 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 14162, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, on regulation of electricians as a profession. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I could ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Mr Halcro Johnston to open the debate. I am grateful to have the opportunity today to raise an issue that is of importance to every home and business in Scotland, but it all premises across the length and breadth of the country, whether on or off-grid, have some form of electrical installation. It is ultimately to them the body of consumers that I would ask members to consider today. First, I extend my thanks to all the members from across all the political parties in this Parliament who have signed my motion and to the organisations who have taken time to meet with me over the recent months. I also thank all those people within the industry who have been in touch and to the many who are in the gallery today. Electricity and the insulation and maintenance of its supply must be handled with extreme caution. In many cases, it seems that electrical products are more regulated than the electrical insulation work that they utilise, yet the consequences of poor work can be severe, damage to property, injury and occasionally even death. I was staggered, as have many colleagues across this chamber, to learn that people who enter our homes and businesses to install and maintain our wiring of fuse boxes and appliances need to have no qualifications at all, and yet they can still call themselves electricians. I believe that that simply should not be the case. The UK national contact point for professional qualifications shows 102 different professions that have protection of title. Most notable amongst them is the gas industry. We recognise that there are appropriately certified tradesmen able to undertake work on gas installations. The Parliament has extended protection to other roles, for example to door supervisors at bars and nightclubs in events. That is not to say that protection of title will immediately solve every problem. Of course, gas boilers are still fitted in homes and business premises by people who are not appropriately qualified. However, it must surely be at the core of the measures that we can take to create a safe and well-regulated industry. For many years, organisations such as Select formally the Electrical Contractors Association of Scotland and the Scottish Joint Industry Board, which includes representatives from United Union, the successor of the former electricians union, have been campaigning for the electrical profession to be recognised and protected. In more recent years, a number of organisations have cooperated with the Scottish Government as part of its working group to bring about changes to the industry and to improve the safety of electrical work, as well as better enabling consumers to make the right choices when it comes to choosing contractors and trades people. It is, however, almost three years since this issue was first raised, and not only is there no action towards it, the Scottish Government's position remains ambiguous. It is, of course, right that any approach is well considered before being taken forward. However, this work has already been done in the main. Some have asked about the scale of the problem, a point that has been heard and discussed at some depth. Select and United have presented evidence to the working group that suggests that as many as 4,000 individuals may be operating in the grey market, undertaking unqualified or underqualified work on electrical installations. They fully recognise that this figure, however, comes with caveats. The truth is that it is almost impossible to bring forward conclusive statistics. Few individuals, faced with the question, will be willing to raise their heads and enthusiastically declare themselves as unqualified. Gil Finlay. Does he agree with me that the areas that he has just identified are a huge issue, but also that there should not be any moves in the industry to downgrade the role of an electrician? John Swinney. I certainly would not. I think that there is a lot more, just from the motion that has been put for today, conversations that need to be had after to make sure that all areas like that are encompassed with any legislation that goes forward. As the greatest prevalence of poor and unsafe work is found in the domestic market, in people's homes, there are other challenges too. For most, commissioning electrical work is not a frequent exercise. We know that many are not familiar with the industry or the existing bodies that operate within it. Whilst most expect to qualify an electrician to arrive, we know that that is not always what happens. Members of the public in general assume that the title of an electrician comes with its protections. When presented with evidence that it is not, the vast majority, 93 per cent in select survey, back regulation to assure that only people with relevant qualifications can advertise their services as an electrician. A further 89 per cent wanted more information on how to check that an electrician is qualified. Of course, what is central to this debate is safety. What are the consequences of poor electrical work? In 2016, there were 619 casualties and 10 people killed in electrical fault-related incidents across the United Kingdom. Figures in Scotland may be proportionately less, but that seems like little excuse when faced with calls for action to avoid this harm. We also know that many faults are latent, that they can lie and wait for months or even years before a combination of circumstances cause injury to a person or damage to property. There are a number of possible approaches to protection of title, with which I have no doubts ministers will be familiar. Some have proposed an extension of the joint industry board with its membership opened up further to co-ordinate this. Others have suggested that the existing certification register of construction, which has existed for some time on a voluntary basis, could be modified and have its remit expanded. All of the organisations that I have spoken with have emphasised that keeping cost minimal, keeping the solution simple and maintaining a light touch with business and electricians are key in their considerations. Enforcement