 Ond, mae hi'r cyflwyn â'r cyd-ifiadau sy'n cyd-ifiadau, ond a mae'r cymru o cyd-ifiadau yn gymwyag oedd prosiectol. Rwy'n ddweud â cysybeth gwstynau cyd-ifiadau a yna hefyd ar yr ydym i'r busnes ym mwy o'r adael yn y mwy o'r ffordd 1405 yn y fforddganings y Jackie Baillie yw arddangos yma. Maesquef an valve IQw's. I wish to speak in the debate. Please press the request to speak engraim button now, here as soon as possible. If you are ready Miss Bailey, you may speak for 14 minutes or thereby please. The point is thus Done. Ofice dinner. Our vision for Scotland is based on an idea embedded in our values and written in our history as a party in the trade union movement. That is Scotland's succeeds when working people succeed. For too many people the link between prosperity of Scotland and the prosperity of their family has been broken. Families across Scotland will naturally look to their government for answers, not more excuses. Labour's values and Labour's vision is of an economy that works for all, a politics where everyone's voice is heard and a society that is based on common good. After eight years of inaction, Scotland needs a government focused on the real challenges of the future. Challenges like how to renew the link between economic growth and living standards. New thinking to build a broad-based productivity economy, not continue as a low productivity economy. A real plan to tackle structural challenges in the economy, not an economic strategy that is bereft of targets. The solution will require big reforms as to how we use government and new thinking. It doesn't necessarily require big spending, but it requires a boldness and a big thinking from the current Government. Today, it is incumbent on Governments of all colours and across developed economies to maximise the benefits of globalisation and technological change. This challenge will require renewed focus from the Scottish Government to successfully navigate, because failure to do so will result in rising inequality, an increasing reliance on low-skill work and a lack of economic growth. None of us across the chamber want to see that indeed. The member mentions rising inequality. Can she confirm that it was rising inequality in the UK between 1997 and 2010 when Labour was in power? I think that rising inequality is nothing new. It's how we work together to tackle that that becomes a challenge for this Parliament. Frankly, I'd rather look ahead than look back, as the member seems to want to do. The LSE growth commission found that an economy that grows at 2 per cent a year in real terms, in line with the average growth rate before the financial crisis, will double its material living standards every 35 years. The principle that everyone will gain from economic growth regretfully is no longer people's experience in today's Scotland. As the resolution foundation has argued, growth makes rising living standards possible, but it doesn't guarantee it. Indeed, in recent years, the link between rising GDP and rising living standards has been broken with the proceeds of economic growth simply not being passed on in increased earnings for the average worker. Businesses grow, but people get left behind. The record of the Scottish Government is not good in that regard. Here are the facts. Real wages have continued to stagnate throughout this Parliament. Too many families still work too many hours with too little to show for it. The employment rate in Scotland remains 0.9 per cent below pre-recession levels, whereas across the UK it has rebounded. Since this First Minister came to power in a second, since this First Minister came to power, our economy has actually lost jobs, and I would be grateful if the minister explained how that's happened. Annabelle Ewing? I'm most grateful to the member for taking intervention. I just wonder if she's aware of the most recent labour market statistics, for example, which shows that Scotland has a higher employment rate than the UK as a whole, has a lower economic inactivity rate, has higher female employment and higher youth employment. Would those not be benchmarks that she would welcome as showing steady progress in the Scottish economy? Thank you, Bailey. The minister failed to answer the question put to her. I share with her that unemployment in Scotland is higher today than the UK average at 5.9 per cent, compared with 5.5 per cent. That may seem small in percentage terms. That is thousands of people. The proportion of people in poverty who work has risen considerably under the SNP. Over half of working-age adults in poverty are in working households. In Scotland today, the real-terms drop in income has been accompanied by structural shifts in the labour market that have increased people's insecurity. The number of workers earning less than the living wage and on zero-hours contracts has increased. The numbers working part-time because they can't get the full-time hours that they need has increased. The numbers in self-employment and temporary employment have increased since 2011. The SNP Government recognised the problem of inequality, and I absolutely welcome that, but it is just that recognition that makes its response so inadequate. Earlier this year, the Scottish Government published an analysis of inequality in our country, and here is the stark reality of what it told us. The wealthiest 10 per cent of households own 44 per cent of the wealth. The wealthiest 2 per cent of households alone own 17 per cent of all personal wealth. In contrast, the least wealthy half of households in Scotland own just a mere 9 per cent of total wealth. In that context, I am genuinely confused that the SNP blocked opportunities like progress through extending the living wage through public procurement. A Government that continues to fail on building an economy for all and fails to dedicate the full resources of Government to tackling inequalities should step aside for one that will work every day to secure the jobs and the future for all Scots. We need action, not a trickle-down approach, repeatedly returned to by the SNP Government, committed to cutting tax on corporations or air travel for the few. The pressure that families face across our nation goes beyond those statistics. Even when you are working full-time, it is harder than it should be to get ahead, and this is not just a hangover from the financial crisis. Our economy will not fulfil Scotland's potential until we change course on the stagnation of working people's jobs and incomes. We must measure our success by something more than our GDP or a Government press release on job figures. We measure it by whether we are creating meaningful work that gives a sense of purpose, pays a wage and provides a family with security. When working families do not have money to spend, it makes it harder for our economy to grow. That is why a winner-take-all system means that our economy cannot truly succeed, and that is the central challenge of our times. Every policy that this Government pursues should be aimed at answering that challenge. We believe that we should be working towards jobs for all, secured in the industries of the future. Building the jobs of the future requires world-class training today. Just as the internet opens the door to new areas of economic activity, new technology will transform the way that we work in the future. We would welcome a renewed focus from the Scottish Government on connectivity and building a digital economy. The rapidly growing sharing economy in particular offers a new dynamism that we should ensure serves to empower individuals. In that spirit of sharing, and I know that those on the Government side will welcome the appointment of Joseph Stiglitz as an economic adviser to the Labour Party. Members will be familiar with the Professor's conclusion that equal access to education is a solution to tackle inequality. Our economy needs every one of our people to be successful, so let the Scottish Government follow Stiglitz advice as the next Labour Government will. Education is the single most important investment that we can make in our future. It is our young people, schools, colleges and universities that educate them, which will shape the Scottish economy well into the 21st century. How well we do on ending the attainment gap today will set the working conditions for working people in the future. I hope that that is something that we can unite on across this chamber, because we have seen huge cuts to colleges, cutting off that chance at learning, so many need and depriving our employers of the skilled workforce of the future. 140,000 fewer students, 93,000 of them were women in school. The least deprived pupils are twice as likely to gain one or more hires than their most deprived peers, so we need to invest in the classroom to support basic literacy and numeracy. We should all be ashamed that the attainment gap is 12 per cent in reading, 21 per cent in writing and 24 per cent in maths, and there are still 6,000 kids leaving primary school unable to read properly. Scottish Labour has committed to use the new tax powers being devolved through the Smith process to deliver a £0.50 top rate of tax to invest in education. The SNP has already voted against that, choosing to maintain instead a Tory tax cut at the expense of children's education, and I hope that that changes. A Labour Government will take action so that companies like Starbucks and Amazon pay their fair share of taxes. It speaks very much to the choices made by this SNP Government that a company like Amazon that failed to pay a fair share of tax received over £10 million in regional selective assistance grants and other public support from Scottish taxpayers should hang their heads in shame. We have an SNP Government that has failed to deliver for working people, a SNP Government that has been blinded to transforming our economy by an on-going constitutional distraction. It really is time for the Scottish Government to take action. Let me offer them some thoughts. Let us bring forward a new industrial strategy that, yes, focuses on the high-tech sectors but also on supporting our big employing sectors, such as retail and social care, so that they can win a race to the top and not get dragged into a race to the bottom. Let us refocus on inward investment, so that the number of jobs that it supports increases rather than what happened this year where the number of jobs actually fell. Preparation should be under way to devolve the work programme to local areas, so that we can match support back to work with local circumstances. As an outward-looking nation, Scotland can prosper from free and fair trade. Alongside those opportunities, there is a potential slowdown in the world economy and corresponding risk of contagion to our economy is no longer confined to the eurozone but extends to a Chinese slowdown too. Both of those realities make it all the more important that action is taken now. My party feels frustration when we hear people say that having a woman in power is an inspiration, as if that by itself is enough to transform the lives of young women in Scotland. Action, not just words, is the Labour way. As our 1945 party may laugh, those are, of course, the party that are very good at talking, very big on rhetoric but absolutely rubbish at taking action. Let me remind you of what our 1945 manifesto said. I know that it is not everybody's bedtime reading. It is very easy—I think that the front bench should listen—that it is very easy to set out a list of aims. What matters is whether it is backed up by a genuine workman-like plan conceived without regard to sectional vested interests and carried through. Yet young women are told that, here in this country, if you are good enough and work hard enough, you can achieve anything. However, you know that that just isn't true in Scotland today. It ignores the barriers that women face to succeed in our society, whether it is access to science and technology skills, tackling the gendered violence that one-in-four women will face or the motherhood penalty where women lose positions or promotions for simply going on maternity leave. That brings me to this Government's record on jobs, particularly for women. Again, the front bench seems more interested in talking to each other. The culture of low-paid, low-skilled work is the feature of this SNP Government's record. The lowest-paid jobs are in hospitality, retail and care sectors where women disproportionately work. Those are exactly the sectors that have seen growth since the SNP took power. Around six in 10 of the new jobs between the Parliament are in low-paid sectors, six out of 10 of those new jobs. 42,000 additional jobs are in those low-paid sectors out of the 73,000 total. In future, it would benefit public debate and the lives of women across Scotland if this Government championed high-skilled, well-paid jobs for women and then took the action to make it a reality. Future releases from the Scottish Government should make good on this change. Targets should not just be about headline employment but secure employment in the jobs of the future, particularly for women trapped in low-pay and insecure work. In conclusion, a job for all should be our ambition. When people have decent wages and feel secure at work, they can spend more and that creates jobs too. That is what will build a modern prosperous economy. It should be the central mission that guides the full efforts of our Government based on the fact that, when working families prosper, Scotland prospers too. Many thanks. I now call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak to a move amendment 14405.2. Cabinet Secretary, 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I see that Corbyn's new cuddly kind of version of Labour hasn't quite reached Scotland yet. We've had an interesting tour of cross-portfolio issues in a speech that sounded a bit more like a belated leadership bid, but at least Jackie Baillie did say one true thing. She is genuinely confused. If I could just set out the Scottish Government's programme for government, I set out a clear vision for employment in Scotland, where fair work improves people's lives and strengthens businesses, so that everyone shares the benefits of a stronger, growing and more inclusive economy. Our economic strategy builds on that vision by showing tackling inequality and economic growth are not mutually exclusive but are fundamentally linked. The relationship between employers and their employees must be at the heart of that. I think that we might be one of the first Governments that has made that absolutely crystal clear statement of the linkage. Fair work strengthens businesses and improves people's lives, so that everyone shares the benefits of a stronger, growing and more inclusive economy. There's growing evidence that delivering sustainable growth and addressing long-standing inequalities are reinforcing and not competing objectives. Recent work from the OECD found that rising income inequality in the UK reduced GDP per capita growth by 9 per cent between 1990 and 2010. Bodies such as Oxfam and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation also show that good-quality jobs have a positive impact on people's physical and mental health. UK Government ministers, such as Ian Duncan-Smith, suggest that moving into work will benefit people. Sadly, that is not the case for everyone. We know that 59 per cent of children in poverty actually live in households where at least one person is working. We also know that the impact of poor working conditions and low pay can be just as damaging to people as being unemployed. That is why we want to support businesses to create better jobs where people feel valued and engaged. Many employers are actively embracing those challenges and reaping the benefits. They are being recognised through the business pledge, living wage accreditation and investors in young people. We are going to build on that progress. The independent fair work convention, which was established earlier this year, brings employers and trade unions together to develop a blueprint for what fair work should look like in Scotland, and it will be completed by March 2016. When that convention reports, we will work closely with our partners and the convention itself to develop an implementation plan that will drive change and promote a new dialogue between