 I will ask you a question, but I think that we have had a wide range of views on it. The next item of business is stage three proceedings on the Procurement Reform Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage two. That is the SP Bill 38A. The martial list that is SP Bill 38AML. The groupings that is SP Bill 38AG. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after that group is called. Members should now refer to the martial list of amendments. I call group 1, which is on the Scottish living wage. I call amendment number 11, in the name of James Kelly. Group of amendments number 14, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to move amendments 11 and 14 in my name. There is no doubt that the living wage is an idea whose time has come. The Labour amendment to pay £7.65 across all public contracts would make a massive difference to the 400,000 people who are not on the living wage currently, many thousands of whom would be covered by these public contracts. That would give a rise to many of £2,600 a year. 64 per cent of those people are women. That is an opportunity not only to help women, but an opportunity to tackle low pay in public contracts. That is a chance to give cleaners and care home staff from campus line to Cernesty a fair deal. The living wage is delivered in London, yet here in Scotland we are dragging our heels on this bill. Why is it that Boris Johnson can be so bold, yet Nicola Sturgeon is so timid? In terms of the SNP amendments, clearly Nicola Sturgeon's amendments reflect the fact that they have moved their position from stage 1 when there was little mention of the living wage in the bill, but the effect of that is simply a nod in the direction. As the Government itself acknowledges, it is not mandatory. The absolute test on this would be if the cleaners who work on Scottish Government contracts in Scottish Government prisons, who are currently not on the living wage, challenged the Deputy First Minister if the effect of those amendments would make any difference, and it is my view that they will not. The legal position, as outlined by David Martin and an answer to David Martin in the European Parliament, is clear that living wage conditions may be included in public performance contract clauses and public performance clauses of a public procurement contract. Do the SNP MSPs want to make a positive change, or have they come here simply to pose in the Parliament's coffee bars? The point of legislation is to make a difference. Let's not be a pretendywee Parliament. Let's stand up and be counted. Vote for the living wage and give a pay boost to thousands of workers on low pay. To speak to amendment 6 and other amendments in the group. I am pleased to recommend my amendments 6, 7, 9 and 10. Those amendments will considerably strengthen the bill in relation to the payment of the living wage, and they will do so in a way that is both meaningful and legal. The bill will impact £10 billion worth of spending each year. That means that it matters that we do everything that we can in the bill to ensure that that money is spent in a way that contributes to economic prosperity, equality and social justice. However, it also means that if we get it wrong and end up with court challenges, it will be very costly indeed for Scotland's taxpayers. As a Government, yes. Malcolm Chisholm. She knows that I admired the way in which she went forward with minimum pricing of alcohol, and it has ended up in court, as was almost certain to happen by a challenge. Why was she prepared to be bold on that issue? Not on that issue where, in fact, there is less certainty of a challenge than there was on that one. I regret the legal challenge over minimum pricing, but it is about a policy that we are seeking to bring in. This is about public contracts that our public bodies will be awarding here and now. Surely the suggestion is not that we put our public bodies in a position where they face the risk of legal challenge. I want to ensure that we abide by the law and that we do not put our public bodies at that risk of being taken to court. We do not disagree—I have said this before—with the objective of making payment of the living wage a mandatory requirement of public contracts. I think that it is worth reiterating our record on this issue. We are the first Scottish Government—let me say that again—to Labour, the first Scottish Government to adopt the living wage for all of our employers. We encourage all other employers—public, private, third sector—to pay their staff the living wage. We are providing funding to the poverty alliance to promote living wage accreditation and to increase the number of employers paying the living wage in Scotland. I will take a brief intervention. Can the Deputy First Minister give an unequivocal assurance that her amendments will ensure that cleaners working in Scottish Government prisons who are not currently paid the living wage will be paid the living wage? I will come on if James Kelly wants to bear with me to explain exactly what our amendments will allow us to do. However, the point that I am making here is that there can be no doubt about this Government's commitment to the principles of the living wage campaign. What we are debating today is how we use this bill to further promote the living wage, not if we use it. Now, in light of the on-going debate, members are aware