will also be a concern. We should not introduce a regularity framework then allow it to be ignored. So, too, we will be ensuring that continuing qualifications are recognised. Electrical work is evolving, and we must avoid the suggestion that protected title is a substitute for ensuring that qualifications are up to date or that specialist work should be only undertaken by those with specialist qualifications. The professional bodies that exist already demonstrate good practice and promote high standards of training amongst their member firms. That model should be embraced as part of any recognition and certification programme. Those issues are not beyond the wit of this Parliament to thrash out. However, the question that still remains is simple. Whether there exists within the Scottish Government, the political will to make that happen. As I mentioned previously, many of those issues have already been heard within the Government's working group. However, I am far from alone in thinking that this process has dragged on for too long. There seems to have been a broad acceptance after select commission its own legal advice that this Parliament has the powers to act. Unfortunately, the momentum for measures to improve safety is sometimes only found after incidents make it clear that they can no longer be ignored. I would hope that we collectively begin to take forward action now. Deputy Presiding Officer, I feel that the protection of title is a necessary component of ensuring safety in the electrical industry, but I recognise too that this will not be a silver bullet. NICEIC have, for example, emphasised the importance of raising awareness amongst domestic customers and some of the ways that they have been working with organisations to achieve this. That is a process that I fully support. What I am seeking today is a sign that, after almost three years of discussion, the protection of title is seriously being considered by ministers, in line with the wide support that such a move would have. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing this important debate this afternoon. That being said, I have not signed the motion, because from my work in this area, as the convener of the cross-party group of accident prevention and safety awareness, in my discussions in the industry, I feel that there is not a consensus yet as to how the best way forward is to achieve consumer confidence. That is the most important thing here, is that when people contract out and engage someone who describes themselves as an electrician, that the customer can be fully sure that they are qualified and safe to be undertaking the work in that area. In that being said, I absolutely recognise the commitment to safety both of select and Mr Johnston and how important that is going forward. We talked about some of the issues of what can go wrong with electrical safety, and this is really important not just for people in their own homes and social landlords, but one only has to look at some of the testimonies on the Families Against Corporate Killing website and see people who have been killed or seriously injured at work as a result of electricity installations not being safe in the work in practice. It is really something that for many of us we take for granted, our electricity is there, it is on demand. When something goes wrong with it, we all feel the issues, but sometimes I feel that we do not, as consumers, understand how important it is to ensure the safety. Neil Findlay. I will ask this in all sincerity what if she could help us about who is not on board with the proposal to regulate the industry. I do not think that it is a case of regulating the industry. I think that it is a bit achieving consensus about the best way to do that. That is why I did not sign it, because I recognise the calls for the particular mechanism that Mr Halcro Johnston has called for, but the consensus that I do not feel is there. It is not about not regulating, it is about getting to that consensus. I welcome the work of the Government's electrical working group and I am sure that the minister will have much to say about the work that has been completed over the past three years. I know that one of the barriers to some of those issues can be the perception of the burden of paperwork and red tape that will be placed on small electrical companies and small individual electricians. That is often seen as an administrative barrier to achieving that. Earlier this year, I was invited to open and participate in the institution of gas engineers and managers conference in Edinburgh. I saw a presentation there from Stuart Davidson's of gas tag, and he had taken the gas safety register, which all gas engineers have. That is another mechanism that could be looked at to achieve that consumer confidence that is so important. It was an online app. The gas appliance was tagged in a home in an area and it was read with a QR reader by the gas engineer undertaking the work. That might be a lot of the paperwork that is normally associated with filling out the address, what time, what was done. It could all be recorded on the app at the time. Photographs were taken to prove that the engineer had completed the work to a satisfactory level. That was being rolled out along across social landlords. I give that as a by-wave an example of how technology can help us and improve our ability to secure that consumer confidence and safety, which is what we are all here for today. I thought that that was interesting. We are moving into the internet of things. The world is changing, sensor technology, and the ability for an installation or a few spots to tell an engineer that something has gone wrong and it needs service. All those things are of the future and things that can be used to improve this situation. I welcome the opportunity to speak about it today, and I look forward to the minister's update. Thank you very much. I call Alexander Burnett. We follow by Monica Lennon. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I also add my thanks to Jamie Halcro Johnston for bringing this important topic to the debating chamber and to those members across the chamber who were able to support the motion. In a time when consumers are always looking to research a product or service before purchasing, regulation is welcome to many across Scotland. I have previously spoken in the chamber putting my support behind apprenticeships. I believe that the regulation of electricians as a profession would improve opportunities for apprentices as it would offer a wider and more comprehensive learning than some of the more specific electrical roles that are being proposed. I will quickly note members to my register of interests as an employer of apprentices in the construction industry, but I make this point as we have all recognised the benefit that apprentices bring to business. Select and SJIB have noted that the status quo of unqualified electricians is undermining individuals and companies who invest in apprentices and staff training and innovation. Therefore, to have this accreditation for people entering the profession would not only be a huge benefit to them as individuals but would also help businesses to encourage in fresh talent. With everything moving towards electrification as part of our push to prevent climate change, we are seeing many more things from our transport to our homes moving to electric. With this increased use of electric products, we will require more electricians, and we need to do all that we can to encourage people into the profession. As members across the chamber have noted, unions, businesses and charities are like all support the principle of regulating electricians as a profession. I note electrical safety first point that more research is required on the potential benefits of protection of title in consultation with all parts of the electrical industry. Unite also mentioned that their members raised their concerns and frustration that people who have not met the established national and industry standards are able to use with impunity the title of electrician and therefore would also welcome the protection of this title. The privilege of calling yourself an electrician should be limited to those who are qualified at this highly skilled profession. Not only will this prevent rogue traders from carrying out electrical work that could be unsafe, but it could also help reduce cost to a consumer by preventing further repairs required on shoddy work. Currently, the overall cost of faulty electrical work in Scotland is around £120 million every year, and that does not even include the cost of major incidents. Consumer confidence is important, and I would be keen to see that regulation does not become a weak form of accreditation, so I therefore back calls to ensure that there is a continuous assessment of the competence of the registered electrician, and with that I would be keen to see a campaign to raise awareness to residents across Scotland of identifying and using registered electricians. This is an important step in improving consumer confidence and helping the industry to reduce the number of rogue traders used. Regulation should be there to protect consumers, but most importantly, we must support electricians who are already carrying out work safely and properly. I therefore support this motion. We will be added caveat, but we must work with the industry to develop a robust system of regulation. I call Monica Lennon, to be followed by Tom Arthur. Just bear with me a minute. I am sorry, I have just noted that there was some clapping in the gallery now. I understand why people want to clap in the gallery, but it is not allowed in the Scottish Parliament. I thank Mr Jamie Halcro for bringing forward this important debate. This follows a determined campaign by organisations representing both employers and employees, like Select, Unite the Union, the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting and Electrical Safety First, to secure official legal recognition of qualified and competent electricians in the interests of public safety. As the convener of the cross-party group on construction, it is an issue that I have come to learn about and feel passionately about, so I am glad to be taking part in the debate today. Whether in the home or in the workplace, people deserve to be safe. Like 93 per cent of the Scottish households are surveyed by Select, I expected any person claiming to be an electrician to have training and achieved qualifications. It is staggering that, in effect, anyone can call themselves an electrician and undertake work that they are not qualified to do. That puts everyone at risk. Badly installed or maintained electrical work creates a significant risk of fire and other risks such as electrical shocks. Government statistics show that 60 per cent of all accidental fires in Scottish homes are caused by electricity. Those safety risks may lie dormant for months or even years. Those silent killers can strike at any time. It only needs a set of circumstances to combine to trigger it. The unregulated electrician sector makes it more difficult to hold road traders accountable and people are left to foot the bill of correcting unsafe electrical works. I am the daughter of a health and safety officer, so I do not really need to be convinced of the health and safety case for regulating electricians as a profession. I listened to the remarks from Claire Adamson about concerns by some in industry about the burden of bureaucracy. I remind the saying that we are here to remember the dead and to fight for the living good employers who work with trade unions to improve health and safety. Do not see that as a burden. It is about people's human rights. Too many people have died in workplaces for us to be complacent and allow conversations to drift on. Scotland has world-class routes. I will take the intervention. Just to be absolutely clear, it is not that I think any of the paperwork would be unnecessary. I was just pointing out that there are other ways of recording and achieving things that are cheaper and easier to do now. It was not a suggestion at all that there should be any diminuatio of the health and safety aspect of what should be happening in there. Indeed, the cross-party group next to me has discussed this on many occasions, so I invite both members to come along and hear some of the testimonies that are regarding this very issue. Monica Lennon I would be happy to do so. I think that people should feel reassured, because regulation of professions is commonplace in the UK. For example, I am a chartered town planner. That is a protected title. There are more