Government, employers, employees and trade unions. Ahead of that, we will continue to do everything that we can to promote good working practices within the powers that are available to us. Our forthcoming procurement guidance on fair work practices has a clear focus on the living wage and sets out how we will consider a whole range of other progressive workplace practices when awarding Government contracts. For our young people, we are building on the firm foundations of curriculum for excellence and developing the young workforce to raise attainment and develop the skills of our young people and investment that will ensure that all our young people achieve their potential, benefiting individuals, the Scottish economy and society alike. Earlier this month, I announced £5.8 million of DYW funding for local authorities for 2015-16. That will help local government to provide increased opportunities for high-quality work-related learning for all young people and underlines our spending commitment to helping our future workforce. While the powers that are potentially coming to Scotland through the Scotland bill are limited, we will use them to their full potential to promote fair work practices. For example, as soon as we have the power to do so, we have made clear our intention to abolish fees for employment tribunals. Of the powers coming to this Parliament, we are already currently consulting widely on the replacement for the work programme and work choice. That is a public discussion on how new employment services could work in a modern Scotland. We are speaking to individuals, their families, communities to design a new approach to replace the discredited work programme with alternative provision that better meets the needs of individuals and delivers for those who need help most. Local authorities are fully involved in those discussions, but no decisions on delivery options have been made yet and I am not going to pre-empt the consultation that closes on 9 October. We will complete this process, listen to the views of everyone involved and then consider those views in the context of the best available evidence before we decide on the best mode of delivery. What I can say now is that getting the right balance of national standards and local flexibility will need to be at the heart of any model. While we have the opportunity to develop a new approach to helping people into the labour market, Scotland also has the opportunity to lead the way in a more productive and equal workplace. By working closely with employers and employees, we will show that progressive and fair workplaces can drive the productivity and growth that will be critical to the success of our economy and central to our approach to creating a fairer and more equal society. I understand the pressures on businesses and I recognise the desire of the majority to engage positively with this agenda. There are many examples where Scottish-based companies are seeing those approaches deliver great benefits. Earlier this year, I visited CMS Windows in Cumbernauld, a company that has not only full-heartedly embraced the benefits of the living wage but also prides itself on supporting young people into employment and ensuring that they have the skills and training that they need to make a career for themselves. They are recipients of a number of awards but, most importantly, the company recognises the real business benefits of an engaged and skilled workforce. It is great to be able to celebrate such successes, but let me conclude by being clear that I do not underestimate the distance that we need to travel to achieve our aims. I recognise many of the challenges that Jackie Baillie has set out today. I agree that levels of in-work poverty are unacceptable. I agree that there is too much under-employment and that too many people are stuck in low-quality jobs with low-pay, limited security and no prospect of progression. We know that there is still a significant and unacceptable attainment gap both within and between our schools in Scotland. It is why we have made tackling the attainment gap our top priority. We differ on the answer to some of those problems. Through the Smith process, we saw additional employment, trade union, taxation and welfare powers for this Parliament. That would have allowed us to deliver the changes that we need to see in employment in Scotland and the creation of fairer workplaces. That call was supported at the time by a range of organisations, not least the STUC. In contrast, Scottish Labour wore, and I quote, concerned that devolution of employment law would result in a race to the bottom on worker protection, potentially resulting in the reversal of great advances for workers' rights, such as the minimum wage, paid leave and flexible working. That is, of course, precisely what is happening right now under their preferred option of leaving powers at Westminster in the hands of the Tories. Since the election in May, the Conservative Government has tried to cynically undermine the living wage. The removal of tax credits will leave the majority of workers worse off according to independent bodies like the Resolution Foundation. The devolution of powers would have meant that Scottish workers would not now be facing an attack on their fundamental rights in the workplace. I know the depth of feeling that lies across the chamber about the cynical policies that will erode working conditions in Scotland, as it will across the whole of the UK. We believe that there is a different and fairer way to look at work, and we believe that having the full range of the powers available and the support of the majority of this chamber would let us take a different approach. The real answer is to get the powers out of the hands of the Tories and into the hands of this Parliament and this Government. The Scotland Bill offers us a golden opportunity to work together to protect workers and lift people out of poverty in Scotland. That is why I urge members to call for the transfer of more powers on employment to Scotland and to support the amendment in my name. Needless to say, we will not be supporting the Tory amendment today. I now call on Martin Fraser to speak to and move amendment 14405.1. There is a little time for amendments today, Mr Fraser, for interventions rather. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by thanking the Labour Party for bringing this important subject to the debate. After the events of this week, it is encouraging to learn that the Labour Party is able to agree on at least one subject that it is prepared to have a debate on. It is the first time in this chamber that we have had a debate from Labour in their new Corbynite clothes. I look forward very much to hearing how the Corbyn approach will be reflected in the Labour speeches this afternoon. Perhaps we had a flavour of it from Jackie Bailey earlier when she took us back to 1945. How much I welcome Jeremy Corbyn's election as a Conservative, I am delighted. He is now leader of the Opposition Westminster. I am surprised to see missing from the Labour benches this afternoon the new real power in Scottish Labour, Jeremy Corbyn's vicar on earth. I refer to my good friend Neil Findlay. He on the Labour benches is the true believer in Corbynism. Unlike Kezia Dugdale, who said that Jeremy Corbyn would leave Labour shouting from the sidelines, Mr Findlay was from the start a true believer. He is the one with the hotline to his boss, the most powerful man now in the Scottish Labour Party. No doubt, as we speak, he is down in Brighton, plotting his Corbynite purge of the moderates. The Fault House Robespierre would be convening his committee for public safety. If I were Jackie Bailey, I would be very afraid. Of course. That is, in passing, quite amusing. When will he get to the subject of the debate, which is employment? I am sure that Mr Findlay will reflect on Jackie Bailey's desire to move the debate on from Jeremy Corbyn as quickly as possible. I do not think that that will stand there in good stead. However, it will do Jackie Bailey's prospects in the Corbyn Labour Party, no good at all. When I say that there is much of her speech, I actually agreed with. We certainly would agree that the Scottish Government needs to be more ambitious to improve employment and economic performance, although we might well differ about the policies that are required to deliver that. In one aspect, Jackie Bailey's speech was sadly lacking, in that she failed to properly attribute the success of increasing employment to the true author of that policy, namely the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. I wrote in the amendment that seeks to remedy that deficiency, recognising that employment in Scotland has increased by 175,000 since 2010, not by accident, but as a result of the policies pursued by the UK Government. Of course, policies are continually opposed and criticised by the Labour Party. Some of us can even remember Ed Ball's. Remember Ed Ball's now a figure in the distant mists of Labour memory but once a significant figure in the Labour Party claiming that this approach would not work? It was Mr Ball's famous speech to the STUC in 2012 that warned that we risk a lost decade of slow growth and high unemployment, which will do long-term damage. None of that, of course, came to pass. We remember Professor David Blanchflower, Labour's favourite economist, claiming that unemployment would go up to 5 million with widespread social unrest, yet both have been proven totally wrong. Perhaps an apology from Ms Bailey would not have been a miss in her contribution earlier. In fact, we have seen a growth in employment, a growth in full-time employment and a growth in the number of hours worked. We have all seen increases in wages with wages now rising ahead of inflation, but we recognise that there is more to do. In particular, our wages amongst the poorest in society have to be tackled, which is precisely why the UK Government has introduced the national living wage coming into effect from next April and rising to £9 per hour by 2020. It is hard to imagine any measure that will have a more positive impact on earnings for the least well-off. No surprise, it was warmly welcomed by the living wage foundation when it was introduced. That is coupled with increases in the tax threshold, meaning that many of the poorest are paying no income tax at all on their incomes. I wonder whether Murdo Fraser, whilst he is proclaiming how proud he is of the Tories' moves on the living wage, will recognise that, at the same time that David Cameron has taken over £1,000 in tax credits away from the poorest families? Is he proud of that? Murdo Fraser? There will be many families who will benefit on a net basis from the living wage. Let me just read out what Rhys Mour, the living wage foundation director, said following George Allsbury's announcement. We are delighted that the announcement made in the budget this lunchtime will see over 2.5 million workers receive a much needed pay rise. We agree with the Chancellor that work should be the surest way out of poverty. I would have thought that Kezia Dugdale would agree with that. I have taken too intervention, I need to make some progress. I would also agree with the Labour Party that education is vital if we are going to see a growing economy benefit everyone. Our amendment makes reference to the Scottish Government's failing record on education. The fall in literacy and numeracy are slipping down the international league tables. The failure to close the attainment gap between the most and least well-off school pupils and, on top of all this, a cut to 140,000 further education college places. To have a truly successful economy, we need an education system that is fit for purpose. Too many of our children are being failed and the Government appears to have no imagination when it comes to addressing the most serious of issues. Children from better-off families will always do well in school. They get the support that they need at home and their parents can always buy a better education, either by going for independent schools, by buying in extra-hours tuition or by buying a house in the catchment area of a better-performing school. Those are options that are not available to those from less well-off backgrounds. I firmly believe that the Scottish Government must be levelling the playing field, not by pulling down those who are doing better by giving a leg-up to those who are falling behind. It is a sad indictment of its record that, far from improving under its watch, the situation is deteriorating. Perhaps I can close, Presiding Officer, by agreeing with the Labour Party. Even the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party, the Scottish Government's focus needs to be on improving educational standards, and I have a pleasure in moving the amendment in my name. We now move to the open debate. The Labour motion states that the Scottish Government must be more ambitious to improve employment and economic performance. What is the position in Scotland? The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development stated in recent written evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that Scotland's economy is generally performing well with high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment. In old European terms, we are streets ahead of others in labour market engagement. Unison and their written evidence to the same EET inquiry on work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market highlighted that in Scotland almost all public sector employers pay the Scottish living wage and have a better mechanism for uprating it. That is significantly better position than the rest of the UK. The Labour force survey shows that Scotland is a highest employment rate and lowest inactivity rate of the four UK nations. The Scottish employment rate is 74% higher than any other UK nation. Over the last year, employment has increased, and the unemployment rate in Scotland has fallen with youth employment in Scotland at its highest level since 2005. The same survey identifies that the Scottish female employment rate is higher than the UK's, with euro start figures covering the period from January to March 2015, showing that Scotland had the second highest rate of female employment across Europe. The positive school leaver destinations both initial and sustained are at an all-time high, with the percentage of 2013-14 school leavers in a sustained positive destination in March 2015 reaching 92%. Overall, the proportion of 16 to 64-year-olds who are economically active in Scotland is a higher than the UK rate, and of any other UK nation with a number of young people not in education, employment or training at its lowest level since 2004. However, that does not mean that there is not more that can be done. Citizens Advice and the Ritted Evidence to the EET Committee identified that in Scotland 18 per cent of employees are paid less than the living wage, equivalent to 418,000 individuals. That figure is far too high. However, Scotland now has the lowest proportion of workers paid below the living wage of any UK nation. Citizens Advice also referred to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, Minimum Income Standard, which highlighted people being paid the national minimum wage and taking up all-in-work benefit entitlements were short of a basic income as determined by members of the public of between £110 and £197 per week, depending on their individual circumstances. The Scottish Government does not have powers to adjust the national minimum wage or in-work social security benefits and employment law is reserved to Westminster. Devolution of those powers was something that Unite called for in the response to the Smith commission, something that the Labour Party failed to support. What the Scottish Government can do until it gets legislative powers is to influence public and private sector employers with a number of initiatives. The Scottish procurement policy, though issued in February, provides information on how and when employment practices and workforce matters, including payment of the living wage, should be considered in the course of a public procurement exercise as a key driver of service quality and contract delivery. One of the key points that the policy states that, fair pay, including payment of