 Yr ymgyrch yn falfwyrr ar gyfer y pee已經idwyr mewn gwahoddiad yna y mae'r bywion ymddyr iawn y byd, ond o'r fawr i'rwyr yma i ymddiad o'r cyffrifetio yn fawr, yn ddigonfod chuadol mewn gwahoddiad. Yr fawr yw'r byd yn gwneud maen ni'n gweithio i'r byw. Dw i'n fawr i'r byw. Rwy'n ceisio gael i'r byw, i'r byw i'n cael ei gwyffennu i'r bwysig pwysig i wneud餞no nu oes allan o bobl oed. I remind members that, for the purposes of the standing order rule on subjudice, no mention should be made of any live cases during this debate. I now call on Neil Findlay to open the debate. Mr Findlay, seven minutes please. Thank you very much. This member's debate is linked to a number of issues around public procurement and the use of procurement to advance fairer employment practices. On this matter, the Labour-led Welsh Assembly has often led the way across the UK. Whether it be tackling abuses of agency working, bogus self-employment or blacklistening, public procurement in Wales has been a vehicle for improving the rights of people at work and building mutually respectful partnerships between employers and employees. The Welsh Government has sought to extend good practice wherever it is found, like the memorandum of understanding on direct employment that we saw at the Olympics, the Hinkley Point agreement and the industry-wide agreements such as the GIIB. Those are cited in Welsh policy advice notes as exemplars of good practice, and procuring bodies are strongly encouraged to follow suit. At the pre-contract stage, employers have to set out how transparency in employment practices will be ensured throughout any contract. That is reported on for the duration of that contract. Contracting authorities are expected to monitor and audit the employment practices adopted throughout the supply chain, with collective agreements respected. Dodgy practices such as the exploitation of agency workers and the use of bogus self-employment and umbrella companies are being proactively tackled and addressed. In a previous member's debate, I went through the history of blacklistening and the impact on construction workers and their families. Some of the victims are present in the middle of legal proceedings, therefore, as the Presiding Officer says, those cases are surjudice, so I do not intend rehearsing all of that again. However, what I want to address is what has happened since that member's debate and what actions we need to take here in Scotland while learning from elsewhere. The Welsh Assembly was the first legislature in the UK to act on blacklisting. 111 Welsh workers' names were found on the consultant association database. When that came to light, the Welsh finance minister, Jane Hutt, moved to ensure that the Assembly took proactive steps to prevent any further blacklisting taking place. In doing so, he sent a very clear message to those companies involved that they would not secure publicly funded contracts unless they put their house in order. Of course, the Scottish Government followed the Welsh lead with its November 2013 procurement advice note. I thank Neil Findlay for taking intervention, but we do acknowledge what has been said by Jane Hutt that the Welsh Government only started looking at this in June 2013, a month after the Scottish Government had shared its draft of blacklisting guidance with the Scottish trade unions. Also, what you can't have said, the Scottish Government published Scottish procurement policy note goes beyond the general advice given by the Welsh Government. I do not think that that is a competition, Mr Brown. I think that I will raise some of those issues as I go on because there are problems still across the UK on a whole range of issues here. That was welcome. I do welcome the publication from the Scottish Government, but at the same time as we passed the public procurement bill, Parliament was advised that the accompanying guidance would be backed by secondary legislation. It was said to make it more flexible than primary legislation and could be amended to meet changing circumstances if that were deemed necessary. Although I disagreed with that approach and pushed my amendment for legislation, I accepted that the then Cabinet Secretary, now the First Minister, acted in good faith. However, it is now clear that the Scottish procurement policy note has not been adhered to and that many public authorities, perhaps out of fear of legal reprisals from those companies that they exclude or may exclude from competing for public works, are still awarding contracts to companies that are complicit in Blacklist. The Scottish policy note, as it currently stands, clearly is not working. Since its introduction, we have seen the NHS common services agency award a £660 million contract to a consortium of contractors, including Balford, Beattie, Kear and Langerork. Mr Finlay, I would be grateful if you did not mention names and confine yourself to allegations rather than assertions of fact, in terms of the subjudice element. None of what I have said relates to any issues in court. That is publicly available contract information from the Scottish Government and from SPICE, so you might be conflating to issues, if you do not mind me saying so. We have witnessed the Scottish Prison Service award a £2.5 million project to Carillion. Network Rail have awarded a £245 million contract to Custain. Transport Scotland award Balford, Beattie, a £10 million contract. Scotland Excel and Lerwick Harbour have given contracts to Kear, BAM, Nuttall, Skanska, Custain all winning bids for