 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 1793 in the name of Jamie Hepburn on devolution of employment services. Can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons? I call on Jamie Hepburn to speak to and move the motion. You have 14 minutes, please, Mr Hepburn. Can I stop you please? Seems to be something wrong with your microphone, minister. You got your card in upside down. I would never commit such a mistake, Presiding Officer. No, yes, I did. Let me at the outset, lest I forget to move the motion in my name. I very much welcome this opportunity today to tell Parliament how I propose to deliver one of the first of the powers that have evolved under the Scotland Act 2016. That is the power for Scottish ministers to deliver employability support to help disabled people or those at risk of long-term unemployment to seek, obtain and retain employment. Parliament first debated the new powers in April 2015, which marked the start of a process of engagement on the services that we want to see in Scotland. We have taken a consultative and collaborative approach to policy and programme development to listen to the views and assess policy options. We have engaged with openness and determination with the UK Department for Work and Pensions and Job Centre Plus, and we have made significant progress as a result. I am pleased to say that we are now coming to the significant point where we move from designing services to delivering them. Importantly, this Government intends to deliver new powers for Scotland in the interests of the people of Scotland and with dignity and respect central to our thinking. I would like to set out the way forward for the smooth and seamless delivery of new devolved services and how those services will support people into employment. Today, I will also set out where we will use powers differently in Scotland, including on how our devolved employment programme will interact with the systems of conditionality and sanctions that remain reserved to Westminster. Today is also the opportunity for members to set out their views on those matters. I look forward to the debate to be clear at the outset. It is always useful to have clarity at the outset, Presiding Officer. Today, we will not be supporting the Conservative amendment, but we will be supporting the Labour amendment. Had it been accepted, we would have also happily supported the Green amendment. We have, Presiding Officer, a significant and unique opportunity to deliver employment support in Scotland. I intend to take that opportunity to deliver employment support service, which will reflect fair work and social and economic inclusion, put an emphasis on partnership delivery, building on our strengths and votes to the public and private sector and a local authority, third sector and specialist delivery, treat service users with respect and have services that will take people with us, encouraging and supporting people into work, rather than cajoling them regardless of their individual circumstances. It is fair to say that delivering new powers is not without its challenges. There are limitations and the powers being devolved by the UK Government. Devolution is limited to powers to replace the existing contracted services that are delivered by DWP in the work programme for long-term unemployed people and work choice, a voluntary disability employment service. The devolution committee of the last parliamentary session shared our disappointment that the degree of devolution does not deliver on the Smith commission's recommendation. Then, only a week after publication of the Smith commission agreement, the UK Government, despite our strong case for swift transfer of powers, announced that rather devolved services on expiry of their current commercial arrangements in March 2016, as had been agreed, that it would extend the contracts to March 2017. Then, in the UK 2015 autumn budget statement, the then UK chancellor announced replacement of the current programmes with a new work and health programme in England and Wales. That programme is still undefined, meaning disabled people and those who are long-term unemployed in England and Wales still do not know what support services they will have. Members can be assured that we are determined to give people in Scotland certainty about the future support that our programme will offer. By far, the biggest impact of the UK spending review has been the massive funding cuts for those services. We estimate that expenditure on current DWP programmes in Scotland this year will total around £53 million. In December 2015, the DWP indicated a budget for delivery of new devolved programmes in 2017-18 of just £7 million, a budget cut of almost 90 per cent. As Parliament and the people of Scotland would, I think, expect the Scottish Government to. We have argued that that is unacceptable. It was done with no prior consultation after we had started consultation on our services and it significantly undermined our plans. The shifting policy and financial landscape that the UK Government has imposed has therefore been a challenge for us. We are meeting that challenge head-on. We are on track to deliver our programme for government commitment, to deliver devolved employability support services in Scotland from April 2017. We have a clear sense of the services that we should aim to deliver and, informed by the engagement that we have undertaken, building on that engagement, we will continue to listen to those who rely on those services so that we can use their experience in developing our services. Indeed, just this morning, I met a group of unemployed single parents in Edinburgh this morning with one parent family in Scotland. Again, I heard how important it is for support to gain employment to be able to adapt to meet the needs of the individual and flexibly enough to recognise childcare needs, working patterns and travel to work issues. We are also responding to the challenge posed by the reduction in funding. Scottish ministers have agreed to provide up to £20 million in additional funding above the reduced settlement from the UK Government to replace the work choice and work programme schemes. That triples the funding that we made available to exercise new devolved powers on employability from 1 April 2017. We have made a further commitment for subsequent years up to 2021 to invest £20 million a year over and above the UK Government settlement to ensure that those who most need support can get that support. Our investment means that we can create a strong platform for delivering future services from 1 April 2017, and in the years beyond it means that we will continue to support the most vulnerable unemployed people in Scotland, including those with their disability. Our aim is employment support in Scotland that meets the needs of people who need support and the needs of employers in Scotland to reflect the current delivery landscape and helps to deliver sustainable employment and economic growth. To start to deliver this, on 8 September I announced a two-part approach to services from 1 April 2017. In Work for Scotland, Scottish ministers will agree a one-year contract with cut providers of work choice in Scotland. That service will deliver employment support and advice for up to 3,300 people with disabilities with a tailored approach to meet individual needs, including pre-work and in-work support. The procurement process is already under way, and I expect contracts to be signed next month. In Work Able Scotland, Skills Development Scotland will deliver a one-year transitional employability services for clients with a disability or health condition and at risk of long-term unemployment and who want to enter work. That service will provide a combination of advice, support and coaching. That will ensure continuity of effective and accessible support for those who need it most in 2017. That means that we are building on existing assets and delivery strengths both within the Scottish Government and in Skills Development Scotland. Crucially, the transitional year will also give us the space to define the service that we want to put in place from April 2018. That is why engagement with those who are interested in the service that we will take forward, such as the meeting that I had with one parent family Scotland this morning, will continue to be important. Members' views today on those matters will be useful. Pauline McNeill Thank you. Perhaps you are going to cover that, but I just wanted to make sure that you did. I have been following the exchange between the minister, Angela Constance and the UK Government over your intention to make this voluntary rather than mandatory, which I would wholeheartedly support. I want to be sure in this debate that we are clear that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have agreed that they will be indeed voluntary. Jamie Hepburn Ms McNeill does not need to be disappointed. I will come to that point, but I think that our motion certainly clearly indicates the direction of travel in which we want to take things. I do not think that they are too different from what she hopes we will take them, but I will come to that point later. As part of delivering our employment programme, we are taking forward a wider and longer-term agenda of integration and alignment of services. We are working to align and join up services. We are working to redefine the current complex delivery landscape and set it where policies could better align with one another, where roles and responsibilities could be clearer across Scottish Government policies and programmes and across local authority and third sector provision. That process to be clear will not be complete by April 2017 or indeed by April 2018, but it is one that we must begin to ensure maximum benefit for those that we need to support. We are also working to align where we can with Job Center Plus. The Scottish Government has long argued for Scotland to have full powers over employability policy programmes and delivery, including over the operation of Job Center Plus. There are still strong and compelling arguments for that, not least the process of better alignment of service that I spoke of a moment ago. With a more coherent set of powers, they develop the links between Job Center Plus and Devolved Services and the ability to change the culture, focus and approach of Job Center Plus. However, the current political reality is that Job Center Plus will remain reserved, and it will be a critical conduit for people to pass into devolved employability services. Scottish ministers, indeed this Parliament and much of Scottish civic society have long been critical of the UK Government's approach to mandating, effectively forcing people to take part in work programmes without always considering other issues affecting their lives, leading to too many being sanctioned. Sanctions can often affect the most vulnerable in society, including lone parents, young people and those with a disability. Those who face sanctions are often unable to comply with the conditions that they are requested to for a range of complex reasons, including many practical and personal barriers. Even with the devolution of this new area of responsibility that we debate today, the UK Government will remain responsible for decisions over claimant conditions in its social security system and any penalties imposed if those conditions are not met. The sanctions regime in operation remains the policy and responsibility of the UK Government, but it is not the policy of the Scottish Government. Existing Scottish programmes to support people on the pathway to employment are voluntary and give people the opportunity to participate in activities to support them into work. Coming to Ms MacNeill's point, I believe that we should continue to operate a voluntary approach with our devolved employment programme where the DWP's conditionality requirement and, therefore, its sanctions will not apply. In December 2015, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions indicated that the extent of conditionality in our devolved employment programme was for us to determine. I, therefore, wrote to the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seeking confirmation that, although Jobcentre Plus will clearly have a central role in referring its clients into our employability programme, the Department for Work and Pensions should not require that they do so on a mandatory basis or that Jobcentre Plus clients have to take part in our employment programme to continue to receive social security support. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has replied to my letter and set out a commitment for us to work together on the approach that I want to take forward. He has reiterated, too, that the conditions in our devolved programmes are for Scottish ministers to determine. However, let me be clear, Presiding Officer. I have decided that I do not want our enabling person-centred approach to be undermined by participation under threat of DWP sanction. My clear expectation is that the DWP will respect that perspective and our way forward. On that basis, I have written again to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions today and will continue to pursue that matter with him when we meet next week. I believe that the programmes that we will take forward will work better if they are voluntary. I believe that our programmes will work better if we bring people with us. I believe that services will work better if they are designed around people's needs. I believe that our programmes will work better if they are seen as an opportunity, not as a threat. I do not believe that that will be the case if we enforce mandatory participation to devolve programmes. We will maintain our good progress to deliver services in 2017 with contracts in place before the end of this year. I will announce to Parliament next year further details and progress on our 2018 service. The Scottish Government will deliver devolved employment programmes that support people into work and help them to tackle the barriers that they face into employment. That will be done with fairness, dignity and respect at the forefront of our minds, at the heart of our services. I urge Parliament to endorse that approach this evening. I now call in Adam Tomkins to speak to your move amendment 1793.1 up to nine minutes. I welcome the devolution of employment support services. They will add valuably to the Scottish Government's already considerable powers to shape and improve the labour market in Scotland. There is much in the Government's motion today, indeed much in the Government's approach that we support and agree with, that employment support should reflect fair work and social and economic inclusion. That employment support services should ensure that people are at the heart of the service provided and that service provision should treat people with fairness and respect. We agree on all of that. Our amendment to the Government's motion seeks to do three things. First, it recognises that, for those who can, work represents the best route out of poverty. Those are not my words. They are the words of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, who has been in the forefront of research into social policy in Britain for decades. Helping people move from welfare into work has been the main driver behind the welfare reform programmes that Conservatives have undertaken since we came to office in the United Kingdom in 2010, and it is working. Can I make a little progress and then I will give a way to Mr McPherson? Through the work programme, more than half a million job seekers have found work lasting six months or longer. Long-term unemployment has fallen to its lowest level since 2009. The number of people claiming unemployment benefits has fallen to its lowest level since 1975, and there are now more than 31.7 million people in work in the United Kingdom, up by more than 2.7 million since 2010. In Scotland, the work programme has helped more than 47,000 Scots back to work, but it is not just about jobs. The minister was right to recognise that in his remarks. It is about job security and the quality of jobs. Here, too, there is good news, not that you would know it necessarily from what the minister just said. In the year to August, almost two-thirds of the rise in employment was from full-time work, and since 2010, 95 per cent of growth and employment in the UK has come from permanent employees or people working for themselves. One of the innovative design features of the work programme is the way that it incentivises sustained job outcomes. It is not just about getting people into work that matters, but about keeping them in work, too. Recognising and welcoming those facts inexplicably overlooked in the Government's motion is the second function of our amendment today. I give way to Mr Macpherson. Thank you. I am grateful for Adam Tomkins for giving way. For clarity and completeness and accuracy, Mr Tomkins also acknowledged that the report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is highly critical of zero-hours contracts and insecure work, for example, measures that are controlled at the Westminster level. It is also extremely encouraging about paying the real living wage, the voluntary living wage that the Scottish Government is promoting at every opportunity. Adam Tomkins? On zero-hours contracts, I just said to Mr Macpherson that 95 per cent of the growth, 95 per cent of the jobs growth in the UK since 2010 has been in full-time employment or in self-employment. It was the Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition Government in 2013, I think, that legislated to ban the most exploitative zero-hours contracts in the whole of the UK. In addition, there are also more disabled people in work today, 360,000 people with a disability. 