is what successive Governments have done for science, engineering or medicine. Governments of all shapes and sizes want the best high-quality jobs that they can bring in. They do not always succeed, but to suggest that they intentionally do not want them is just an absurd proposition. There were a number of highlights, one of which I particularly thought was Johann Lamont's thoughtful contribution, in which he made the point very eloquently that poor working practices are not just bad for the individuals concerned, but they are ultimately bad for the economy as a whole. I would go a step further and say that, in the medium to longer term, they are actually bad for the employers as well, because there might be short-term boost to the bottom line by paying workers less and not treating them well. That sets up a terrible precedent, and it does not do your business any good in the medium term in terms of its potential and sustainability. I think that the point was well made by Johann Lamont. In the final minute, Presiding Officer, I want to return to the point that I made earlier. I hope that the Government, in its minister and her summation, can respond specifically to a number of the issues raised in the report. I talked about the new national indicator and improving labour force data. There were some other excellent reports and suggestions about the Government commissioning specific research from the Office of the Chief Economic Advisory. That is a good idea. Are there things that can be done in the public procurement processes? Of course, there are challenges, but there are other further angles that we can take, particularly looking at the supply chain and not just the individual main contractor. Finally, there was a specific conclusion about mental wellbeing monitoring and performance indicators across the workplace. A lot of great ideas will obviously get full written response in due course, but anything that we can get from the Government today, I think, would be welcome. Indeed, as members have said, work wages and wellbeing do matter to us all. What people do when they get to work, how much and how they are paid, how they are treated and what work does to their lives are all pretty fundamental questions. There are fundamental importance, most of all, to working people in the trade unions, but, as we have heard from all sides, they have a wider significance beyond the workplace, too. Poverty wages, exploitation and insecurity are reckless disregard for workplace safety, victimisation of workers who demand rights at work. They tell us about more than just the bad practice of a few rogue employers. All of those things happen in Scotland today. While a consensus on most of the recommendations in the report is to be welcomed, there are no grounds for complacency. The Scottish Government says that it sets high value on good employment practice, and saying so is a step in the right direction, just as it is for companies that sign the Scottish business pledge. However, saying so is not enough in itself. It is not enough for the First Minister to appoint a Cabinet Secretary with fair work on her job title unless she can reach a shared view as to what is acceptable employment practice by companies that seek Scottish Government endorsement. That shared view came in the end, but only after considerable confusion. As the committee's report says, there was an initial failure to make explicit that companies using exploitative zero-hours contracts could not sign up to the Scottish business pledge and the committee rightly calls for the Government to adopt much clearer definitions in that area. Nor is it enough to have a Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work if she is not in the loop when it comes to decisions or even discussions about awards of Government funding to inward investors, when some of those companies, as we have heard, fly out the most basic expectations about fair treatment of employees. Ministers telling us that these are decisions for public servants and not for them is also not enough. Stewardship of public money is the job of ministers who are directly accountable to Parliament and the larger the sum, the more important the accountability is. In pursuit of consensus, the committee asks very politely that ministers should look again at the process of making high-value awards of regional selective assistance to consider whether changes may be required. In my view, that review should not take long, given what we know already. If companies take Government money without respecting even the spirit of Government policy, then surely there can be no doubt that changes are required and the sooner the better. On the question of the living wage, the committee has also chosen its words with care, but nonetheless reaches a strong conclusion. Scope exists, says the report, to place stronger emphasis on the living wage and fair work practices through the public procurement process. We have heard that view echoed again from a number of speakers in the debate today. It is perhaps a pity that the Scottish Government has not been more ambitious in exploring what further scope might be available before and now, but if the next Government following the election follows the committee's advice to explore the options to the full, it could make a real difference to many low-paid workers in contracting companies. Last but not least, the report lays out the case against the Tories trade union bill. The evidence reflected in this report clearly points to the conclusion that workers who are organised in trade unions are much less vulnerable to exploitation than those who are not. Fair work conventions, business pledges and living wage policies are all to be welcomed, but the biggest defence of all for decent work, wages and wellbeing is the ability of working people to organise themselves in support of their rights at work. That is why stopping the trade union bill is so important and why this side of the chamber welcomes this report and why we look forward to the responses from the Government to the whole range of recommendations in the report in the near future. Many thanks and I now call on Roseanna Cunningham, cabinet secretary, six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In closing, I'd once again like to thank the committee and indeed all of those who took the time to give evidence for their valuable piece of work, and I will send my response to the committee on the main recommendations later this week. This report and today's debate really does reinforce my belief in the importance of looking at fair work. The increasing recognition that how people are treated in the workplace has an impact on their health, their wellbeing and their productivity is welcome and it is something that we need to build on. As I said in my opening remarks, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has been able to take action in a number of areas to promote fair work. I have just gently said to Lewis that there has been a lot more than simply talk over the last year and a half. There has been a very great deal done as well. I am happy that the committee has acknowledged the importance of the work that the Government has undertaken and I appreciate the support for improving working practice that has been an evidence in this debate. I think that we would all agree that more needs to be done to spread the message and to support employers, employees and their representatives to improve conditions in workplaces. In the coming weeks, the Fair Work Convention will publish its framework and will set out the views of employers and trade unions working together in partnership on what fair work means. I expect that the framework will demonstrate the flexibility and aspiration that the committee has requested. Importantly, with this report and other recent studies from the Resolution Foundation and others, we will have a strong evidence base that we can then take to employers across the country to promote the benefits of a fair approach. I think that many of those benefits have been clearly articulated today. I want to try to respond to some of the contributions that were made. I do not have enough time to go through everybody's contributions. Ian Gray, I certainly concur with Ian Gray's comments regarding trade unions and the trade union bill. Those comments were echoed by a number of other members on more than one side of the chamber. He also discussed the labour market stats. Yes, there are issues with the labour market stats. One of them is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how the statistical analysis is derived from the raw numbers. It has been of some interest to me to discover that there are people who think that the labour market stats are a total head count as opposed to a sample survey. I do not want to get too bogged down in a detailed discussion of how the stats are compiled, but I gently suggest that Ian Gray's remarks about hyperbole might also be directed to his own colleagues, because, equally, that can, as negative comment, be just as misleading. Murdo Fraser raised the issue of Amazon, which I was very briefly able to touch on in my opening remarks. I indicated that I would meet them tomorrow, but I have to point out that the same organisation that Willie Rennie described in the chamber as terrible—one that Fife would be far better off without—was, in fact, welcomed by his party in 2005 by Jim Wallace, the then enterprise minister, who described Amazon's arrival as excellent news for Scotland. I have a copy of press comments from Duncan McNeill welcoming Amazon investment in Gwric. The point of repeating that is to remind people that, of course, when jobs are the issue, there is more than one real driver in the kind of comments that are made at the time. Gavin Brown wanted more detailed responses from Government, but in five minutes that is impossible. I gave him one regarding the blizziness pledge. I gave that one at the outset, as a detailed response. In fact, we have already taken action on that. I hope that he will manage to hold on for another couple of days to get the considered total response. He also raised the issue of a Scotland-specific job quality survey and a fair work index. A review of the national performance framework is currently reaching its conclusion. I understand that we can expect new indicators relating directly to fair work, and no doubt Gavin Brown will want to have a look at those, if that is the case. On the broader research question raised by John Pentland, I have to reassure colleagues that quite a lot of specific research is already underway and will be published when the pieces of work are complete. We also contribute funding to help to build capacity for research among academic and other stakeholders, for example the University of Strathclyde's innovating works project and research by Oxfam and the Poverty Alliance. That is an on-going programme of research. Johann Lamont correctly reminded us that, as important as the living wage is, it is not the sole indicator of fair work, which is why I said that in my opening remarks, because it does sometimes become a key iconic leader in the fair work debate, but it is not the only thing. On the matter of definitions, which was raised by Ian Gray and Lewis MacDonald, it can be difficult to specifically define concepts. Lawyers make sometimes an entire living out of those definitions, but one of the reasons that we set up the fair work convention was to help that process. Definitions by definition leave out things or include things about which there will be endless debate that will never end. In conclusion, I welcome the helpful report from the committee. It is recognition that much good work has happened and it is called to do more to promote fair work. I believe that this Government has led the way and I am personally committed to further action with the powers that we have at our disposal, but we really cannot get away from the fundamental fact that we could do far more in this area if we had the full set of powers around employment law devolved to Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary and I call and join Michael Pyn to wind up the debate on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Ms McAlpine, maximum eight minutes please. I think that this has been a worthwhile debate on a worthwhile committee report and that is important given the issues at stake and the level of engagement that the committee had. We need to do right by the 600 people who responded to our questionnaire and engaged with the committee. The convener mentioned some of the difficulties that we had in defining what was good or bad work given that most people that we spoke to felt that they had a good job. In the conclusions of the committee, we did come up with a number of aspects that we believed workers should be offered as standard in any good quality employment. Those were regular and sufficient pay, which allows for a decent standard of living, secure employment, safe working conditions, working hours known and mutually agreed in advance of shifts, a culture of mutual respect, training opportunities and routes for advancement and employee engagement in company organisational decisions. That is a good framework to be moving forward with. We have in the executive summary agreed that list and I welcome the comments from the cabinet secretary that she will send out a clear message on good employment practices and the exploitative contracts and working practices on unacceptable. Turning to the debate, Ian Gray highlighted examples of the human cost and the need for better data in that particular subject. As the cabinet secretary and others have pointed out, the data that we use comes from ONS. That same point, as I recall, was made in oral evidence to the committee by the STUC, which, as I recall, was very disparaging of the ONS data and its ability to adequately break down Scottish labour markets, notwithstanding the additional funds that Scotland pays for that breakdown. On data, Gavin Brown mentioned something that would possibly be a little bit more encouraging, and that there was light at the end of the tunnel with the Scottish Labour market statistics showing a slight drop in under-employment, albeit a very small one, but it perhaps indicates over the last year an encouraging trend. I thought that that was an important point to make. In paragraph 203 of the committee report, the conclusions welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to living wage, and 204 welcomed the new procurement guidelines, which were highlighted by Richard Lyle in the debate on the living wage and fair work. Gordon MacDonald, in his contribution, spoke of that being an indication that the Scottish Government was following what has come up repeatedly in the debate, the high road in that regard, but that it was hindered by the UK Government's control of employment legislation. That differentiation was made in the committee's report. It is important to state it, even though we are not going down political lines. Mr MacDonald and others also highlighted the measures in the Scottish budget to pay home care workers the living wage. Of course, home care workers were a subject of great interest to the inquiry with several organisations representing the sector and its workers, highlighting the rapid staff turnover in the sector, which, obviously, must have an effect on patient care, and which, hopefully, the introduction of a living wage should address. Johann Lamont, in her contribution to the debate, highlighted the difficulty placed on carers such as one witness that gave very powerful written evidence, I believe, on her inability to plan the care of her elderly mother, because the supermarket that she worked for was not flexible and did not allow her to plan and that the flexibility was all on the side of the employer. That is obviously a situation that is unacceptable in faces far too many workers these days. It is something that the committee hopes the fair work convention can pay attention to in its conclusion. The committee said that it appreciated the joint chair's comments that the inquiry conclusions will feed into the convention. I quote, "...play a part in its deliberations and outcomes." I think that that was very welcome. I know that the cabinet secretary also told the committee that the fair work convention is independent of government but will work with government in a constructive manner. I am sure that independence from government is also an opportunity for it as well. John Pentland talked about the need for better research again, which the committee also called for in terms of purely practical recommendations. The committee praised the work of Oxfam Scotland as it builds its human kind index and recommended that the fair work convention considered carefully Oxfam's conclusions. Although I am summing up for the committee, there was a lot of talk on the business pledge. There has been a lot of debate around the business pledge and whether help should be given to companies in certain circumstances. I agree with the calls by the committee and the conclusions that we reach a target for the companies that are signed up to the business pledge. I welcome the news that 200 have already done so. The committee recommends that all account managed companies be encouraged to sign up to it. I think that there is more that we could probably do to publicise the business pledge. I know that I visited a company in my constituency recently, DS Smith in Lockerbie, who had taken on four apprentices this year, had a great apprenticeship programme planned, paid their apprentices double what the normal apprentice wage was, had increased training remarkably from 100 hours to over 1,000 hours, were obviously paying the living wage with no zero hours contract, had a great gender balance in their operation, but when I mentioned whether they knew about the business pledge they hadn't been aware of it even though they ticked all the boxes for the business pledge, so I'm now encouraging them to go forward and sign up to it. It's important that we all encourage companies that we can see are doing a great job and are promoting fair work in their communities, that they sign the pledge and are then held up as examples, because there are a lot of good examples out there. One way to move forward is to praise the good examples as well as attacking too many examples of bad practice as well. Just to conclude, the cabinet secretary has acknowledged the consensual aspects of the debate and looked forward to the fair work convention and says that its framework will be to respond to the committee and to the contributions made today. I'm sure that that's something that we can all welcome. I, for one, am looking forward to the fair work convention's framework when it's published in the next few weeks, and I think that it's something that we can all look forward to with great