public works. Moray Council, East Ayrshire Council, Fife in North Lanarkshire, East Ayrshire in Arran NHS, Scottish Hydro, Robert Gordon University and others, all awarded contracts to companies who have been involved in the blacklist and conspiracy. I appreciate that Mr Finlay may have suspicions that companies are involved in that kind of activity, but, in those matters, mere suspicions are not good enough. Can he assure the chamber that he has got the exact knowledge that each and every one of the companies that he has mentioned have been legally convicted of the offences that he... Diolch yn fawr. No one has been legally convicted because the cases are on at the moment, but the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster investigated that and the companies were brought before them to give evidence, Mr Mackenzie. I would suggest that you maybe look at the two reports that have been provided by the Scottish Affairs Committee and look at some of the legal proceedings that are on-going, but if you want to defend companies who have been involved in a human rights abuse, then you just carry on, Mr Mackenzie, and not a single company has self-cleansed, not one has owned up, not one has apologised and not one penny of compensation been paid, but the public procurement advises that no company who has been involved in blacklist should get a contract unless they have taken remedial action, but no remedial action has been taken and still the contracts are given. A blacklisted worker who I spoke to this week expressed has discussed that this should be happening despite all of what we know of what went on. I want to ask the Scottish Government whether, when the subordinate legislation and full guidance is introduced later this year, will that stop companies who have been involved in this, like those that are listed, from getting a public contract until they have taken that remedial action by accepting their guilt, apologising and providing justice and satisfactory compensation to their victims? The Scottish Government said that it would wait on the publication of the Scottish Affairs Committee report before deciding what to do, while that committee has reported twice. With the election of a Tory Government, it is highly unlikely that there will be any UK inquiry. Scottish workers were blacklisted in disproportionately high numbers, more than anywhere else in the UK. I am today calling on the Scottish Government to recognise this and initiate a Scottish inquiry into this scandal. Only through such an inquiry will we find out why so many Scots had their lives ruined by this illegal practice. Given that, I thank Mr Finlay for taking the intervention and acknowledge that we probably both very much regret the election of a Tory Government, but given that, does he now regret that his party argued so strongly against the devolution of employment law, which would have allowed us to take action on those things much more effectively? You do not need any further powers to hold an inquiry in Scotland on that issue. Mr Brown, I am more than willing to take another intervention, if you want to tell us that you will have an inquiry. I will answer that question when I speak, but do you regret not arguing that employment law should stay? Mr Finlay, you must draw to a close, please, Mr Finlay. Mr Finlay, you must draw to a close, please, as you are over nine minutes. Finally, the Welsh Assembly has led to a number of positive developments using legislation where it can but also its influence and spending power to address workforce matters and labour market abuse. It is now for the Scottish Government to use its power and its influence to make its guidance more robust. The current policy note is not working and the Scottish Government must ensure that the subordinate legislation that is to come prevents the award of yet more contracts to the guilty and leads to the self-cleansing of the construction industry that we all want to see. Crucially, that delivers long-awaited justice to the brickies and joiners, the Sparks plumbers, engineers and others who are looking for this Parliament to deliver for them. Many thanks. Before I call Johann Lamont, I would again remind members that we should avoid discussion of the on-going litigation mentioning companies involved or any appropriate or inappropriate levels of compensation. Can you please confine your remarks within those parameters? Johann Lamont, four minutes or thereby please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do welcome the opportunity to support this debate. I congratulate Neil Finlay on bringing this debate and pursuing it in the way that it has done. I recognise the work of the unions in this regard and, indeed, as has already been referenced, the important work of the Scottish Select Committee. I hope that, however, the make-up of that committee is in the House of Commons, it will continue to pursue, with the same energy, the very, very important issues for workers in Scotland and across the whole of the United Kingdom. This is a persistence that goes back a long time. I remember Maria Fife many, many years ago pursuing this whole question of blacklisting, the list being provided to companies so that we know the folk that they were not to take on. Over many years, unions highlight what some companies were willing to do in order to exclude people who they regarded as a problem. It is appalling that blacklisting was used to deal with those who were doing the most decent of things, keeping people safe at work. We know