that the First Minister wrote to the European Commission seeking further clarification of the legal position. The reply that we received towards the end of last week states—I will quote from it— "...any such requirements must comply with the posting of workers directive and the related case law of the Court of Justice of the EU if they are applicable to workers sent from another member state. A contractual condition to pay a living wage set at a higher rate than the general minimum wage is unlikely to meet the requirement not to go beyond the mandatory protection provided for by the directive." Again, we have advice from the commission and from the commissioner responsible for procurement that makes the position on this clear. We are disappointed that this is the case. We will continue to press for further change at EU level. If such change is forthcoming and it does become possible to make the living wage a mandatory condition of public contracts, we will take steps to reflect that position in the approach that we take here in Scotland. However, we have never been prepared to simply wring our hands and say that, because EU law prevents us from making the living wage a mandatory condition, we are going to do nothing. We have considered carefully what we can do within the law. That is why the bill provides that ministers can issue statutory guidance on how workforce matters should be taken into account in procurement decisions. Amendments 9 and 10 make clear that that can specifically deal with the living wage. That guidance will mean that companies wishing to bid, especially for service contracts, where low pay has traditionally been an issue, will have their approach to managing, rewarding and engaging with their workforce evaluated. That will include where it is relevant to the contract, the willingness and the ability of bidders to pay the living wage. I met just last week with the S2UC, the Poverty Alliance, and Unison to give them a commitment that we will develop the guidance with them in partnership to ensure that it is robust, not at the moment, to ensure that it is robust and that its implementation is carefully monitored. In addition to the amendments, it will ensure that guidance will deal specifically with remuneration. Amendments 6 and 7 will require all contracting authorities to set out their policy on the living wage as part of their procurement strategies. Now, Presiding Officer, taken together, that package of measures sends a very powerful message to businesses wanting to sell to Scotland's public sector. It says that they will be expected to demonstrate their willingness and ability to pay the living wage, and that they will need to be able to demonstrate that they are not winning contracts by undercutting competitors on the basis of a poorly paid workforce. It is interesting that James Kelly mentions Wales, the part of the UK where Labour is actually in government, because what we are doing today goes significantly further than the Labour administration in Wales has managed to do. That is what the Labour Government in Wales says, and I am quoting, that there is no ministerial policy or directive to adopt the living wage into Welsh Government contracts. That is the position that stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric of James Kelly and what Labour actually does when they are in a position to act. I am proud that this Government will continue to promote the living wage, will do everything that we can within this bill and beyond to ensure that we are furthering the living wage, and I would urge all members to welcome that position. I am just about to finish. While we cannot support amendments 11 and 14, I would hope that members will recognise that we are tackling this issue in the strongest way possible, and we will continue to do so. I would ask in conclusion that amendments 11 and 14 are rejected, but I would ask the chamber to back my amendments, which will go further than any previous Government in this chamber has done to ensure that the living wage is central to all that we do with public money. I will try to be, Presiding Officer. I came here today to discuss a bill about procurement, a bill that will leave public procurement in a position where it is easy to understand and accessible to all those who wish to bid for public contracts. It is important for our private sector, it is important for our third sector and it is important that we all understand how that works. The problem that I have with many of the amendments that will be discussed today is that they seek to use the bill as a proxy to introduce valid ideas from the cross-the-political spectrum that can be put into the bill as amendments, but which would result in the bill not being the effective instrument that it would otherwise be. If we look specifically at the proposal in amendments 11 and 14, we find that James Kelly would wish to use the bill as a way of introducing the living wage across Scotland in public contracts, yet what we fail to do is understand that, before we can do that, we need to know how it will be financed. There are, for example, 636 care homes across Scotland with 40,000 part- or full-time staff. I do wish to see them paid appropriately for what they do, and it is important that we all have that as an objective in the longer term. However, that amendment could result in the average care