360,000 have found work in the last two years who were not previously in employment. In the UK there are now some 3.5 million people with a disability in work. This is unambiguously good news, but on this front we recognise that there is still more to do. The disability employment gap has reduced in recent years, and that is to be welcomed, but it remains far too big. That is why it is a Conservative party policy to Harvard. If the SNP would join us in making that happen, it would have our full support in doing so. Perhaps the minister can say something about that in his winding up. Thirdly, our amendment calls on the Scottish Government to use its powers to address what can only be described as the dismal fact that Scotland has the lowest employment growth rate anywhere in the United Kingdom, lower than the north-east of England, lower than the north-west of England, lower than Wales, lower than Northern Ireland. London has an employment growth rate some five times greater than Scotland. The east midlands has an employment growth rate twice that in Scotland. Why is job creation so much worse in the SNP's Scotland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Does it have anything to do with the chronic skills shortages in the Scottish economy? Skills shortages made so much worse by the 152,000 college places slashed by the SNP. Skills shortages made worse too by the fact that Skills Development Scotland had its budget cut by more than £25 million—that is 13 per cent since 2011. I have already said that I am going to give away to the minister in a minute—skills shortages that are hardly helped by the low number of apprenticeships in the Scottish economy. In England, there are nearly twice as many apprenticeships per head of population as there are in the SNP's Scotland. If the minister would like to respond to any of those points, I will happily give away to him. It is very interesting, because the goose's sauce for the gander of Professor Tomkins was suggesting that there was a degree of admission from our motion today. There was a degree of admission from some of the labour market statistics that Professor Tomkins was performing perhaps he could reflect on the fact that the unemployment rate in Scotland, according to the last labour market statistics, is somewhat lower than the UK's rate at 4.7 per cent opposed to the UK's rate at 4.9 per cent that we outperformed in the UK on youth employment, unemployment and productivity. Productivity in Scotland is rising higher than the UK as a whole. Indeed, I am coming to that minister. So what did we hear from the minister today about the Scottish Government's plans to address any of those problems of skills shortages and apprenticeships? Nothing, Deputy Presiding Officer. What did we hear about why the inactivity rate is higher in Scotland than is in the rest of the UK? What did we hear about why the employment rate is lower in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK? Or—and why the employment rate is lower in Scotland now than it was in 2017—while it is higher in the rest of the UK than it was in 2007? So it is getting worse in Scotland, but get better in the rest of the UK. What did we hear about any of that, Deputy Presiding Officer? Nothing. Instead, what we heard was more nationalist a ddyf yn cael ei ddyfnod o'r cyfnod yr Oedonion Kokol. Felly, we have heard not about the success of the work programme, but about its budget. The truth, Deputy Presiding Officer, is that the work programme has worked. Unemployment has fallen by 30 per cent. Long term unemployment has fallen by 35 per cent. The employment rate in the Isle Kingdom has gone up. The number of British jobs has gone up. The number of full time jobs has gone up. mae'r number of women in employment has gone up—the number of disabled people in employment in Britain has gone up and the work programme has played its role in helping with this. The All Party House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, chaired by a Labour MP, I note, concluded in a report published at the end of last year that the work programme has streamlined the procurement of welfare to work, has created a stable GB-wide welfare to work infrastructure and has produced good job outcomes for a greatly reduced cost to the taxpayer, indeed for about half the cost of the programmes that it replaced. Instead of bleating, why doesn't the minister reflect for a moment on whether the programmes that the Scottish Government runs deliver for the taxpayer anything like the value for money that the work programme has delivered? Only about 10 per cent of public spend in Scotland on employment support skills and apprenticeships is spent by the DWP. The vast majority of expenditure is undertaken by bodies that are already devolved, such as Scottish Enterprise or Skills Development Scotland. Do they achieve the results secured by the DWP's work programme, the same job outcomes, the same value for money? This afternoon's debate is an opportunity for this Parliament to discuss all these matters, and it's an opportunity we on this side of the chamber welcome. For there are pressing questions demanding urgent answers from Scottish ministers, and I've raised a number of them in this speech. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I welcome the devolution of employment support services, and I do recognise that the labour market of 2017 and beyond requires different priorities from those that we needed in the immediate aftermath of Labour's recession in 2010. However, I say this to the minister. In designing the new devolved programmes, don't throw the baby out with a bathwater. Take what's best about the work programme and work choice and build on them. Don't jettison what's proven to have worked well, so keep the contracted-out model. Keep the system free of over-prescriptive interventions from ministers. Let the professionals get on with it. Keep a system of differential payments and avoid the temptation to think that one size fits all. Most important, keep incentivising sustained job outcomes and high-quality job outcomes. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Pauline McNeill to speak to you and move amendment 1793.3. Seven minutes, please, Ms McNeill. In moving this amendment in my name, we join with the Scottish Government and all those parties to the Swiss agreement in welcoming the devolution of work support programmes for the long-term unemployed and other groups who find getting into work difficult. I agree with one aspect of the amendment in the name of Adam Tomkins, and that is that the best route out of poverty is work. However, like Ben Macpherson, I would also say that it is the type of work that does matter. Programmes for the long-term unemployed should be designed to upskill people and recognise that the vast majority of people on benefits do not want to rely on them. One thing that is clear to me is that the UK's current work programme is failing to many people who need real and genuine support to find work and attain modern day skills in order to get suitable well-paid work. In 2014, the DWP statistics showed that work programme contractors had been responsible for twice as many sanctions on the people who referred to them as had produced job outcomes. That is just plain ridiculous. A cluttered and inflexible landscape of provision, according to SCVO, is inadaptable to the individual needs of people. With ridiculously low figures for those who are progressing from low-skills to high-skills, because it is not just about getting employment, it is about upskilling—I think that something is very wrong. However, the task is indeed a great one in today's world. The Tinder Foundation said that 90 per cent of all new jobs require digital skills. Two thirds of employers say that they would not even employ anyone without basic computer skills. Interestingly, a staggering 800,000 people in Scotland still do not have access through the internet. We must remember that. The task for any Government is a challenging one, but for many, the critique of our service is far worse. Many see the work programme as a damaging and cruel system that forces destitution on those reported for failing to comply with strict and sometimes impossible conditions set. The charity called Mind Health called the work programme fundamentally flawed, causing a huge amount of distress without achieving actual results. Their research says that the programme is having a negative impact on people with mental health problems and the report that is actually making them less able to work. If those things are true, I wonder why the member thinks that a Labour-chaired all-party House of Commons committee failed to record any of those criticisms in its report on the work programme last year. Pauline McNeill Is the minister saying that Mind is making the statistics up? Are you saying that, as I come on to talk about lone parents, that they are also making those figures up? I will let you come back on that when I get to that point. It seems to me that the problem is a matter of design. There has been a dramatic increase in appeals with tribunals with the overwhelming number of appeals upheld. What more evidence do you need? There are groups of fairs that are far worse when it comes to sanctions than lack of support. As I said, one of them is lone parent families. Full conditionality with the most serious sanctions will apply to parents who claim job seekers allowance when their child is five years old and more limited sanctions will be imposed on parents with children as young as one year old. According to One Pair family Scotland, the regime is also intensifying with the roll-out of universal credit. Single parent families with children as young as three will soon be subject to the same conditions. Recent studies and conditionality by a number of UK universities have highlighted that being late or missing your appointment for whatever reason can lead to sanctions and creating desperate and poor situations for many people. In one case, the report of a man was sanctioned even though he told the job centre that he had a hospital appointment. Sanctions can be applied for any number of reasons, including that the claimant does not want to apply for a job that the claimant thinks is inappropriate to their skills. In the case of a friend of mine who is car broke down on the way to an appointment about his self-employed business, he was sanctioned for six weeks for failing to turn up to the appointment on time. I suggest that there is something far wrong with the system that we have come to know. Of course, as we have talked about in those debates, it can take months to get through an appeal system, and many claimants simply give up because it is too difficult for them to advocate. People are often shocked at the reasons that they are sanctioned. I have heard of many stories where people are not aware that a sanction is going to be imposed on them. The wide use of the work programme service that is run by private contractors sometimes has unachievable job searches with onerous conditions. It really is far from a dignified approach when people are at the lowest point in their lives. We believe on the side that the cruel and ineffective sanctions regime should not be the basis of the approach in Scotland. Of course, that will largely be a matter for the UK Government. However, as the minister has said this afternoon, we in Scotland have a chance to create a completely new Scottish service when it comes to the devolved powers that we now have. In moving labour's amendment, I believe, if not all the parties in this chamber, at least I agree that we should have a new accord of dignity and respect to all those who need that support in their daily lives. The new Scottish employability service could be, as the SEO of VO has described in its briefing, could adopt a human rights-based approach to helping people into work. We support the Scottish Government in creating a non-mandatory scheme, provided that it is clearly within our powers, and we believe that it will have better outcomes if people opt into those schemes. In the exchange that I had with the minister, I just want to be clear that, although I support the approach that you are taking, we would not want that to result in an unnecessary fight between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and I would be asking to be kept appraised of those on-going discussions. No, you will have to address it in your closing remarks, minister. We wind up, please, Ms McNeill. Yes, I will. From 2018, we will have full responsibility for employment programs with a transition period that must not result in any detriment to existing users. We must ensure, therefore, that we create a fairer and more dignified Scottish system when we take the powers when they come in 2018. We now move to the open speeches, and we are really pushed for time, so we will have to be quite strict about six-minute speeches, no more than that. I call on Sandra White to be followed by Annie Wells. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I thank the minister for his contribution. In particular, the reiteration of people are to be treated with dignity and fairness in delivering employment services, which we know are to be devolved, not as much as we would like, particularly on this side of the chamber, but they have to be devolved and we have to work with what we have. I welcome the voluntary access to the services that are supporting people into work. The threat of mandatory participation, the threat of sanctions by the DWP, is not only affecting our most vulnerable in society but, in many cases, it is allegedly killing them. I welcome back to this later in my speech. I also want to thank Pauline McNeill for her contribution, which recognises dignity and respect, as has been mentioned, in the Labour motion. The UK Tory Government's decision to cut moneys by 87 per cent, as the minister has already said, for employment support, is £53 million down to £7 million. In the words of Martin Syme, chief executive of the SCVO, flies in the face of the Smith agreement and is a clear breach of the no detriment principle, and we have to remember that also. I welcome the Scottish Government's additional moneys to ensure continuity of employment support. As many people are affected by sanctions and by, basically, conditionality also, and I said earlier that I want to return to some of the people who are particularly affected by that. Once I have mentioned it, I have one-parent families, young people and those with mental health issues. One-parent families, I think that Pauline McNeill touched on this in her contribution, have a very difficult time. They have extra responsibilities that some people do not necessarily have. They have responsibilities of juggling childcare and, in many cases, particularly for women caring for elderly relatives. It is very important that we look at holistic approaches, as has been mentioned by the minister and the Scottish Government and the Parliament. We look at those things holistically, not just in various isolated instances. It is very difficult for a one-parent family to get their kids up to school, which is perhaps even school holidays. They have childcare responsibilities, and, basically, they cannot always match the hours that they are supposed to work with the responsibilities that they have. If they happen to miss an appointment, they are sanctioned. In one particular case, I know that I am thankful for one-parent families for giving us some contributions to Orza, but a lady who tried her very best to be able to get to work with the responsibilities that she had, caring and responsibilities for young children, ended up being sanctioned, losing her benefits and, eventually, she was nearly losing her home, because she could not afford to pay her rent. That is what is happening just now, and we take on board what Adam Thompson can say. However, this Tory Government in Westminster, which you are a part of, is basically responsible for sanctioning and putting the most vulnerable people's lives at risk and absolute misery for the way they have to live also. Let's look at young people also. Young people have particular issues, too, in that respect. Young people sometimes have transient lifestyles. Basically, they come perhaps from broken homes, parents who perhaps do not give them advice also. We have to look at that in particular as well. We need to make sure that those young kids are treated with dignity also when they are coming either out of care, out of school and going into the job market. It is all right for Adam Thompson to talk about the fact, and I know that Pauline McNeill agreed with that part of the motion. We all agree that the best way—even people with mental health problems and the best way out of anything like that—is to get into work, but not at any cost, to push people into work simply because the ideology of the Tory party at Westminster says that you must go to work when you may have some serious illness that you cannot possibly go to work. It might not be that apparent, and that is when I want to come on to the people with mental health problems. I have visited Sammy H, and I am sure that other people have also, in their constituency, Florence House, particularly Flourish House, in my constituency. I have spoken to people, and I have heard how difficult it is for them to basically put themselves forward for an assessment and their sanctions. They might forget what day it is in their sanctions just because it happened to have a mental health problem. They cannot see a bone protruding out, but there are problems there. They might be well taking their medication on the day they go forward to their assessment, but by the time they come out and they are told their sanctions, they are way back down again. I mentioned the fact about people committing suicide, and I know that other MSPs will have letters. I had a particular case in my constituency where the chap did not turn up and there were letters through the door. The only reason that he found that man was when he broke the door down, because he basically had not paid his rent and the man was there and he was dead. He took his own life. There was a letter there saying that he was sanctioned. That is what we are facing. I am not accusing anyone in particular, but we need to recognise that people have particular problems at times, and we should be looking at them with dignity and respect. I welcome the Government's approach to that. I have Andy Wells, followed by Alison Johnstone. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In addition to providing financial security for individuals, there are economic, social and moral arguments for that. For those who are able to, work is the most effective way to improve the wellbeing of individuals, their families and their communities. As of April next year, we know that employment services will evolve to Scotland under the Scotland Act 2016. The Scottish Conservatives have asked that, rather than starting from scratch, that we look at what works within the UK system and adapt it to meet Scotland's needs. The Scottish Government is yet to iron up—absolutely. That is a turn-up for the books. That is usually the other way round. Ms Wells will surely welcome the fact that, from the transition year 2017, we are contracting the exact same providers of the work choice programme to deliver our new service. Ms Wells, I welcome that as well. I will come on to that a bit later on in my speech. A transitional year from 2017 and in a longer-term employability service from April 2018 onwards. Undoubtedly, accusations today will focus on the employment services of the past and the re-examination of all that is wrong with the system. I acknowledge some of the flaws. The assessment of those with long-term illnesses, for example, and that is why I was pleased to see the new work in pensions minister, Damian Green, say only this weekend that those with long-term illness will stop having to have their benefits reassessed, benefiting tens of thousands of claimants. However, repeated criticism moves away from the purpose of the debate today. I want to know from the Scottish Government how its proposed services will give the best support to those who face the greatest barriers to employment, and if there are any elements from the current work programme shown to be working, that it looks to carry forward and we have already said that we understand that we are going to be looking at that. Not at the moment, just let me move on at the moment. Let us look at the positives of the UK work programme and work choice and more generally at the benefits of working with existing local and often voluntary services to create broader systems that meet diverse needs. The work programme between 2011 and 2015 helped nearly 50,000 people in Scotland back into work, and in the wider UK, long-term unemployment has fallen to 480,000 at the slowest level since 2009. The elements of support provided very typically, involving a regular contact with an advisor, an assessment of the employment needs of the user, IT training and support, and help finding suitable jobs and preparing for interviews. However, I was concerned to read that there are approximately 402,000 young Scots aged between 16 and 24 who are not in education, employment or training. Many of whom, whose action for children in Scotland point out, are from disadvantaged backgrounds and require extra support to find and sustain employment. That is certainly something to be gained from working with the voluntary sector. It is great to see examples not only of action from children, which runs its own youth-build service of companies such as ASDA in collaboration with the Prince's Trust, creating its own get-in-to-retail scheme. Stores in Linwood, Govan, Bishop Briggs and Royston offered 17 unemployed young people the chance to gain work experience, accredited skills and training and a four-week training programme. Crucially, all 17 of the graduates on their most recent programme have been offered permanent contracts. In my own experience working in retail, I was once the champion for March and Spencer's March and Start scheme, a four-week programme designed to help people with health conditions or disabilities, young people, single parents and people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. I also want to highlight the success of WorkChoice, a programme that provides support to job seekers with a disability through the provision of a wider and more intensive range of support to help them to remain economically independent. Since introduced, there have been nearly 12,000 referrals to WorkChoice in Scotland, a voluntary scheme, leading to more than 9,500 starts and nearly 4,500 job outcomes. Currently, run by Shaw Trust in Momentum Scotland, success stories include those such as Her Majesty's prison low moss, whereby the Shaw Trust has delivered a successful pilot project, helping prisoners with health problems and disabilities to move into work upon release. 100 per cent have moved into employment as a result of that pilot. I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government has recognised the worth of the programme, setting up its own work for Scotland and workable Scotland schemes as part of a one-year contract between Scottish ministers and the current third sector providers of WorkChoice in Scotland. Ultimately, as has been mentioned before, I believe that getting people into work is the best way to help them out of poverty. People want to work. We know that. We have seen the referrals to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I want to see the process of creating and administering and employment services in Scotland being done in a way that is positive and can do. Thank you very much. Some of the parties that were represented in the chamber, mine included, were disappointed with the overall package of powers that have been or are being devolved by the new Scotland act. Some individual powers can be used in creative and radical ways, perhaps even in ways that are not anticipated by the UK Government when they devolve them, and the devolution of employment services is a very good example of that, and we will have to be creative given the massive cut that Westminster has passed on. The current model of employment support that is used by the Westminster Government is a narrow one. Evaluations of the current work programme show that participants are often forced into jobs as soon as possible, regardless of whether it is going to provide them with appropriately paid and sustainable employment that allows them to make progress in the labour market. It risks trapping people in low-wage, low-status employment, as a number of studies have demonstrated. The nature of support offered by the UK programmes is often generic in nature. Although help with writing CVs and applying for jobs can be very beneficial for some programme participants, those who have multiple and complex barriers to employment often need individualised packages of support, bringing in physical and mental health services, social services and training. UK Governments have tested integrated packages of support like that before, but they were not included in the work programme. The condition management programme, for example, which helped people to manage their health conditions, was lost in the switch-over to the work programme in 2011. The assumption was that market competition would drive private sector providers to offer such support, but that has not been the case. The DWP's survey of work programme participants found that over 70 per cent of those on the programme with a health condition were not offered health-related support to help them to find work. I very much welcome the work first on more Cable Scotland programmes that will assist around 5,000 people with disabilities and health conditions into employment in the interim year between 2017 and 2018, and that the Government is prioritising those groups left behind by current schemes is certainly encouraging. I also hope that the contracting process for the interim and later programmes recognises the experience and skills of smaller, third sector and non-profit providers. They often have the expertise, as Annie Wells pointed out, to provide the specialist support that is needed to help those furthest from the labour market. I look forward to them playing a much more central role in Scottish programmes than has been the case with the work programme. With all relevant services under control of this Parliament, Scotland has an enormously valuable opportunity to provide co-ordinated, innovative services that support people with multiple barriers into well-paying, long-lasting employment opportunities. As one parent family Scotland has argued, employment support for parents can be joined up with a new expansion of early years and childcare. We can tackle the gender gap by not forcing women into highly gender-segregated low-pay sectors of our economy, as those of us who attended the Equate Scotland reception last week will know that women are desperately needed in STEM subjects. The renewables revolution that we so badly need can be supported by employment schemes that help train people to work in green industries. Those are the kinds of opportunities that an imaginative and radical set of employment programmes offers us, and I hope that the Scottish Government is willing to invest time, effort and funds in building such a model of employment support. I would now like to move to the issue of sanctions. Although I accept that there are members from right across this chamber who veer very strongly about the negative impact of benefit sanctions, I was proud to stand earlier this year on the only party manifesto that pledged to use the new powers over-employment services to significantly reduce the number of benefit sanctions applied in Scotland. In August, the Scottish Greens launched Scotland Against Sanctions, a report that presented original research showing that an average of 13,000 sanctions a year are applied to the benefits of Scottish claimants. It also laid out in detail how sanctions could be stopped should the UK Government refused to refer to Scottish programmes on a voluntary basis. I am heartened by recent correspondence, and I do hope that the willingness that this should proceed on this basis will be continued. However, the evidence that the report presents is clear. Firstly, sanctions do not achieve their intended purpose. Their positive impact on helping people in employment is marginal and transitory. Secondly, those positive effects are far outweighed by the way that they can trap people in low-wage work and their detrimental impact on welfare recipients, health and wellbeing. If the purpose of sanctions is to help benefit recipients into work by enforcing participation in employment programmes, they are even more unacceptable when those programmes do not provide a genuine chance for non-employed people to gain work. Although it is very welcome that the performance of the work programme has improved year on year, I suggest to Adam Tomkins that 65 per cent of participants still go through the whole two years of the programme without gaining work, and that figure is much higher for people with health conditions and disabilities. The Westminster Government is telling people to take part in activity that is more likely than not, not going to help them and to do so under threat of having their income taken away from them, and I do not think that that is a tall acceptable. That is why I very much welcome the motion today, pledging that all Scottish employability programmes will be on a voluntary basis. The Scottish Government has said that it wants to build the new employment programmes on the values of dignity, respect and fairness, and making them sanction-free is