that the record of health and safety in the construction industry is still a scandal, and we know that it is a greater problem in Scotland than elsewhere. The very idea that when somebody raises a question about safety, their instinct is not to make their workplace safe, but to get rid of the person who is raising those questions almost is beyond belief. This Parliament, over many years, has, for example, pursued the scandal as best as it has and the implications that it has for people's health. We know that this country has been scarred by silence over those issues, so I am sure that everybody across the chamber understands how important exposing the whole question of blacklisting has been. We must fear that, if you have a culture where you lose your job if you open your mouth, people keep quiet and, in keeping quiet, people are put at risk, not just in that workplace but in the work that they are doing elsewhere. I am sure that nobody in here wants to defend blacklisting. The only question is how do we now make sure that we underline how absolutely unacceptable it is? Dancing in the head of a pin in the way that Mr Mackenzie appears to have been doing, I do not think that it adds to the assisting in that regard. It is important that there is an inquiry. It is simply an act of justice for those who suffered in the way that they did and for people to confront just how much it meant to people, what those consequences were. That was not just a bit of an employer not being very kind to their workforce, it was systematic, it was unacceptable and people lived with the consequences for a long time. I do think that we could have an inquiry, I think that it would be good in terms of creating standards in the workplace and giving voice to those who suffered. We do want companies to own up, to clean up and pay up. It is not difficult. I am sure that many organisations, many companies who themselves did not involve themselves in that practice must agree to that because they are also tarnished and damaged by that activity. We also think of the important opportunity. I urge the Government and the Cabinet Secretary in particular to recognise the importance of looking at how power can now be used, both to challenge those who did use the practice and to ensure that it never happens again. I recognise the steps that the Scottish Government has already taken, but I would just simply say to be confident enough to look to whether there are other measures being taken to see if we can learn from them. I am not asking you to say any other group of politicians is better than you are, but simply to draw on that practice to see if we can strengthen our protections in this country. We have the power of the public purse. We should be using the power of the public purse to drive up standards. Those who are not willing to drive those standards and commit to those standards should not benefit from that public purse. It is a truth in general around questions of wages and so on as well, but particularly in this regard. I also say to the Cabinet Secretary the privilege of power that he has. In opposition we can raise questions, we can pursue alongside the unions, we can stand with those who have suffered in that way, but you have the privilege of power. All I ask is that you exercise it to stop where you can those unacceptable practices and press for the kind of change that right across the chamber we are agreed on. We are not in dispute with you about whether this is a bad thing or not, we just simply urge you to look again at what else you can do in your position to make sure that those who acted in that way are exposed for what they have done, that they are forced to own up, clean up and pay up. I think that our workforce across Scotland and particularly the construction industry will be a great deal of better for it. I am pleased to speak in this debate having run our construction business for over 30 years, and I will say at the outset that I am sympathetic to Mr Finlay's concerns regarding blacklisting, the use of umbrella companies and payment of the living wage, and some of the companies that he named earlier on may indeed be guilty as charged, but some of them may not. I can never agree to Mr Finlay being the judge, jury and the executioner in this matter or indeed in any other matter. No, I do not have time, Mr Finlay. Mr Finlay, we will not be naming any companies from now on or we will be sitting down. Mr Finlay, this is not me, judge, jury and executioner. All of this is on the public record by individuals who have been associated with these organisations. All I would ask you is to research it and look at it. Not me. I think that if Mr Finlay had listened properly to the point that I was making, he would not have intervened to say what he did say. I would put it on the record that I am not yet an accredited living wage employer, although I do pay at least the living wage. In many years, a business always paid above the industry-recommended rates, but I did so not so that I could put a plaque on the wall. The reward I received and continue to receive was the pleasure and the privilege of working with a team of people who were and are committed, conscientious and capable. For those people who are only concerned with profit and those businesses who are only concerned with profit, I would also say that this investment in people has paid for itself many times over the years. The umbrella company was dreamt up, no doubt, by the same tax lawyers who advised the UK Government on taxation policy