anticipation. That concludes the economy, energy and tourism committees debate on work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15758 in the name of Alec Neil on social security. I invite those members to wish to participate in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now and to indicate in advance that we do not have a lot of time in hand. I call on Alec Neil to speak to you and to move the motion. Cabinet secretary, 10 minutes please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to open today's debate setting out progress and plans on social security, particularly since this is the first really important social security debate that we have had since we know that we are going to take over powers for 11 benefits sometime in the near future, and we will actually have the power to act on these social security measures for the first time. It's a bit of an historic day for the Parliament and indeed for Scotland. I look forward to, hopefully, all the Parliament working together to ensure a smooth and safe transition to delivery of social security in Scotland. Recent debates in the Parliament show the interests that members have in this area and I want to particularly pay tribute to the work of the welfare reform committee in supporting through their consultation the work that they did on new powers and the excellent work that they have done over a period of years in relation to welfare benefits. I'm pleased to see that their conclusions match very closely with my own priorities in terms of what we need to do to take forward the social security agenda in Scotland. Our first priority is to ensure a smooth and safe transfer of the powers from London to Edinburgh. In all the consultations that we did last summer on the issue of social security, the number one concern of everybody all the stakeholders was to ensure that people continue to receive their benefits on time and in the right amount right through the transfer period. I give a pledge today that that will be our number one priority to make sure that that happens during the transfer of the powers. Our vision and principles are designed to ensure that people are treated with dignity, fairness and respect. I believe that those are fundamental principles that we can all agree on. Like every other MSP and MP, no doubt members will have had at their constituency offices and surgeries members of the public who have expressed real frustration about different aspects, particularly of the medical assessments associated with DLA and PIP. Everything from feeling as though their medical situation was treated in a very cursory fashion right through to winning an appeal and then being called again almost immediately for another medical assessment and also people with lifetime conditions being called in for an assessment to see if they fit for work but it's very clear they'll never work again. All of those things are important to people as is the money itself and I think when we treat people with dignity and respect then we can both streamline and make much more humane the whole assessment process and that certainly will be one of our top priorities. I'm also pleased to announce to the Parliament the outcome of the first stage of our planning for a delivery vehicle to take forward the new powers. Over the last 18 months we've been engaging with people and organisations across the country in terms of how best to deliver the new social security powers and the outcome of this engagement has allowed us to form a consensus that dignity and respect are to be at the heart of everything that we do in policy and delivery and that we need to do things differently and take a fairer approach and we've obviously still got a lot of work to do in doing that. We've already committed to bring forward Scotland's first social security bill before the end of the first year in the next Parliament assuming that we are re-elected to government. Our ambitions are that this legislation will reflect a distinctively different, fairer Scottish approach to social security. Up until now, the role of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in relation to welfare has been the role of mitigation. In the context of falling budgets from the UK Government, we have been left to pick up the pieces and do our best to try to mitigate the worst impacts of some of the very big cuts to certain benefits that have taken place particularly in the past six years. In terms of the scale of those cuts, they have resulted in costs to Scotland of £6 billion between 2010 and 2016. We are doing everything we can to help and in the three years to 2016, we have invested just under £300 million to mitigate the worst impact of those cuts. As the independent poverty adviser to the First Minister reported a couple of weeks ago, we have got to do everything in our power to try to improve outcomes when we get those new powers. She pointed out that we have to proceed with ensuring safe and secure delivery in the transfer, as I have referred to twice already, and we absolutely agree with that. She also laid out the fundamental principle that public service delivery of social security policy has to be respectful, person-centred and preserve the dignity of people in poverty. That is fundamentally what we intend to do. Our vision is that social security is important to all of us. None of us know when we might rely on the social security system when we hit a bad patch or possibly become very ill or disabled. We have therefore got to be able to support each of each other when we each need that kind of support. Our powers impact on some of the most vulnerable people in society, and everyone in Scotland, in that I believe, has an interest in ensuring that people have a decent standard of life when they hit difficult times. We aim to use the powers in a way that better meets the needs of the people of Scotland. Engaging with our stakeholders at every stage and ensuring that what we are going to do is serve their needs and aspirations as well as live up to their hopes about a social security system that is more humane. We believe that there are five basic principles that should underline a Scottish social security system. The first one is that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland. The heart of our approach is an understanding that social security plays an important part in tackling poverty and inequality. Where some people face additional challenges and costs in their daily lives because very often of ill health or disability, it is right that all of us help to meet those costs. It is important to supporting people to participate fully in our society. Principle 2 is respect for the dignity of individuals at the heart of everything we do. At every step of our engagement with individuals, we will treat them with dignity and respect. Principle 3 is that our processes and services will be evidence-based and designed with the people of Scotland. The starting point for the design of our policies and processes is that they are based on the best evidence and that the individuals who are affected by them should have their say and are listened to. Principle 4, we will strive for continuous improvement in all our policies, processes and systems, putting the user experience first. In the first instance, our priority will be to ensure a smooth transition, as I have already said, so that people have confidence that they will continue to receive the support to which they are entitled. The final principle is the need to demonstrate that our services are efficient and valuable for money. We know from our consultation that the system can be complex for individuals. We will look to reduce the bureaucracy involved in claiming benefits and ensure that at all stages people are provided with the relevant information on how the system will work for them. In terms of delivery, we intend to set up a new social security agency for Scotland. I can see that after having examined all the available options. We already have a distinct separate policy agenda that will be reflected at every stage from policymaking to implementation and delivery. The social security agency will work with stakeholders, practitioners and experts from local government, the third sector, and representatives of organisations across Scotland. It will build on some of the excellent relationships and innovative approaches that are already in place. When you analysed all of his proposals, did he ever foresee, as the Conservatives described it, as a benefit stampede coming to Scotland? No, not at all. I think that it would be inconceivable, particularly with these benefits, because they relate to severe illness and disability. I do not see people deliberately trying to make themselves disabled or ill in order to come to Scotland to claim a benefit. We already have a number of free benefits in Scotland such as free prescriptions, and that has not ended in a stampede from elsewhere in the UK. I do not believe that that will end up in a stampede either from other parts of the UK or from anything else. As with many schemes already existing, although they are not part of the social security administration, there is a requirement for residency in Scotland in order to be able to qualify for certain types of assistance. Clearly, that will also be the case with the schemes that are administered in social security by the Scottish Government. Can I say that our new agency will be accountable directly to Scottish ministers who in turn are accountable to this Parliament and will be answerable to the people of Scotland on social security in a way that has not been possible before? By working with local Government and all our other partners in each performing a meaningful role in the process by which we take this work forward, together we will help to ensure that the dignity of users is held in its proper regard and reflects our wider commitment to participation in the debates and decisions that matter to most people. Today is an important step in the journey to the day when the first devolved social security benefit payment is made in Scotland, but still much work needs to be done. Following the initial appraisal of all the available options for delivery, more detailed work will be required to develop configurations for the overall social security system in Scotland. Our proposals will be fully costed and appraised as a fuller business case, which will be published later this year. Unfortunately, our run-out of time but the members will be aware of the commitments that we have made in terms of our early priorities, some of which I know are shared by members of the Labour benches. I look forward to the rest of this debate when, hopefully, we can get on to some of the prospects of delivering an enhanced system for our people. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call Neil Findlay to speak to you in move amendment 15758.27, please. One of the most depressing features of our politics over the past few decades has been the tone of the debate over social security or welfare, as it has sadly become labelled. Over 100 years ago, socialists and liberals and social reformers, progressives in the churches and trade unions argued for a system of social protection to end destitution. They argued for sick pay, unemployment benefits, pensions, holidays, a reduction in the working week and policies like that. Over time, campaigning in the welfare state, as we know it, emerged with the social security system a key element of it. It was the creation of that welfare state, often in the teeth of opposition from the forces of conservatism. Some things have never changed. They ended the reliance on the poor house, destitution, provided universal healthcare, housing and protection for all. In short, we moved from a society in which we abandoned the poor in the needy to one in which we collectively, through our taxes, took responsibility for our friends and neighbours who were in need of our help. The welfare state civilised our society, allowing everyone irrespective of their power and wealth to access education, healthcare and a basic income. I wonder if the member would agree with me that the Conservatives should note the work of George Burns of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, who was the champion of the pension, who was so successful that he managed to defeat Bonner Law, the Conservative Cabinet Minister, and the Conservatives should perhaps note that when people act on matters like this, they suffer. I am sure that that is the case. He was probably in Mr Stevenson's class at school, but I think that he makes a very valid point. From all that emerged the post-war consensus where Governments of whichever persuasion accepted the need for a decent social security system until the dark cloud of thatcherism cast its very ugly shadow of our society. From then until now, the debate and the tone of the debate around social security has become one steeped in a negative culture of blame and division set in worker against worker, the able-bodied against the disabled, young against the old and host community against immigrants, creating a system that treats people with suspicion instead of compassion, a system that increasingly stigmatises people with the language of scroungers, shirkers and defectless. I agree absolutely with the Cabinet Secretary. Any of us, at any point in our lives, could find our world turned upside down by a debilitating illness or a physical disability. The arrival could be the arrival of a child or a parent in need of round-the-clock care or we experience an extended period of unemployment. I think that we would all say that, but for the grace of God, go I. With the devolution of social security, we have a real opportunity to do things differently. On the welfare reform committee, there was a great deal of consensus between Labour and SNP members. We will, of course, as always, leave the Tories out of this, although I would say that Mr Lamont did at least remain silent most of the time. We agree with the Government that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland, that respect for the dignity of individuals should be at the heart of everything that we do, that our processes and services should be evidence-based and designed with the people, that any Government of which other persuasions should strive for continuous improvement in policy processes and systems, putting the user experience first, and that services are efficient in value for money—nothing controversial there, I hope. When creating a strong foundation for that new welfare system, we would all want that foundation to be very robust, but what is more important is what we build on top of those foundations and how any new system is funded. We want to see a system that is publicly run, accountable to this Parliament, not one that is hived off to the public sector or an agency elsewhere that can be blamed if things go wrong. We want a system that helps people to participate in our society and get back into work when and if they are able to do so. We want a system in which child poverty is at its centre. Tragically, one in four of our Scots are affected by poverty. 220,000 of our fellow citizens is a collective shame that none of us can wash our hands off. On Monday, the Labour leader Gizia Dugdale set out how our proposals were offered children leaving care and going into higher education, a full-time grant, giving them the best opportunity to complete their studies and move on in life. After months of campaigning, we have won the argument for paying care workers the living wage. SNP members voted against it half a dozen times, but let us put that in the past and celebrate the fact that, like the bedroom tax members' bill that came forward from the Labour benches, our campaigning has played dividends again. The next stage is to secure a better deal for carers by raising the level of carers allowance to match the level of jobseekers allowance, worth £600 a year to carers. Labour has made that a firm commitment, and we will more than double the level of maternity grant that is made available to new mums, providing £1,030 helping struggling mums with the cost of a new baby. It cannot do any of that if you do not have a plan to address austerity, and I still have to find the Government's plan for addressing austerity. We can do that because we have come up with a funded range of options incorporating our income tax changes, initially changes to the basic rate, then the higher rate, a refusal to implement Osborne's tax cuts for the top 15 per cent of earners by maintaining the threshold, rejecting the SNP's tax giveaway to the wealthiest through the abolition of APD, and the combination of our tax plans combined with a commitment to tackle child poverty and the gross inequality in our societies at the heart of our plans for a Scotland where everyone has an opportunity, where everyone is valued and where everyone is looked after. I look forward to continuing the debate on the future of our social security system, and I am sure that we will hear more from members during the debate. Deputy Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's important debate. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is working together with the UK Government on a smooth transition of those new powers to ensure that individuals currently in receipt of those benefits continue to receive them on time. However, although the work of the welfare reform committee of which I am a member has gone some of the way to raising key issues in relation to the delivery of social security, I am aware of some concern as to the level of concrete preparation for this transition. I therefore urge the cabinet secretary to do all he can to ensure that the process is as smooth as possible. It is vital that existing claimants do not experience any delays and payments, and the Government's recent IT record does not fill the public with much confidence. First, it is important to recognise that, thanks to the Scotland bill and the work of the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister in reaching an agreement on the fiscal framework, the Scottish Government will soon have more control over welfare than it has ever done before. Those wide-ranging powers are welcome on the side of the chamber and give us an opportunity to discuss those important issues in depth. For too long, debates about social security and welfare have been simply an exercise in criticising the policies of the UK Government, which has become a pastime for ministers and cabinet secretaries. The Scottish Government now has an opportunity to offer its alternative plans for dealing with those complex issues that are attached to welfare provision. The Government has made much of the broad language of fairness, respect and indignity in terms of the overall culture of the social security system that it intends to create, words that I am sure will draw support from every member in this Parliament and the wider public outside the chamber. However, it is crucial that the cabinet secretary now sets out to the Scottish taxpayer some concrete proposals for the delivery of those powers and how it intends to pay for any possible divergence from the policies of the UK Government. Furthermore, in ensuring fairness, the Scottish Government also needs to show how it can improve the delivery of services in Scotland. In that regard, the Scottish Government has some pressing questions that it needs to address. I have no reservations in stating my support for a lower welfare, high-pay society, and the UK Government's efforts in driving employment to a record high go some way to a sustainable solution, one that gets people back into the workplace and increases financial independence, while at the same time building a system that is available to those in need of support. In the past, the Scottish Government has taken apparent pleasure in condemning UK Government policies such as the work programme, which incidentally managed to take over 43,000 long-term unemployed Scots back to work since 2011. However, it now needs to state how it will incentivise work and design, a system of social security that discourages welfare. I give way to the member. Bruce Crawford. I thank the member very much for giving way. He has asked the Scottish Government to outline what its proposals were. When will we hear what the Conservatives proposals are, and can he begin to outline them today for us, please? Annabelle Lamont. It is very clear that we always have believed that the role of the Government and the role of societies to give a helping hand to those in need, while at the same time ensuring that the system that we have put in place through welfare, through benefits, incentivises, encourages and helps those who want to get back to work to do so. I strongly believe that it should always pay to be in work, and I hope that the Scottish Government shares that aim, too. The SNP and the Scottish Government ministers have consistently called for a moratorium on all-benefit sanctions imposed on those individuals who do not meet the conditions attached to their benefits. The Scottish plan will now have the responsibility for not only designing a social security system that works for those in need, but it will also have a duty to every hard-working Scott to protect the structure of that system from those who may wish to abuse it. The Scottish Government therefore intends to enforce sanctions on those individuals who fail to adhere to the standard set. I give way to the cabinet secretary. I will make it clear that, under the Scotland bill that is currently standing, even in the devolved benefits, we will not have responsibility for the sanctions. You will have the possibility of creating new benefits and the possibility of having conditions attached to those benefits. The Scottish Government needs to be clear about how any conditions attached to future benefits, for example, would be enforced or how they would impact on claimants. Furthermore, the devolution of those powers to this Parliament gives us an opportunity to deliver some social security benefits in a way in which it takes better account of local circumstances. There is scope to use the existing expertise of local government in dealing with the administration of existing payments, along with the greater knowledge of local labour markets to tailor the approach delivery to best suit the needs of local people. Perhaps there is even an opportunity to better align some social security with our health and social care system, and those are certainly options that this Parliament should explore. The Scottish Government now has an opportunity to outline its plans for social security to the people of Scotland, and the people of Scotland are in doubt here listening and waiting to hear what the Scottish Government's plans are. I move the amendment in my name. I now move to the open debate. Tight for time today. Four-minute speeches. Claire Adamson to be followed by Willie Rennie, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to open today with a quote with one of the architects of the social security system, Barbara Castle. There was no welfare state, and people had to rely mainly on the poor law. That was all the state provided. It was very degrading, very humiliating, and there was a means test for receiving poor relief. I believe that Barbara Castle and her Labour colleagues, as mentioned by Mr Finlay, of that time, would be appalled that today, in the 21st century, we are back to situations for the experience of the unemployed, carers, disabled people and pensioners of our social security system, designed by the architects to be their right to protection and a safety net, is regarded by many in Barbara Castle's works as degrading and very humiliating. But our experience on the welfare reform committee is that, time and time again, informal evidence at our USAE sessions and at committee visits, including one to Craig Miller last year, that those in need and vulnerable are left feeling degraded and humiliated and stigmatised by their interaction with the social security system. Cabinet Secretary has praised the work of the welfare reform committee and, in one of the written anonymous submissions to that committee, we heard the following evidence. As I look back to my time as a claimant, I cannot help but see with clarity that my dealings with ATOS and the benefits system in many ways contributed to my becoming profoundly sick. The benefits staff were polite, but they were part of what I could call a punitive and abusive system. I am therefore delighted to welcome the announcement from the Scottish Government that a new benefits agency for Scotland will have dignity and respect at its heart. The new agency will be responsible for the delivery of £2.7 billion of social security payments in Scotland. That is just the tip of the iceberg—only 15 per cent of the overall budget for social security in the UK—but it is nonetheless welcome. The Scottish Government will be in a position to influence the way we deliver disability living allowance, personal independent payments, carers allowance, funeral payments and cold weather and winter fuel payments. Significantly, the Scottish Government will also be able to top up or create new benefits and I welcome the announcements. Already given by the Cabinet Secretary, particularly in the area of carers allowance, it lays it to the same level as jobseekers allowance and to abolish, instead of mitigating, the bedroom tax. To take a licence of the concerns regarding the delivery of universal credit, especially how it might affect vulnerable adults and those with addictions, as well as recognising how it might impact on women seeking to leave a predicament of a domestic violence situation. That was highlighted by the work of the welfare committee in the area. By highlighting the briefing from MS Scotland, a condition that multiple sclerosis has known to my family, Audre from Inverness, in its briefing, says, My last assessment for DLA caused me to have an anxiety attack. The assessor was not listening and the report was full of inaccuracies. To Audre from Inverness, I hope that the future her experience will be one of dignity, fairness and respect. The cabinet secretary is right that this is a big day. It is one of those historic events where for the first time debating how we are going to establish a new Scottish welfare system with, as he says, 11 benefits. In those circumstances it is right that we all do come together. Just like in the days when the first welfare state was established, there was a cross-party effort, as Neil Findlay pointed out quite rightly, that it was the liberals, reformers, the socialists who came together to form the new fabric that was to be our new society. I think that today, although it is still a relatively small budget, it is still a significant moment, and I think that we therefore need to get the foundations right just as beverage got it right all those years ago. So I welcome the tone from the cabinet secretary. I think that he is adopting the right approach, the fact that he involved a large number of stakeholders, a full range of events across the country to engage all the people who are experts in this area to devise a system that is right for Scotland. I do not want to unnerve the cabinet secretary, but I also agree with the money's priorities as well. Having dignity, respect and fairness of the right things, and having an accessible system that is fair and has the confidence of the people is crucial as well to having a welfare system that gains the confidence of people in Scotland, so it is there for when we need it, in difficulties, because, as I was listening to him on the radio this morning, he was quite right, because we all might need this welfare system at some point or another, and I have relied on it in the past, as has my wife, and I am sure many people in this chamber, too. The way that he has set out the foundation for today's debate is absolutely the right one. I regret some of the comments from other members in the chamber at the weekend, which I think pander to the worst fears about the emerging welfare state. There is not going to be any stampede. We need to tone down the language so that we can build the proper foundations for this new welfare state. I also agree with him on abolishing the bedroom tax. He must be getting deeply worried by now. That is three things that I have agreed with him on. We need to get rid of the bedroom tax, something that I worked with Nicola Sturgeon on to get the UK Government to deliver the flexibility that was necessary to implement the mitigation measures. I agree with him on that. Ever since, in fact, I met the housing association managers on Fife who were able to tell me, very point blankly, that people had just given up on paying their rent. It showed that the system had just ground to a halt. Therefore, we need to have a system that gains confidence of people. In Scotland, carers allowance, likewise, we should bring that in line with the job seekers allowance. That is something that we should be trying to achieve over time. There is quite a lot of work that we can do around the work programme. I was struck by visiting some of the drug rehabilitation projects, particularly one in Cercodi, who said that there is a compulsion for certain members, certain users of their service, to go for a work capability assessment when they are not ready. Those people in that organisation want the drug users to get back into work because the best route out of poverty is the best way to deal with their all-round problems, not just their drug abuse but their housing problems and their family problems, too. Putting faith in the organisations that are working with drug users and others so that they can make the judgment about when it is best to come forward for a work capability assessment. That way, I think, we can personalise the service around individual needs. I am pleased to see that people are planning to work with Skills Development Scotland, the colleges and charities to develop that kind of system. It is not going to be easy, but I think that that is the kind of approach that we will be seeking to adopt. For the fourth time, I agree with Alex Neil this afternoon. I am glad that the cabinet secretary in his contribution has reflected some of the comments, findings and recommendations that the welfare reform committee has made. I think that it is important that, in any system, we reflect dignity, fairness and respect. I do not underestimate the challenges that lie ahead. Mistakes will no doubt be made, not everyone will be happy with every decision that is made. I think that, at least, if we start out with those basic principles and the other five principles that the cabinet secretary mentioned, we will be starting off in the right way. I reflect that this might be my last contribution in this Parliament, or at least one of the last contributions. In a sense, it is quite apposite, because, just under 37 years ago, just after the election of Margaret Thatcher, I left teaching to become a welfare rights officer. For 15 years, I worked in many of the poorest communities in what was then the old Strathclyde area, dealing with the consequences of unemployment, poverty and deprivation and trying to help people through a very complicated welfare benefits system. One of the things that was frustrating day in and day out was just the way that people were treated. They were not treated with dignity and respect, and there was certainly very little fairness. However, the other thing that I have been reflecting on is that one of the things that the way that Strathclyde approaches and indeed the other regional councils in Scotland shows is that, if there is a political will and determination, in spite of adversity and difficulties in limited budgets and in those days, yes, certainly limited budgets and limited powers, many good things can happen if politicians are determined to make it happen. In Strathclyde, not only did they invest in welfare rights officers to go out and to help the disadvantaged, they decided, for example, on the water referendum, they used their powers to the full effect to stop water privatisation, they had a social strategy for the 80s that concentrated and put resources into the poorest communities and to give additional education resources in early years, which was groundbreaking at the time and into schools in the poorest area, and in home helps and in home makers working with families that helped to get the families out of poverty. However, also in social work, we had an imaginative use of section 10 and section 12 monies in the Social Work Scotland Act that actually helped those families when the Government benefits system was letting them down, and we had the very courageous decision, for example, to use limited powers and budgets to help miners' families in 1984 during the miners' strike. I could take much longer, Presiding Officer, but unfortunately I see that I am running out of time, so what I would draw from that is to say to the Cabinet Secretary that if you are determined to make a difference, then despite the obstacles in front of you, you can make a difference. You can make a difference for the carers. You can make a difference for families where children and women are living in poverty. You can make a difference for the disabled. It just depends on whether we are determined to give a priority to that, Presiding Officer. It frustrates me that, in leaving this Parliament, I have done well in the last eight or nine years, as is every member sitting in this chamber, but my poorest constituents have not. If we are going to make a difference in benefits, then we have to follow through on the words that I agree with and show that, by our actions, we will make a difference to those who are disadvantaged in our society. I was very pleased when this Parliament accepted an amendment of mine to the Scottish welfare fund bill that enshrined dignity and respect in that act. I think that that clearly showed the way that this Parliament is going. I truly believe that dignity, respect and fairness should be at the heart of the new social security system that we shape. What I want to see is fairness and not fear. We have already heard from the Conservatives about how they say they want to incentivise work. Maybe Mr Lamont can get to his feet and tell us how an 87 per cent cut to the employability fund will actually help the Scottish Government to get people into work. You can stand, if you wish, Mr Lamont and maybe give us your explanation of how you think—I thought that you wouldn't know—he can maybe also explain to us the situation that many folks who have relied on the ability to get to their work now face. We have heard at the welfare reform committee from folks whose cars have been lifelines to get them to the employment, giving them freedom and independence, and yet, of late, we have seen 13,900 folk in Scotland lose the higher rate of DLA and their cars. That is not helping people to get into work, I would say, Mr Lamont. The stigma that has been caused by the Tory Government and its use of language about people who have had to rely on the social security safety net has led to other major difficulties. The MS Society Scotland has said that 33 per cent of folk do not claim the benefits that they are entitled to due to the public stigma. I think that that is absolutely shocking and that the Tories have a lot to answer for in that regard. The bureaucracy, the paperwork, the assessments, the climate of fear that has permeated throughout our society is something that I think that the Tories should be completely and utterly ashamed of. I hope that we as a Parliament in shaping a new system will get rid of that climate of fear, will cut down on the bureaucracy and paperwork and on the constant assessments that some people have to go through. There are some parts of the current system that I think that we should retain and improve on. Mary Curie, in her briefing today, has talked about the current system of fast tracking of benefit claims for those with a terminal condition. I am sure that the Scottish Government will ensure that that continues. However, it would also be useful if carers allowance for the families of those with terminal conditions could be fast tracked to them. I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider that. I see him nodding his head here. I want to give another example that enables Scotland to have said about the difficulty in terms of horrendous forms and the fact that some folk have to justify every bit of support that their children need in minute detail. I hope that we will look at that carefully and deal with that. I hope that we will build dignity, respect and fairness into the systems that we create over the coming months and years. I hope that we can eradicate the climate of fear and bring back the social security safety net that we all may need in our lives. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. It is an honour to speak on social security in Scotland. The new powers of the Scottish Parliament has now presented a huge opportunity for us to build a fairer Scotland. A new list of historic decisions will be made for the people of Scotland. Of course, the area of benefits and setting the complexity of the whole area is going to be challenging. We need to ensure that any changes that we make are fair, they are suitable and that they do not have a negative impact on any other benefits that we receive. As many recipients of social care make a contribution towards their costs, there is no point in increasing someone's benefits for all the increase to be observed by increased care costs. Not only does the Parliament have the challenge to change and the ability to create benefits, we have the opportunity to make major improvements in the process. I often have constituents come to my drop-in surgeries who are confused about the social security system and that they often need help and support in completing just simple forms. I would like to see major improvements in the claim and decision-making process for benefits. I strongly feel that it is important to boost the third sector organisations that provide support and advice to people applying for benefits and appealing decisions. However, the relationship between recipients and developed benefits will be a challenge. If we get it wrong, then we will make things very much more confusing for people, perhaps even hardship. Let's not do this. Let's make sure no one suffers as a result of the new powers to Parliament that has acquired. We must be user-friendly, particularly amongst those who are less able and those amongst the minority communities who have historically had difficulties in dealing with these issues. Presiding Officer, it's well and good to ask for new powers. It's well and good to hope to deliver good services, but actually doing it is a challenge in itself. I believe that the Scottish Government, whoever is in power, will do their very best for the communities out there. I want the communities out there to feel secure and safe with the fact that the Scottish Government is in fact able and capable of delivering a service that they can be proud of. I just hope that we can live up to that challenge. My hearty prayers and good wishes go to whichever Government in office to deliver a sound, secure, safe and appropriate service to the people of Scotland. There's no point in asking for more powers if we then fail those people that we have made promises to. I wish them all well and I hope that we can make sure that no one is going to be less well-off after the new powers transferred to us. Social Security is a concept that is enshrined in article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it states that everyone as a member of society has the right to social security as an entitled to realisation through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each state, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his or her personality. That's the declaration. What worries me about a social security system, the one that we are looking at in the past now, is that the Conservatives aim to repeal the human rights act and the impact that they will have on fundamental rights to social security. I see the cabinet secretary and many others this afternoon have talked about respect and dignity in the system, and that is something from being a member of the welfare reform committee that we have been asked of over and over and over again. I want a system that quite literally takes a person with a long-term condition such as MND or MS or a person with a terminal illness like cancer or a person with a mental health issue. It takes them in the palm of its hand and tells them it's okay. We care. We will support you. We will make your last days on this earth as easy as possible, or even a system that makes it and tells people who have found it difficult to get into work or facing redundancy. A system that says, don't worry, we will help you with training and support to find a job. We have talked a lot about fairness today. All I have heard for years is that that is all people want. They want a system that gives them the fairness that they are looking for. The evidence that we have had at committee tells us this over and over and over again. They want a system that allows them to navigate easily and caring in the toughest times of their life. We have many ideas and we have had many briefings from Marie Curie in MND Scotland and MS today, who have a manifesto called Get Loud for MS. They should get loud with their manifesto because we need to know what people need, what people want and what they aspire to. Others, as we know, have called for a system that fast-tracks people facing terminal illness. You have got no idea of the families that I know, and you have maybe come across them yourself, who have faced continual reassessment, continual formfilling, when they have only got months left of their life to live and that life should be spent with their family, not filling in forms, not going for reassessment and not facing down a system that does not care. We have heard some of the proposals from the Scottish Government today, and Chris Kerr has announced to the same as Jobseeker's. The South Lanarkshire Kerr's network that I have been involved in for many years now will be absolutely delighted to see that, because it is something that we do not take cognisance of. We all want to abolish the bedroom tax, maybe not all of us, but we certainly do, and we will look forward to that. Introduction of flexibilities around universal credit, most eloquently put by my friend Claire Adamson, when she talked about the challenges that people face there, and scrapping the 84-day rule that removes income from families of disabled children with their in-hospital. What a disgusting state of affairs when families have put under pressure like that because their child has went into hospital. It is not acceptable that a person with MND or any other disease has put through their assessments and reassessments when they should be spending, as I said, those last few days with their family. We have heard lots of words today—fairness, dignity and respect—so, if we can conspire to put together a social security system with these three facts, I believe that we can demonstrate a system that values everyone in our nation. As others have said, the Scottish Parliament is to assume important new powers with regard to several aspects of the social security system as a consequence of the Smith agreement. The work that the Government has been undertaking in advance of those powers is to be welcomed. I appreciate that all options must be considered, including the DWP continuing to operate Scotland system in order that it can be evaluated even if there is no appetite for them. Therefore, I assume that option 5, outsourcing by procurement, was also included for the same reason. Note that option did not perform well against the sixth criteria. I personally would be very concerned if Scotland's social security system became a vehicle for private sector profit. Last week, we discussed the Scottish National Action Plan on human rights year 2 report. SNAP has consistently argued that the benefits of human rights approach in the commissioning and delivery of services are a point that is made in the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland briefing for this debate. Much of the work done by SNAP so far has been in changing culture and practice in the delivery of existing services and the setting up of a new system is a golden opportunity to embed that human rights approach in it from the very beginning. Both the Alliance and Enable also argue that a cultural shift in the delivery of social services can be created. Both organisations stress the need for a person-centred approach to decision making and budgeting, which seeks the best outcomes for the individual and their families. Both also consider that this is an opportunity to change the way in which social security is described and discussed, and others indeed have mentioned the derogaty terminology used around benefits and welfare. I hope that a more positive attitude towards disability, for example, can be encouraged. It is my hope that as this process continues, that it will be inclusive and responsive to the concerns of the people who will be involved in the system. Turning now to the Labour amendment, I think that the majority of members of this chamber recognise that addressing the inequalities that affect childhood are key both to a fairer society but also to a more prosperous country, whose economy will be supported by a highly trained and skilled workforce. While we all agree on this matter, there are shocking statistics on the extent of child poverty and inequality in Scotland today. More than one in five children living in poverty, the most disadvantaged children at age five being 13 months behind the average in terms of development and, indeed, evidence of inequality of opportunity starting before birth. That is why we are arguing that addressing child poverty should be top priority and that the devolution of social security powers is one tool that we will have in future. However, we need to be honest about revenue. Addressing such deep-rooted inequality will cost money, and this Parliament will need to raise the revenue to affect those changes. We should not run away from saying so or discussing the best ways of doing so. The Tory amendment is intriguing, and I am being sort of polite in saying that. In a sense, speaking of the benefits of the workforce and treating people with dignity and respect, the latter cannot be said for the welfare reforms brought in by the UK Government under the direction of Ian Duncan-Smith. As for the benefits of the workforce, the current UK Government has done its utmost to reduce in-work benefits. Now, as someone who supports the UK remaining in the EU, I can only hope that Mr Duncan-Smith brings the same success to the leave campaign as he has to the welfare reform programme. Finally, this Parliament will begin to gain substantial new powers from the very time that the new Parliament is convened and, increasingly, it will do so through the course of the session. I agree with the cabinet secretary that we should work together to ensure a smooth transition, but the exercise of the new powers by the next Government, whoever that is, must be robustly scrutinised by the Parliament. Its success must be measured in terms of outcomes and not of assertions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me just start briefly by offering some respect to Hugh Henry. If that was his valedictory address to us here today, there is no better subject that he could have been speaking on. He is not always someone that I have agreed in every detail, but I absolutely share his commitment, which I acknowledge, to trying to make the lives of people in Scotland better, even if we differ sometimes about methods in doing so. In doing so, I think that that addresses dignity, fairness and respect that the cabinet secretary anchored the debate on quite properly. Sir William Beverage, who underpinned much of what we are engaging with today has evolved a lot since the Beverage report was started in 1941 with a survey, but, nonetheless, the approach that was taken then is one that we live with today. Perhaps one of the important things to think about is what is the society that we are part of, what is the society of which we wish to be part in future. We can all contribute to society. I think that we would all accept that. I am not certain that the Conservatives, however, would agree with my assertion that we do not have to be a worker to contribute to society. I think that the amendment that the Conservatives bring forward anchors social security and support in being an employment. Lots of people contribute to society without being able to, willing to or being an employment. We must separate the needs of people in our society from the ability to financially be part of our society. Many people simply cannot be that, and I would fundamentally disagree with colleagues on the Conservative benches. Quite a lot of the debate has been about mechanical issues. Inevitably, the cabinet secretary talked to a great deal about how we will do that. Beverage, quite interestingly, in his budgets for his proposals, put a cap on the administration cost of the system that he proposed of 5 per cent. That is a pretty good starting place for the cabinet secretary to perhaps think about in the modern efficient world with good-quality computer systems that we might do even rather better. It is also worth thinking that, perhaps, smaller uplifts in how much we expend can perhaps have bigger impacts than we think. Beverage's system actually only increased expenditure on social services by 50 per cent. He would think that, for the radical transformation that it affected, it would be much more. It was much more fundamentally that it refocused what we were doing. The system that preceded it for the previous 30 years came from Lloyd George's introduction of the old age pension act, which he introduced in 1908. The House of Lords vigorously opposed it, and in 1911 their sales were trimmed so that their powers to block legislation were reduced. I fear that we are back in the position of the House of Lords with adding extra members, as the Tories plan to do, having undue influence over public policy. The bottom line is that we need to focus on people. The original system was the Chelsea pensioner system introduced in 1689 by King William and Queen Mary. My great-great-grandfather was a Chelsea pensioner from 1818 because he was an army pensioner. Today, we are in a different position. We need to make sure that we are able to afford what we do, but we have to focus first, middle and bottom on the people that we are trying to support. I am sure that we will be doing that. Many thanks. We now move to closing speeches. I call on Alex Johnson four minutes. Please, Mr Johnson, up to four minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Right at the beginning of this debate, Alex Neil said that this was a historic day, and I agree with him. Those are exciting times indeed as we move forward and take advantage of the powers that have been given to us or will be given to us by the new Scotland Bill. I have to contrast my experience of the provisions regarding tax on the Scotland Bill and those regarding welfare. I found the tax provisions simple and easy to understand, and they have as a result not been a particular source of discussion during this whole process. The welfare provisions, on the other hand, I thought were complex and difficult to understand, and although I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say that we perhaps did not understand them correctly initially, it has been necessary for substantial changes to have been made. In the spirit of co-operation that we have had today in this debate, most of the way, I would like to take credit to some extent for having not accepted those welfare proposals as they originally appeared and contributed, I hope, to the improvement that we have experienced. However, there are ways in which we will differ from others in this debate, and perhaps that is easiest to point out if I can contrast my views with those expressed by Stuart Stevenson just a moment ago. I do believe that work is an extremely important factor in encouraging people to participate in life and in society. As a result, I have no qualms about suggesting that social security, as it goes forward, should be tied wherever necessary to encouraging and supporting people back into work. I also believe that there is no issue regarding some form of conditionality being attached to the payments that we make. It is often said in the debate that somehow conditionality is inappropriate. I believe that those who contribute their hard-dened taxpayer contribution to the schemes that we are going to develop will expect some form of conditionality within the system. Turning to the remarks that the minister himself made, I could not agree more with the first point that he made, and that is that it is essential that we get a smooth and safe transition. There should be no gaps between one provision and the next, because those who are dependent on that support cannot allow that to happen. However, he perhaps failed to raise one other issue that I would put in the same area, and that is the issue of the cost of providing services. Those of us who look closely at the development and evolution of the Scottish welfare fund realised that, at its outset, the cost was too high a proportion of the total amount of money that was being made available. That was perhaps due to the fact that it was the first scheme of its kind, and a lot of setting up of the administration had to be done from the bottom up by local authorities. Nevertheless, if the minister goes forward, as he said, with his new social security agency for Scotland, I think that we should all be concerned to ensure that the cost of running that is not something that takes money out of the hands of those who need it. There has been criticism of the work capability assessment, and I understand why people are critical of it. However, I also worry that the alternative to such an assessment is some form of self-referral, which would be unacceptable. I think that the challenge that we have all around this Parliament going forward is to find an alternative approach that does what is necessary without making the mistake of leaving a gap completely. Finally, the minister has given the impression on a number of occasions, as often members of his party do, that there will be huge amounts of extra funding available for these new schemes. The truth is that that extra funding is not the subject of any commitment yet made by this Government. I believe that the minister is right that dignity, respect and fairness is the basis of the system that we must create going forward, but we must give the assurance to Scotland's taxpayers that their money, when it is taken for this purpose, will be used efficiently and effectively and that we will work at least as hard on the creation of wealth as we do over its distribution. I am grateful for the opportunity to close on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. Issues of social security have been a bit of a focus of mine in this in the period in Parliament. I thank colleagues passing present on the welfare reform committee, their clerks, the other spokespeople and the ministers and their predecessors. One of the issues that I first had involvement in was about our approach and the approach that Parliament is going to take to the imposition of the bedroom tax on our communities. I was grateful at that time for the many expert people that came and discussed with us the range of options, campaigners and policy experts alike. I think that Willie Rennie was absolutely right to talk about their involvement in the next stage of developing a social security system in Scotland. There are huge expertise outside of here. With new powers coming to this place, I think that one of the key things that the cabinet secretary said at an opening that I am very much welcomed was that we can move on simply from the effect of mitigating the bedroom tax to abolishing it altogether and that he will have our full support. The responsibility of MSPs in the future will be to design and implement a new and distinctive social security system in Scotland in many areas where, in the past, the focus has only been on complaints about decisions and systems taken and created elsewhere. I was