than 100 regulated professions already, and yet there is no protection afforded to electricians. Regulation can spread best practice and facility on-going training. Those are good things. That will become of critical importance when the new 18th edition of the writing regulations comes into force in January next year. The race standards markedly introduced new and more complex technical requirements to ensure safety. Regulations will ensure that electricians are properly qualified to meet the higher standards and assist with training. In conclusion, I join the many organisations in the sector to call on the Scottish Government to not delay and to use its powers to impose protection of title for electricians. There is a clear case for that. Scotland can lead the way in the UK on that issue, and in doing so will help to ensure that people in Scotland are kept safe and skilled workers are properly recognised for the vital job that they do. Thank you very much. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by congratulating Jamie Halcro Johnston on securing that important debate. My sentiments are similar to my colleagues Claire Adamson, but I am absolutely behind the sentiments and motivation for regulation. I hope that this debate can contribute to the consensus about the best model. I agree absolutely with Alexander Burnett that that has to be one that is developed with industry, so that we ensure that, while we are no corners cut, every aspect of health and safety is given proper attention to and enforced that we find the most efficient method at all, particularly for many electricians and small businesses who know who are self-employed. Monica Lennon I hope that the member will indulge me in the best possible spirit, but I am quite surprised to hear the arguments about bureaucracy, regulation and concerns. Traditionally, we would get that from the Tory benches. Is there a bit of a role reversal going on, Mr Arthur? I forgot his name. Sorry, Tom Arthur. I was about to help you, but you gracefully recalled at the right moment Mr Arthur. I can assure absolutely not that simply what I am stating as my colleague Clare Adamson has is that I want to make sure that we get the best method and model possible. That is it. I completely agree with the principles that have been set out. I think that they are long overdue and I will come to why in a moment, but I do want to be absolutely clear. I simply might be marked about finding the best method possible, but that cannot come at the price of compromise in regards to robustness and integrity, but it is required to inspire confidence among consumers. I hope that that clears any misunderstanding that Monica Lennon might have on that matter. I should declare an interest. I have had the opportunity to engage in conversations with select over a number of years. I am looking forward to meeting with select again next month. I should also declare the interest as the son of an electrician. My father started off his career as an electrician in the late 60s before going on to become an electrical engineer and then an operational manager. Health and safety was a very different era back in the 60s being the solitary operator on a cherry picker and high winds and the district lighting is not something that would necessarily be tolerated today. However, I learned from my father from a very young age to have a great respect and understanding for electricity and the dangers that it presents. I was always shocked if I engaged with friends or colleagues who perhaps were not aware of how dangerous it can be. The point that Mr Burnett made with regard to the increasing proliferation of electronic goods is a well-made one. The point that Jamie Halcro Johnson made is that electronic goods are more regulated than electronic electrical installation is a very key point indeed. The other key points that were highlighted in the motion were the over 100 regulated professions that already exist. Gas engineers, members of the public and consumers, have a clear understanding of the dangers posed by gas and they would not want to be subject to—we would not want their property or their premises to be subject to work carried out by someone who is not a regulated gas engineer. That is clear and understandable. I have a point where I think that part of our aims and objectives should be not just about the regulation of a profession but about inspiring greater consumer confidence and understanding. I, too, was shocked by the statistics to read that, for the overwhelming majority of people, they would not be able to discern whether or not someone was a qualified electrical installer. To give one example in my own experience, a decade ago, my parents had a new bathroom installed and the work that was carried out by the electrician was absolutely appalling. Not only was that a case of cables not being tidily ordered, the cable to the shower, one of the highest-drawing appliances in the house, was completely the wrong type of cable posing a grave fire hazard. Fortunately, in my household, my parents' household, my father, was able to identify that and go through the installer like if there was assaults. But not every household has that opportunity and it is a genuine concern for me having seen the publication that is select produced, where we have many photos illustrating some of the appalling installations that have been carried out right across Scotland. That is a clear and grave concern. I am conscious that I am in overtime, Presiding Officer, and I do not want to try your patience, so in concluding, I would simply want to say that I very much welcome this debate. I am glad that Jamie Halcro Johnston has brought it forward. I think that this is an area that we have to consider carefully, but in terms of the principles and motivations behind it, I am fully supportive and I very much look forward to hearing what the minister has to say in closing. Thank you, Mr Arthur. I have to say that I am quite relaxed today, so you are not really trying my patience at all. It is a rare moment. I call Mr Finlay, and then we are the minister. Neil Finlay, please. Is this the new you, Deputy Presiding Officer? Good. I will see how long that lasts. It is just ended. First of all, I declare an interest as a member of Unite the Union. A few years—indeed, it might have just been a few