from time to time and then go back and advise clients how to circumvent it. It must be borne in mind that the umbrella company is not illegal and is one response of an industry that deals with the difficult problem of an intermittent and fluctuating workload and is complex and at times incomprehensible tax and employment regime. The victims, as usual, of blacklisting and umbrella companies are the workers. To that extent, as I have already said, I very much sympathise with at least part of Neil Findlay's motion. Unfortunately, Mr Findlay lives in the black-and-white world of oversimplification. What he fails to recognise is that the Scottish Government has to abide by both UK and EU legislation without any real say over either. The legislation is complex and overlapping and, in some cases, obscure. If the Scottish Government fails to abide by that, any legislation that it produces or any actions that it takes in awarding contracts will most surely be challenged in the courts. Legal actions, certainly. We could tell us what is oversimplified about somebody losing their job and not being told that they have lost their job, and what is so complex that an inquiry could not establish exactly what was done so that we can be clear who was responsible and who was not responsible. We could separate those companies with an honourable record from those who have not. Mackenzie Mackenzie, I am sure that John Lamont will know that employment legislation is a reserved matter and it is reserved to the UK Government. If those powers were reserved to this Parliament and to this Government, no doubt we could simplify them, but legal actions can be costly and often the losers in such actions are the public in terms of the loss of best value, in terms of inordinate delays in providing necessary infrastructure, and the losers are often construction firms in terms of uncertainty and the victims are often workers in terms of the loss of meaningful and secure work. This is the reality in the increasingly litigious world we live in. The Scottish Government has issued guidance on blacklisting and umbrella companies. In fact, it has gone further in some respects than the Welsh Government. It has encouraged the payment of the living wage. It is doing what it can do with the powers that are currently available. There is, of course, a simple solution. As I have said— You might wish to draw to a close. The full powers—I will do, Presiding Officer—that is for the full powers of our employment law and taxation to be devolved to this Parliament. We have been promised a powerhouse Parliament, not the palliative care Parliament that we have that is unable to do anything other than mitigate a little bit of the pain, inflict us on, inflicted on us by the UK Government. If Mr Finlay really cares about those issues, he should— I am afraid that we are going to have to close now for six minutes. Those powers to be devolved to this Parliament. Thanks very much. Thank you. I now call on Jackie Baillie to be followed by Alex Rowley. Presiding Officer, it is customary to be very reasonable in members' debates and I think that we have been provoked unduly by Mr Mackenzie into not being quite so reasonable this evening. But let me try, because I want to start by congratulating Neil Finlay on securing the time for this debate and for the passion in his speech this evening. Can I say to Mr Mackenzie that it really is simple? This Parliament has powers. It has powers that it can use to have an inquiry. It is a dereliction of its duty to the people that I believe the cabinet secretary actually cares about not to use those powers. Indeed. Can I refer to the statement that Jackie Baillie just made, and also to what Johann Lamont said about the privilege of power? When did the Labour Party, in its eight years in government here, or in 13 years in government south of the border, use that privilege of power to hold an inquiry? Can I make the simple suggestion to you that the scandal first came to light in 2009? So certainly in this Parliament, we weren't in a position to do that. You were. But can I say to you, it's not about who does it. We will support you in taking such an action forward, because bad employment practices shouldn't be tolerated irrespective of who has the power and which government is doing the inquiry. You say and your government says inequality is bad for the economy, unfairness is bad for the economy. Well, guess what? I agree, but there is nothing more unequal or unfair than what we've witnessed in terms of bad employment practices. Now I know, my colleagues know well, that I often quote Richard Leonard from the GMB, and this debate is no exception, because he was absolutely right when he said that the construction industry blacklisting scandal is not a tale of a few bad apples, but an entirely rotten system, which operated in a supposedly advanced democratic state. And for much too long, the practice of blacklisting has flourished. But if you heard the denials at the time, you saw the innocent faces of those businesses engaged in the practice, you could be forgiven for thinking that somehow you had imagined it all. But the harsh reality is that, no, I'm not going to take any interventions from Mr Mackenzie. I think I've heard quite enough from you this evening. But the harsh reality is that blacklisting is very real, and it's been used as a secret tool to keep out workers that they simply didn't like. Now, when the scandal first came to light, it was indeed in 2009, but it was revealed that blacklisting