the living wage, is one of the ways a bidder can demonstrate that it takes a positive approach to its workforce. The policy note continues with, the Scottish Government considers the payment of the living wage to be a significant indicator of employer commitment in this regard. Then, as the Scottish Business Pledge, a partnership between the Scottish Government and business with the goal of boosting productivity, competitiveness, employment, fair work and workforce engagement in development. The business pledge asked that the paid living wage had met at least two of the other elements and have a longer-term commitment to meet all nine, including paying the living wage, not using exploited-of-zero-air contracts, supporting progressive workforce engagement, investing in youth, making progress on diversity and gender balance, committing to an innovative programme, pursuing international business opportunities, playing an active role in the community and committing to prompt payment. Then is the Scottish Government's support for the living wage foundation by setting an example to other employers by receiving accreditation as a living wage employer. Independent research on employers who have introduced the living wage has shown that it increases employee productivity, improves morale, motivation and commitment from staff and can be a cost-saving opportunity for companies as there has a higher staff retention and reduces sickness after this absence. In closing, it would be helpful to know what the labour position is on the living wage. The Labour shadow secretary, Chancellor, was reported in the independent newspaper on Monday as saying that he wanted to raise the legal minimum wage to a full statutory living wage. However, in the same article, Labour shadow business secretary, Angela Eagle, was reported as stating that George Osborne's significant increase in the minimum wage should have been done more slowly. Given that a major discount supermarket is paying a higher minimum wage today than what Labour wanted to introduce by 2020, it would be helpful to know what the Opposition policy is. Improving the lives of working people and reducing inequalities are rightly at the centre of this debate. They are key to transforming the productivity of the Scottish economy and translating economic growth into prosperity for all. Of course, they are what the Labour and Trade Union movement is and always has been all about. It is important to start by recognising the scale of the challenge that we face. By comparison with seven years ago, employment rates have fallen, full-time work has gone down, while part-time working and under-employment have gone up. Real wages have fallen and in-work poverty has increased. Those problems affect men and especially women right across the Scottish economy. As we just heard, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee is currently inquiring into work, wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market. The committee heard more evidence this morning about the prevalence of poorly paid, low-quality jobs in parts of the economy and the poverty and insecurity that they bring. Dave Watson of Unison Scotland described some of the ugly ways in which the worst employers in the care sector exploit their dedicated workers. Liz Cairns of Unite showed how commitments on paying the living wage can be and are avoided by subcontracting the work. Rob Gowens of Citizens Advice Scotland reported that half of those awarded compensation by employment tribunals for unfair dismissal and other reasons are never paid in full—not to mention, of course, all those who cannot afford the tribunal fees to bring their case in the first place. Even in parts of the Scottish economy, with high-quality, well-paid jobs, those are challenging times. Average salaries in the oil and gas industry in the north-east have been much higher in recent years than across the economy as a whole, but in the last few months that relative advantage has gone into reverse. Far from enjoying uninterrupted economic growth, the north-east regional economy is suffering its sharpest downturn in many years. What Aberdeen and Grantian Chamber of Commerce described as a recession in confidence in the oil and gas supply chain. The scale of that impact is not clear because neither the Scottish Government nor the UK Government has yet seen fit to measure it. The industry itself has estimated as many as 65,000 jobs lost across the UK supply chain in the last few months, but no public agency has yet attempted to measure what that means by country, region or sub-sector. It is time that it did. The impact of that major downturn is not confined to the north-east. Thousands of jobs across the Scottish economy are dependent or indirectly on spending by oil and gas companies in their major contractors. Members from every part of Scotland will have seen jobs lost in the local area. The Scottish Government needs to act now. First of all, to quantify the number of jobs lost in Scotland and to assess the impact on local and regional economies. Fergus Ewing made a ministerial statement earlier this month. That was welcome. He responded, as he said, to calls from the Labour Party for him to do so. Now we need those words to be followed by action if employment and productivity in the Scottish economy are to be protected. One of Scottish Labour's proposals in today's debate is for devolution of the work programme to local authorities. I listened carefully to what Roseanna Cunningham said in the introduction. Of course, she is absolutely entitled to say that she will listen to and consider the evidence. It would be very useful to know from ministers in concluding what their instinct is. Is their instinct to devolve this to the lowest level practically possible, or is their instinct to keep control at the centre? As a Government minister, my instinct is to wait until the end of the consultation and consider the responses. I am always in favour of an evidence-based approach, but I have never yet met a politician whose political instincts were confined to listening to what other people had to say. Of course, to that end and in order to allow local authorities to do their job and, given the devolution of the work programme, those powers can be used to help people to get back to work and in ways that are informed by detailed knowledge of the local economy. Ministers could start today by asking Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to assess the impact of the oil jobs crisis on a council-by-counsel basis. That will allow councils to work with the enterprise agencies to address the loss of high-value jobs and to identify opportunities to diversify, for example, from offshore oil and gas to marine renewable energy areas in which work has already been done. Loss of high-value jobs is most critical, of course, in parts of the country where low-paid jobs are more prevalent. Within the north-east, hundreds of jobs are set to go at Young's Infraseable, and many of those affected by those job losses may struggle to find good-quality jobs in the local economy instead. Across the country, the growth in part-time jobs, zero-hour contracts and low-paid jobs affect disabled people in particular, women more than men and young people more than those over 25. Recent migrants are also more likely than average to be exploited, to be underemployed and to be underpaid. Of course, cracking down on criminal employment practices is essential, but it is only part of what is required. There is also a need to tackle employment practices that are lawful but dishonest, whether that is multinational corporations avoiding tax or businesses taking unfair advantage of zero-hour contracts. There also has to be positive support for positive employment practices. The next Scottish Government will have new powers and new opportunities to develop a system of social security to help people into meaningful employment, but there is no need to wait for new powers to take forward new initiatives. Ministers can do more to use the Scottish Government's purchasing power as leverage for promoting the living wage and to use existing procurement rules put in place by the previous Scottish executive to set a higher bar across the public sector. We need actions from ministers to promote positive employment policies, actions that can be taken now without waiting for the next draft of powers to be devolved from Westminster. We need urgent action now to address the impact of the all-jobs crisis across the Scottish economy before it is too late for the Government to make a difference. Many thanks. I now call on Christina McKelvie to be followed by Willie Rennie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Employment is fundamentally about empowerment, about having the right opportunities to enable you to fulfil your ambitions, make a decent income and to contribute to the overall prosperity throughout your life. Securing your life's ambition isn't really about getting the maximum number of people into any available work as quickly as possible. It's a time to think differently when we debate the employability landscape in Scotland today. I believe that we need to pull back from the immediate position and take a long, hard look at what Government can do, what civil society can contribute and how we can best develop the relationships between employers and employability. We are recognising this and the Scottish Government has made significant changes that contribute to positively impact upon those seeking entry into the workplace, learning new skills and developing them, continuing in and returning to education, plus the provision of apprenticeships and close attention to the equality agenda in terms of sex, disadvantaged people and those with disabilities. Presiding Officer, I am very proud to be one of the first MSPs in this place to be an accredited living wage employer. It wasn't that difficult, actually, already paid my staff the living wage, so it was quite easy to live up to that standard. I have spent a long time in my constituency through many forums encouraging other businesses and organisations to do exactly the same. A living wage is not only good for the recipients, it's good for the employers too. Evidence shows that sick leave is reduced, profits are enhanced and staff take pride in their work when they feel they are being paid properly. Employment levels are better than they have ever been in Scotland and we are now running above the rest of the UK. The number of young people not in employment and education is as low as since 2004 and the Scottish Government has committed £28.6 million between 2012 and 2016 to drive action on targets. We have shifted completely the narrative and the culture of doing down all of those young people. We don't use some of the very negative terms that we used to use. We use a much more positive view of describing our young people, talking them up, giving them the opportunity to tell them they can achieve, and that's the type of thing that I think we should be very, very proud of. We've also created modern apprentices across the piece dealing with some of the gender issues, but also dealing with minority ethnic communities and improving the positive destinations for looked-after children. However, Presiding Officer, and this is where I agree with Jackie Baillie, it doesn't happen that often, but that's where we can do more. We need more powers over-employment in this place to make the kind of changes that the people in Scotland need, a picking mix devolution Disney work, and while Governments will have some power, for example, over the work programme, we need a more complete portfolio to be able to act effectively. Although the work programme and work choices will be devolved, access to work won't be devolved for many people that need that extra one-to-one support or an extra piece of equipment to make their workplace more viable for them. That won't be devolved. That just seems stupid to me, ludicrous, that you wouldn't have that level of support being devolved with the work programme and work choices. We simply don't want to replicate all the problems and the barriers that existing models already have when we move forward. It's only possible for Scotland to meet the needs of its own workforce if we have that complete package of powers. So I asked the Labour Party and the spirit of the kind straight-talking politics to support the full devolution of employment laws and powers, and in addition, let's work together to completely and utterly reject the trade union bill in all its forms. The welfare reform committee over the past few weeks have heard from many organisations on issues of the work programme, and Lynne Williams, in her briefing to us all today, said that the failure of the current approach are changing demographic patterns and are politically advantageous times when we need to be bold. At the heart of this must be a reframing that focuses our attention on people's contribution to society rather than solely the ultimate goal of employment. We must also recognise that an individual's form of contribution or employability needs may change over time. Presiding Officer, we define work very rigidly. Is a mother-at-home with two small children working? Is someone looking after an elderly relative with dementia working? Is a volunteer in a charity shop working? Or a retired person who does some gardening for their neighbours? All of those people are working and contributing, yet we want to push everyone into the short-term goal of getting into work in the conventional way that is defined by the UK Government. Yet the mood has become intolerant. Society seems unwilling to accept that some people are not in a position to be able to work in the ordinary sense, but they are contributing in definable, cost-effective ways. Isn't it about time that we recognise that? Isn't it about time that we stop calling people benefits scroungers? Isn't it about time that we had a social security and a work programme system in Scotland that actually supported people? Presiding Officer, we all know that financial resources are limited, and we have no idea what George Osborne has got for his coming down the line. However, what we need to do is to grow from the single view of employment and start drawing on different kinds of work, different circumstances and different situations, and to build a more embracing economy as a result. Just plugging people into jobs really does not achieve that—square pegs in round holes. Burnados Scotland pointed out very clearly when they said that back-to-work programmes are failing to meet the needs of disadvantaged young people who are the furthest from the labour market. 