months—after entering this Parliament, I campaigned extensively against the proposal by the big electrical companies who were trying to rip up national agreements for electricians and other trades, such as ventilation engineers. They were attempting at that time to de-skill the role of an electrician wanting to bring in new grades that would have downgraded the role of an electrician. I worked extensively at that time with Unite the Union and with Select and rank and file members of Unite who were working on building sites across the UK. That was a UK-wide campaign, a very effective campaign that defeated the proposal that was being brought forward by very large and very powerful construction companies. It was a good example of an extra parliamentary campaigning and delivering success. The big unions were sent off to think again with their tail between their legs. That is the same big companies that were behind, or some of the big companies that were behind, the blacklisting scandal that sought to target health and safety reps on building sites—the same organisations now. I am a bricklayer to trade, and bricklayers are the cream of the construction industry, but we always support the other trades in the sector, because each trade relies on each other trade. That is part of the team that works in construction and part of the ethos of the team that works in construction. Electricians are a very important trade, because if you hammer a nail in the wrong way, or if you lay a brick upside down, you generally will not kill or injure anyone or cause a fire or an electrical shock. However, poor wiring, insulation or earthen can, and that is a huge difference. Indeed, I know recently that an electrician was caused harm by a shock in this building very recently, and that should be of concern to us. The proposal that has come forward in Mr Halcro Johnston's excellent motion is absolutely sensible and just a normal way forward. Why we have not done it before is the question that we would be asking. It is about safety, consumer protection, building standards, professional regulation and professional title. It is remarkable that we have a list of other trades or professions that people have mentioned. A hundred others are therapists, taxi drivers, street sweepers who are all licensed in some way, but not electricians. It just does not add up. There is not a political point to be made on this, none at all. It is a practical insensible step, and it fits in with the preventative agenda that Governments are all supposed to be about. Do you know that? There is nothing to stop us doing it here. It is no MDLC's responsibility, it is not the UK Government, it is not the council, it is not somebody in Wales or whoever the usual list is. We can do it here and we should act. This is about protecting people and consumers. It is about protecting our buildings and the integrity of the trades. I have to say that the best way for safety to become the default position in the industry is for there to be regulation, for there to be protection of title and for there to be trade union collective agreements and that they become the norm in the industry because unionised workplaces are safer workplaces. Workplaces where you have more direct employment are safer workplaces. We have seen what deregulation and the over-reliance on subcontracted labour brings and it is more death and more injury in the workplace. Let us bring forward the necessary legislation. I think that it would have widespread community support, I think that it would have industry support, it would have trade union support and I hope that it would have a majority in this Parliament. Thank you very much and I now call Jamie Hepburn to close with the Government minister please. Well thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I join with others as well in thanking Jamie Halcro Johnston for bringing forward? What I do recognise is an important debate, it is right that we have this issue before the chamber and it is something that we should all be able to welcome that we can contribute to what is an important issue. Clearly, everyone in this chamber, most people out there across Scotland will have, at some stage, had to hire someone to carry out electoral work and I think that we would all agree that we should be able to do so with confidence that we will not be put at risk when we do so. The outset is important to be emphasised the point that was made by Alexander Burnett about the quality of training that we have through our modern apprenticeship scheme. That has come around through the quality of provision of training that we have, through industry involvement, through colleges and, of course, through the Scottish joint industry board for the electrical contracting industry. At the outset, we should recognise that those electricians that we have out there are, in the main, coming from Abercyn and having had high-quality professional training. We have heard today and before of the concern that sometimes there are circumstances that people could be put in danger of electroshocks or fire, perhaps because anyone can call themselves an electrician without relevant qualifications or competency. That is a serious concern and that has to be considered fully and acted upon where necessary. Let me say that I noticed earlier today that Mr Hulker Johnson has said that he may be considering taking forward legislation on that issue. In that respect, I should say again at the outset of this debate that I am open minded on this matter now that I have no clear or firm decision on the best way forward. However, let me make it very clear that I have not ruled anything out. In that sense, I was, having come into this post in June, very happy to meet with select only a matter of weeks later to discuss this very issue. The proposal that they have laid out about protection of title is a serious proposition and one that will give full and proper consideration in the process that we are taking forward, which I will lay out in a few moments' time. If the minister would advise us of what his reservations are or what his view is as to why he might not support us. Let me come to that. It goes back to the point that Tom Arthur made. There was a bit of misunderstanding about that being a concerns about over-regulation in the rest of it. The concern here is