wasn't something that was simply isolated or rare. For 16 years, people compiled a secret database of thousands of construction workers. The files contained extremely detailed and personal information, names, addresses, national insurance numbers, even comments made by managers. More than 500 workers in Scotland affected over 3,000 workers across the United Kingdom. Let me be very clear in condemning the shameful practice, because blacklisting is nothing short of a gross abuse of human rights. Many of the workers who were affected, as Johann Lamont pointed out, were union members who had raised health and safety concerns. Their files included phrases such as, will cause trouble, strong trade union, or ex-shop steward definite problems, and the effect on the careers and their lives and the lives of their families was absolutely devastating. So we must ensure that blacklisting is outlawed. We should learn from our neighbours. Wales has been held up as an example, committed to an ethical, responsible procurement policy that facilitates better employment practices. I am sure that the cabinet secretary would agree that we should ensure that procurement is used to achieve better employment practices in Scotland, too. We have witnessed the increase in casualisation of the workforce. We have seen zero-hours contracts, changes to terms and conditions, reduction in hours so that many workers are now underemployed. Now, whilst I believe that we could have done more in the procurement bill, let me echo Johann Lamont's comments. Let's agree that blacklisting is bad. I don't think anybody in this chamber thinks otherwise. But the challenge to government is what more you can do to protect the very workers I believe we have a common interest in protecting. I welcome the Scottish Government procurement policy note. Of course I do. Anything that helps is to be welcomed, but we need to remember that those are simply guidelines for public authorities. They are not legally binding. The Government's ambition was to bring in secondary legislation. That is an ambition that has not yet been met. It is something that we would like to see happen, and I hope that the cabinet secretary would agree that it is something that he wants to see happen to. Let us work together to make that happen. Let us put the secondary legislation in place because we share a common agenda to protect workers in Scotland, engaged in public contracts, and indeed more widely than that. Let me also say to the cabinet secretary that having an inquiry here would also help to shed light on some of those bad practices to ensure that they do not happen again. I hope that he can find it in himself to take forward the ambition of this Parliament across the entirety of the chamber to do exactly that, because, after all, the services that are delivered—I will finish on that point—are public services. We should expect the same ethos, consideration and approach to their delivery irrespective of whether it is in the public or private sector. The cabinet secretary has an opportunity to do something good. I hope that he sees it. I would also applaud Neil Findlay for securing this debate today. I would stand to call for support for his call that the Scottish Government wants and for all hold an inquiry into Black Listen and that they review the current guidelines and consider whether they are fit for purpose. The minister, in some sense, has responded to that. I was disappointed when he decided to blame someone else before we hear his answer, but, in this instance, he cannot blame a previous Government in here for not holding an inquiry, given that it was not known at that time exactly to the extent that Black Listen is being carried out. It was in 2009 that the names of 3,300 people were discovered on a black list in the offices of a consultancy agency, including more than 500 workers from Scotland. That is why this Government and this Parliament would be right to hold an inquiry, and that is why we must, I would suggest, hold an inquiry. It strikes me that the advances that have been made in health and safety in my lifetime—the advances that have been made in terms and conditions for workers and workers' rights in my lifetime—did not happen by accident. They happened because men and women, shop stewards and trade union members up and down this country fought for better terms and conditions and fought for health and safety. Many of them, who are no longer with us, would be terming in their graves to see that their fellow trade unionists would be treated in this way, in an impolwm way. Carefully to what Mr Riley said, and I wonder if he agrees with me or the STUC that trade union and employment law should be devolved to this Parliament, particularly in the light of the anti-trade union proposals in last week's Queen's speech? The minister seems to want to divert it by blaming Labour, and Mr Mackenzie seems to want to divert us from the question by trying to look at powers that we do not have, but we do have the power to hold inquiry. That is the whole point. We have the powers here to hold inquiry, therefore we do not and should not be blaming anybody else for not doing so. However, if I can come back to trade unionists, men and women, who were absolutely dedicated to fighting not for themselves but for the rights of workers and for health and safety, so that when workers went out in the morning, their families knew that they were going to come back at night, the advances that they made. What sums up for me was Michael Mewture on 23 