68 per cent of young people returned to the job centre plus after two years on the work programme, having not found sustained work for six months. That is a key area where we have to look at. Presiding Officer, the work first approach does not offer those young people the support that they need. That support should be provided with Taylor services rather than simply relying on generic programmes. Finally, in my constituency, I have seen a hugely positive impact of some of the bespoke services that are delivered through lots of organisations, including Rathbone and South Lanarkshire Council. People's lives have been transformed, and I believe that a more structured service is what we need. The SNP, Presiding Officer, always argued that higher education should be about the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. Let's now apply the same criteria to employment resources based on capability, not always on pre-structured format of a one-size-fits-all, because it doesn't. Let's work together to give this place the power to make the difference, and then we might be able to encourage possible Labour Governments in the future to follow our plans. Thank you. I now call Willie Rennie to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Christina McKelvie was surprised that she agreed with Jackie Baillie on one thing. I'm surprised that I agreed with her on three things in that speech. That must be her first time ever. I think that that has ever happened. I agree with her when she says that employment is about empowerment, is about giving people the life chances to get up and get on and achieve more for them and their families. I think that it's about the combination of social justice and economic discipline that we need in order to create the jobs of the future, to give us the prosperity within our families, but also looking to our neighbours and our friends and communities to give them the opportunity to get up and get on as well. I'm surprised that I agree with Christina McKelvie also on a second point. I am also an accredited living wage employer as well. It wasn't that difficult because I was already doing it, but nevertheless it's important to show the way to other employers that they should also be looking to pay the living wage. Even though we are no longer in government, I don't wish to disassociate myself from the economic progress that I think we have made in the United Kingdom in recent years. We got the economy back on track with 175,000 extra jobs since 2010, 2.4 million private sector jobs in the UK as a whole, and 85 per cent of them in full-time employment. Now, with the United Kingdom, we've managed to compete with some of the best in the G7 group of countries. That is good progress, and the progress that we made was directly the result of some of the measures that we're taking. For instance, cutting tax for those on-load middle incomes to make work pay, creating the national insurance allowance to 2,000-pound national insurance allowance, which would help particularly smaller employers to take on more apprentices and other employees too. The deficit reduction programme also gave confidence to the wider economy and businesses that they thought Britain was a good place to do business. Combined with that, the lower rates of corporation tax that encourages business to employ more people here and recruit and grow their businesses in the United Kingdom. Although we're no longer in power, I think that there's a record there to stand on for the progress that we made in that period of government. I'm always amused when SNP ministers boast about the differentials between the employment growth in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In the next breath, they complain bitterly about the lack of economic powers for this place. I'm not sure how the two can be said in the same paragraph—how they can claim that all the progress is a result of their measures, yet they have no measures at all in order to make progress. Some squaring of that circle would be helpful from the SNP Government. We also need to look at some of the levers that they are currently not using in Scotland just now in order to try to advance the economy. One of the key ones that I still hear from small businesses in particular is on the procurement budget. The procurement budget is an enormous budget and it's an economic development tool that the Government should be utilising in order to encourage more smaller businesses to employ more people at a local level. The complexity of the system still drives out too many small businesses, and that's something that the Federation of Small Business agrees with. I would urge the Scottish Government—I know that we've had a procurement bill recently—but the system is still not working. Far too many businesses—small ones—find it particularly difficult to get access to that budget. That in itself could be a good economic generator for the local community and local economic development. Nursery education is something else that I'm particularly keen on. I think that in terms of expanding nursery education, not only helps people to get back to work but improves the life chances, particularly of those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The children getting that early education means that they've got a better chance in later life. Still, in Scotland, we lag behind the rest of the United Kingdom on the performance in that area. Colleges is the one big area that the Scottish Government could have a massive impact on improving the skills of young people. The older people seem to be excluded from the Government's plans with the emphasis on the younger age groups. Is the member aware that full-time students over 25 years of age at colleges have increased by 25 per cent since the year 2067? The minister again completely ignores the fact that there have been 140,000 places cut in Scottish colleges. They continue to deny the problem. They cannot keep on focusing on just one aspect of the courses at colleges—they need to look at the bigger whole. The reality is that they are only prepared to look at statistics that help their case. The reality is that the big problem is that we have 140,000 college places cut in Scotland. That is on the Scottish National Party's record. I urge the Scottish Government at last to finally change tack and to make good the cuts that they have posed on Scottish colleges. My final 30 seconds or so is just to put a little bit of warning to the Conservatives here. I urge them to try and persuade their Government to change tack on a number of different areas. I think that the impact that they are having on the Scottish renewable sector will impact on Scottish jobs. I think that the trade union bill is so misguided. It is trying to create divisions with the workforce that do not exist just now. The industrial record of the past few years has been a good one. It is like the Conservatives are intent on stirring up that with the trade union movement. I urge them to back down on that. Finally, on the European Union, I urge the Conservatives not to flirt with exit to the European Union. Above all else, that would have a dramatic effect on employment rates in Scotland. I think that we would all be poorer if we go anywhere near exit of the European Union. That is my final plea to the Conservatives today. I now call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Siobhan McMillan. I welcome the debate this afternoon and what is an important issue for the whole country. Employment and unemployment is everybody's business and every politician needs to treat the matter seriously. In the past, when we have had this debate and debated this particular issue, it has tended to be heated. I am sure that there has been one or two kind of contributions up to now that have had a bit of passion in it. However, I am sure that as we go on with the debate this afternoon, what has happened in the past will certainly be no different today. However, by the time that debate is over, I hope that we can all agree on a few points. Firstly, the Scottish employment rate is higher than any other UK nation at 74 per cent. Secondly, youth unemployment is now at its highest level since 2005 at 61 per cent. Thirdly, the number of people who are not in education employment or training is at its lowest level since 2004, and that is down to 21,000. Fourthly, improving educational attainment is crucial to improving the life chances of our population. Finally, there is always more that we can do. We have already heard about the labour market statistics across Scotland, and I believe that we should welcome the Labour force survey, which indicates that the Scottish employment rate is at 74 per cent and that it is also higher than the other nations in the UK. We have actually come through a tough economic period of time, so for the economy to be improving, albeit slowly, that ought to be welcomed. I do not want to be in a position of the economy crashing and burning as it did in 2008. I do not think that anyone should want that to happen again. Sustainability and manufacturing are keys to moving the economy and the employment situation forward. I believe that the days of booming bust should now be long gone and should be a thing of the past. Last week, the Greenock Telegraph published an article entitled, Fear People Out of Work in Greenock. The story highlighted that unemployment in Greenock is going down, but it is increasing slightly in Port Glasgow. There will be many factors for the slight increase, but I am hopeful that the Port Glasgow figures will soon join the Greenock figures, as the Ferguson Marine Limited in Port Glasgow starts to build for the future. As members know, the Ferguson Marine Limited has been awarded the preferred bidder status for the £97 million order for the two seamal ferries. The seamal ferries have an ambitious set of proposals and plans for the yard. They have an initial £12 million investment for yard expansion and plans to grow the yard to approximately 1,300 skilled workers by 2020. That will include a total of 150 to 30 apprentices per year up to 2020. The current seamal contracts for the two ferries will allow the yard to expand to around 400 workers. Although not affecting the current production capabilities, the facility that they are building will be capable of building four to six seamalerships at the same time, as well as having additional capacity for specialised offshore fabrication and renewables. That is planned to be ready by May of next year. When members in the chamber think back to the summer of 2014 when Ferguson's went into administration, we really have to admire the hugely ambitious plans for the yard for Port Glasgow and also for Inverclyde. In one year, Ferguson Marine has went from having seven people to 157 at the moment, including 15 apprentices for this particular year. A further positive about the yard is the payment of the living wage. With the exception of the apprentices who begin on the living wage, they are currently paying all their employees well above the living wage. Management was not aware of the living wage accreditation scheme until I mentioned it to them, so they are now looking into that particular scheme so that they can actually introduce it for the yard. The training that will be in offer will be first class and the reindustrialisation of the lower Clyde is now beginning. I am sure that MSPs representing the town in the future will receive complaints of the noise coming from the yard. If I am around that time, I will be delighted because I know that many people are working at building ships and contributing to the town and also to the economy. I realise that I have focused my latter remarks on one company and that was deliberate. As I mentioned, from seven employees last summer to 157 now, to then grow to up to 400 if the two Sea of Alferries is ratified, and then with a target of 1,300, this yard can play a huge part in reducing unemployment in Port Glasgow and also Inverclyde and the west of Scotland. It can only help with training and with the whole economy. However, just before the yard closed last year, it had one female apprentice out of six. That was the first female apprentice on the tools to do that particular aspect of the job. It still has one female apprentice, but the new owners want more. They want both sexes to consider shipbuilding as a career choice. Earlier on, Jackie Baillie spoke of jobs for the future, but unfortunately she did not mention the industrial trades. If Jackie Baillie does not think that shipbuilding is a job for the future, I am disappointed with that. However, today's debate has not really surprised me in terms of the content from all sides of the debate, but it has not really been as heated in some aspects. However, any politician who thinks that we have got nothing more to do is deluded. However, anybody who talks down the achievements of the last few quarters, I would argue that he does himself and Scotland down as well. I will be supporting the amendment in the chamber. I urge all colleagues in the chamber to do so as well. We in the Labour Party recognise the importance of having a growing and vibrant economy, but it matters little if we do not foster this growth to benefit the everyday lives of our constituents. Part of our motion before Parliament today focuses on the powers coming to Scotland, with power over the work programme and other areas of welfare. We are presented with a real opportunity to offer help to the most vulnerable in our society. We can show a better and more compassionate way of helping people into the workforce. The starting assumption of any of all work programmes should be that the vast majority of people want to work. Currently, the funding structure of the programme does not take into account the amount of progress that job seekers have made. That can be particularly problematic when seeking help for people with mental health conditions. That has led to service providers negating the needs of unemployed people with complex conditions and focusing on so-called easier cases. We needed a programme structured in such a way that it does not simply come down to a question of, are they in work? Providers should be incentivised to work with all those on the programme and to help them reach their aspirations. That person-centred approach to welfare has been shown to be more successful in the past than the current Government work programme for those who require additional support. Work choice was specifically designed to help disabled people back into work and its success outstrips that of the work programme. In the Scottish Association for Mental Health's own Work Choice programme, 38 per cent of their stats achieved job outcomes compared to just 21 per cent for the work programme. That shows the merits of not only a person-centred approach but also of including specialist groups who have experience of working with specific groups when seeking to bring people into the workforce. The example of Sam H is a good one. They have delivered an employment support model for those with mental health conditions that have delivered high success rates and low costs. However, as of May, their programme was not available through the work programme. By drawing on expertise and showing the compassion for those in need that I am sure is shared across party lines, we can find a better way of doing things. Our motion also mentions support for devolving the work programme to local authorities. As an MSP for Central Scotland, I can attest to the positive programmes in place across council areas of Falkirk, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire, which are helping people back into work. Programmes such as North Lanarkshire Working have shown positive results and really demonstrated the merits of trusting our local authorities to meet the needs of their areas. During the summer recess, I had the opportunity to visit successful employment programmes in Central Scotland, namely Roots to Work in North Lanarkshire and the new future employability and training centre in Falkirk, run by the Salvation Army. Those types of initiatives have a proven track record when it comes to delivering employment opportunities in our communities. Since August 2014, the Salvation Army in Falkirk has delivered 335 courses, and out of the 925 registrations, nearly 200 service users have moved into employment. Roots to Work, and not-for-profit social enterprise since late 2002, have supported upwards of 30,000 local residents to progress their employability aspirations, and have assisted more than 13,000 local residents into work. Around 1,500 of those in the operational year ended 31 March 2015. Members from across Scotland will have similar examples of good practice with regard to employment services. It is vital that we use those services in order to move away from the DWP model of employability service and move to a more person-centred, caring-centred approach. Of course, employment does not solve all problems. That in-work poverty is increasing will be of concern across the chamber today, and I do not doubt the sincerity of members' commitment from all sides to tackling it. We must acknowledge that while work can be the best way to lift people out of poverty, employment is by no means a guaranteed route from it. According to the Living Wage Commission, 66 per cent of children living in poverty are found in households with at least one adult in work. According to the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in 2014, 200,000 Scottish children living in poverty equating to 20 per cent of all children. That is why it is so important to ensure that the jobs that we create are secure and pay a decent wage. Earlier this year, the Office of National Statistics released a report entitled, poverty and employment transitions in the UK and EU 2007-2012, which demonstrated 70 per cent of those escaping in work poverty only did so after their hourly rate of pay was increased. Our motion today rightly welcomes some of the Scottish Government's