struck not from one of the briefings but a comment that Bill Scott of Inclusion Scotland made last year when he said that the system needed to stop treating claimants as suspected criminals. Many members will also have seen reports over the weekend that some 85 per cent of the fraud allegations made by members of the public and eagerly solicited by the UK Government have proven to be entirely unwarranted. I think that Alex Neil was absolutely right to say that social security should be regarded not as a system of handout but as a basis for addressing need in our society. We should all be clear that we have a stake in a system of social security. We have a responsibility, yes, to pay in when we can but also a right to receive support when we do that. I thought that Christine McElvie was right to put it in a rights-based context. It must take account of our circumstances and the varying ability that we each have either at different times in our lives or because of particular barriers to employment that exist for various groups, whether that is in terms of ill health, old age, disability or some other reason. The social security system—I think that it was John Lamont that first made this point, and it is a fair one—develition of a social security system interacts with many of the other powers that this Parliament has over housing, education, job creation, the list could go on. Develation of new powers, therefore, I do not think that we can see that in isolation from the other areas of policy. Neither would we on the Labour side argue that we can see an isolation from the financial powers that are coming to the Scottish Parliament. Social security is becoming a shared competence, sharing common standards across the United Kingdom about gaining the flexibility to adjust the system in a range of areas to suit need and reflect policy choices taken here. The challenge, I think, for the next Parliament, will be to make that system work in a way that does actually improve the lives of people on whose behalf this Parliament has been vocal in complaining in the past. Many of those issues will of course be tested in the upcoming election campaign, and I take the opportunity to wish those members who are standing as candidates well with the hope that they do give priority to this agenda. As Dr Murray pointed out, we are honest about the choices that we face as a society in relation to the benefit system. Elaine Murray also talked about the options appraisal, which the Government has kindly provided and published in relation to the governance of the new system. We certainly take the opportunity to endorse the view that social security should be a public function accountable to Scottish ministers and to the Parliament. We cannot outsource our responsibility and ambition for a fairer Scotland to a department or agency accountable elsewhere, and neither, given the experience of private sector delivery, would it be appropriate for a new system to be contracted out to those who might seek to make profit from the poor circumstances of many of our citizens. The focus of the Labour amendment has been on child poverty. In addition, we have agreements with the Scottish Government about raising support for carers, abolishing the bedroom tax that Roddy mentioned. However, we want a Scotland where the wealth of our parents is not the defining feature in the life chances of our youngest citizens. That is why we have indicated another area in which we will seek to use these new powers is by an increase to the Sure Start maternity grant, a payment introduced by the last Labour Government, in which we remain committed to using to assist low-income parents expecting their first child. I hope that the candidates in the election are honest about the choices that are available to us. I think that there is a risk that the devolution of significant social security powers creates an expectation that Scotland's politicians failed to deliver upon. It is therefore vital that all the parties are honest about where our priorities lie and whether or not we are prepared to pay for our priorities and indeed for a fairer Scotland. Labour is committed not just to using the new welfare powers that we have argued for but also the financial powers that we support for this Parliament. Since 1999, parties have had the ability to propose raising the revenue, but with enhancements to the devolution settlement, those powers become more and more flexible. Hugh Henry made the outstanding contribution in the afternoon. He was right to say that the choice has now become whether or not we choose to make change or only complain about what we do not like. The Scottish Labour Party chooses change. We choose to make Scotland fairer by action, not just words, and we are proud to do so. I therefore support the amendment in the name of McCulloch, Neil Findlay, and I encourage other members to do likewise at decision time. Thank you very much. I now call on Alex Neil to wind up the debate. Mr Neil, Cabinet Secretary, up to eight minutes please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I begin as a fellow member of the 1999 intake and pay tribute to Hugh Henry, who has served in this Parliament for the last 17 years, as a minister, as a backbencher and as the convener of a committee. During that time, Hugh has made a distinguished contribution to the Parliament, and we thank him for that. I also wish Drew Smith all the best, given that he is standing down after five years, and I am sure that he is young enough—as Hugh is—to come back at some future date. I begin just by underlining the commitment that I gave with a nod to Kevin Stewart in terms of fast-tracking benefits for those people who are terminally ill. In any humane society, that is an undertaking that we would all want to do to make sure that anyone who is suffering from a terminal illness gets fast-track for assessment and payment. It is a very good example of many of the improvements that we can make to the social security system that do not cost a great deal of extra money. For example, I have already announced that two of the things that we will do in relation to the flexibilities for universal credit are to offer people the opportunity to have payments made fortnightly instead of monthly. Sometimes monthly means five weekly, and for many people it is very difficult to budget on the meager means of income that they have on a monthly or five weekly basis. There is very little additional cost to the system of offering those people, if they so wish, to take up the choice of being paid twice a month instead of just once a month. Similarly, every stakeholder, including tenants organisations, has asked us to revert to the older system in terms of housing benefit, so that housing benefit is paid directly to the social landlords and not to the tenants. Under the previous system, 96 per cent of people wanted and had their housing benefit paid directly to the landlord, and the tenants themselves want to go back to that system. Of course, every tenant has to reserve the right to change that if they so wish, but I think that every stakeholder believes that that would be an improvement, and it is one again that would not cost much money at all to implement and one to which we are committed. A couple of other areas that we are looking at, for example, if we were able to time winter fuel payments to help people who are off-grid, that could make a material improvement to their situation as well. Again, only an admin cost would be involved in that if we were able to do it. Similarly, I believe that much more co-location between those who are dispensing benefits and making decisions about individuals in relation to benefit applications should be much more co-located with welfare rights services so that they can check almost right away whether they have been allocated the right level of benefit and have it double-checked to make sure that that happens. I think that that would take a lot of frustration out of the system and help enormously, again at very, very little cost if it is possible to do that. I deal with some of the other issues that were raised. John Lamont mentioned IT systems. He might be glad to know that, for those benefits that will rely on major IT systems, in the initial period, we will continue to use the IT systems of the Department of Work and Pensions. That is of necessity, because if we were to invent our own IT system, it would delay the acquisition of those powers by some years. As a trade-off, I think that it is worth our file. Even though we will have to pay the Department of Work and Pensions for the pleasure of doing so, I think that it would make sense in ensuring a smooth transition to continue to use those IT systems, which no doubt were designed by a Scotsman anyway, to make sure that they are going to operate until we are in a position to have our own IT systems. Similarly, I just mentioned with the BERT programme, I think that it was Willie Rennie who mentioned the benefits of the work programme, and we share his thoughts in that matter. Unfortunately, since the decision was taken to include in the Scotland bill the devolution of the work programme to the Scottish Government, the allocated budget for the work programme has been reduced at a UK level from nearly £100 billion to just under £100 million. Therefore, the anticipated amount that we were expecting at the time when it was announced that the work programme would be devolved to this Parliament, we were expecting to inherit a budget of nearly £100 million. The budget that we are going to inherit is likely to be more like £13 million. Neil Findlay is on the subject. I wonder if Mr Neil would care to comment on the revelations in the ferret today, the online journal about the links between his party and the private welfare to work lobby, and how they are involved in developing discussions with the Scottish Government on the way forward for the work programme. I am totally unaware of any such connection. I am sure that, on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Welfare, I am sure that neither of us has any links. I have not even heard of such an organisation. I have not read the ferret, but I will read it in my box tonight to see what the ferret is saying. Maybe the ferret has got it wrong, I am sure not for the first time. In terms of the work programme, it is a tragedy that the budget for the work programme has been reduced so significantly for the very reasons that Willie Rennie outlined, because it can make a major contribution not just to solving problems of social security and poverty, but to getting people with particular addictions, for example, on drinking drugs, back into a more mainstream way of life. I hope that the UK Government will reconsider that decision at some stage. I said in my opening speech that it is our objective to reduce bureaucracy and to reduce paper filling in all the things that cost money. I mentioned the assessments as a very good example of where we can improve the service for the individual and enhance the dignity and respect that they receive. However, one of the benefits of streamlining the assessment, not just within those benefits but streamlining it with assessments that are already undertaken by local authorities, for example, for a single budget, would be beneficially financially as well. Self-directed support already undertakes a lot of the assessments that are also undertaken for a qualification for PIP, personal independence payments. It seems to me that if an independent medical assessment service that can provide that service to everybody, the individual would not need to repeatedly have to go for basically the same medical assessment for different benefits, either from the local authority or from the social security agency. That is just one example where I believe that significant amounts of money currently spend in administration and duplication and repetition could be saved and do so to the benefit of the individual because they would not have to go for so many assessments, but the money saved could then be reinvested in the system to further improve how we are delivering benefits as well as maybe improve the benefits themselves. It is that kind of imaginative innovative approach that we require, Presiding Officer. I am very keen that the administration of the benefit system is as close to the people affected as possible. Although we will have a national agency, local delivery, I think that there will be an essential principle for success and for efficiency and effectiveness. In all those areas, Presiding Officer, I am very delighted that there is a fairly broad consensus in the chamber. I think that we should build in that consensus and build a new social security system in Scotland that we can all be proud of. That concludes the debate on social security. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15759, in the name of Sandra White on the Footway Parking and Double Parking, Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to please press their requests to speak what is now or as soon as possible. I call on Sandra White to speak to and move the motion. Ms White, you have 10 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is a great pleasure, not just for me but for many other people to bring this bill before the Parliament today. As some members may know, the bill started out as a proposal by the former MSP Ross Finney back in 2010. 123 responses were received to the consultation, and of those, 83 per cent supported the proposals. Unfortunately, the bill fell due to parliamentary elections in 2011. However, it was then taken up by Joe Fitzpatrick MSP in 2012, who, unfortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, had to withdraw the proposal after becoming a minister in the present Scottish Government. It is well worth noting that the second consultation received 414 responses with 95 per cent in favour of the proposed bill. That highlights the fact that the bill was very important. It is one of the biggest responses to any member's bill that we have had in the Scottish Parliament. As I said before, the bill fell because Joe Fitzpatrick became a minister, and the baton, if you like to call it that, has been more of a marathon than a sprint was taken up by myself. I am proud to have stuck with the proposal and have been able to take it forward to this stage. I hope that the principles of the bill will be agreed upon today. I want to thank the many individuals and groups who took part in the consultations and continue to take an absolutely keen interest in what is going on. I would also like to thank the members of the local government and regeneration committee for their hard work, dedication and support in scrutinising the bill and making the following conclusion that we report to the Parliament that we are content with the general principles of the bill and recommend that the bill be agreed to at stage 1. I must point out that Cameron Buchanan in particular did a sterling job in appearing in the committee's YouTube video, calling for people to make their voices heard. I do understand, Mr Buchanan, that this video has become quite a hit on YouTube. Maybe you should look it up for that. I would also like to thank the members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their scrutiny of the bill and their conclusions that it is content with the delegated powers provisions contained in the bill. I also want to pay particular thanks to Living Streets, Guides Dog Scotland and the coalition of charities who supported the bill and dedicated a lot of their time and resources to help in the drafting of the bill. All I can say is thank you very much. In essence, the bill seeks to restrict the obstruction of footways and drop kerbs by part vehicles and the double parking of vehicles on carriageways on all public roads in built-up areas in Scotland. A number of exemptions are set out in the bill and, in addition, local authorities can exempt areas from the bill's provisions. The bill also seeks to prohibit vehicles from waiting whilst obstructing a footway or drop kerb or when double parked except in a limited number of circumstances. For many users of footways, the issue of obstructive parking is very real and one that can have a hugely detrimental effect on their daily lives. The following excerpt from the submission to the committee by Guides Dog Scotland sums up the issue perfectly. In a Guides Dog streets ahead survey, pavement parking was the top obstacle cited by all respondents, 81.7 per cent, and this rose to 88 per cent for blind and partially sighted people who listed it as a problem that is seen regularly encountered. Parking and pavements affects all people who use the streets, particularly problematic and dangerous, not solely for slight sight impaired, also for older people, people with pushchairs, walking toddlers, wheelchair users, mobility scooters and other people with mobility and cognitive impairments. Pavement parking forces all of those people to walk into the road among moving traffic. I have to leave for a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, but I congratulate the member on her perseverance with the bill, because I know from the many representations that I have had from constituents that this is one of the most eagerly awaited members balls that I have ever come across. I thank Malcolm Chisholm for the intervention. I was going to mention Malcolm in the speech later on, because he has been very supportive along with Mark Lasavitch, both from Edinburgh. I thank him for signing the motion as requested. I thank him very much for that. As Malcolm has said, it is a very highly awaited bill, and basically everyone has constantly said that this is one of the best bills that we could possibly put through the Parliament. Another issue that a lot of people do not seem to think about is that payment parking costs local authorities lots of money in maintenance, not only on the surface but broken hazardous people tripping over it and can give rise to compensation claims, but also the background of underground pipes and cables. Something that people do not tend to think about, but it is a really important one. The City of Edinburgh makes the same observations in its submission to the bill, and it also states that the council supports the introduction of a blanket man on both footway and double parking with the option to indicate where footway parking is permitted. That approach will help us to build upon the success of our current active travel action plan and allow our draft parking action plan to address those issues effectively. I thank the City Council for its contribution along with other councils as well. The Equality Human Rights Commission believes that a more effective and enforceable legal framework for addressing obstructive inconsiderate parking could assist local authorities and councils in meeting the requirements of the public