an important start. Presiding Officer, the devolution of employment programmes is perhaps not the most high-profile power to be devolved by the new Scotland act, but it is one of the most exciting. I am pleased that the Scottish Greens have played a part in the process by putting forward the idea of sanction-free programmes, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Government and colleagues from across the chamber on this issue. I call Christina McKelvie, followed by Mark Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very proud of the Scottish Government in showing real-loop vision, real commitment and a determination to better link up employability and employment, particularly groups that face different types of challenges and barriers, such as disability when seeking employment. However, I am concerned about those less obvious groups and individuals who have been left behind by services that do not meet their needs and offer any encouragement to find a suitable job. I have just heard some of that from Alison Johnson. I believe that Scotland can do more. We can do it differently. We can provide effective employment support for physically disabled people, those with special needs or additional support needs, mental health issues, young people leaving care and people who are falling through the care net. Westminster's current muddled regime, at best chaotic and at worst completely failing, given to two private companies a few years ago and not the third sector where it should have went, will no longer be a break holding back Scotland's productivity. We need to have systems that take a capability approach that recognises that an individual's wider needs must also be addressed while focusing on their personal employability journey. We can congratulate ourselves as we talk about the unemployment rate of 5 per cent in Scotland. The problem is that this group is disproportionately made up of those who are furthest from the workload place, those through disability and other barriers who need that additional support. I do not believe that threats, sanctions and forced work schemes represent the route towards bringing people into work. Those are often people in need of help to build greater self-esteem, to have the confidence and support to learn new skills and to have skills in training that maximises a person's own potential. As many reasons as there are individuals, each is unique, but there are things that we as a Government can do to improve the life chances. Now is the time for us to make sure that we have the right structures in place and the systems before we embrace those new powers, and that is what we are doing today. Those systems need to be person-centred, flexible and properly targeted. Young people leaving care can face challenges such as childhood trauma, difficult family relationships and even having nowhere to live. If you find somewhere to live in supported accommodation and you then find somewhere to get a part-time job or to go to college or university, you have your housing benefit taken off you, so you lose your support system. That is something that we can fix in this Parliament going forward. Young single mothers struggling to manage alone often feel an isolated and struggling financially. Many will suffer the stress and anxiety so they feel demoralised and out of control. That in turn leads on to feelings of complete loss of motivation and any real willpower. The conditionality regime hits the most vulnerable with the vicious sanctions. Young single mothers must seek worked-claimed ISA once the youngest child reaches five. The whole regime is based on punishment. Turned up five minutes late for a job centre interview because your child needed to go to the toilet and you find yourself with no benefits and sanctioned for a fortnight. I have spoken in this chamber on many occasions about the catastrophic effect of sanctioning. Now I want to add those sad observations to whether or not a young mum is sanctioned does not mean that the conditionality regime will not bite. The fear of knowing it might happen is destructive in itself, often leading to depression, stress and anxiety, exasperating existing health conditions, all totally destructive in terms of trying to find a job and getting a better quality of life. On top of that, the conditionality regime forces many single parents into poor quality, low-paid and temporary work. Social security rules actively prevent single parents from improving their jobs prospects through further education, training or volunteering. Not of course is this getting it right for every child. Conditionality seems to be designed to create fear, anxiety and stigma rather than any positive reinforcement and encouragement. Action for children tells us the real life story. Alex is a lone parent bringing up three children. After a time-claiming GSA when she felt constantly in fear of being sanctioned, Alex was transferred to the work programme where the fear continued. Her work programme provider told her that she was required to job search for 30 hours per week. Her commitment was 20. That she could be sanctioned if she did not consider work at weekends. That she cannot take her children with her to meetings with her work programme provider but will get sanctions if she does not arrive. That her oldest child can look after the younger siblings. That she could organise childcare at a summer club for her children even though there was no funds available to pay for this. That she could speak with the GICP to query her activity requirements over the summer. GICP told her that she could speak with the work programme provider about that. The work programme provider also continuously pressurised her to apply for jobs that did not fit in with the childcare that she could access. Her support worker commented, work programme, this is one-parent family support worker, work programme demands and activities left her out of pocket, affecting her confidence, sense of self-worth and, in turn, a negative impact on her children during their school holidays. When she, as the sole carer, was not in a position to hide as much as she could and to give them what she can. I am sorry, but that is not getting it right for every child. I am sorry, that is not supporting people into work. That is punishment, absolute and utter punishment. If we want families and continues to be productive, to be involved in their communities and to get into the work that is sustainable, we need to change how we do things and create a system in Scotland that is fairer and that puts dignity and respect at its heart. For every minute of my breath and the next five years in here, that is what I will fight for. Thank you, Ms McKelvie. Mark Griffin, to be followed by John Mason. Mr Griffin, please. The Parliament will break new ground simply by taking over control of employment support services that will be unprecedented when we begin to take charge of the help to provide to disabled people in a way historic when a social security bill is debated and passed by members present here today. The groundbreaking, unprecedented and historic those will be at the forefront of the message to the public for the changes in the coming months and years, but this must be a time when we as politicians must tread carefully with our language. This is a time when we should and must be humbled by the challenge ahead of us, because it will be outcomes that matter. We should start this debate by asking ourselves what kind of society we wish to see for our children and grandchildren, what support is required to help create it. In this place, we have a majority that have campaigned and worked against cuts in mobility support. We have politicians of all stripes who have fought to build the work chances of our disabled. We have that drive that keeps us awake at night, wondering how we can better help those who devote their lives to caring for our loved ones. I am grateful to those who have got us to where we are today, the battles for recognition, waged and won, prejudices challenged and beaten back, perceptions changed in our communities and workplaces, expectations raised, met and exceeded. Rightly that expectation is building once again. Building in light of the challenges still faced by disabled people today, challenges that campaigners are fighting against every day. Campaigners will be watching closely how we approach those new powers. It is an expectation not just for those directly affected by the powers that will hold, but for the country as a whole. It is an expectation of a system that does not tie up disabled people in red tape and punitive sanctions. An expectation of a system that preserves people's independence and provides not just a safety net to allow them to survive, but a springboard to play a full part in society. An expectation of a system that moves us beyond the idea of social protection into a new dawn of social enhancement. An expectation of full social engagement, participating in education, employment and being able to volunteer to care for your kids and simply enjoy and live your own life. The sentiment of the Government motion suggests that there is a consensus to be found with those of us in the Labour movement. That leaves options for the minister. He can look to those who have overseen the precipitous decline of Government help or those who seek to raise the bar still further. He can look to those who have marginalised our most vulnerable in our society or those who seek to uplift them. He can look to those who restrict the support for those who face challenges or those who seek to enhance it and appreciate the Government's support for our amendment today and show which side he is going to look for for support and collaboration. We in the Labour movement have a long-standing belief that when barriers block the path of the one, that path is blocked for all of us. That when one person is left behind, we cannot advance together. If this Government decides to bring about meaningful change, to build a system that will enhance the lives of our disabled citizens, that ensures that those who find themselves out of work are treated with compassion, that reflects the language in the motion today of fairness and respect, he will have our support and that of the Labour movement. The future of employment support in this country requires us to work together, and not with our eyes clouded with political grievance, but with our focus firmly fixed on the expectation of a nation. That point that Pauline McNeill raised on not seeking to cause artificial fights between Governments but seeking meaningful solutions to the problem. I am happy to take intervention from the minister that he may have been seeking to make on Pauline McNeill on that issue of discussion. You are actually in your last minute, sorry. Okay, thanks. I will conclude and perhaps the minister will be able to sum up on the progress that has been made between Governments on discussions around sanctions. I think that there are times in this country when we do about our own business, enjoying opportunities that we have been blessed with. Sometimes we campaign on political base, and sometimes we campaign together on particular issues that we hold close to our hearts, but then there are times that we do need to come together inspired by the dignity of the individual. Those people who many members in the chamber today have identified their individual circumstances that they face. We have to unite and help to build a shared future that will improve the lives of the many people that members have spoken about. I think that today is one of those days. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. My hand signals eventually had some effect. John Mason, we follow by Maurice Golden, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the opportunity to speak today. It's great to see that some level of the benefit system is being devolved, even though many of us would like to have seen more. I would like to focus my comments today on three main topics, and the first one is attitude. I would first like to make a few comments on attitude, and that is what I mean the whole attitude of any employment service that we have. Following on from that, how applicants are treated, Mark Griffin mentioned the word compassion, and there are many other words that we could use. Of course, any system has to have rules and regulations that have to be adhered to, and someone has to pass on unpopular decisions. I accept that. First of all, I think that I want to stress that there are many individuals who are working really hard and really well within the DWP and doing a great job. However, it is not acceptable that people applying for a benefit should be treated like they are a piece of dirt, and yet too often that is how many decent people feel that they have been treated. Any of us can fall in hard times, ill health or losing a job, just as any of us might need a passport, dental treatment or some other public service. In all those cases, we should be remembering that we are talking about a public service. Of course, all public services can be abused. Some library users might be there to vandalise the books, but we assume that the vast majority are there for good reasons. Some patients might be deliberately wasting the doctor's time, but again we assume that the majority are there because they really need medical help. In the same way, we can and we should assume that the majority of those looking to claim benefits are doing so for genuine reasons. This is a public service and it is there to serve the public. I should expect the same level of service and respect and helpfulness when I use employment services as when I go in to say slaters to buy a suit. I think that this point ties in with the briefings from Bernados, which talks about a more individualised programme and action for children, which emphasises the need of disadvantaged young people. They say in their briefing that they want to see employability support services, which are young person-focused, flexible and inclusive of different approaches. That is the point. It cannot be one-size-fits-all any more than it is one book that fits all in our library service. Finally, on this point of attitude, I would say that this does not need to cost any money. We should be able to provide the same services for the same cost, but in a better way than we have been doing. Secondly, conditionality. I accept that some benefits may be subject to conditions, but I also would argue that every person in this land has a right to a certain basic income. Further down the line, I would like to see us looking at a citizens' income or universal basic income, which would be guaranteed to every citizen and would have no conditionality at all. However, I accept that that is more of a medium-term objective. However, in the short term, we can still look at this question of conditionality. I believe that there is a moral side to this argument. If the worst people in our society are in prison, yet they are guaranteed food, shelter and warmth, how come decent people who are disabled and have lost their job are not also guaranteed that minimum? We are treating disabled and unemployed people worse than prisoners when sanctions are imposed? If someone is to be fined in court, they have many safeguards before that actually happens. Yet sanctions can be imposed on vulnerable people with very few safeguards in place. I accept that benefits above the minimum could be made conditional, but I do not accept that benefits at the minimum level, the level where they are meant to be keeping people alive, should be conditional. Finally, on disability. I accept that there are particular challenges helping some disabled people into work. Employers may be unwilling to adapt to workplace or workplace practices, or they may not be aware of the help that they can actually receive to do that. I found it fascinating yesterday at the economic committee to hear that disabled people in the south-east of England have been much more successful at finding employment than in other parts of the UK. That seems to be because there are skill shortages in that area and employers have discovered that it is very worth their while to make adaptations and so employ disabled people who have the skills that they need. That proves that if employers have the incentive and support, they will take on disabled people. It can also be very hard for disabled people to compete in the marketplace when there is no shortage of labour, as perhaps is the case in other parts of the UK outside the south-east. I still do not think that there is a place for supported employment in some cases, even though I accept that the main aim of our policies should be to integrate disabled people into mainstream workplaces. It was disappointing to lose many employ jobs, and I welcome other provision in the likes of Glasgow and Falkirk along those lines. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. Employability services has much to do with finance and the economy, but please let us not forget that it also has a lot to do with individual people and with our moral responsibility as a society. I would like to focus on employment support for individuals with disabilities and the role that public procurement can play in securing employment for those who are disabled or disadvantaged. Before that, I want to make clear that work must always pay, and it must always be more rewarding to be in work than to be on benefits. Employability programmes are important, but just as important is that Scotland is creating jobs, the economy is expanding and that Scotland is open for business. Sadly, the Scottish National Party Government has let down Scotland on this front, with the economy stalling and output flatlining. In terms of employment support, the Scottish Government should be doing everything that it can to ensure that people are supported to prepare for, find, secure and retain employment. I would like to commend Scotland's range of supported businesses in providing employment to individuals with disabilities. I recognise that that is right to provide transitional funding over the next year to organisations through the proposed Work First Scotland programme. However, ageing workforce, low numbers of younger employees and a lack of onward progression to the open job market are key challenges within supported businesses. The Scottish Government should explore what it can do to aid supported businesses to reshape their businesses to give disabled workers every opportunity to move into open employment. Those supported businesses who provide onward employment outcomes should be incentivised for doing so under Scotland's specialist employability programmes post-March 2018. Disabled individuals employed by a supported business should be given the training, support and encouragement to move on into the wider job market. Supported businesses should, in the first instance, be seen as providing a route to conventional work and not a long-term destination in their own right. Of course, I recognise that for some, prolonged employment within a supported business may be the best long-term solution. Successively balancing the commercial and social aims of supported businesses is undoubtedly a significant challenge and the Scottish supported businesses sector is under considerable strain. It is worrying the rate in which supported businesses are disappearing across Scotland as we risk losing valuable assets going forward. The Scottish Government and the wider public sector must do all that it can to lessen the financial pressures that are being placed upon supported businesses to ensure their long-term viability. One of the most effective ways to do that is to increase the opportunities for them to succeed in public sector procurement. I commend the Scottish Government on the national collaborative framework agreement for supported factories and businesses. Nevertheless, the scope of that framework is too narrow and does not cover the range of goods and services that can be delivered by Scotland's supported businesses. Furthermore, public bodies are falling short of their commitments to use reserved contracts for supported businesses as outlined in their sustainable procurement action plans. New opportunities exist for the public sector to do more, as recent amendments to EU procurement legislation have significantly broadened the scope on the use of reserved contracts for supported businesses. Critically, the profile of an organisation that a public body can award a reserved contract has been lowered from 50 per cent of the workforce who must be disabled to 30 per cent of the workforce, as well as broadening the scope to include economic operators whose main aim is the social and professional integration of disabled or disadvantaged persons. The inclusion of the terms economic operators and disadvantage are crucial in that, because in comparison to a handful of organisations that fulfil the old criteria, suddenly hundreds of social enterprises and third sector organisations who provide employment support to those with disabilities and or who are disadvantaged in the employment market can now be brought into the fold. The Scottish public sector now has the legal framework that, if it chooses, can revolutionise the way in which contracts for goods and services from supported businesses, social enterprises and the wider third sector. Ultimately, that spend can drive wider positive social impacts through procurement and support the employment of those who are most disadvantaged in the job market. In conclusion, supported businesses must increasingly act as a transition mechanism for disabled employees to the open job market, and public procurement must drive the support for the benefit of those who are disabled and disadvantaged. It is great to speak in this extremely important debate about how we assist the most vulnerable in our society and how we help to get people into work and keep them there. My speech today, I want to cover four main areas, the ethos in which we approach using the new employability powers, the context in which we are in, some comment on the proposals from the Scottish Government and how we deliver them. First, ethos relates to what John Mason said about attitudes. Today, we are debating employability services, but we are considering how we motivate people into work. Do we use the carrot or the stick, which is more meaningful and effective? Encouragement or threats, a lift-up or the fear of a put down through sanctions and conditionality? As has been said by many other speakers, my personal experience in different sectors from hospitality to engineering, from the commercial world to working briefly in the public sector is that, in all those roles and in wider society as a whole, a person who is appreciated, respected and invested in will always do more than what is expected. Encouragement, empathy and belief in generosity will always help those in need in a more meaningful and effective way. In essence, it is better to provide support than to get to the position where we need to pick other people off the floor. That is the context in which we should approach using those new powers and the social security powers that come into this Parliament, to design governmental systems, to implement governmental systems where we support other people with encouragement, respect and dignity. With that ethos and attitude, we also need to approach those new powers with a sense of context—a context around where have we been, where are we today and where do we want to go. In terms of where have we been, the past is a process of deindustrialisation and the financial crisis, austerity, many aspects of intergenerational poverty, low morale and low self-belief in many of our communities. Everything that we do in this Parliament with those new powers should be about getting past that and doing what we can with the limited powers at our disposal to tackle these hugely difficult and challenging issues. In terms of the present and the context, those issues are particularly raised by my constituents, but they matter to the whole of Scotland. The issue of low pay, which has been endemic in far too many parts of our country and in our communities, the problem of zero hours contracts that I raised earlier, which provide creating really difficult circumstances for many people who are trying to get into meaningful work and get beyond the challenging circumstances that they are in. The problems around the current approach of the UK Government around sanctions, which was spoken about most powerfully by Sandra White earlier, not only is this punitive and wrong-headed in my view and in the views of many, but it also does not work. For example, citizens in the vice-scotland have said that 90 per cent of their front-line staff do not feel that the use of sanctions and conditionality works in any meaningful way. In terms of context, it is important to consider the fact that there has been an 87 per cent cut to the budget in terms of delivering those programmes. That is the situation that the Scottish Government is in. In terms of the future and where we want to go, we want to create a system around employability in which we support and realise the potential of more of our people for the benefit of us all. That is why I warmly welcome the Scottish Government's approach to use the powers that come into this Parliament to focus on disabled people and people at risk of long-term unemployment in a way that is designed to help people to get into long-term stable jobs. I particularly welcome the point that the minister made, that those will be voluntary schemes, voluntary schemes that bring people together within the system, within the devolved areas, aligning them with other aspects of the public sector and ensuring that those programmes are seen as an opportunity for people and not as a threat. I also welcome the £20 million of Scottish Government support, particularly in light of the cut that I mentioned earlier. In that context of the proposals that the Scottish Government is putting forward and the cuts and conditionality that are being implemented by Westminster in terms of the cuts and the conditionality and the sanctions that will remain under Westminster control, I warmly welcome the fact that the minister has corresponded with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and confirmation that the DWP will not require, on a mandatory basis, that Jobcentre plus clients have to take part on any Scottish Government programme to continue to receive their support. Just briefly, because I know that I am in my last minute, the— In your last 30 seconds. I would just like to emphasise the point that Alison Johnstone made about how we could use the third sector to help deliver some of those programmes going forward and get away from everything coming through Jobcentre plus. There are many organisations in my constituency such as the Syranians, Fresh Start, North Edinburgh childcare, Citadel youth centre, Granton youth centre—we all have some expertise in this area—and anything that we can do to help in the delivery mechanism will make a meaningful difference. I look forward to the positive change ahead in this area, despite the challenges of an 87 per cent cut by Westminster, and I look forward to playing a part in the implementation and delivery. I welcome this debate today, and it is clear from the discussion so far and from the level of interest generated in this subject that, in Scotland, we have the opportunity to get this right for every person who needs to access these services. I want first to look at the importance of skills. In a brief from SCVO, they highlight the number of interest statistics, one of which is that, despite the high levels of investment, there remains a skills mismatch in Scotland, and 69 per cent of businesses in Scotland are not confident about filling high-skilled jobs of the future. Indeed, if you look at most areas in Scotland, in the building trade, in the care sector, in the manufacturing sector and so many sectors across Scotland, there are major skills shortages. We should be clear from the outset and make sure that the employment support programmes that we develop here in Scotland are meaningful and that they will equip people for the world of work. I speak as someone who started off their working life on a YTS programme, and I say that employment programmes must be about more than meeting targets to get people off benefits. Their main objective must be to provide the support, the guidance, the signposting, the direction and the training opportunities that will result in good-paid, sustainable employment. If we are to achieve that, I would suggest that we need joined up strategies based on local intelligence in terms of the support and skills needs locally and the availability of employment in the local area and region. Services must be designed to meet people's needs rather than people being expected to fit into some kind of government programme. The example from the SCVO of their work in Glasgow, where there was a requirement and a demand for support with numeracy and literacy is a good one. I suspect that we would find in all parts of Scotland, as they put it, without basic education, young people are unable to participate in further education training or employment. That is also the case with adults. To simply put people on to employment programmes without addressing their basic support needs is simply to tick a box, get people off benefits for a short period of time and do very little to help them to improve their prospects for the longer term. Any system, any programme that is to work for the individual for that person must have a comprehensive and personalised initial assessment, a kind of individual work plan that sets out what that person's support needs are and the progress that is being made to meet those individual needs. A person-centred work programme is what we need to strive for as we develop those new programmes in Scotland. I would also suggest that we must evolve much of the responsibility for the development and management of employment programmes to a regional level across Scotland. The report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation We Can Solve Poverty, published just a few weeks ago, makes the point that devolution is one of the defining political agendas of our time. They say, and I quote, that poverty will not be solved from Whitehall or by central government alone, but by policy makers closer to those people experiencing it. I say today that we must move beyond Holyrood and take the new powers and budgets much further down to achieve the best results for the people of Scotland. The Rowntree report also states that local authorities can play a leadership role developing an economic vision tailored for their area, bringing together local partners to deliver it. For me, we must build a partnership at a more local level. Such partnerships must bring together businesses, employers, trade unions, setting regional skills and job strategies and putting in place whatever provision is required to deliver a person-centred approach to getting unemployed people into good, sustainable employment. I have to say that, while I have been a vocal supporter of community planning, I do not think that the objectives have been achieved in most areas. It has become a bit of a tick box exercise for professionals and public sector organisations, and it has failed to properly engage with key stakeholders from the third sector, from employers and from trade unions. I rethink on community planning, but the principle of planning and delivering skills, training and jobs at a regional and local level is, in my view, a must. We should be willing to start looking and use the powers, use those new powers and services, and talk where partners right across the third sector, right across local government, take a local approach, a regional approach and, most important of all, a personal approach to the individual's concern. Thank you, Mr Rowley. Ruth Maguire to be followed by Willie Rennie. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the devolution of employment services. It is deeply regrettable that funding reductions from the UK Government for these important services are almost 90 per cent. However, I welcome the commitment from the minister to provide additional resources to ensure that services to the most vulnerable in Scottish society, including people furthest away from the job market and disabled people, continues. Today, I would like to focus on the Scottish Government's commitment for those employment services to be voluntary services and why that is so important. We need services that support people into work, rather than the mandatory participation and the threat of benefit sanctions that are currently used by the UK Government, which frankly do nothing to increase someone's chances of accessing good quality, well-paid employment and simply poor human misery on human misery. Most members in this chamber will have experience of hearing first-hand how conditionality and sanctions impact the lives of their constituents. Only this week, I heard from Jonathan, a young man who lives in my constituency. He told me that he feels let down by the way that he is being treated and gave me permission to mention him in this debate. Jonathan told me that the latest sanctions imposed on him two months after an alleged infraction resulted in him having £74 taken off his universal credit, £74 when he is already struggling. He told me that it made him feel worthless. This young man suffers from depression and anxiety, and you do not have to be a mental health professional to understand that taking an aggressive and punishing approach will worsen mental health conditions and make it harder not easier for people to return to work. We have heard many times that sanctions often affect the most vulnerable in our society, lone parents, disabled people and the young. Sanctions leave people unable to pay their bills, rent or debt repayments and put tenancies at risk, resulting in a threat of homelessness. Christina McKelvie made the important point in her speech that it is not just the actual sanction and loss of income that itself causes harm, but the fear of sanctions causing stress, anxiety and depression. One parent family Scotland agree, and they also point out the real danger that conditionality regime and fear of sanction forces parents into low-paid and temporary work that is not in the best interest of them or their children. Our goal must be to support people into decently paid quality work and not frighten them into unsuitable employment. As Pauline McNeill and Ben Macpherson said, the worst of it is that all this harm, hurt and stress does not help at all. More people are sanctioned because of the work programme than obtained jobs from the work programme. In Scotland, 46,265 sanctions were applied between June 2011 and March 2014. During the same period, 26,740 job outcomes resulted from the work programme. I am a member of the social security committee and, in evidence sessions with key stakeholders, the negative impact of sanctions has featured highly in discussions about what priorities should inform our work programme and our consideration of how the Scottish Parliament approaches the new welfare powers that are being devolved here. At 8 September, all of the following respected witnesses highlighted sanctions as having a particular detriment on the groups of people that they work with. John Dickie from the child poverty action group, Rob Gowins from Citizens Advice Scotland, Alice Mumford from Engender and Kayleigh Thorpe from Enable Scotland. All trusted, respected organisations are clear about what helps and harms the people that they work with. A number of bodies and studies have also drawn attention to the fact that sanctions and benefit delays are the most common cause of some needing to access emergency food aid. For example, emergency use only, a report published jointly by the Child Poverty Action Group, the Church of England, Oxfam GB and the Trussel Trust in November 2014, said that sanctions featured as one of the main reasons that people used the food bank, and that it was around 20 to 30 per cent of food bank users who had had their benefits reduced due to a sanction. It is frankly astounding that the UK Government has continually failed to recognise the damage that conditionality and sanctions have on people and their dependence and the harm it inflicts on their ability to participate in society. In closing, despite the drastic scale of funding reductions being imposed by the UK Government, I am reassured by the minister's statement that our Scottish Government employment services will treat people with dignity and respect, putting the needs of individuals at the centre of services and never ever forgetting their purpose, which is to help people to reach their full potential and secure good-quality, well-paid employment. Thank you very much, but will you be ready to be followed by Alison Harris? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for finding the time this afternoon to allow me to make a contribution to this important debate. I do not know if William Beverage had as many people in the room watching the architect of the welfare state creating that welfare state, but I counted a couple of dozen people in the gallery this afternoon. I do not think that it reflects the significance of this day. We should have the gallery packed, because what we are doing today is creating a new Scottish welfare state. I think that the debate deserves that kind of attention. I am grateful for the minister's contributions this afternoon, but we should be thinking very big about what the opportunities and potential is for this new welfare state and the foundations that we are setting. Today, I think that they are probably broadly the right ones. I think that being able to establish it on the basis of respect, dignity and fairness is something that we would support. We will support the SNP motion this afternoon and the Labour amendment, and unfortunately we will not be able to support the Conservative amendment this afternoon. However, I think that the spirit of the debate this afternoon shows the seriousness upon which we all address this matter. We are here this afternoon because the Smith commission did go further than was originally intended. We did not intend to devolve as much of the welfare state as we eventually did. Now, there may be some quibbles about eventually what came, but the Smith commission, as the Conservative members will know and others, went much further than was originally intended including the employability schemes. Of course, that might be the case, but I am sure that Mr Rennie would agree that it is the case that the devolution committee of this last parliamentary session said that the legislation that came forward through the UK Parliament did not go as far as Smith had recommended. The SNP don't need committee would say that, but the reality was that we should not quibble about that. What we should be doing is seeking the opportunity to work in a partnership. I know that the minister bemoans the fact that Job Center Plus has not been devolved. However, as Mr Swinney and Michael Moore, my former colleague at Westminster, were very good at, was working in partnership together to bring the two Governments to work together to make a better whole. I think that that should not be precluded in this arrangement, too. We have developed the start of a cross-party effort, as William Beverage achieved all those years ago, to create this new Scottish welfare system. I think that it is incredibly important that we do that together. Work, as has been said, is the best route out of poverty. We need to make sure that everybody understands, although we have views about sanctions and the voluntary nature of the scheme, that everybody understands that they have a responsibility to work and to contribute to the world's wellbeing of society. We have an ageing population and there are still large numbers of people in Scotland, however, who are not contributing to the economic wellbeing of the country. We should encourage them and incentivise them to work, if they possibly can. That is what the system should be devised to do in order for us to create a sustainable economy for the future. All of that should not just be founded on the employability schemes. Our education system is failing just now. We do not have an education system that is training people for the world of work. We need to be investing more, in my view, all the way back to nursery education, to give young children the opportunities throughout their school life and to college and university to contribute towards the world of work, because that should be the incentive. We should not just be looking narrowly at the employability schemes but throughout the whole education system. I heard a contribution from an SNP member earlier on parading his views about the proper living wage. Just yesterday, we heard about Amazon in Dunfermwyn that is recruiting quite a lot of new people, but all of them below the proper living wage. That company received thousands of pounds, millions of pounds of grants from the Scottish Government. I think that there should have been a compulsion on Amazon to pay the proper living wage if they were going to receive government grants. Let us practice what we preach. That is important in this context. The devolution of the employability schemes gives us the opportunity to bring together the different stakeholders to work together—skills development in Scotland, playing an important role. That will give us the opportunity to drive efficiencies through the system and to learn from best practice here in Scotland. I agree with Alison Johnstone, who is not here just now. When Alison Johnstone referred to the third sector contribution, I have met many charities and third sector organisations that could make a big contribution because they understand their clients and the people who seek their support exceptionally well. I hope that they are brought into the system to make full use of that knowledge. Turning to the issue of sanctions in the past 30 seconds, I agree that the system should be voluntary. I agree that we should be incentivising and encouraging people to take up the opportunity of the employability schemes. I agree that the overbearing, overused and counter-production sanction regime is not appropriate for the employability schemes. That should be at the centre of the approach going forward. That is why I am happy to support the motion today. Thank you very much. Alison Harris with the last speaker in the open debate. I am pleased to contribute to this debate today, especially as it is on an area in which the UK Government has yet again honoured the promises that it made. The agreement to devolve powers over employment services means that this chamber will become responsible over key areas such as the existing work programme and work choice. Soon the Scottish Government will have the power, and with that power, the responsibility. Time for all was blaming someone else to stop. Scotland needs a can do and not a can't do government. Now the Scottish Government needs to tell us how it will incentivise work, how, without sanctions, it will limit abuses to the system, how will any additional cost be met and how, for all those seeking a route to employment, will any new system better exist? I am sorry, I have got too much to do. I do hope that the Scottish Government will take a balanced view in determining how they use those new powers. It should not be the schemes that are devolved are bad simply because they were designed at Westminster. Those schemes have been of great help to many tens of thousands of Scots and provide programmes that are a good foundation on which to build. I am sorry, no. After all, the terms of reference to the advisory group set up to listen to the views of the stakeholders say that the Scottish Government intend to deliver employability support in Scotland that builds on excellence and experience in the existing service delivery. I have no doubt that the Scottish Government will bring forward changes. After all, surely this will not be yet another example of the Scottish Government gaining powers only to fail to use them. However, one thing that I do hope that the Government will bear in mind is the continued need to incentivise work, to provide a range of services that not only deliver support to those seeking employment and training, but to pursue business-friendly policies that will encourage the enterprise that provides those jobs, and very importantly, policies that help to retain jobs and keep people in employment. SNP policies have led to the level of job creation in Scotland being the lowest of any of the nations in the UK, and that must change. Scotland's record in creating jobs is behind regions in England such as the north-east and Merseyside. Those areas have been gained by providing a more stable and much more settled destination for businesses. I am sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer. They do not suffer from a Government more interested in reheating constitutional arguments than providing the right environment for growth and job creation. Making Scotland the highest tax part of the UK is not the way to provide the right environment. SNP policies, such as doubling the large business rates supplement, which will add over £64 million a year to the cost of Scottish businesses, the replacement of stamp duty and forcing through an increase in the council tax that will be paid by people in bands E and F, just the sort of people who aspire to save in order that they set up small businesses and indeed provide employment. Those are SNP policies that are costing employment and stifling the growth that people offers people the best routes into employment. Getting people into work and breaking the cycle of work is the best way and the most sustainable way of tackling poverty, better than any scheme or programme. I know that it has been heard many times today, but I feel that it is worth repeating that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation puts it this way, for those who can work represents the best route out of poverty. If we assume that SNP is not going to abandon the policies that deter enterprise and business, there are some things that SNP should be doing to encourage it. For example, ensuring that disabled people who would currently benefit by the opportunities given by work choice continue to get as good a service under any successor programme and building on the great work that is being done by Scotland's local councils in delivering support for employment. The local knowledge and experience gained through its involvement with such bodies as communities planning partnerships must be fully utilised. When we talk about a tailored localised approach, we mean that local authorities are working closely with other partners to identify people who need help from various agencies to bring together services to meet their needs to get back into work. Overcoming problems include learning difficulties, health and housing issues. I realise that the Scottish Government has embarked on a consultation exercise. That needs to be a real listening exercise. The views of users, partners, contractors and voluntary bodies need to be considered. No instant dismissal of views of people who highlight good points of the existing programmes. Organisations such as Capability Scotland, Enable and the Shaw Trust have much experience that needs to continue to be put to good use. Finally, I said