January 2013, where he described black listeners arguably the worst human rights abuse against workers in the UK since the war. It is worse than imprisonment in that it usually is imposed on the victim without being given the opportunity to defend themselves, and it lasts for an indefinite period, often decades. The impact that that has had on workers, the impact that it has had on their families, we know that there are at least 500 victims in Scotland from black listening, and we need to do something about that. I would appeal to the minister to look at the call that is being made by Neil Findlay and, once and for all, hold an inquiry into black listening and review the current guidelines, considering whether they are indeed fit for purpose. I want to congratulate Neil Findlay not just for his powerful and emotional speech, but also for a very forensic contribution in which he set out the facts and figures of the scandal that has come to light in our country. In a way, it is quite apposite that we are having this debate in the week in which there is controversy about whether or not the Scottish national football team should play guitar in a friendly match. Many people have become concerned that it is inappropriate for Scotland to play guitar against the backdrop of the thousands of deaths of immigrant workers in that country who are building stereo in preparation for the World Cup. When we look at the conditions that those workers operate in and when we look at the appalling death rate and when we consider what happened in the terrible factory collapse in Bangladesh when we look at the scandal of Bhopal, there is a common thread running through all that. That is where companies, often multinational companies, are able to exploit workers who are not able to organise in trade unions and who are not able to defend themselves, that those companies will seek to exploit those poor workers right up to the point of death in order to maximise their profits. I like Rowley paid tribute to the generations of men and women who fought in factories and workplaces in this country to make sure that ordinary working people in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom were able to go to work with a degree of certainty and assurance about their working conditions and their safety. We know tragically from the events in Mary Hill some years ago that it does not always guarantee 100 per cent, but when we look at our health and safety record in this country and we contrast it to the examples that I mentioned, then you can see the advantage of brave men and women standing up and defending their friends and their colleagues in their workplaces and pressing for conditions that benefit the workers. It is because of that track record of determination of many shop stewards and trade unionists that those multinational companies—and it was not local companies—have sought to blacklist those who have been effective in standing up for the rights of ordinary working people. As other speakers have indicated, there is a scandal that has blated their lives. Many are not able to work again. Some are only able to work at jobs that are less well paid than those that they previously had. It has only recently come to light just what these companies have been doing. That should not be a debate about whether someone else was right or wrong or someone should have taken action earlier, nor should it be a debate about what more powers do we need to have. Let us have that debate by all means, but let us also, just for the moment, look at what we can do here and now to make a difference. Even incrementally—not no thanks, I am about to finish—even incrementally do something that will improve the lives. We have heard the calls for an inquiry—something that we could do. An inquiry would help to guide future investment decisions of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust, because if they found practices that were unacceptable, I would hope that that would then make them think twice about where the investment goes. Equally, let us look at the procurement note, because it would be wrong to pass the buck of the responsibility to local councillors without giving them assurances and guarantees about the investment decisions that they are making. They need that back up in support from the Scottish Government so that they know that the law and the guidelines will protect them when they take action against those companies who are refusing to face up to their responsibilities. Yes, that is a scandal. Yes, those companies are still making massive profits. Yes, their shareholders are still benefiting. Yes, their senior management has been awarded payments that are absolutely grotesque in comparison to the damage that they have caused. Yes, it surely should be right that we at least show some good faith to those brave men and women who have tried to do something to make life tolerable for those that they work with. Thank you very much. We now move the closing speech from the minister, Mr Brown, and from the cabinet secretary, Keith Brown. I think that this is an extremely important issue to be debated, and for that reason I congratulate Neil Findlay on securing the debate. I do think that it is essential that I strongly refute the suggestion that the Welsh Government has taken action that this Government has not taken, that it has gone quicker or further than we have. I think that, first of all, I agree with some of the points that have just been made. In fact, one of the words that Hugh Henry used is