that we need to look at this matter fully and thoroughly and ensure that all parties that are interested in this matter are involved in that process so that any action that we take is the correct and proportionate one. In that sense, that is why we have engaged with industry. There are the calls from select. There have been alternative views set out from elements of those working in the industry as well and an attempt to try and bring everyone together so that we can take forward this matter fully and thoroughly. That is why Keith Brown, when he was in post, was the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, established a Scottish Government electricians working group to bring industry and other representatives such as UNITE, such as those with responsibility for trading standards and so on, bringing them together to discuss this matter fully and thoroughly. I will use today as an ideal opportunity to update Parliament in the group's discussions, but before I do that, I will give way to— Alexander Burnett. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. As his colleague Tom Arthur pointed out, this is a matter that has been long overdue. Could the minister give some indication of a timescale when he would like to see this conversation happen? Again, I heard this idea that this is an issue that is long overdue. Clearly, the fact that there has been no protection of title put in place before, you could arguably say, well, this is a matter that is long overdue. However, I would go back to the point that the group that I have referred to was established less than a year ago, has been meeting, has been undertaken in those discussions. I came into this office in June and met Select only a few weeks later. We are having this debate now. I think that the idea that we are resting on our laurels, this has been kicking around and has been punting into the long grass, is not one that can be held to be true. Let me make it very clear that this is a matter that I do, because it is a serious one. We are not trying to hold up anything at all. I suppose that I would just emphasise the point again that it is important that, considering any specific proposition, we engage fully and thoroughly in considering what the implications of that might be and what the best way forward will be. I can see Mr Halcro Johnston's reaction to intervene, so let me pre-empt that and say that I will give way. I saw that too when he was preparing himself. I am very grateful that the minister has ahead of me on this one. Can I just ask that you support the principle of protection of title in this case? Let me say, and hopefully it has been clear, that I am not unsympathetic to the concept. I think that there is merit in looking at that as a proposition considering it thoroughly, and I have made the point already that that is very firmly on the table. I will be happy to meet any member who wants to advance that proposition. Let me be as gently as I can. I have had two written questions from Mr Halcro Johnston at this point. He has laid a motion on the matter that we are debating today. Mr Finlay has laid a motion before this Parliament, and I have had two letters in this matter from two elective representatives. I have not been inundated with people in this chamber coming to me to talk about that issue. I could see that that is causing some disconsertion. The only reason that I make that point is, and I would hope that it would be held, that I am a pretty approachable guy. If people want to come and speak to me about that issue, I am happy to do that. My door is open, and having opened the door, I will give way to Mr Finlay, who I am sure will be happy to open. Mr Finlay? I was not aware that the way that Government works is by way of emails, mailbag responses to ministers and parliamentary questions. I could put down 500 parliamentary questions tomorrow. That should not be how we decide whether we do things that are right or wrong. I think that the point that the minister makes is, frankly, nonsense. I was not trying to make a nonsensical point, Mr Finlay. The point that I was trying to make was that I have not had an overwhelming sense of people coming forward as a priority issue for them, but my door is open, and I am willing to consider it and discuss it with people. Mr Finlay would be very welcome to come and speak to me about it as well. Mr Halcro Johnston. You did say that you had an open door. I think that we would have this good. Yes, it's open. Mr Halcro Johnston made a rod for your own back minister there. Sorry, the minister has made a rod for his own back. Obviously, Neil Findlay and I have put down motions on that, but the minister and the minister's predecessor role have had representation from industry bodies about that for some time. It is not just a question of what MSPs have been doing. There have been representatives from the industry contacting about that for a long time. Minister. That is right. I suppose that the point is that industry is not speaking with one voice. We know, for example, that the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation contracting takes a different view. The point that I am trying to make is that, when different views are expressed, it is incumbent on us as a Government to sit down, hear those different voices and work out the best way through it. That is the only point that I am making. If members of this Parliament want to be part of that process, the door is open. We have probably got a little sidetrack there in terms of me opening the door. It does remain open. I had hoped to update the Parliament a little more in terms of where the group has got to. Let me just make the point. The group is in place. It is continuing to discuss the matter. There is no delay. That work continues. We will come back. We will have a final proposition within the Parliament to determine whether it will agree with that proposition. Mr Halcro Johnston suggested that he may bring forward legislation. That is his, as it is indeed any member of this Parliament's, prerogative to do so. I will be happy to consider that if the determination is necessary to do so. However, I take the issue seriously, and I am actively exploring it with an open mind. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate. I suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30.