sector equality duty, particularly as the 2010 acts make it clear that due regard involves the need to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic. In other words, we must go forward and put forward for the 2010 act. The bill's provisions could also help give effect to the United Kingdom obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disability. Particle 9, in particular, is accessibility. That states to enable persons with disabilities to live independently and to participate fully in all aspects of lives. States should take appropriate measures to ensure persons with disabilities access on all equal basis with others to the physical environment. The convention makes it clear that that measure should include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility. One area of the bill that has been open to interpretation is the aspect of legislative competence and whether or not the Scottish Parliament has a responsibility to legislate in that area. It has led to lengthy discussions with the Scottish Parliament non-government bills unit, which took the view that the Scottish Parliament did not have the competence and, as such, would not provide support in drafting the bill. However, thanks to continued dialogue and the work of the Scottish Government and its officers between the Scottish Government and Westminster, I have to mention yourself, Mr Chisholm, and Mark Lachowicz, the previous MP for Edinburgh, who worked along, not just with me but others, to attempt to resolve the impasse. The minister, Derek Mackay, and his officials who got the amendments to the Scotland Bill through in order to remove any doubts over competence. Those were brought forward to the House of Lords at the latest reading of the Scotland Bill and agreed on, so I think that that is something that we should all be thankful and proud of. Once again, I thank the Scottish Government, in particular the minister for their support in moving the bill forward. Of course, his officials for all the work that they have carried out, but the officials in particular never seem to get the credit for it, so I would like to say thank you very much for that as well. With the support outlined above and any perceived obstacles to the implementation of the bill, it now seems resolved. That is what this Parliament is all about. It is a Parliament that serves the people, a Parliament for the people, in what better way to serve the people, to remove the obstacles from people being able to go out their door, go on the pavement, whether it be a push chair, whether it be a blind person or anyone with disabilities, to be able to have the freedom of movement that you and I and others in this chamber and outwith take for granted, even if it is just to go to the shops, if it is just to go to the park, if it is to take your kid out in a push chair. This is a great moment for this Parliament if it is to say that we support the general principles of the parking bill. I just want to give my thanks before I hear the contributions and I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the footway parking and double parking Scotland bill. Thanks very much. I now call on Kevin Stewart to speak on behalf of the local government and regeneration committee. Mr Stewart, up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and Sandra White has outlined that many members have tried to bring this legislation forward and congratulate her for her tenacity in that. The local government and regeneration committee welcomed the opportunity to consider the footway parking and double parking Scotland bill at stage 1. As members of the Parliament, particularly those of us representing urban areas, we are all too aware of the problems caused by irresponsible parking. That is double parking, parking across drop to curb crossing points and pavement parking. We have raised those issues with us on far too regular a basis. As a constituency member, I have received various complaints over the years. If our own inboxes and mailbags were not enough to convince us that this is an issue of real concern to a great many people, then the response to our call for evidence most certainly was. We received 63 written submissions, about half of which were from members of the public, and nearly 4,000 completed our online questionnaire. We also received nearly 500 comments on Facebook, and many of those responses weren't from people with disabilities, just showing how much this is a significant issue of concern at street level in many communities. I would also like to thank contributions from organisations such as Guide Dog Scotland and Living Street Scotland, who were also very helpful during the course of our inquiry. During our inquiry, we heard from a lot of folk, as I have already said, including Police Scotland and some local authorities, who are responsible for enforcing parking restrictions, who said that the existing legislative provision in this area is complex and confusing and that this bill would address the absence of clear rules. Based on the evidence that we took, we agreed that this bill would seem a signed basis for strengthening the law in this area. We felt that the fact that irresponsible parking is such a problem in some communities demonstrates in itself that the existing legislative provision is not working. In terms of the details of the bill, we highlighted a few concerns that were raised with us over the course of our inquiry. First, the scope of the definition of public roads in built-up areas of Scotland seems to exclude A and B roads. We have felt that irresponsible parking will be a problem in some A and B roads and recommend that the bill applies to those as well. Second, we were confused by the exception to allow parking next to a dropped curb outside residential premises with the permission of the occupier. We felt that the bill needed to be clearer about whether that relates to a drop curb at the end of a private driveway, as it would seem to be against the principle of the bill if it permits parking over a drop curb at a road crossing. We also considered that it would also be impossible to enforce. Third, the road haulage association raised concerns about the 20-minute window to allow parking next to a drop curb, or double parking, to make a delivery. We felt, however, that 20 minutes would be sufficient for most deliveries. Where a delivery would take longer, that could be anticipated in advance so that more time could be scheduled to allow a driver to find an alternative, more appropriate parking space. Particular concerns were raised around the issue of the implementation of the bill, especially the power for local authorities to establish exempt areas and the enforcement of the bill by Police Scotland or local authorities. Local authorities felt that the process of establishing exempt areas and the legal requirements to effectively signpost them would cost much more than the member in charge suggests. There were also concerns that the bill could not be enforced effectively within existing resources. We saw particular assurances that the bill would address the lack of consistency in how parking issues are dealt with across Scotland. We were therefore disappointed that Police Scotland and local authorities felt that the bill would do little to create a consistent approach across the country, and noted the minister's comment that further work was required to address the issue. Highlighting those points, however, we note the Scottish Government's commitment to support a similar bill in the next session and the minister's assurances that some aspects of the policy will be given further consideration. We would hope that local authorities would strike the right balance between on the one hand keeping footways accessible and on the other ensuring that there are sufficient parking opportunities in built-up areas. The bill should not just displace the problem from one urban area to another. The committee is pleased to have played a part in highlighting the aims of the bill and perhaps encouraging the Scottish and the UK Government to resolve the issue of legislative competence. I welcome the inclusion of the relevant powers in the Scotland bill. I again congratulate Sandra White for her tenaciousness in the issue. I will finish by congratulating Sandra White for her indomitable pursuance of the issue and by welcoming the Scottish Government's commitment to support a bill in the next parliamentary session when the relevant powers have been devolved. The local government and regeneration committee supports the general principles of the footway parking and double parking Scotland bill. Many thanks. I now call Minister Derek Mackay. Minister, seven minutes please. Before I give my opening statement to Parliament, I too wish to thank Sandra White for her opening speech and the commendable work that she has put into developing this bill in a complex subject area that we all acknowledge is very challenging. Kevin Stewart is right. It is her tenacious approach that has led to the bill coming this far and leading to a Government commitment to continue into the next term. Indeed, any incoming Government would now recognise that this is an issue in which there is a great deal of consensus in the Parliament and we would want to take it forward. Parking is an important issue for many people and is subject to a variety of acts and regulations. What the bill aims to do is to introduce clear prohibitions, whilst allowing for various qualifications and exceptions. Those aims align with our key strategic transport policy of improving quality, accessibility and affordability of transport. The Government is committed to promoting, supporting and advancing the rights of non-motorised users to ensure that our roads and footpaths are accessible for all. As part of the local government and regeneration committee's stage 1 inquiry, it received, as we have heard, nearly 4,000 responses to an online questionnaire and 63 submissions to its written evidence stage, highlighting just how much people are concerned about obstructive and irresponsible parking and enter Cameron Buchanan YouTube star who knew who knew. The committee concluded its stage 1 report, and it is content with general principles of the member's bill and we share their view. Having said that, I acknowledge that there are a number of issues that still require to be worked through. In particular, there is the issue of this Parliament's power to legislate on the matter. Following the bill's introduction, the Presiding Officer issued a statement stating that, in her view, the bill is out with the current legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That statement has raised out as to whether any act flowing from the bill could be fully within the legislative competence of the Parliament. Although there may be differing legal views on whether Parliament could legislate competently in this area, as the legislation may have given rise to financial penalties and potential criminality, it is absolutely essential that all doubt was removed. That is why the Scottish and the UK Governments have agreed the general approach to the amendment of the Scotland Bill that seeks to address the legislative competence issues raised by the Presiding Officer. The principle amendment was laid on 24 February, and we are working with the UK Government on further minor and technical amendments to deliver the appropriate competence to the Scottish Parliament. As has been said before, the Lord's is not our preference of where legislation is made in relation to Scotland, but it is welcome that we have made that progress. However, any agreed amendments will not be enforced before this Parliament is dissolved. In addition to the legislative competence issues, the committee heard evidence from local authorities, Police Scotland and businesses that have stressed the need for more detailed consideration on the implementation and enforcement of the bill's provisions. I also acknowledge the committee's concerns about the challenges that many local authorities face in managing Scotland's roads to ensure that they work effectively for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as motorists and business. Sandra White acknowledged those concerns in terms of the bill, and, as drafted, it does not cover all roads in Scotland. We have to look at some of the challenging priorities in terms of the residential nature of many of our streets, on town centres and not shunting the problem that has been described. That is why a careful consultation and fuller consideration will be required in some of the traffic management and planning issues going forward. The Minister for Giving Way speaks now as a constituency MSP rather than the convener of the committee. Will the minister give us an assurance that, in terms of formulae and future legislation, the A and B roads will be looked at? I know that there are not many trunk roads where parking is allowed, but that is certainly the case in Aberdeen, and there are very many problems in my constituency and that of Mark MacDonald. I believe that that is a fair point. For the Government to take forward this legislation, we will have to consider all the issues around enforceability, decriminalised parking, where different local authorities are at on the issue and the workability, and resolve some of the issues that were raised before, during and after the committee's consideration of the balance that exists between residential need and accessibility, in town centre principles, regeneration, economic opportunity and all that, but with the key principle in mind in tackling irresponsible and inconsiderate parking, which is the pardon the pun but the driving force behind the bill. It is for that reason that I can commit to this Government, if re-elected, in tending to bring forward legislation, suitable legislation in the next parliamentary session, which would begin with further consultation on all those matters to ensure that we get it right and ensure fairness in our active travel priorities, as well as our accessibility agenda. That legislation strikes the right balance and is fully workable so that it can deliver on the principles and the key objectives that successive parliaments have now tried to deliver. Although it may not be possible for the reasons given to legislate now before this Parliament concludes the fact that there seems to be so much consensus, it shows that we should take the issue forward. That is why this Government is committed to taking forward legislation to address the issues that have been raised by so many constituents and members from across the political spectrum, but not least Sandra White, who got it this far and is leading to a Government commitment. I, too, would like to start by thanking Sandra White for bringing the bill forward and for her work in highlighting the problem of inconsiderate parking. It is an issue that the Parliament has been debating for some time now, and I am pleased that Sandra White has been able to pick up in the work of our former parliamentary colleague, Rosswini MSP, and her ministerial colleague, Jo Fitzpatrick. It is quite clear that parking in the pavement and across dropped kerbs is irksome and inconvenient to many pedestrians, but potentially dangerous to others, including cyclists, blind or partially sighted people, children in prams and anyone using a wheelchair. Even for the nimble, footed and traffic aware, being forced off the pavement on to the road increases your risk of being hit by a car or a lorry. For many more people, the kerb itself is a barrier. Badly parked cars can turn a simple journey into an obstacle course. To my mind, that is about trying to change behaviour, encouraging us all to be a little less selfish and a little more thoughtful when behind the wheel of a car. However, it is also about rebalancing our relationship as a society with cars generally. Motor transport is vital to us economically, but we should recognise that it is also often simply about our personal convenience, and that needs to be weighed against safety, our environment and quality of life. In recent years, we have seen a move to lower speed limits in built-up areas, the introduction of car-free home zones and an attempt to make cars themselves more pedestrian friendly if I can use that term to describe the removal of sharp edges and prominent insignia from the front bonnet. The Safe Roots to School initiative from the early years of the Parliament was another helpful move in the right direction, but for those of us often doing the school run, things might have improved, but it is still, unfortunately, not that unusual to see double parking and pavement parking on the very pavements that prams and young kids are trying to negotiate on their way to school. Before we all get too self-righteous or sanctimonious about this, I would ask how many drivers here have not at one stage or other parked on a pavement. I am sure that we all justified it at the time. It was what everyone else in a narrow street was doing, or it was only for a minute or two. The point that I would make here is that we all have the potential to behave one way as a pedestrian and another as a driver, and there is a spectrum of selfishness or inconsiderate behaviour that we are all on and which we all need to address. I believe that this bill is not about punishing drivers, it is about addressing and changing that behaviour. Turning to the proposed legislation itself, although I think that there is broad agreement about the general approach outlined in the bill, there are also a number of concerns, and I thank the local government committee in particular for flagging them up when they are helpful consideration in stage 1. It would appear, for example, that although the police and local authorities already have some powers to tackle the problem of nuisance parking, several different laws can apply depending on the circumstances, and furthermore enforcement of those laws varies widely across the country. In many council areas, including in my authority of East Renfrewshire, parking enforcement has been decriminalised, so parking regulations are now the responsibility of local parking attendants rather than the police. I share the view of the committee that it might be helpful to take a more consistent approach and that a bill to clarify and consolidate the legislation would help to make it clearer to drivers exactly what is acceptable in the way of parking and what is not. Sticking with my local authority for a moment, the recent decriminalisation of parking has not been without its problems. Residents and shopkeepers have been up in arms about over vigorous ticketing, particularly outside local shops. Parking restrictions, which have never been enforced for decades, were suddenly zealously implemented, provoking a pretty strong reaction from those on the receiving end. Local people have now been consulted on what would be appropriate in the way of parking restrictions, and although I will not pretend that every concern has been addressed, it has at least begun to reflect parking need and local usage. The point that I would make here is that, in introducing any new powers or measures over parking, it is better to take people with you. I think that that emerges strongly from the evidence in the bill, and I thoroughly endorse the committee's recommendation that any enforcement is accompanied by consultation and dialogue with local communities. You made it clear that you do not believe that the footway parking and double parking bill would be within the competence of the Parliament. That is not an insurmountable problem. My former Westminster colleague Mark Llytharovitch introduced the responsible parking bill with exactly the same in mind of devolving those powers. It is unfortunate that, like the previous member's bill, that proposal fell in disillusion. However, it is my understanding, confirmed by the minister and by Sandra White, that Scottish ministers and the UK Government are now working together to devolve the necessary powers. It might not happen before the end of the programme in three weeks' time, but by agreeing to the general principles of the bill today, we are clearing the way for the introduction of a Government bill in the immediate future. I hope that Sandra White and the supporters of the bill take consolation that, by simply taking the bill to stage 1, they have helped to raise awareness of the problem of inconsiderate parking. They have tried to change that already just by debating it, and I am happy to show Labour support for the general principles of the bill. I thank Sandra White for her flattering remarks. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts come to mind, or maybe it should be Sandra White. The footway parking and double parking Scotland Bill obviously seeks to address the problem that we would all like to see resolved. As other members have mentioned, inconsiderate parking can not only be a nuisance but also a serious impediment to pedestrians who may have difficulty dealing with unexpected obstacles. I am glad that we can all agree on the need to tackle this behaviour, but I think that we must find a solution that is proportionate as well as effective. If this issue is to be settled in the next Parliament, I am pleased that it will allow the time to scrutinise the proposals in detail and ensure that the public is protected from its unintended consequences. The key, I think, is to protect vulnerable pedestrians without imposing undue burdens on law enforcement, not getting the way of perfectly reasonable or, indeed, necessary parking. As someone with mobility difficulties, I can speak from personal experience about how difficult it is when a pavement or a drop curve is blocked and you find yourself lift with this little option to take a longer route and move around onto the road. To call this an inconvenient is actually an understatement. For anyone such as myself, the situation like this can be very distressing and even dangerous as you try to negotiate between cars. In addition, parents with push shares will understandably not want to be forced to go around parked cars and onto dangerous roads between other parked vehicles, and that is also a key point. Furthermore, frequent parking on footways can cause wear and tear and eventually it manifests itself as uneven pavements to walk on. Such damage can represent real danger to pedestrians, especially the vulnerable ones, and the lots are lasting local authorities' need. I think that we can all agree that such inconsiderate parking must be tackled. I am glad that we have today's chance to discuss our approach at length. The question that remains is how best to go about it. I have always maintained the position that legislation must be targeted in proportion if it is to be effective and worthwhile. The same must be applied with this bill. Sadly, I think that the blanket ban that it proposes would fail the test of proportionality. Of course, I agree that such inconsiderate parking should not be tolerated, but there can be many instances when parking partly on a pavement can be the only available option that can be done without restructuring pedestrian access. I therefore do not think that it would be sensible to use the blanket measure, as we have already heard. I am sure that members will be aware of instances where parking with two wheels on a pavement has left sufficient room for pedestrians to pass, while it is also allowing traffic to flow freely on the road. That is a key point, because it would obviously be counterproductive to impose a ban only to see it result in constant road blockages. As long as such parking can be done in a way that allows more than enough room for all pedestrians to pass freely, I do not see the problem with it and certainly do not see the benefit from banning it. The emerging compromise that I would like to see would find a balance between protecting vulnerable pedestrians and allowing harmless pavement parking to continue. It is for this reason that I am glad that we have the chance, should we wish, to return to this issue in the next Parliament. This would give us all the opportunity to advocate a fresh approach that holds the principle of protecting vulnerable pedestrians, while avoiding the unintended consequences that I have been speaking of. I can see that such a temptation to push through a blanket van, because it is quite right to say that forcing vulnerable pedestrians to move around park cars on pavements or drop footways should not be tolerated. However, we would not be serving the public if we simply imposed a blanket van and left motorists as well as law enforcement officers to clear up the mess. The last point, I think, I will be picking up on later and I look forward to listening to the debate. We now move to the open debate. I call on George Adam to be followed by John Wills. I, too, welcome this bill and congratulate Sandra for bringing it forward. I maybe do not thank her so much for telling me how much of an internet sensation that Cameron Buchanan has now become since his YouTube appearances. One of the debates that we are having is another one of those debates. It is very personal to me because, as most of you know my wife, Stacey, has multiple sclerosis and mobility issues. Unless you live with it, like Cameron Buchanan or Stacey, you do not understand what it is like to be frustrated. It was quite funny to listen to Mr Buchanan talk about his frustration if there is an obstacle in his way and how polite he mentioned how he would get around it. I can assure you that my wife may be many things, but being polite in a situation like that would not be one of them. That is the issue. Having the decency for people to be able to get about their business, to be able to get from one end of the town to the other, that is what this debate is about. It is one of the things that I am reminded of often of my time when I was a member of Remshire Council and I became Derek Mackay. Ironically, I appointed me the Remshire Access Panel member for the council. I heard the issues from the access panels about difficulty. It was not just the problems that I knew. Let us not kid ourselves, although it is part of my life, it is Stacey that is dealing with it on a daily basis, it is not me. I could hear first hand the difficulties that people had. Those access panels are 47 throughout Scotland, of which they know what is best for the people in their areas. They know the difficulties in mobility and the problems. I would encourage more local authorities and others at this stage to work with them to try to find solutions to the problems, because they are willing to do that as volunteers to make sure that they can make that difference. I am reminded of one of the actual umbrella organisation for the access panels of the Scottish Disability Equality Forum, and its people have wonderful tastes, because they made me their national patron. One of the things that they mentioned was what Ken Macintosh was talking about, was that it is not so much of hitting someone with a big stick with regard to the issue, it is about education. It is actually the people who believe that they could help educate drivers in this situation, so that they knew that it was not just that. The lack of thought that that driver has for those 10 minutes could be the difference between that person making a doctor's appointment, a hospital appointment or something to do with their own business and what they are doing in work. Those are the things that can make the difference. I can understand why people become so frustrated in that situation. A number of years ago, I attended Renfrewshire access panels open day. One of the things that they did was give them an example of what it is like to be a disabled person. I already knew from Stacey's experience, so they then promised to seal your lost and went in a wheelchair and access to Renfrewshire house to see the council building what it was like. I used a pair of visually impaired spectacles. The funny thing was that, when I got into Renfrewshire house, I nearly battered my head off of one of the TV screens because Renfrewshire council had not thought that someone with a visual impairment would be six foot three. That is the lack of thought when it comes to those things that are one of the problems that we have when we are dealing with many of those issues. I would say that we have to make sure that the Scottish Disability Equality Forum has to be a statutory body in the planning of all future planning processes, but I would also say that we need to work with those groups. We need to because they know, they know the individuals, they know the areas and they know what they want to do. I would say that we need to encourage the bill. We need to make sure that we put that forward because we would then be putting a message out there to people in Scotland that we are trying to help them, but it is not about a blunt instrument, it is about making sure that we can educate drivers and ensure that we give everybody—because this is a little debate about equality—the right of individuals to be able to get from one end of our communities and towns to the other. That is why I am backing Sandra White in this debate, and I wish her all the best because I can see the difference that it can make to people's lives. I congratulate Sandra White for her tenacity in bringing this bill forward. Despite all the obstacles that we have put in her way, including the issue of the legal competence, Sandra White decided to persevere with this, and I am glad that she has done it. As a member of the local government and regeneration committee, we considered the bill, and we took evidence, and some of that evidence was very enlightening in relation to what measures had been put in place by some local authorities to try to address the issue, particularly South Lanarkshire Council came up with an innovative plan in relation to tackling the issue of on-street parking. However, as others have said in this debate, on-street parking is a blight. One moment, Mr Wilson. Minister, if you would turn to the front and not turn your back on the chair, that would be extremely courteous. Mr Wilson, continue. As a blight on many communities throughout Scotland, the issue for those communities is when people do park on the pavements or obstruct pavements, how they deal with that. Some of the evidence that we heard from Police Scotland was very interesting, where they indicated that someone could be parked on a pavement, but the police would not take any action against the individual because they would have to determine who was driving the vehicle at the time that the car was parked. So there is an issue about the legislation that is currently there and how that legislation is used. Why hope that the bill is taking forward in the next session of Parliament can do is clear up the legislative landscape so that we actually get something that is clear, definitive, and people and communities can apply the legislation or ask the legislation to be applied. The other thing that came up from Police Scotland is that, while Police Scotland welcomed the bill, it stated in its submission that the enforcement of parking offences by Police Scotland would be a low priority, either conducted alongside daily business or during bespoke operations to address significant problems. During oral evidence to the committee, Police Scotland stated that it did not anticipate police officers issuing a large number of parking tickets as a result of the bill, but rather that the powers would be used to address specific community concerns and during campaigns. That is a concern to me, Presiding Officer, because we need to be clear if we introduce legislation and we need to be clear how that legislation is going to be applied and it has to be applied evenly. It is one of the issues that came up during the discussions and is contained within the report. It has to seem to be evenly applied throughout Scotland where there are issues. Clearly, in terms of what we have heard from other speakers today, the organisations that came forward and gave evidence, such as Guide Dogs Scotland and Living Streets Scotland, clearly identified the problems that many people have. We ended up discussing the dropped kerb issue. I know for a fact that some local authorities and doing streetscaping in town centres are now introducing drop kerbs for those who have midability and wheelchair access users. We need to get clarification in future legislation about where we are talking about drop kerbs and whether or not the enforcement of drop kerbs is more of a concern for where streetscaping has taken place to allow accessibility and free movement throughout town centres and other areas. Clearly, the work that Sandra White has done along with others in bringing the bill forward and getting to the stage that she has clearly shows that there is concern out there that we need to address those issues. I look forward to the next Scottish Government to bringing forward the appropriate legislation that we can all work towards and go behind to ensure that the Scottish people, as well as those most in need of support, are making sure that the double parking issue is dealt with and that we get those offenders who continually park on pavements that are dealt with in an appropriate manner. Thank you, Mr Olson. I now call on Cameron Buchanan to wind up four minutes, Mr Buchanan. So soon, Presiding Officer, so soon. It has been useful to hear colleagues' views on those important issues as we decide how to take it forward. Again, as we have heard, I think that we can all agree on the need to tackle such inconsiderate behaviour. It is only right that we protect these vulnerable pedestrians and ensure that access to public footpaths is not impeded in any way. However, I think that it would be useful to bear in mind that helping pedestrians does not have to involve impeding motorists. After all, it is likely that a majority of drivers are considered in their parking and share the views expressed today about footway and double parking. With this likely to remain an issue for the next panel, we should use the chance to redefine our approach to one that is proportionate and crucially targeted only at the genuinely inconsiderate and unnecessary parking. I have already touched on situations in which footway parking can occur that is both necessary to allow traffic flow and harmless to pedestrians as long as sufficient room is left to pass. I think that that is crucial. Obviously, it is preferable to avoid this sort of parking where possible, but I think that we have to recognise the reality that drivers are frequently left with no other option, where this is the case, certainly. Dennis Roberts. Mr Buchanan, just today, I was walking along and a car impeded the whole pavement. I had no option but to go on to the road. There was no space against the wall. The whole car took up the whole pavement and I was walking into on-going traffic. In fact, it took me 10 minutes because I had to wait for assistance because the guide dog refused to go on to the oncoming traffic. Henry Cannan. I thank the member for that intervention. It is very pertinent indeed and I too have had the similar problem, but not perhaps in the way of going right onto the pavement. I find it very difficult sometimes. I get very nervous, as you would know, when I have to go out onto the street in order to avoid parked cars. Obviously, it is preferable to avoid this sort of thing. I think that we have to recognise the unintended consequences, which would do well to consider the demands that a blanket ban would place on traffic and law enforcement officers. I think that we can agree that traffic wardens and the police have enough on their hands already, and neither they nor the public would welcome a massive increase in their duties. Issuing penalties to motorists who have parked without impeding pedestrians, yet still fall foul of a blanket ban, I think would detract from officers' priorities, as well as simply being unfair, as Ken McIntosh rather speculated on. I would also like to emphasise that the potential to extract extra revenue from the public through parking fines is a negative, not a positive, when applied to drivers that had no choice and do not even embed pedestrians. The point is that we should have any chance to reform the approach that is set out by the bill so that we are careful not to impose counterproductive or unfair burdens as a side effect. Of course, we need to tackle the scourge of grossly inconsiderate parking, but let us make sure that we do not create new problems in its place. Accordingly, I would like to reiterate our support for the principle of vulnerable pedestrians, and the use of pavements should not be blocked in any way by inconsiderate parking. It is only right that we ensure fair access to footways and do not tolerate the denial of free access by a careless minority. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that any legislation passed by this Parliament is proportionate in that it accurately targets the source of the issue. Should we have a chance to look at this in our approach again, I hope that we will use it carefully to craft a solution that protects the vulnerable pedestrians and the majority of motorists who are considerate parkers. I wish to congratulate to Sandra White for persevering with his important issue to protect vulnerable pedestrians. The Labour group is supportive of the general principles of the bill, and when you speak to anyone who lives in a built-up area about motor vehicles parking on pavements, most folk will have an opinion and an experience. I remember when my boys were small, my eldest was two and a half when I had twins, and I often had to navigate a double buggy with a toddler standing on a buggy board around cars half parked on the pavement, half on the road. There were times when I had to bump off the pavement onto the road with the toddler hanging on and then bump back up again, so I went back onto the road and it was quite dangerous. I found it difficult, and that was 16 years ago when I was fitter and had much better vision, so I could empathise with people who have visual impairment or physical disability, older people and often children who just cannot see the line of sight is blocked by vehicles parking on the pavement or double parking. Pavement parking causes an obstruction to pedestrians and particularly for, as I said, children, people who are blind and partially sighted, wheelchair and mobility scooter users and those with pooch chairs and prams. As it has been already said, it is an offence to drive on to the pavement, whether with the intention to park or not, and there have long been concerns about the extent to which this is enforced. Constituents have raised with me concerns about Police Scotland not attending incidents of pavement parking, which pedestrians deemed to be as dangerous. However, as we have heard, Police Scotland does not seem to make it a priority, even if it is causing a significant obstruction. Police Scotland State did in its consultation document in October 2013 that, due to financial savings required by Police Scotland, it noted that police parking enforcement was not a priority area. That resulted in the following headline in local paper, The Courier. Council fears driver anarchy as Police Scotland withdraws from parking enforcement. Thus laws are only as good as they are enforcement. The bill's provisions would be enforced by Police Scotland, where parking is criminalised and traffic wardens in areas that are decriminalised parking enforcement, such as in Dundee, Aberdeen, Fife and Edinburgh. Fife Council noted concerns that were felt by many local authorities that the bill would raise expectations that traffic wardens would widen their beats to cover more areas. Without additional resources, local authorities would be unable to do that, especially given the unprecedented cuts to local government from the Scottish Government. It is important to ask why drivers park in this way. For a few, it is scotlessness, but for many it is due to the physical constraints of the bill environment. Many of our housing schemes and times when they were built and planned for, they never expected that level of car ownership and car use. In addition to going forward with this bill, we ought to acknowledge the constraints and perhaps look for innovative ideas on how to resolve the matter and to talk more with time planners and transport planners. If you could go to 552, I would appreciate that greatly. I think that we have had a number of useful briefings for this afternoon's debate in terms of what is proposed. I urge Cameron Buchanan, who seems to be the only voice departing from the consensus to think again with your wide experience of the issue and understanding through the committee investigation. It is quite significant to support the bill at stage 1, because that is about the principle. Of course, if there was time and the legislative opportunity through stage 2 and stage 3 to change it, as the member would request to refine it to your satisfaction, it would be important if the whole Parliament was to progress in stage 1 around the principles to take forward action in the area of responsible parking. Largely, that can be about, as all members have hinted, about common sense. Essentially, in just thinking about the needs of everyone else and other people as well as individual needs. Sandra White has made that point repeatedly in terms of the need for the bill. Even when there was doubt about legislative competence, encouraging UK Government and Scottish Government to work together, it is unfortunate that, even with the necessary legislative change to remove all doubt, it will not be in time to be able to legislate in the Scottish Parliament now that the consensus is here. However, I suppose that that gives us the time to get proposed legislation refined to the point of satisfaction for everyone, and then maybe even the Conservatives can come on board with any potential legislation. I am glad that that invited an intervention. I have that vicious personal attack, what more can I say. We do support the bill, but I was really more against the blanket part of it and the fact that it needs a bit of tinkering and changing around, I think, but we support the bill. I am delighted to hear it, Mr Buchanan. I was given the impression that you would not be supporting the bill. I have to say, coming from Renfrewshire, if you thought that was a vicious personal attack, the politics in Renfrewshire are a wee bit rougher than that, and I mean that in all positivity. Kevin Stewart has covered the issues of definition, as I would expect from the committee, and George Adam has covered the personal experience of supporting his wife in a wheelchair and the frustration that comes along from other people assuming that they have that right of way. John Wilson is right in the purpose here of clarity and definition. We have to get it right, so it is easily understood what is enforceable and the public knows where they can and where they should and shouldn't park. There is an issue about consistency, definition and clarity, but can Macintosh be right about local opinion and consultation in taking people with him in terms of what works at the most local level? That will be about localism, but giving that clarity that is required and Leslie Brennan very helpfully points out one of the anomalies of which there are many in terms of complex legislation. It is illegal to drive on the footway, but some would say that it is okay and competent to park on the footway. How do you get there if it was not to drive on to the footway? The legislative tightening up and refinement will make the difference, and that is why the Government has committed to embark on that consultation, to ensure that we can cover as many of the issues that have been raised as possible. Ken Macintosh also covered on planning and policy and the cultural aspects of the policy, and that is absolutely right as we look at the completeness, the balancing act between local need in terms of provision for parking and absolutely accessibility. I should say, as transport minister, with a clear focus on road safety, I am concerned about the statistics around more vulnerable road users, that accessibility and safety absolutely has to be paramount whilst we have those competing priorities in the balancing act. I make sure of common sense and enforceability, in terms of enforceability. I think that it would be more effective, the evidence is, that it is more effective where there is decriminalised parking and DPE has been introduced in a number of local authorities, including Aberdeen, Argyll and Bute, Dundee, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Remshire, Edinburgh, Fife, Glasgow, Inverclyde, Perthync, Ross, Remfreshire, South Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire. A number of other councils are working towards going through the necessary legislation towards decriminalised parking enforcement, and that leaves a number who would have to move towards it to reach that consistency that many members have raised. I will gratefully take an intervention from Kevin Stewart. Mr Buchanan, in his earlier speechifying, talked about an added burden for wardens and the police. However, in Aberdeen, where parking is decriminalised, I think that it is extremely frustrating for the city wardens who work in neighbourhoods where double park and footway parking takes place, so that there is nothing that they can do about it. We can ensure that we get those folk the powers sooner rather than later, so that they can help the neighbourhoods that they are working in. In answer to Kevin Stewart, it will give those officers a sense of empowerment and further clarity on what is enforceable. It will also assist on the cultural understanding as well in that improvement of behaviour if we get it right on education and awareness could lead to less enforcement as people understand what is acceptable and not acceptable, and there are issues around signage and the understanding of the streets that could be affected here. With the right implementation, that is why it is important to get the legislation right. That will help with the workability and the practical nature of how it is enforced. However, there is no doubt that, if there is one issue since the creation of this Parliament that has been on-going and has frustrated people as to why we could not legislate on the matter, then it must be this issue that seems so simple, complex because of the legislation, but simple in its objective about more responsible parking and tackling irresponsible parking. As transport minister, I have launched a number of initiatives to improve road safety, very shortly and imminently. They will launch in town slow down because of the impact that there is in built-up areas in terms of speed of traffic. More careful driving, more considered approach from drivers will make a difference in terms of road safety and reviewing the road safety framework. Rolling out 20mph zones is to be encouraged as well as other road safety campaigns, but I have no doubt that, if we show that more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians have that sense of priority and accessibility, it will make a difference for their safety and just general better common sense approach in local neighbourhoods. For all those reasons, the Government supports Sandra White's bill and has committed to in the event that it cannot progress because of timing, having resolved the necessary legislative issues that the Government has committed to legislate in the next term, Presiding Officer. Therefore, the Government supports the bill at stage 1. Thank you minister. I now call on Sandra White to wind up the debate, Ms White, until 6pm please. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. I think that this has been an excellent debate, a very important debate and also a very measured and thoughtful debate. Everyone has, I think, touched in the areas where I would not say that they are expertise, but certainly some expertise and the fact that they have experienced it in many of the members here, Dennis Robertson and Cameron McCannons will have experienced it first hand. That experience came to the fore in their contributions. I thank all the MSPs from all parties for their contribution. I sincerely thank the minister for his pledge that the next Scottish Government, if he happens to be there, which I know he will be, will take on board, perhaps not transport minister, but certainly I thank him very much for his contribution and his pledge that the Scottish Government next elected will take this bill on board. I think that it is fantastic that the Government has said that it will take it on board after not just my work, but obviously, as I said previously, Ross Finlay, Dolfitt's party and the many, many contributions and groups out there who have been pushing this as well. I thank all of them for the work that they have done to help me to push this forward just now. I realise that it was a lot of effort to get some of the power devolved to ensure that this Parliament in the future will be able to legislate on this issue. I ask her whether she will continue to ensure that colleagues elsewhere make sure that that power is devolved so that we can finally deal with this as a Parliament once and for all. That is a very important issue to raise. As I said in my opening remarks, there were other people in other places such as Westminster in the Scottish Office, Transport Scotland Ministers, myself and others who met and worked through this. I can assure not just Kevin Stewart but the Parliament that, if it slips one tiny wee bit, I will certainly be there either on the phone or at their office to ensure that we do have the powers in this Parliament. From the outset, I believe that we did have the competency, as I said before, Presiding Officer, but your good self and advice that you took said that we didn't have the competency, even though we had lawyers who said that we did, but that is in the past and we are where we are now, Presiding Officer. I want to come to substantive part, which has been raised. As I said, I am grateful for all the MSP from all the parties who will support this tonight and for their contributions. However, there were certainly issues in the bill that were raised in regards to enforcement and what we could do about it. I certainly acknowledge that. There are certain parts of the bill. I know that it is a complicated bill and I acknowledge that as well. I was welcomed by the contributions from Kevin Stewart and others in the issues that they raised. We talked about drop kerbs. At one point, during evidence-taking, they were not necessarily called drop kerbs. They were called a crossing point, I think that John Wilson had mentioned that. The fact is that, with the streetscapes and cityscapes, we are looking at putting dropping points, which are slightly different to drop kerbs, in areas where it means that, if someone is in a wheelchair or is disabled, there is a dropping point for them to cross the road. Rather than going on the road, they have nowhere to get on the pavement on the other side. That is what I would take to be crossing points. That is something that is very important to raise. There was also the issue of loading and delivery. Certainly, the 20 minutes is a statute just now. Some people and some MSPs and some authorities thought that 20 minutes was absolutely fine. Others thought that it was absolutely too much time. If I could give you an example of one that I passed on Sunday up near the Botanic Gardens in my constituency, the van drove up on to the pavement right outside a bus stop. It stayed there for about three hours. It was not delivering anything, and I do not know what it was doing, but anybody trying to get along that road is Dennis Robertson, as we mentioned earlier, and Cameron MacCannan. If you had been walking along that road, there was no way that you could not get off that pavement. If you had come off the bus and you happened to have a stick or a wheelchair or whatever it may be, you could not even get away from that bus stop. That is what they call inconsiderate drivers. Those things have all got to be looked at, and I recognise that, and I welcome that as well. One moment, Ms White. Can I ask those who are just coming into the chamber to stop having your conversations brought into the chamber? Do you, Ms White, the courtesy of listening to her, Ms White? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The first time I've been told to someone to listen to me, I usually just shout if they don't, but I'm sure they will listen to me in that aspect. A number of other issues were raised, and I want to touch on the one that Ken Macintosh and others raised as well in regard to education. I have said from the very, very beginning of this bill that I did not and did not think, did not want this to be a punitive bill. I thought it should be an educational bill, but I've got to educate the people. I don't think that all drivers are bad drivers, but like everyone else, some maybe need more education than others need, and I think that we should concentrate on an educational aspect of the bill. Another area that I want to mention as well as George had raised this particular Jordan Adams is about the disability forums and the access panels. I think that it's really important that they have to be involved. I did mention in my contribution to the committee that they should be on a statutory basis. I think that they have the experience to know what's happening, and they should be put forward in that aspect on a statutory basis to give advice. Of course, local communities must be involved also. They must be consulted and involved. As it has happened just now in an RPZ, if you're talking about parking issues in local communities, it's consulted by its legislation that local councils must consult with local communities. I'd imagine that that would be something that would need to be written into the bill as well. We talk about people who are disabled with young kids. There's a huge, bigger issue in that particular aspect. Social isolation is a huge issue, and one in which we in this Parliament take very seriously, in fact, equal opportunities committee, which I'm a member of. We did an inquiry into that. The subsequent feedback that we got on the media coverage that it attracted shows that people are suffering from social isolation. How more isolating can it be that you cannot even get out your own front door, your own house simply because someone is parked on the pavement? As I said previously, you may want to go to the shops, but if every time you try to get out and you don't know if you're going to be able to get back, that is worrying, and that causes people not to get out of their houses, and that is social isolation. I would ask the Parliament, if we are in consensus, that we support the bill's principles at stage 1 tonight. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms White. That concludes the debate on the Foodway Parking and Double Parking Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 15771. In the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting a revision to the business programme for Thursday, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 15771. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 15771 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We now move to decision time. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 15760, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish Labour market, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that amendment 15758.2, in the name of Neil Findlay, which seeks to amend motion 15758 in the name of Alex Neil on social security, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15758.2, in the name of Neil Findlay, is as follows. Yes, 33. No, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that amendment 15758.1, in the name of John Lamont, which seeks to amend motion 15758 in the name of Alex Neil on social security, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15758.1, in the name of John Lamont, is as follows. Yes, 14. No, 98. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion 15758, in the name of Alex Neil, on social security, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15758, in the name of Alex Neil, is as follows. Yes, 98. No, 0. There were 14 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion 15759, in the name of Sandra White, on the footway parking and double parking Scotland bill, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.