one of which I noted that the word blighted. I think that the simple fact is that, for many people, their promotion opportunities, their employment opportunities were blighted and, of course, the welfare of their families were blighted as a result. Often, as has been said, without them even knowing about that. I think that that is an absolutely scandalous way to behave. It is an abhorrent way for employers to behave. During my 19 years as a trade unionist, we discussed this kind of thing quite regularly. It was not a recent thing. It was usually in terms of whether somebody had been passed over promotion because of their trade union activities, or perhaps they were the first to go on to a list of redundancies. It was usually that suspicion that was there. We have had different versions of this, but some people have said that it is a recent thing and we have not known since 2009. Others have said that Johann Lamont said that he had been wrong for years. Maria Pfeiffie was mentioned that she actually tried to introduce a bill in 1988 called the Access to Information Bill Blacklist. She spoke about her constituent who she believed was blacklisted by the economic league. That has been known about for a long time, yes, I will. Finlay? It is absolutely right, and we agree on that point. The issue is that the raid got the full information, or not the full information, but it got information back on individuals who can be identified and companies who were blacklisted. That is the big difference, that the raid made all the difference with the evidence that we now have. I accept your family's point up to a point. Of course, had that bill been proceeded with, subsequently, access to information bill, that information could have been gained far earlier, long before 2009, had that bill. I appreciate that it was a bill that was put forward at a time when a Conservative Government was in office. I understand that point and presumably did not succeed for that reason. It could have been brought in subsequently and the information that was unveiled in 2009 could have happened much earlier. That is the point that I am trying to make. Finlay? The argument that he is making, the logic that he is making in reference to that bill, would lead me to say, therefore, that you have the opportunity to introduce an inquiry, so let us not wait and blame someone else. You can do it like that Government could have done it then. They chose not to. Are you going to choose not to also? I think that there are two points to respond to that. I was going to come on to the inquiry subsequently, but there are two points. The fundamental difference is, of course, and now I know that those benches do not agree with us. I think that it is somehow an irrelevance of the fact that we have no control over employment law. I think that it is a very big issue. It also impinges on the worthiness of an inquiry as well. I will come back to an inquiry in a minute or two. The guidance that we published in 2013, first shared in draft with the Scottish Trade Union and the STUC in May 2013, is clear that firms engaging in blacklisting have committed grave misconduct and should be excluded from public procurement unless they can demonstrate appropriate remedial action. The guidance is a strong deterrent to those who might blacklist. It also has a positive effect on contractor behaviour, encouraging contractors to take steps to put things right. I am trying to make some progress, but I do not have much time left. Neil Findlay's concerns seem to be that some companies alleged that blacklisting had won contracts since the guidance was published. Two points are important here. Firstly, as I have said already, employment law is still reserved. We have taken the firmest action in the UK to use public procurement to prevent blacklisting, but until the employment law is strengthened and effectively enforced and those are judgments made against offenders, it is extremely difficult in practice for purchasers to exclude companies for blacklisting. Secondly, and relevant to the motion, according to the Welsh Government's procurement website, Sell to Wales, 13 companies named by the Information Commissioner's Office as subscribers to the Consulting Association have won public contracts in Wales since November 2013. Seven of those contracts were awarded by the Welsh Government itself. I know that that is uncomfortable, but it happens to be a fact. It did not appear to make it into Neil Findlay's motion. Mr Findlay, please allow the cabinet secretary to make some progress and perhaps to take an intervention once he does. The Welsh Government, much is made of the Labour-led Welsh Assemblies acted ahead of everyone else and gone much further. When I pointed out that that was untrue, even in the words of UCAT, it is not a competition. We cannot have it both ways. I highlight the points that have been made about Wales, not to denigrate our colleagues in Wales, who are equally opposed to blacklisting, but to tackle the false premise of the motion put forward by Neil Findlay that the Welsh Government is taking action that we are not. Without control over employment law, has there been an inquiry in Wales? There has not been an inquiry in Wales, so they do not have control over employment law. The Welsh Government faces the same difficulties that we do, and if only that had been acknowledged. Perhaps in the same tone that Johann Lamont made her contribution by acknowledging that we perhaps agree on the fundamentals here, but there are major problems