earlier that the Government needs to start taking responsibility. I am pleased that the Conservative amendment recognises the importance of employment programmes and takes out the usual carping from the SNP motion. It is an amendment that I shall have much pleasure in supporting this afternoon. Thank you. I begin by putting on the record that the First Minister has appointed me as a parliamentary liaison officer for the economy jobs and fair work. I look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber in that capacity. I congratulate the minister on the work that is undertaken to begin to build a distinctive Scottish approach to employment services. It is regrettable that the Scottish Government does not have access to all the powers and economic levers that we need to grow our economy and create all the jobs that we need in Scotland, and we will continue to make the case for full devolution of job-creating powers. However, the devolution of employment services can still make a huge difference to the lives of people in Scotland, and it is therefore to be warmly welcomed. We have the opportunity to build an employability support system that works for everyone in Scotland, one that has the potential to provide meaningful long-term change. I am proud to support the Scottish Government that rejects Westminster's system of sanctions and punitive measures and instead seeks to create a fairer, more just system with Scotland's people and prosperity at its heart. A skilled workforce brings economic, social and cultural benefits, and the measures announced by the minister are a significant step in the right direction. The programme of measures announced by the Scottish Government is transitional, focusing on supporting disabled people and those at risk of long-term unemployment. They start the Scottish employment services programme off in the right direction and are to be welcomed. There is more work to be done prior to the launch of a full range of employment services in 2018 and beyond, and the minister has encouraged input from stakeholders and others that they are designed to support to ensure that we deliver the most effective services for those seeking work. However, our ambitions must be achieved within the constraints of budget cuts from Westminster, the scale of which is significant, a reduction of almost 90 per cent on current DWP spend, although the Scottish Government will invest an additional £20 million a year in Scotland's employability services. The impact that Westminster cuts creates a challenging environment for the roll-out of those new programmes. So, while the devolution of those new powers are certainly welcome, the manner in which this has been done is far from satisfactory. Let us be clear that the Scottish Government rejects a sanctions regime imposed by the UK Government whereby people can have benefits stopped for not taking up places. The evidence shows how damaging the DWP's conditionality regime has been. It disproportionately affects vulnerable people, disabled people, young people and lone parents, and sanctions have increased in length and severity under the UK Government. They can last anywhere from a few days to as long as three years, hardship funds are not available until 15 days into the sanction period, leaving no safety net for vulnerable people. When more people are sanctioned because of the work programme than in obtaining work from the work programme, it is clearly not fit for purpose. The culture of sanctioning is damaging and often adversely affecting the health and well-being of individuals and their children, reducing rather than enhancing their suitability for work. Furthermore, the threat of being sanctioned is a stigma that feeds into the myth of deserving and undeserving poor. The Scottish Government knows that there is no such distinction. Everyone deserves dignity and respect. In contrast, the Scottish Government's employability programme will have equality and fairness at its heart. We will seek to encourage those fullers from the labour market to receive social justice and economic outcomes that break the cycle of poverty and unemployment. We will treat people with dignity and respect at every stage of their journey into work and focus on developing their skills to fulfil their employment potential. However, it is important to note that, while the Scottish Parliament will take over responsibility for employability programmes and that there has been devolution of some responsibility for social security related to disability, the UK Government remains entirely responsible for decisions over an individual's entitlement to working-age benefits such as jobseekers allowance and employment and support allowance. Unfortunately, that includes all decisions over climate conditions and sanctions. I welcome the steps taken by the minister to call on the UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to seek confirmation that the Department for Work and Pensions will not force Jobcentre plus clients to take part in our new employment programme as a condition of receiving continuing support. Pauline McNeill is key for giving way. Of course, I made the same points as him about the vulnerability of people who use the employment service. However, I wonder whether the member would agree with me that it is important to highlight that there are people who are professional people who find themselves unemployed in today's world and who also need the service to enhance their skills. I agree with that. I hope that the point that you are making is that the initial programmes are not focused on a limited number of people. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, those are the traditional steps that the minister will bring forward proposals to roll out wider as we move forward beyond the initial transitional stage. We fundamentally believe that those programmes will work better if they are voluntary. That brings people with us and makes sure that services are designed around them and ensures that they are seen as an opportunity and not a threat. Evidently, if the whole system was entirely in the Scottish Parliament's hands, it would be better if people would work with what we have. We will consider the societal and social barriers that people face by returning to work, particularly in the case of disabilities or long-term health conditions. Crucially, we will reject the DWP's approach, which incentivises underemployment and low-paid work and, instead, encourages fairer pay, fairer work and fairer opportunities for all. We believe that that is right for Scotland, consistent with our values and aspirations for a person-centred and enabling service for those who we look to support a system that is fair to people. The people of Scotland should know that their Government will use those powers to ensure that the principles of support, enablement and fairness are the hallmark of our employability programme. I wanted to start by recapping the scale of the problem with things, because a few people have spoken in the debate about context. The context is that, although it is true that last month there were 80,000 men and women in Scotland on the claimant count, claiming jobseekers allowance, there were, in fact, 130,000 working men and women who were officially unemployed in Scotland. On top of that, over 180,000 people of working age in Scotland are described in the annual population survey by the ONS as currently economically inactive but who want to work. That is 310,000 people of working age in Scotland seeking work today. That is not 5 per cent, it is nearly 12 per cent of the workforce. Those levels of involuntary mass unemployment and worklessness do not just represent a failure of our economy, they represent a failure of our society, too. There are human faces behind those stark statistics. Over the summer, I met with the Airdrie ace group, a group of adults in Lanarkshire with learning disabilities. Enable has brought them together to empower them to give them a voice. I promised when I met them in August that I would bring their concerns to the floor of this Parliament and push their case up the Scottish Government's agenda, because they are simply demanding equality and they are right. Most of them are seeking work, none of them are in work, although one has started college and one works as an unpaid volunteer in a workplace where, frankly, he could be in paid employment. Joblessness amongst adults with a learning disability stands at over 92 per cent, 92 per cent and yet the vast majority like those young people in Airdrie want to work. The picture for people with mental health issues is similar. That is why we welcome the introduction of a work-able strand in the Scottish Government programme. However, I want to turn to the question of resources. £4.8 million is being allocated to deliver that target of £1,500,000 starts, but if we are to do this properly, as I believe we must, if we are to support individuals to the extent that I think we need to support them, the minister needs to either increase funding or have a more realistic target. You will accept that there has been an 87 per cent funding cut for the delivery of those programmes by the UK Government, which is £7 million for the coming financial year. We have leveraged in an additional £20 million. I accept that and I reflect on that cut to Mr Tomkins that, if the job programme is so successful, why are they slashing it by such a big amount of money? However, what I want to go on to say in the limited time that I have left is this. Maurice Golden touched on this earlier on. Recently, I asked a parliamentary question about the Government's framework for supported factories and businesses. John Mason touched on that, too, in his contribution. I discovered that, since 2012, only £1.9 million of orders have been placed with supported businesses by public bodies in Scotland, with an average value per order of less than £5,000. I say to all those public bodies in Scotland that that is simply not good enough. I say to the minister, let's redouble the Scottish Government's efforts. Listening to the debate, we need to decide when we come to design the work programme here what it is that we are aiming to achieve. To Annie Wells, who asked us to build on the existing work programme, I say this. When the Tory Liberal Coalition, for it was they who introduced the work programme, brought it in, they said that it was a major new payment for results welfare to work programme and it was central to the coalition government's ambitious programme of welfare reform. So there we have it, a programme unashamedly not about growing work and tackling mass unemployment but about cutting welfare payments. At the launch, the Tory coalition said that it was a flagship at the leading edge of wider government commissioning of payment for results public services. I say to the minister here that we don't want payment for results public services, we want publicly run public services, we are not hiring taxes, we are providing employment support to working people and we know that in Scotland the two prime providers of the work programme are not job centre plus, they are working links and Ingeos to large multinational corporations whose first judiciary duty is to make money for their owners and so I say to this afternoon that we would like the minister to seriously and continuously explore whether there are alternatives to that form of provision. We also need to ask finally a couple of things. Do we want action simply on the supply side of the labour market or should we be looking more at action on the demand side of the labour market? Do we not need investment in reindustrialisation, investment in public services, not four more years of austerity? We need a radical but achievable economic strategy so we can expand the real economy and generate jobs. We need the re-adoption of full employment as a policy objective so that, in the words of William Beveridge, referred to by Willie Rennie, jobs rather than men and I would add women should wait. As Mark Griffin said, with the devolution of employment support we have an historic opportunity because the challenges that we face are not new, they are problems earlier generations faced up to an overcame. Let's not just demonstrate our concern this afternoon, let's prove our willingness to act and let us leave no one in any doubt about the scale of our ambition for change, our determination to rebuild a full employment economy for all for this generation. I call on Parliament to support the Government motion with the Labour amendment. I call on Dean Lockhart. The devolution of employment support services marks yet another significant transfer of power to this Parliament. With those new powers comes significant responsibility for the Scottish Government because it will be assuming power in areas of policy where there has been meaningful success in recent years. Policies such as the work programme have helped almost 50,000 unemployment people in Scotland into the job market. More importantly, it has helped many families in Scotland to break the desperate cycle of multi-generational welfare dependency. Long-term unemployment rates are now at the lowest levels since Labour's Great Recession. There are more disabled people in work and, overall, 2.7 million new jobs have been created since 2010. Most importantly, perhaps, half a million fewer children now live in work-less households, something that will greatly enhance their life chances. The success of the UK Government's economic strategy in creating 2.7 million new jobs and reducing long-term structural unemployment means that there is less need for funding for the work programme because it has been a success. It is all very positive, but there is more to be done. There is more to be done to help those who need additional support to access the job market and more to be done to expand the job market and the economy in Scotland. To address those issues, the Scottish Government will have control over a range of existing employability powers and benefits and the power to introduce new support services such as Work First and Workable. Mr Hepburn provided an outline of the Government's plans, but it was more about the direction of travel rather than the details of how those new policies will be implemented and how they will be funded. Based on today's debate, there is clearly no shortage of advice about how that might work in Scotland, so I would like to pick up on some of the issues raised across the chamber this afternoon. First of all, a number of members discussed the principles that should underpin employment support in Scotland in the future. There were obviously a number of different viewpoints on this issue. The view on this side of the chamber is that we should follow the principles underpinning the success of work programme and work choice. Most importantly—again, it has been mentioned by a few members—we should follow the advice provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that, for those who can, work represents the best way out of poverty. We should also remember the analysis that shows that additional spending on benefits without addressing the underlying root cause of poverty has failed to reduce poverty. The overall approach that we favour recognises the importance of using policy as a means of encouraging people into work, if necessary, with additional financial or other in-work support. That has to be better than policies that discourage or put barriers in the way to the transition into work. It should always pay to be in employment. In order to be fully eligible for the benefits of JSA or equivalent benefits going forward, some action to show that the claimant is willing and able to work has to be taken. If you are claiming jobseeker allowance, then it makes sense that you have to be taking steps to find a job and be available to take steps to find a job. According to the DWP, more than 70 per cent of claimants say that they are more likely to follow the rules if they risk having their benefits stopped. A view supported by the independent recent Oakley review. I will, in a minute. To put this into context, the UK has a far less strict benefit sanctions regime compared with other European countries, such as Ireland and Sweden, and is less strict than the European Union average. Other members have made valuable contributions in respect of the increasing opportunities for disabled people to fully participate in the workplace, under work choice, which is entirely voluntary. 