efforts in promoting the living wage. However, as colleagues have stated, the Government does not have a particular stellar record on this matter. They voted down our proposals to make paying the living wage a requirement of those companies seeking public sector contracts. Proposals that would have really benefited the poorest staff working on contracts from this Parliament. We should continue to recognise the efforts of groups such as the poverty alliance and trade unions such as my own GMB in this area. However, it is so important for us as parliamentarians to consider how we can most effectively assist them. I hope that the Government takes the opportunity to think again on this issue and to consider how they can utilise the power of this Parliament to promote and to pay the living wage. I wonder if the member would accept that we have consistently had advice from the European Union that we cannot enforce the living wage. I will not accept that, because I have consistently said in this chamber in many of debates through employment the advice that I have been given through other solicitors and through trade unions solicitors that we can do this. It is about action, it is about the Government taking the lead on something and taking it on many other issues that it did not have legal advice on and thought that it was the right thing to do. Why not do it in the living wage? In closing, I would like to return to my original point. Broadly speaking, growth benefits all sectors of our society. However, it does not benefit all sectors equally. Our poorest communities do not see or thrive in Scotland when they hear that this percentage point is up or that figure is looking better. Those in work only know that their wages in work are low and stagnating, and those out-of-work only know that they are not receiving the help that they require to get back into the workplace. Of course, the Government has taken some steps to alleviate the problems that I have mentioned and we welcome them, but they can and should do so much more. I would like to start by addressing the point that has just been raised about the living wage in public contracts. In the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, we went to Labour-controlled Renfrewshire Council last week to discuss how they were encouraging home care workers to pay the living wage through negotiation. Their head of procurement was very specific. She said that we cannot legally mandate the living wage. That is why they were negotiating with those employers and that is a Labour council. I will give way in a minute. I would also add that the Welsh-controlled Labour Assembly have taken legal advice that shows that they cannot put it into their contracts, as has the Labour-controlled council in Glasgow and West Lothian. Ms Bailey, I am sorry, but could you put your card in? It is not in properly. I am still my thunder, but, nevertheless, is it not the case that Renfrewshire would have also said to you that that was advice received from the Scottish Government? No, they did not say that. They said that the head of procurement was very specific, that they could not legally mandate the living wage. That is also the view, as I said before, of the Welsh Assembly controlled by Labour, which I do not think takes advice from the Scottish Government. My colleague John Mason put it to Jackie Baillie that the IFS figures showed that Labour, from 1997 to 2010, when it had full control, it had all the tools in the box to tackle income inequality and income inequality increased in that time and, in reply, she said that she would prefer to look forward rather than back. I am not surprised that she does not want to look back, because Labour's record is so poor in that regard. Between 1997 and 2010, when Labour had the opportunity to tackle inequality and improve workers' rights, it failed to do so. It set the minimum wage far too low when it introduced it. I would like to quote from the veteran Labour MP Michael Meacher, who explained why in his blog. He said that the minimum wage is never meant to be as low as it is. The original intention of Rodney Beckerstaff, the former general secretary of unison and the main architect of its introduction in 1998, was that it should be fixed at half the male median wage and then progressively raised to two thirds. It did not happen. Blair appointed a low-pay commission headed by a CBI bigwig in order to ensure that it started far too low a level at £3.60. It has never been increased at a rate slightly above the rise in average wages, as was intended. The economy committee has taken a lot of evidence that, as well as Government regulation, the way that it improves paying conditions and workplaces is by encouraging trade union organisations all the time that Labour was in power, it did not reverse one single anti-trade union law by the Tories. For Jackie Baillie to come to the chamber and start lecturing the Scottish Government on what it can do with very limited tools, is really a bit of a cheek when you look at what it failed to do when it had all the tools. You do not have to look back very far to see Labour failing to grasp the opportunity. You do not have to look back to the days of Tony Blair. As the cabinet secretary previously pointed out, Labour had the opportunity to get powers over the minimum wage and employment law and working benefits into the hands of the Parliament, which is what trade unions and anti-poverty charities called for. That was what they called for in the Smith commission. I can quote from the statement that was put out by Unite in response to the commission the day that it came out. Unite firmly believes that key arguments made by trade unions to tackle income and workplace inequalities have been largely ignored. Unite's secretary, Pat Rafferty, said that we would have wanted more definitive powers over employment law, including the power to replace the statutory minimum wage with the Scottish living wage, and that commission is a missed opportunity. It is not too late to change that, as the cabinet secretary said. The opportunity was missed because Labour preferred to leave the powers in the hands of the Tories, but, even under Jeremy Corbyn's supposedly shining new leadership, I have still yet to hear a single proposal from Labour to undo the mistakes that it made in the Smith commission. Why is that? If Labour really wants to look to the future, it has the chance to show that they have changed and show that they have changed in Scotland, they would call for a change in these powers. No, I have not got very much time left, I am sorry. The Scottish Government does not have all the tools to tackle and work poverty, as we would like, but, as has been outlined by colleagues, it has clearly made a very powerful statement in the appointment of a cabinet secretary for fair work that this is a priority. It makes a very powerful statement, as does the establishment of the convention. I note the other evidence to the EET committee this morning by Dr John McGurk of CIPD Scotland. I praise the Scottish Government's initiative and I also unite, rather shall I say, Unison's witness, Dave Watson to the committee. I had seen the regulations that the cabinet secretary mentioned in terms of public procurement, and I have to say that he seemed very pleased with those regulations, the draft regulations, and seemed to think that they were strong. It is really a matter of making sure that they are properly enforced, and I think that everybody in this chamber would support that. Thank you. Before we move on, I would advise the chamber to have a little bit of time in hand if members wish to take interventions, however that is a matter for them. Ian Gray to be followed by Mark McDonald. I am not often accused—excuse me—of being a ray of sunshine, but after that six minutes of utter misery, I do think that I have some remarks to make, which will be a beacon of consensus and positivity. I am sorry, we cannot hear you, Mr Gray, perhaps you could move the microphone. I will exactly. On this side of the house, as Lewis MacDonald made clear, we are always keen to debate what we can do in terms of employment, the clues and the title of our party and the opportunity through work to create a full and fulfilling life for oneself and one's family is at the very heart of what we stand for, but it is an opportune moment to be debating employment because we face a number of real, significant opportunities now around which I think there is a degree of consensus, and most of those have come up in one form or another in the course of the debate. There is the devolution of the work programme and work choices through Smith and the Scotland Act, which is followed. There is the Wood report and then a degree of consensus around closing the attainment gap being a priority for this Parliament and indeed for the Scottish Government. All three of those are opportunities that are there for us if we can grasp them in order to create a better future for particularly young people in Scotland. First, in terms of the devolution of the work programme, the important thing that I think about is the degree to which we are prepared to devolve it. We are very clear that a devolution of the work programme simply to a Scottish national level is not enough and that whatever replaces it must be delivered at a local level, we suggest that it is led by local authorities and there may be other views. However, that is simply because of something that Siobhan McMahon spoke eloquently on and that is that when it comes to helping people into work, the more individualised and personalised that support can be, the more effective it is likely to be and it is the case that during the work choice programme for example, which is rather better than the work programme itself, it has something like a 40 per cent success rate even with those who are disabled and therefore further than many others from the labour market compared to around 15 per cent for those who find themselves rather in the work programme and that is because of the personalised nature of the support that they get. Simply at that local level, it is easier to find a way to pull together the efforts of all the necessary partners, schools, colleges, higher education sector, the voluntary sector and projects that many colleagues have spoken about as well. For example, from my constituency would be the highly successful academies programme, which works between schools in East Lothian, Queen Margaret University and Edinburgh College. It also allows support to be sensitive to the labour market. An example of that would be in East Lothian again, where we face the construction of 10,000 houses in the county and the council and Edinburgh College working together are putting in place a construction academy so that local young people can get the benefit of that. Indeed, earlier this year, a report from the co-operative council's innovation network suggested that local delivery of the work programme in the UK could save as much as £500 million, because it is more effective and more efficient. Therefore, we must be prepared for that further degree of devolution. Of course, many of those partners, too, are working to implement the wood report. That, too, is another great opportunity. In my view, it is an opportunity not just to do something small but to do something big. If the wood report leads to, for example, each secondary school in Scotland with a partnership with their nearest college, to my mind that is simply not enough. That is actually an opportunity to reinvent the whole senior phase of school, build it alongside our colleges and create many more new individual pathways for young people to find the skills that they would need and which will stand them in good stead in future employment. We must not lose sight in implementing wood of the role of business, who, frankly, too often complain about the quality of skills and employability in young people leaving our schools and colleges, but do not do enough to try and help to change that. It is the case that only 27 per cent of employers offer any work experience at all, and such as is offered tends to be of a relatively low quality. That is an experience that many more. In fact, all of our young people must have as the norm rather than something exceptional or extra. Finally, of course, we have to recognise the fact that, if there is a gap in attainment and achievement at the age of five by the time a child goes to school, how much more difficult is it going to be at 16, 17 or 18 to ask any of those agencies to work with those furthest from achievement and attainment and the labour market to try and put that right? That is why closing the attainment gap is such an important part of that as well. My message in all of those opportunities is that we dare not be half-hearted about it. We have made clear and Jackie Baillie made clear again today that £25 million a year towards cutting the attainment gap is simply not enough in our view. We have suggested that increasing that investment is more important than, for example, cutting air passenger duty or avoiding the reintroduction of a 50p tax rate. Those are investments that we simply must be prepared to make if we are going to seize the opportunities that we have now to provide a better future for our young people in particular. Jackie Baillie summed it up well, I think, when she said, what we need here is boldness and big thinking. If we do that, we can ensure that this is a country in a nation in which no one is left behind. I now call Mark McDonald to be followed by John Mason. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This coming Monday, I will have the pleasure of presenting the awards to 119 modern apprentices who have completed their learning at IPCA training in my constituency in disciplines, including mechanical engineering, fabrication, welding, business and administration and logistics operation management. I think that the commitment of this Government to modern apprenticeships goes without saying, given the fact that we are now seeing 25,000 per annum being delivered—in fact, more than that target being delivered—with a new target of 30,000 by 2020. If you look within those figures, 80 per cent of modern apprenticeship starts in 2014-15 were aged 16 to 24, so it is predominantly young people being given those opportunities to develop skills and access employment. Locally, as well on Aberdeen, the press and journal newspaper has launched a 100 apprentices in 100 days campaign. I was advised by IPCA training that they are about to graduate 119 in one day, but I think that the 100 apprentices in 100 days is an important campaign because it is about highlighting the value of apprenticeships across the economy of the north-east of Scotland and giving companies the opportunity to reflect on what they can do to support more young people through apprenticeship opportunities. Beyond that, one of the views that is often held about the north-east of Scotland is that it is an area of high employment and low unemployment, and the statistics bear that out. However, those individuals in the north-east of Scotland still require support to access employment opportunities, and often one of the difficulties in the past. Still, to some extent, current created by having a buoyant industry that can afford to pay a higher rate than other sectors is that some of those sectors face difficulties in recruiting. Over the past couple of years, I have held two jobs fairs in the constituency, one that was a more general jobs fair that had employers from across a range of different sectors, and one just last week that was focused specifically on the care sector. The care sector has been mentioned a lot in today's debate, and what was interesting was the differential in terms of attendance at those two events. Although there were still attendances at both events and organisations who attended were positive about the events, it was noticeable that there was less of an attendance at the jobs fair specifically related to the care sector. Part of that comes down to a perception issue that exists, which I think that we need to have some careful consideration about how we get around that, about the kind of work and quality of work that is available within the care sector, often a misperception and a misconception about what working in the care sector involves. There is perhaps a job of work to be done to ensure that those sectors are given the opportunity to promote the very valuable work that is available within them and the strong opportunities that exist. I have met local companies to discuss living wage accreditation. I hear from my colleagues about their efforts to become accredited living wage employers, and I would better get my act together on that and lead by example, so I would better get myself accredited as a living wage employer. However, one of the things that I noted from a parliamentary answer that was received from the Scottish Government is that, although absolutely fantastic that we have so many accredited living wage employers, if you look at the percentage of the population who are assumed to be being paid above the living wage, there are so many more companies out there who are paying their employees above the living wage, but have not yet taken that step to become accredited living wage employers. I think that one of the things that I want to seek to do is to try and promote to those companies the benefits that come from becoming an accredited living wage employer and the message that that sends out to both the workforce now and the potential future workforce for those companies. In terms of the other issues pertaining to employment in the north-east, one of the issues that has been spoken about is the wood commission report, the developing young workforce. Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland has been an early adopter in that area and the developing young workforce team is being led by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, alongside Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire councils and North East Scotland College. That work is designed specifically to look at how we make easier the transitions for young people through the education system into the workforce. I am very much looking at the kind of approaches that Ian Gray was highlighting. I do not think that we would necessarily be reinventing the wheel. A lot of council areas are looking very carefully at the senior phase of school and how that can be perhaps redesigned in order to better complement what young people will go on to both in terms of further but also higher education as well in trying to make those transitions and those links a little bit more seamless. One of the other areas in which we face a difficulty in the north-east of Scotland is around the teaching workforce. There is obviously a teaching summit taking place today to talk about how we can attract more teachers to come and locate in the north-east of Scotland. One of the areas where perhaps we could look is through the work of the energy jobs task force that is currently being done because there will probably be a number of individuals among those in the oil and gas sector who are currently facing potential of redundancy who will have STEM graduate qualifications who may be suitable for retraining into the teaching profession and could then take on some of those STEM teaching roles which are currently proving difficult to fill in the north-east of Scotland. Again, I do not think that it takes too much of a I say I am beyond six minutes but I will be at the Presiding Officers. I could give you a little bit of time back if you wish to take an intervention. I am happy to take the intervention from Ian Gray on that. I agree with the idea of trying to get people to retrain as STEM teachers but it remains the case that if somebody chooses to retrain as a physics teacher in England, they will receive £25,000 in a tax-free bursary. That is not available in Scotland, would it not be a good thing if it was? I think that committing to such things is way above my pay grade. I do think that we need to look very carefully at the opportunities that are made available for individuals to retrain in teaching because one of the things that often does put people off retraining is the possibility of a year without pay. How can we better transition in that area? Perhaps one of the ways that is being looked at by some local authorities is to offer part-time teacher training courses, which allow for people to do that training without having to give up work necessarily. There are a number of ways that we need to look at to improve the uptake of teacher training. I will leave it at that, Presiding Officer. There were a couple of points raised in the debate which I think probably merit some closer examination in terms of what some of the allegations that the Opposition is making, but on the whole it has been a fairly consensual debate and I would hate to ruin that tone. All I will say is that I think that the Scottish Government should be commended for the work that it is doing around apprenticeships, around the living wage, and I think that we do have to talk up more the work that is being done to boost both employment opportunities and also employment performance in Scotland. Thank you. I now call John Mason to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I have to say that I'm very pleased that we're able to debate employment today. The Labour motion covers a lot of ground and we've covered a lot in the debate so far and makes a number of points which I think I and many others would be able to agree with, but I just want to focus on some of those points this afternoon. In the motion early on it talks about the benefits of economic growth, improving the lives of working people and reducing inequalities. For me that is absolutely a key theme that I do completely agree with. Where I slightly less agree is the previous line talking about the Scottish Government must ensure, because frankly I do not believe that the Scottish Government has the ability and the powers to ensure, if we take that word literally. Let us remember that most of the levers over the economy and redistribution continue to lie at Westminster. As I suggested in my intervention, let us remember that from 97 to 2010, inequality in the UK, as measured by the Gini coefficient, grew to the highest point since the 1970s. Especially in Labour's third term, there was a sharp rise in income inequality as well as a fallen income of the poorest fifth of the population. Again, in the motion we have a mention of inward poverty and we also have a mention of the living wage. Again, that is an absolutely key area as far as I am concerned. If people are working and are not earning enough for them and their families to live on, there has to be something fundamentally wrong. Every employer has a moral duty to pay their employees sufficient wages for them to live on. Certainly, in my opinion, that also needs to be a legal duty or it will not work. The voluntary living wage is okay up to a point and I welcome it being rolled out as much as possible. However, it is always limited by the fact that it is voluntary. The statutory minimum wage is the long-term sustainable answer and it should at least be at the level of the living wage, currently £7.85 per hour. I have to say that I have some sympathy for smaller employers who are struggling and are not sure if they can afford to pay the living wage to every single employee, including the owner. We can look at targeted support for the likes of them, like the small business bonus. However, I have no sympathy for large, profitable companies who pay their chief executives several million pounds but who do not pay their staff enough to live on. Most members are familiar with the book The Spirit Level, which has often been mentioned in debates here in this chamber, which argues that more equal societies do better as a whole than do less equal societies. On Friday evening, I had the privilege to see a new film, The Divide, which is inspired by the book The Spirit Level and directed by Catherine Round, and she was there herself taking questions at the end of the film. It was really impressed by it and I very much hope that we can get to show it at some stage here in the Parliament. Whereas the book goes into a lot of the facts and figures and can be a bit heavy going, the film very much focuses on seven real-life individual stories. Primarily, those stories come from the United States, from England and one from Scotland. Just to give you a flavour, three of the stories, one is an American woman who worked for Walmart, which she said had previously been quite a good employer and looked after their staff, but policies had changed and the pressure on the staff had become greater and greater. She was heavily in debt, very stressed out and on the verge of being evicted from her very modest home. Secondly, another American woman worked for Kentucky Fried Chicken, and she had turned her life around from clearly an earlier life, which had been somewhat messed up, so she was working regularly, solid hours, pretty pressurised job again, heavily in debt, and she spoke about how all that pressure encouraged her into alcohol and to get a break from the struggle that she was going through. The third one, I would mention again the care sector, which Mark McDonald and others have mentioned, was based in England, doing an incredibly important job visiting very, very vulnerable people but under huge pressure and not well paid. For all three of those, their work and their income was absolutely central to how their lives were going. The stress that they were all going through and some, frankly, of the resulting addiction problems were very much linked to their low income. That leaves me asking myself, is it possible for Governments to reduce the disparity between high and low paid, especially in the private sector? Or is that just the way markets work? The best solution would be if people were not so greedy and self-centred, so even if a business does well, it is not just those at the top who benefit by increasing their pay. However, if that is not likely to happen, and I suspect that it is not happening, it clearly is not happening, then surely some kind of cap on top wages has to be considered. The argument against that tends to be that we need the best person to run our company, or the best person to run our council, or whatever it is. Yet clearly the best people have not been running the banks in 2008 and the best people have not been running Volkswagen in 2015. They may have been technically able, but they certainly were not the wisest people, the most prudent people, the most honest people or the people who took the longest term view, all of which strike me as important attributes both for individual organisations and for the good of the whole economy. Now, just as there is no such thing as victimless crime, I believe that there is no such thing as victimless high pay. If we just think of a few figures, if one person earns £1 million when they could perfectly well get by on £200,000, what is happening with that extra £800,000? That is being taken away from people who deserved it. That could have been 80 employees who were paid £10,000 each more, or it could have been 40 people who didn't even have a job being employed at £20,000 each. It seems to me that the two are very much linked. Going back to the film The Divide, it also interviewed better-off people as well as less-off people. In America, that tended to focus on some of the gated communities where people paid a lot for their homes, had security at the gates and apparently felt a lot safer. To be fair to those people, they came across as decent people who just wanted the best for their kids and their families. For many of them, it just does not seem to cross their minds that they were taking too much from the system and, as a result, others were getting too little. For me, that proves that the free market is not working. We as a Parliament and Parliament more generally have a responsibility to work to ensure a fairer sharing out of the rewards of employment, and in passing that includes the developing world as well. It should come as no surprise to us if that does not happen that people come here from other countries. There is enough money, I believe, for full employment. There is enough money for decent wages for every person, but it is how it is shared out that is the problem. Today, I want to speak in support of Jackie Baillie's motion and explore three employment issues, all of which merit further help by the Scottish Government and action by colleges, universities and employers. The first is in the context of the just transition for workers and communities to the shift to a low-carbon economy, that of action to support this transition. Last night, I was delighted to attend a reception for Scotland's colleges, Hosebyn Gray. There I met lecturers, student apprentices and a local employer, who is a plumber's merchant. The collective enthusiasm of this partnership, working to take forward the opportunities offered by emerging renewable technologies, was palpable. Initially, those courses were financially supported by EU money from the Crest funding stream, which I had never heard of until last night. Transferrable skills courses are also being offered in solar thermal systems, heat pump systems and biomass installation and maintenance, all for experienced engineers. All of those will, at least, enable engineers to offer new techs to off-grid domestic customers tackling fuel poverty and bring local employment to remote rural Dumfries and Galloway. A significant support has been through the energy skills partnership. Can the cabinet secretary tell the chamber in her closing remarks how much this excellent initiative is spread out across Scotland and is being developed and what plans there are to support it in the future? In the urban context, yesterday I was at the launch of the Edinburgh Solar Cooperative Share Offer. In a recent speech on Scotland's agriculture, I asked the Scottish Government about its commitment to developing co-operative models, and they are equally relevant to the energy sectors and across the sectors. That is a really exciting adventure in co-operative working. In partnership with Edinburgh City Council, which is a co-operative council incidentally, with strong community involvement, the co-op has secured space and planning permission on 25 municipal roofs just in time before the ill-fated and badly thought-out Tory axing of the UK wide fits arrangements for solar. This co-op will bring local jobs and, equally importantly, a vision that is a fine model for other local authorities and communities. The connection with Garmure primary school is also significant. There is a school project there, linked with the co-op launch through which pupils have made models of their renewable inventions, a solar-powered bike and a pair of solar-powered trainers—something that I could well do with—to make you go faster, to be used in caution in combination with a solar-powered mowing machine. There are many budding inventors, designers and manufacturers there and across Scotland, both girls and boys, at the primary school level. I will now turn to the support for women, which Jackie Baillie particularly emphasised in both the motion and her speech. For this section of the labour market, it is so important that we have high-skill jobs in renewables and in other sectors that women can be trained for and can go into. Developing a renewable sector is a significant opportunity to stabilise their gender imbalance. Without the barrier of entrenched inequality in a long-standing industry, women are making a valuable contribution to ensuring that our emerging renewables industry is globally competitive. I was pleased to see that the Scottish Government had committed to ensuring policy delivery is adapted to helping women to reach their full potential in these roles. Continued research and monitoring is essential and key to a fair funding and skills development opportunity for women, particularly women in rural areas starting their own businesses or community energy projects. Another difficult transition finally is that the Scottish Government must continue to consider an act on, with great care, is that of looked after teens and young people leaving care. The Children and Young Persons Act of 2014, as we all know, entitles young people to support now up to the age of 26 in some circumstances and was a considerable step towards providing the stability so valuable in moving towards an independent life. On entering the labour market, as we all know