in how we deal with it. In terms of broader employment practices, we also condemn the inappropriate use of umbrella companies, particularly where that has a detrimental effect on workers' terms and additions. We would congratulate the Welsh Government following our lead in providing guidance promoting positive employment practices in public contracts, but the Welsh guidance does not, as reported, ban the use of umbrella companies in public contracts. It provides details on the instances where discrepancies between pay and the rights of workers not directly employed by contractors may occur. The Scottish Government policy guidance on workforce matters and employment practices goes further, and it also addresses workforce matters, including living wage and zero-hours contracts. Just for clarification, can you explain why you cannot have an inquiry, given that you have had inquiries on other very serious matters? We are not having any debate about who has done what, where and who is better or not. Why can we not have an inquiry and why would it not be able to inform us in terms of what we might be able to do in the future? I do not think that what you have just said is true. I think that we are having a debate about who has done what. It has been littered with references to who is doing what, so let us not pretend that this has been done in a completely non-partisan manner, because it is not. We certainly agree on things, and I appreciate the way that Johann Lamont has put a point forward. What I would say in relation to the inquiry, which Neil Findlay did not take care to mention, was that I have agreed to meet Neil Findlay and other representatives to discuss the issue. I want to hear from him, having looked into this myself, what could be achieved by an inquiry. I generally want to know what he thinks could be achieved, especially in the absence of power over employment law. I am generally waiting to hear that, so I will meet Neil Findlay and discuss those issues, and we will take it forward from there. All that I can do is to take an open mind to this, having done a fair bit of work myself to find out what we could possibly do. With respect, you can bring the weight of Government to testing whether an inquiry would be worthwhile or not. I think that I have answered the point that was made. I am happy to continue the dialogue if the dialogue is what is wanted. If it is not, if it is simply as it always seems to be with Neil Findlay, let us see how we can have a go at the SNP. There is not much point in that dialogue. I have just said that I am willing to take an open approach and an approach with an open mind. I will take an open mind towards the discussions that you are about to have. We will see if what is proposed is a dialogue or a monologue, as is per usual with Mr Findlay. The Scottish Government policy guidance on workforce matters and employment practices, as I have said, goes further. It also addresses those workforce matters, including the living wage and zero-hours contracts. Where our guidance introduces transparent tender evaluation criteria for relevant contracts, the Welsh Government does not do that. I am not saying that having a go at them, but you cannot say that the Welsh Government has gone further than the Scottish Government when the facts do not sustain that. In relation to the living wage, we fully support the living wage and we recognise the real difference that it can make to the lives of the people of Scotland. We are funding the poverty alliance to promote the take-up of the living wage accreditation system in every sector across Scotland. In the last 12 months, we have seen the number of Scots-based living wage accredited employers increase significantly from just 30 to over 200. This morning, the First Minister hosted a living wage summit with business leaders and representatives from sectors where the living wage is not widely paid. The Scottish Government today has been confirmed in its status as a living wage accredited employer. We have been paying all staff at least the living wage for some time now, and I am happy to say that we are amongst the number of officially accredited employers. We cannot make the living wage mandatory in public contracts. We do strongly encourage it. It was the Labour Party's position that it could do that and that the Scottish Government voted against it, but that was not borne out by the Labour Party's own manifesto at the election that we just had. The Procurement Reform Scotland Act 2014 allows us to do the encouragement that I have talked about by providing statutory guidance on workforce matters and procurement, including the living wage. Promoting the living wage through public procurement, however, is a weak alternative to having the powers of our employment law, which we asked the Smith commission to deliver incidentally, in which the Labour Party argued most forcibly against us gaining those powers. I am grateful for the opportunity to place the Scottish Government's commitment to fair work on the record again. I am proud that we have shown the way and that others are now following our food steps. There is, despite all that, agreement across the chamber, I believe, or at least that part of the chamber that is represented here tonight, on the importance of tackling those issues. I cannot help to reflect, however, on how much easier it would be to tackle them head-on if we had control over employment law. Thank you all for taking part in this important debate. I now close this meeting of Parliament.