365,000 more disabled people have moved into work over the past two years, and our target is to halve the disability employment gap for disabled people by 2020. As Adam Tomkins said, we look forward to hearing whether the Scottish Government is able or willing to match that commitment. No one is saying that there shouldn't ever be sanctions and that no one is denying that being in work is more important. Is the other benches opposite going to address at any stage in this debate the draconian nature of some sanctions? In the case that I provide—it is not uncommon—is it fair, therefore, that you should have your benefits removed for six weeks? Is that fair? I obviously cannot comment on individual cases, but sanctions affect only a small number of claimants. Less than 2.5 per cent of JSA claimants are sanctioned, and only 0.26 per cent of ESA claimants are sanctioned. Perspective is important on this issue. I have answered the question. Another topic that was mentioned during the debate, and indeed from a number of third sector contributors ahead of the debate, was the need for greater integration and co-operation between employment support and other policy areas. Some good examples have come out of the debate. The fact that 152,000 college places have been cut is that it has created a skills gap precisely at a time when the economy needs new and developing skills across all sectors to have unemployment levels at 5 per cent and at the same—not right now, maybe later—at the same time as having unemployment at 5 per cent, having a significant skills gap after 10 years in government simply is not good enough. Other members have rightly highlighted that we need to improve the employment chances of children from our poorest backgrounds. In this chamber, we have discussed the attainment gap, but less attention has been given to the digital gap emerging across our schools. Figures published in August by Scotland IS show that the number of computer teachers in Scotland has dropped by 25 per cent in the past decade and that 17 local authorities have no dedicated computer teachers available. With research by Tender Foundation mentioned by another member showing that 90 per cent of all new jobs require digital skills, we are simply not equipping our children with the skills necessary for employment in the future. The Scottish Government should also be focused on the apprenticeship levy and use the apprenticeship levy to address the number of young people in deprived areas who are not in education, employment or training. The dismal figure that Annie Wells mentioned of over 400,000 young people between the age of 16 and 24 who are not in education, employment or training, again after 10 years in government, is simply not good enough. Finally, another issue that has been raised has been the inclusive growth. To be fair to Mr Hepburn, the SNP motion refers to a more prosperous Scotland and inclusive growth. What I would say, Mr Hepburn, is that in order for economic growth to be inclusive, there has to be economic growth in the first place. The Scottish economy recorded zero growth in the first quarter of this year and GDP growth numbers for the second quarter, ending 30 June, have mysteriously been delayed for publication until next week, coincidentally during parliamentary recess. Is this another example of the SNP trying to bury barred news during recess? It is becoming clear, as the Fraser Van der Institute has made clear, that the Scottish economy must improve its performance because more public spending will be determined by the performance of the Scottish economy. That is why, in our motion, we highlight the need for the Government to take action to use its expanding powers to grow employment, the employment mark in Scotland and, indeed, to reverse the decline in the Scottish economy. Thank you, Mr Lockhart. I ask the minister to wind up and minister you have until 1729. A very precise time indeed to present ourselves through my very best. Can I begin by thanking members for their contributions today? I clearly will not be able to pick up on every single point that has been raised in the context of this debate. I will try to respond to as many as I can. Mr Lockhart is right to identify, as I set out at the start of today's debate, that this is an opportunity, a chance for members to offer their perspectives on how we take those powers forward in the future. It has been largely useful in that regard. It has been wide-ranging. A number of suggestions have been made and we will look at all the details that we have developed services going forward. Having mentioned Mr Lockhart, I thought that he was very instructive and very informative about him criticising the Scottish Government for the delay in the publication of GDP figures. Of course, those are figures that we saw from the Office of National Statistics. We have no control over that timing, so I urge him to reflect on that and perhaps take that up with others who might be more forthcoming with such information if he takes such a particular interest in those matters, of course. One option, of course, is to push back the publication of the number so that when Parliament is back, it can be subject to full scrutiny and debate. I think that I would go back to the point that I have just made, Mr Lockhart. We are not in control over the publication of those figures and perhaps we want to take up the matter with those who have responsibility for such. However, I would reflect on the fact that, of course, if they are published, it is perfectly possible for any member of this Parliament to reflect on the statistics that have been published and bring that matter up when we are back after recess. I am sure that I look forward to the great interest to see your take on that matter, Mr Lockhart. Alex Rowley spoke about the need for involvement of a range of people in the process of informing the work that we take forward. He particularly referred to trade unions and local authorities as having a role to play in that regard. I would absolutely concur with that perspective. I am sure that he will be happy to know that we have established a devolved employment services advisory group that is independently chaired by Professor Alan McGregor, who is the director of the University of Glasgow's training and employment research unit, with many years—more years, and he probably would care for me to make clear to Parliament many years' experience in this particular area. He is directing that work. I am sure that Mr Rowley would be happy to know that the Scottish trade union congress is represented on that group, as is local government through the Scottish local authority economic development group. We are taking forward that range of involvement. To bottom out the point that Mr Rowley made about local authorities playing a leadership role in delivering employment support at a local level, I would not disagree with that perspective that Mr Rowley has raised. I have been very happy to meet councillor Harry McGuigan. As I always am happy to meet councillor Harry McGuigan in his capacity in his spokesperson role through Cozometham last month, we had a very productive discussion about the need for us to work productively together to ensure that all the elements of employment support be provided by us as a Scottish Government, with the new element of the devolved employment programme, or be delivered by local authorities for them to work together more cohesively. That is not an easy challenge to respond to, but it is one that both I and councillor McGuigan were keen to see taking forward. Scottish Government officials will be meeting the Scottish local authorities economic development employability group later this month to see how we can take that particular agenda forward. Annie Wells spoke about the need to reach out to those who need support most. I could not disagree with that perspective. I think that that is going to be essential going forward, but she did also say that we need to learn from the current schemes that are deployed. Adam Tomkins spoke of the benefits of the pricing model and the payment model that he suggested that it incentivise sustained employment. However, I have been out, and it will come as no surprise to Professor Tomkins, since I have been engaging with a range of people in these matters. I have heard that, through the current system, there are perverse disincentives through that current model for working with those who need the most support. Indeed, the DWP evaluation confirms that. My meeting this morning with one parent of family Scotland discussed the problems of the payment by results model. Of course, there will be expectations for outcomes from providers to get people into sustained employment. We need to recognise the issue that I have raised about the perverse disincentive to reach out to those who need the most support. We need to recognise the need to take account of various factors affecting people's lives—a point that was made by Sandra White, Christina McKelvie, and Alec Rowley—and it may require us to take a slightly more nuanced approach. Can I welcome the comments from Pauline McNeill? She is saying that she is broadly supportive of our approach. That is very welcome. That seems to be reflected by most contributors to the debate today. She was very clear. She hopes not to see a fight between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, but neither do I to be clear. I am sure that that will reassure Willie Rennie, who also took an interest in that particular aspect. We have been working very closely with the DWP and Jobcentre Plus from the very start to see the effective devolution of those powers. There has been effective intergovernmental working to see the delivery of those powers. There has been the establishment of a joint ministerial working group to oversee the smooth transition of new social security employability powers to Scotland. I look forward to attending the next meeting of that particular group next week. On the advisory group that I just referred to a second ago, we have DWP representation of Jobcentre Plus, representation of officials from both Governments that meet on a regular basis. We have joint working embedded in a number of areas, so I am in no way seeking a confrontation with the UK Government. However, we have a letter from Aen Duncan-Smith to the then Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training on 16 December 2015, which says very clearly that the design of employment support programmes in Scotland will be for the Scottish Government to decide, including the extent of conditionality in those programmes. We have a letter from Damian Greene to myself this week that says that, with regard to employability programmes, we can transfer to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 2016. It is, of course, a matter for the Scottish Government to decide how conditionality should be applied and practised. I can demonstrate clear work between the Governments. We are not fighting between one another, but that does not mean that I will not robustly defend the approach that we seek to take here in Scotland with our employment programme, and let me be clear that, given what we have had in writing from the UK Government, not once but twice now, I expect the UK Government to respect our perspective here in Scotland. I will continue to work with them to make sure that that happens going forward. In demonstrating our voluntary approach to the delivery of those programmes the best way forward, Mr Rennie and Mr Leonard spoke about William Beverage. He, of course, once said that the state in organising security should leave room for encouragement and voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for using the gendered language of the time himself and his family. A voluntary approach is entirely consistent with the approach that we have taken with our other employability programmes. I believe that that allows us to take people with us rather than working against them. I believe that it can deliver a person-centred, person-focused approach. I believe that we can deliver more with that approach. That has to be about ensuring that we can disaggregate ourselves from entanglement with the debunked, failed UK Government sanctions regime. It was very interesting to hear successive Conservative speakers refer to the point made by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for those who can work employment as the best route out of poverty. Not a single member of the chamber will disagree with that, but what I did not hear from Professor Tomkins, or Alison Harris, or indeed Mr Lockhart, is that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has also said that benefit sanctions lead to unfavourable longer-term outcomes for earnings, job quality and employment retention. When we hear successive speaker after speaker tell us—and I can speak for my constituency experience, it is dealing with constituents going through that regime. When we hear story after story of the real practical effect of sanctions on the ground, let me say to Ms Harris, we are not carping, we are seeking to protect the interests of the people of Scotland, and our employability programme will in no way facilitate the UK Government sanctions regime. That concludes the debate on devolution of employment services. The next item of business is consideration of business bureau motion 1813, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, I put the question to the chamber. The question is that we agree motion number 1813. Do we agree? We do all agree. The next item of business is consideration of nine parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move on block motion 1819, on the variation of standing orders, motions 1820 to 1826, on the approval of SSIs, and motion 1827, on the suspension of standing orders. We now move to decision time. The first question is that amendment 1793.1 in the name of Adam Tomkins, which seeks to amend motion 1793 in the name of JB Hepburn, on devolution of employment services, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Parliament will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1793.1 in the name of Adam Tomkins is yes, 30, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the amendment 1793.3 in the name of Pauli McNeill, which seeks to amend motion 1793 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Parliament will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1793.3 in the name of Pauli McNeill is yes, 93, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. And the next question is that motion 1793 in the name of JB Hepburn, as amended, is agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Parliament will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1793 in the name of JB Hepburn, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 92, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on the nine parliamentary bureau motions 1819 to 1827. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. No member is objected. The question is that motions 1819 to 1827 in the name of JB Hepburn, as amended, is agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We're now moving to members' business. I'll take a few moments for members to change their seats and for the minister to change seats too.