that we must keep on remembering, care leavers face a number of irrefutably linked barriers which must be tackled. Poor attainment and higher exclusion rates from school, homelessness sometimes, mental health problems are all more prevalent amongst those leaving or in care. Those barriers, along with the stigma of care itself, which can be very much affecting self-esteem, mean that young people need flexible and holistic support in sustaining training and stable employment. Without a continuum of support, looked after young people are additionally at risk of sinking into a cycle of offending. Sadly, in 2009, the latest figures that I could find, 50 per cent of prisoners in Scotland identified as having been in care at some point in their life. Securing employment that is considerate of a person's individual circumstances can be stabilising and a motivating force, and they need support to maintain that. We as corporate parents owe it to those disadvantaged from the start to address those issues. As the Scottish Government work programme consults on the devolved work programme, the Scottish Government does, I urge the cabinet secretary to consider tailoring an approach for vulnerable young people. Currently, 68 per cent of all young people returned to the job centre plus after two years on the work programme, and I thank Barnardo's for their valuable briefing and hope that the Scottish Government will take that into account. Bear in mind the other comments from Labour today about supporting individual needs at a local level, as Ian Gray stressed. Finally, in relation to Jackie Baillie's argument about in-work poverty, the national performance framework must be used to judge what the economic recovery really means for working people. The Scottish Government continues to fail to build the economy for the many, really tackling inequality for the people of Scotland. We need clear action by the Scottish Government now. I thank the Labour Party for bringing this debate to the chamber today. Scotland, like the rest of the UK, felt the effects of the recession and its welcoming opportunity to discuss Scotland and the Government's progress on improving employment. As it stands, Scotland has the highest employment rate at 74 per cent and the highest out of the four nations of the United Kingdom. The Labour motion states that this is 0.9 per cent below the pre-recession levels. However, every nation felt the effects of the recession and for Scotland to be half a per cent higher than the UK average and 2.8 per cent higher than Labour-run Wales. We are making good progress indeed. One group of people feeling the effects of the improvements is our young people, where the youth employment rate is at its highest since 2005 at 61 per cent, a staggering 7.2 per cent higher than the UK average. Equally, the number of neat 16 to 19-year-olds in 2014 was 21,000 down 8,000 over the year and the lowest level of neat since comparable figures began in 2004. Paying the living wage is the core commitment of the Scottish business pledge. A partnership between Government and business to promote shared ambitions of fairness, equality and sustainability economic growth. Signing the pledge is far beyond the signing of a piece of paper with empty promises like the better together vow. Businesses that sign the pledge demonstrate their commitment to the values of the pledge and to deliver through actions and future plans. Such actions are like not employing people on exploitative zero hours contracts and paying the living wage. They must also meet two other pledge elements such as investing in youth and making progress on diversity and gender balance and further show a longer-term commitment to meet a further five elements of the pledge. Over 100 Scottish businesses have signed the pledge and the commitment to signing up to this living wage does not end with the private sector. Since 2007, the Scottish Government has required bodies subject to its pay policy to pay at least the living wage. That is just part of the Scottish Government's commitment to promote the living wage and equally commit to having 500 Scottish living wage accrediting employers by 2016. Furthermore, the Scottish Government has worked with the poverty alliance and the living wage foundation to explore models to boost public and third sector uptake of the living wage accreditation. As it stands, there are 300 accredited wage employers in Scotland. That represents just fewer than 18 per cent or so of the 1,700 such employers across the UK well above Scotland's population share. Of course, the Scottish Government itself, becoming a living wage employer on 3 June 2015, is certainly a record that we should be proud of. Labour must believe that rabbits really do come out of hats on the same thinking, believes that Scottish Government is invincible beyond scrutiny and above the law. Labour welcomes the progress in promoting the living wage in the private sector, but believes that the full weight of the Scottish Government should be behind this effort, which, from what I have stated, the Scottish Government certainly is. However, Labour wants the effort included through procurement. I am sorry to tell Labour that this Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government is not invincible and cannot do what it wishes. We are subject, like the rest of the UK, to EU law, and the current law means that it is not possible for the Scottish Government to require contractors to pay the living wage. However, I must be feeling a bit unwell this afternoon, as I am again welcoming another statement that Labour has stated in its motion, that the foundation of Scotland's economic strategy must be a successful education policy, and I certainly agree with that. The Scottish Government also understands this, committing 1.5 million per year in the Read, Write, Count campaign to encourage parents and families to help children in primary 1 to 3 to improve their literacy and numeracy skills. 100 million investment in the attainment Scotland fund over four years, of which just 1 million in the first year and rising to 1.3 million in the second year. I am pleased to say that it is going to schools in Weston-Bartonshire, which covers Clydebank in my constituency. The fact that the Scottish attainment of challenges targeting primary schools in Scotland's most disadvantaged communities is a clear commitment from the Scottish Government to reduce the inequality gap in our communities and the importance that it is placing on education to improve the economy. My colleagues before me have outlined, in addition to my own, many more positive statistics, wide-ranging programmes and measures that have been put in place to create and secure jobs. I wish to commend the Scottish Government for its efforts and commitment to improving Scotland's educational attainment employment and overall the economy. I wish to commend the Cabinet Secretary's amendment to the Parliament today. Many thanks. We now turn to closing speeches. I also thank the Labour Party for using their debating time to discuss employment. I would like to put on the record the excellent reception that Ian Gray hosted last night for colleges Scotland. It was barely room to move, but it was wonderful to go round and see the excellent work that is done by those colleges. In particular, West Highland College, I attended their graduation last week, based in Fort William, 10 outreach centres from Portree to Ullipool, etc. It is a tremendously successful college. To be honest, the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP can all take credit for the success of that college, so let us not battle amongst us all. We all played a part in the success of West Highland. Apart from some notable exceptions—predictable and notable exceptions—the debate has been very positive and constructive. I particularly thought that Lewis MacDonald and Mark MacDonald made very good points relating to the oil industry. I think that more needs to be thought. We need to be thinking forward and thinking for the future of that important industry. We can agree with Labour when the Scottish Government must ensure that the benefits of economic growth prove the lives of working people and that the nationalist Government can be more ambitious in improving employment and economic performance. To be honest, the statistical difference across the UK is not huge, and I will not be looking at that too much. The main point is that there is positive economic growth thanks to the UK Government, which has taken tough decisions to get our economy back on track. GDP is more than 1 per cent above the European average. Unemployment is at 5.5 per cent, and half the European average. We compare very favourably against all the major trading nations in the EU. Our OECD has predicted that we will be the fastest-growing economy this year. The public sector borrowing requirement, which was over 10 per cent of GDP, is now half. That has not just been done through efficiency savings and reform. It has also been done by tackling fraud, error and uncollected debt. We should all welcome that and the fact that there is more to do. The structural deficit in 2010 is £150 billion down to almost half this year. In order to reduce debt repayments, we need to tackle the structural deficit that way. More money can be spent on public services. We can all agree on that, rather than on the interest to service our growing debt. The Labour motion also mentions the work programme, and many speakers have mentioned it. However, the Scotland Bill's devolution of the work programme will give the Parliament the flexibility to change and adapt the framework of support for long-term unemployed. However, what matters is not necessarily devolving the work programme further to local authorities. However, local authorities and the Scottish Government can work together with bodies such as Skills Development Scotland and others promoting work at all levels of government, as well as harnessing local skills and knowledge. I listened to Roseanna Cunningham. I thought that she made a very good point on that. I hope that she continues to pursue the inclusive approach with all stakeholders in rolling out the work programme. I think that that was very positive. However, the main issue in the work programme is that it continues to succeed and it continues to provide up to two years of support for those people who are hard to reach. I would particularly relate to mental health. It is not just the case if you have a job that is us finished, deal done, job finished. People need support for up to two years when they are in the job, and I think that it is important that that continues as well. Promoting the living wage—I was pleased to hear just this morning—cost a coffee and morisans with 90,000 employees announced their commitment to paying staff above the living wage. I think that that is good for business and good for everyone, as Christina McKelvie said. Labour is also right to say that the foundation of Scotland's economic strategy must be education. It must also be a skills policy with workforce planning to ensure that opportunities in schools fit with places at college, university and apprenticeships, and that they in turn fit with the jobs market. With under-employment about 1 per cent higher in Scotland, more needs to be done to fit skills and qualifications to the jobs market. Annabelle Ewing mentioned to Willie Rennie about the figures that came from 2007. The figure of almost 150,000 loss in part-time places is an audit Scotland report. It is the time from 2008-9 to 13-14. This report is checked off by the Government. It is factually corrected by the Government if necessary, so there is no argument. It is 150,000 fewer part-time places, and for over 25, it is a 41 per cent cut, 74,000. A successful education policy should not just address inequality among students but also for lecturers. The SNP promised national pay bargaining for further education college lecturers following the merger process. It would be unacceptable for a teacher to be paid up to £5,000 less in salary for working in the highlands and islands, yet that is the case in colleges in the UHI network delivering further and higher education. The SNP made this promise with a £40 million price tag. They have had plenty of time to meet the promise, yet it appears that very little is happening. If the University of the Highlands and Islands, if the further education colleges want to continue to attract the best students and the best staff, surely it is reasonable for us to request that they are valued and they are remunerated for the wonderful innovative work that they do. We would not find it acceptable for a doctor, a nurse or a teacher in Shetland, Orkney-Western Isles to be paid £5,000 less than in Edinburgh. It should be the same for lecturers. I am getting a look from Presiding Officer, so I will wind up there. In this afternoon's debate, we have heard a range of views on a number of issues, many of which go beyond the scope of the fair work skills and training portfolio. Forgive me if I do not pick up on all those points, but I am sure that members, if they wish to pursue those points, will be taking them up with the relevant cabinet secretaries and ministers concerned. In setting out my closing remarks this afternoon, Presiding Officer, I thought that it would indeed be useful to put some emphasis on the context to the challenges that we face. Of course, there are challenges, but as has been said during the debate, the debate takes place against a backdrop of strong economic performance in Scotland. The latest state-of-the-economy report from the Scottish Government's chief economist highlights that the Scottish economy has now experienced 11 consecutive quarters of growth, its longest period of uninterrupted economic growth since 2001. I think that that demonstrates the underlying resilience of the Scottish economy against the continued difficult external and domestic challenges that we have seen during the period. As I stated in an intervention earlier, our employment rate is above that of the UK, while youth unemployment is at its lowest level since May, July 2008. Our performance also ranks favourably in a European context, with the second highest female employment rate and the third highest youth employment rate in the EU. Although I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the key issue of employment today in this debate and to highlight the challenges that we continue to face, I think that it would be instructive to place this discussion in the context of the improving picture for Scotland's economy. I listen carefully to Jackie Baillie's speech. I think that it was the Deputy First Minister in a similar speech that he made in the Scotland's economic strategy debate on 8 September, when he made the point that perhaps it took about six minutes or so in—I'm sure that Ms Baillie will remember before we got to a sort of positive outlook—I'm not entirely sure that we reached that moment of positivity in the 14 minutes today. Ms Baillie wanted to look back to the 1945 Labour manifesto, but I wondered if I could just finish my point. I wondered why perhaps Ms Baillie didn't want to look perhaps to the most recent manifesto, which, of course, was for the May 2015 Westminster elections, where, of course, we saw a commitment to trident renewal and to adhering to the Tory austerity plans. I'll give way to Ms Baillie. Really, this debate is about employment. Can I maybe ask the Minister to take a little bit of time to look at the record following this debate, because she will then see from the very first sentence I set out, Labour's values and vision, it was about a positive agenda for employment, something that I had hoped, but I'm clearly disappointed that we don't seem to be able to work together on it? Minister? Well, I thank Ms Baillie for intervention, of course, on the issue of trident renewal. If we weren't going to waste £100 billion on weapons of mass destruction, we would have more money to spend on the important issue of workers' rights and pay levels. Picking up on some of the issues today raised by various members, Murdo Fraser, I think, let the cat out the bag when he said that much of Jackie Baillie's speech she could agree with. I think that statement speaks volumes for the political climate in which we operate in Scotland. Gordon MacDonald gave a detailed overview of the range of actions being taken by the Scottish Government to promote economic performance and, at the same time, to tackle inequality. Christina McKelvie focused on the importance of the living wage and the work that she is doing locally to promote its take-up. She also mentioned the illogicalities that inevitably arise with what she termed the pick-and-mix devolution approach thus far to employment law devolution to this Parliament. Willie Rennie and Mary Scanlon spoke about the importance of colleges, and quite rightly so. We heard again the misuse of statistics whereby we look at the number of courses and not headcount. Even more importantly, we look at figures that do not reflect what we, I would hope, all would be trying to do, which is to ensure that college courses actually lead to jobs of progression. That should surely be the priority of all of us, not on courses, very short courses of, for example, five hours that do not lead to a job for a young person or any kind of progression. I am afraid that I have got to make a bit of progress, thank you. Stuart McMillan spoke passionately about the Ferguson marine yard in Port Glasgow and the very positive outlook that that yard and its workforce now face. The commitment on the part of the yard employers to pay not just the living wage but well above the living wage. I agree with Stuart McMillan that that success story in Port Glasgow will likely have a very significant economic impact on inequality in the Inverclyde area. Siobhan MacMahon spoke about the importance of employment support services, in particular for people with a disability. I would say to Siobhan MacMahon that that is precisely why we are seeking to involve as many people as possible in the consultation on the defolition of employment support services. I do think that it is important to say to Lewis McDonald into Ian Gray—although I recognise that Ian Gray's tone was a bit softer—that it should not be for us today to seek to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. We are here to listen to the views of all the people that have sought to make their voices heard. I would urge in that regard all members to make a submission if that is an issue that they feel strongly about. John McAlpine made a very cogent case for the defolition of full employment powers to this Parliament. Mark McDonald spoke about the importance of the care sector in the north-east and the importance of promoting the strong opportunities that exist within that sector. John Mason and Gil Paterson spoke about the importance of the living wage to live people out of poverty. Claudia Beamish made comments with respect to the work programme, and therefore I urge Claudia Beamish to consider setting forth her particular proposals in the submission that she might wish to make to the consultation. I am afraid that I really wish to make some progress. What is clear from today's debate is that in-work property is unacceptable. Work should indeed be a route out of poverty, and it should not leave people trapped in cycles of deprivation unable to make ends meet. Of course, it has to be recognised that the proposed Tory welfare cuts will simply exacerbate what is already a difficult situation, and it is therefore a great pity that the Labour Party in the House of Commons in July sat on its hands at the second reading of the Tory welfare reform and work bill. What is an abdication of responsibility to the most vulnerable members of our society? In closing, there are a number of important points that have been made in this afternoon. As ever, we will go away and look at the debate closely. What I would say is that Scotland's economy is growing, that we are leading the way with our fair work agenda, that we are taking businesses with us in that agenda, that we recognise the importance of ensuring opportunities for all young people and of closing the attainment gap. What I would say in conclusion, finally, is that without the devolution of full employment powers, we will not be able to do all that we would wish to do in this area. I would urge therefore all members of this chamber to support the full devolution of employment powers to this Parliament, as supported by, for example, the STUC. I now call in Alec Riley to wind up the debate. Mr Riley, you have until 4.59. We brought forward this debate here today because we believe that we must be ambitious and support all Scots to succeed, reach their full potential and live life free from poverty. To meet the aspiration, we must ensure that everyone who can work in Scotland has the opportunity of a secure job with a decent pay, decent terms and conditions to make full employment Scotland's number one priority. Throughout my political life, jobs have always been a key issue. As a trade unionist, as the leader of Fife Council and now as an MSP for the county and beat constituency, when I talk to people, I have found that their biggest concern is jobs, the lack of them, the loss of them, the undervalument of them, the shortage of good quality jobs. I believe that creating skilled and secure jobs for all and tackling unemployment and underemployment is the most pressing challenge facing Scotland today. I want to see a chance for everyone to have a life in work, not a life on benefits. Jobs, not social security benefits, will increase living standards and what really matters to most people is the dignity of having a good secure job in which they can take a pride. The combined impact of globalisation and technological change has destroyed so many traditional jobs and so quickly that they have transformed the entire occupational structure of our country. Manufacturing, mining and heavy industry once made up 40 per cent of Scotland's economy. Today, those represent only 8 per cent of our workforce, a figure that is still falling. The traditional manual industries have declined and, while service jobs have risen, the rewards of lower pay, less security and often zero our contracts are not acceptable within a modern economy. It is my view that the SNP Government's record on tackling unemployment, tackling low-way and tackling low wages and tackling work insecurity has not been good enough. That is why we will not agree with the SNP amendment, which is today brought forward. It is a rose-tainted view that ignores the reality of unemployment in Scotland, ignores the massive skills gaps in Scotland, the shortages of workforce and skilled workforce in Scotland, ignores the failure of Government to tackle the deep-rooted social deprivation and exclusion that exists in communities up and down Scotland. Last year, there were 170,000 people unemployed in Scotland, an increase of almost 40,000 since 2008, and the unemployment rate accounted for 6.2 per cent of the working population. To put this in context, there are more unemployed people in Scotland than there are people living in Dundee. A population the size of the fourth biggest city in Scotland denied the opportunity to work in the associated income that comes with that. The unemployment situation in Scotland is not improving fast enough. Statistics for the beginning of this year show that Scottish unemployment rate at 5.9 per cent, higher than the UK rate at 5.5 per cent, with 163,000 people unemployed. Of those, 59,000 were between the ages 16 and 24, nearly 15 per cent of this young population. The number of 16 to 19-year-olds, not on education, employment and training, commonly referred to as the needs, stood at 21,000 at the end of 2014. Those lost and forgotten 21,000 young adults represent a population comparable to the town a size of Bathgate. Research has shown that young people are hit particularly hard by economic and emotional effects of unemployment, and so tackling youth unemployment must surely be a priority for government and for this Parliament. Yet for many, even being in work is not a safeguard against poverty. A recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed that of the 920,000 people living in poverty in Scotland, on average, in the three years up to 2012-2013, 41 per cent were working-age adults or children from working families. The report highlighted the scale of low-pay in Scotland. 600,000 were paid below the living wage in 2012-13-14. 250,000 men, 350,000 women. Those numbers represent 23 per cent of male employees and 31 per cent of female employees. I say to the Government, let's sit down together and examine how we will use the procurement powers in the public sector to give hundreds of thousands of more Scots a living wage. The point was made by Mary Scanlon in naming some of the employers this morning in the supermarkets elsewhere that are introducing the living wage. I suggest to you that we are in danger in the care sector in Scotland of actually not being able to recruit enough carers because the pay is so low and the majority cases the minimum wage and that's no longer acceptable and I appeal to this Government to get it sat together and start to do something about it. Will there be any also made the point in terms of when he spoke about the SMEs and small companies in the procurement and how we can use the procurement system to support small companies and create more jobs? I'm grateful to the member for taking intervention. I just asked the member then would he not agree that it would make much more sense for this Parliament to have full powers over employment, wage levels, health and safety, trade union laws? Will he not support that? I certainly will come to that point. In Scotland today, under employment is also a real issue with substantial numbers of Scots who are in work but who would prefer to work more hours than they do. Over 215,000 people in Scotland in 2014 were deemed as underemployed and although the rate slightly decreased from the previous year, it still affected 8.6 per cent of the workforce in Scotland. Although the Scottish Government holds no records for the numbers of people employed on zero-hours contracts, it is estimated that there are currently 80,000 people in Scotland, workers in Scotland suffering from zero-hours contracts. It is vital that we continue to focus on the issues of in-work poverty on zero-hours contracts. Zero-hours contracts is a huge problem in Scotland. One of the areas where zero-hours contracts are used a lot is in the cultural sector. Was he aware that teeing the park, many of the workers are on zero-hours contracts? Do you think that they should be funding a festival that does that to its workers? Alex Rowley? I certainly think that one of the main reasons that we will not be supporting the amendment today is because it does not recognise that the levels of issues and problems exist in Scotland. If we are going to tackle those problems, our starting point has to be to acknowledge that the problems exist and to take the rose-tainted glasses off. It is vital that we continue to focus on in-work poverty alongside tackling unemployment and associated poverty. Let me now turn to the rest of the amendment from the SNP. On Saturday, I campaigned against the trade union bill in the town of Gala Shields, where I spoke to many people from all over the Scottish borders, as well as Berwick and Carlyle. People were queuing up to sign the petition. The SNP amendment calls for swift and full devolution of powers over employment law. I am certainly keen to explore this further, along with trade union colleagues in Scotland. We are absolutely clear that devolution is a journey, and where there is a case for further powers to be made in terms of employment law, we will work with trade unions and others to achieve that. That is why we continue to examine such matters. I suggest to the minister today that she takes a lead. There is a consensus in this Parliament, apart from one party, of opposition to the trade union bill. Take the lead and pull together the parties in here, join with the trade unions across Scotland and let's build an all Scotland campaign that absolutely rejects the trade union bill. I lay the challenge, get involved, but let's also talk about the powers that we have here in Scotland. Will the Government commit to using the powers of the legislative consent to block the key points of the Tories trade union bill from affecting Scottish public services and their employers? Again, let's sit down and work together and look at how we can do that. Will the minister line up with Labour local authorities across Scotland to make it clear that, if the bill was to pass into law by Westminster, the Scottish Government will not, in a repeat, enact any changes that were detrimental to the industrial relations of Scottish Government staff? Those steps are the best way for us here in this Parliament and in Scotland to proceed when it comes to the trade union bill, which is an attack on workers, on public services and on democracy. I want to conclude by drawing attention to the Bernard O's brief that was put out earlier. If we are serious about tackling inequality and poverty, we need to recognise the many people who are furthest away from the labour market. As the Bernard O's brief points out where it focuses on young people and looks at the future of employability, the work programme cannot, as it currently stands, be focused on helping those who are closest to the labour market, and we must be able to move beyond ticking boxes. We need a policy in place that recognises that, right across Scotland, there are thousands upon thousands of people who are not near the point where they would be able to qualify and get a job. There are hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland who do not have the qualifications, the skills for life, and that means a focused programme working with local authorities to give those people the best opportunities in life. I believe that full employment gives everybody the best chance in life, and we need to get the skills and the opportunities to be able to do that. That concludes the debate on employment. We now move to the next site of business, which is consideration of business motion number 14420, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a revision to the business programme for Thursday 1 October. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak but now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14420. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14420, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next site of business is consideration of business motion number 14411. In the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak but now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14411. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14411, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14412 and 14413 on approval of SSIs. Questions on eastmost will put decision time to which we now come. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment number 14405.2, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham. We seek to amend motion number 14405, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on employment, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members are not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes. Now, the result of the vote on amendment number 14405.2, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, is as follows. Yes, 63, no, 22. There were 35 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is amendment number 14405.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion number 14405, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on employment, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes. Now, the result of the vote on amendment number 14405.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is as follows. Yes, 14, no, 106. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion number 14405, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is amended. On employment, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes. Now, the result of the vote on motion number 14405, in the name of Jackie Baillie, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 62, no, 23. There were 35 abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion number 14412, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion number 14413, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes the decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.