home costs rising to as much as £1,000 per week per person, and that would result in a collapse in our care home sector that would make Southern Cross look like small beer by comparison. I believe that it is inappropriate to exploit the bill for this purpose. Although I fully commend the Labour Party for its long-held objective to achieve the living wage in Scotland, it is, at the same time, an inappropriate place to try to bring in this amendment, and it makes it necessary for us in this corner to oppose the amendment as it stands. I recognise that the Government has made progress in this matter, but we do support James Kelly's amendments. I listen carefully to the remarks that the Deputy First Minister made today on the legal point. If I wrote down her words accurately from the letter she quoted from the European Union, the European Commission rather, it is unlikely, I think she used the word unlikely a direct quote from that letter. Now, that strikes me as still some room for manoeuvre. It's not a no, it's not an unequivocal statement, and therefore it is open to the Government, I would hope, to press that matter. I'm sure they're considering pressing it with the European Commission, but it is open to the Government to press that particular point, so as to see as to whether, even with a limited chance of success, that success, which I'm sure the Deputy First Minister wishes to achieve, is possible. And given the equivocal answer from the European Commission, I hope the Government might take that matter forward in that kind of way. Any thanks, Patrick Harvie. Thank you. I'm going to take it as a non-debatable point that most people in this chamber want the living wage to be paid throughout her economy, particularly in the public sector, and believe that poverty pay is a disgrace on our society. Certainly I'm convinced that both the Deputy First Minister and James Kelly are of one mind on the objective. I will be voting for James Kelly's amendment, and if that falls for the Deputy First Minister's amendments in that group. I would say to James Kelly, respectfully, that to present this amendment by baiting the other side is perhaps not the best way to make the case. I think he knows the reaction he was provoking in the way that he put forward his arguments, and it's probably not the best way to make the case. I understand the frustration that he feels. I've felt it as well when ministers in the current administration or the previous administration say that we can't do this because EU law prevents us. He'll understand the frustration of my colleagues in Edinburgh City Council when they put forward the same thing and Labour and the SNP joined forces to say no, using more or less the same arguments. However, I take the view that Malcolm Chisholm expressed in his intervention, that sometimes it is necessary for Governments to be willing to test the boundaries of what's allowable. That's a more articulate means of making the case with colleagues in Europe than simply advocating for an issue, being willing to go in there and fight for it. They were able to do that on minimum pricing, much to their credit, and the Deputy First Minister had a great deal to do with pushing that case. I wish that the same attitude was being taken on procurement, being willing to test the limits of what is permissible, and, on that basis, I'll be voting for the amendments. Many thanks. I now turn to James Kelly to wind up and indicate please if you intend to press or withdraw. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I do intend to press the amendments. I was interested to hear the Deputy First Minister's speech, and I have no indication that the amendments that are being proposed will close the low-pay loophole that exists, where workers currently not being paid the living wage and working on contracts on behalf of the Scottish Government. That change will not compel the living wage to be paid. A lot of the debate has centred around legal argument. Tabish Scott is correct to quote from the letter the word unlikely, so that letter wasn't exactly clear. The Deputy First Minister's intention in bringing that forward was to try and give a bit of cover. It's almost like an excuse not please excuse Nicola Sturgeon today. She's not able to take the living wage forward in Parliament. It's not really an issue, a legal issue. It's about political will. I'm quite sure that SNP MSPs on those benches who wish that the Government would be a bit more bold on those issues, but it seems that the more cautious voices, perhaps the Fergus Ewing's and the Alex Salmond's have unfortunately won the day. I give way to Maureen Watt. I thank the member for taking an intervention. Would he accept that we wouldn't even have to be talking about the living wage if successive Governments in Westminster had set the minimum wage at a decent rate and upgraded it? James Kelly, order please. The issue for the SNP Government and SNP MSPs is the bill that is before us today to deliver £7.65 across all public contracts. That's the opportunity. That's the challenge. Let's see how you vote when the division comes in a short time. The calls for the living wage are not only being made by the STUC, the ASCVO, but it's also been backed by businesses such as KPMG and Nationwide. We shouldn't want to lag behind. That's a real opportunity. We've all seen the photographs of SNP MSPs pledging support for payment of the minimum wage. That's the chance to put your money where your mouth is. That's not a photo opportunity. It's a chance to make it a reality. Vote for a mandatory living wage today. James Kelly indicated that he is pressing the question in us, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division, as this is the first division of the afternoon. The Parliament is suspended for five minutes. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 11. This is a 32nd division. Members should please cast their votes now. Order. The result of the vote on amendment 11 is yes, 44. No, 74. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That brings us to group 2. Order. That brings us to group 2. Sustainable procurement duty. Group 2. Sustainable procurement duty. I call amendment 30 in the name of Patrick Harvie. Group with amendments 16, 32 and 39. Patrick Harvie to move amendment 30 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Clearly, the whole chamber is seized with excitement about the sustainable procurement duty. I'm sure that's really what it is, Deputy Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group fall into two areas from myself. The first amendment 30 is about the relationship, the balance between the general duty and the sustainable procurement duty. I suppose that it's worth recalling that, once upon a time, before this bill was introduced, people referred to it as the sustainable procurement bill. Then it became the procurement bill and the procurement reform bill, and now the sustainable procurement duty is one small section within it. It's good that it's there. I'm very pleased that it's there. As it's phrased at the moment, we have this general duty, which includes the requirement to treat relevant economic operators equally and without discrimination, in other words, acting in the interests of a free market in procurement. It says that nothing in the sustainable procurement duty should conflict with that subsection. I'm seeking an amendment 30 to say that, rather, nothing in subsection 1, nothing in the general duty should be taken to prohibit a contracting authority from considering any matter or acting in any way to fulfil the sustainable procurement duty. That sustainable procurement, in other words, takes precedence and that the wider general duty on procurement should exist within that. Stage 1, the committee called for the Scottish Government to provide further information on how contracting authorities are supposed to balance the duties in practice. The Deputy First Minister in the stage 1 debate said that she was happy to consider that in more detail and come back to the issue at stage 2. That didn't happen. There haven't been amendments to address the question of balance from the Government, and I hope that this will be taken as an opportunity from the Deputy First Minister to address the question. On amendment 32, I'm seeking to add an additional requirement. That relates to the duties under the Climate Change Scotland Act and the UN guiding principles for business and human rights. The Scottish Government has an action plan on human rights. In many ways, it's a very good document. It says that the Scottish and UK Governments, Scottish businesses and the Human Rights Commission will pursue the development of an action plan to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights by Scotland and raise awareness among Scottish companies of their human rights responsibilities. What better way to give effect to the commitment in that action plan than by including that provision in the guidance that the ministers are expected to publish on procurement? That would address the global sustainability issues that go beyond the geographically limited aspects of sustainability that already exist within the bill. The climate change Scotland duties is so that procurement has a clear link into that legislation and the UN guiding principles for business and human rights. It comes with support from Amnesty International, which I know that many members are personally supportive of Amnesty's calling for the support of amendment 32. It says that excluding this amendment would be a missed opportunity for the Scottish Government's human rights agenda. I'm open and interested in hearing the arguments on the other amendments in this group. I'm sympathetic to them, but I'll let the proposers speak to those for the moment. I move amendment 30. I thank Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 16 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. I believe that reducing inequality is a shared ambition across this chamber. My amendment therefore seeks to ensure that this is at the very heart of the sustainable procurement duty. The duty is framed in general terms, and I understand from a debate with the cabinet secretary at stage 2 that she promises that there will be further definition of the duty in guidance. I couldn't help but recall, Presiding Officer, when we were shaping legislation in the early days of the Parliament as a minister, that even then civil servants always advised ministers to avoid putting something on the face of the bill and offering it up in guidance. It would appear that despite the passage of time, not a lot has changed. To the chamber, we should put on the face of any legislation what matters to us. Of course, we should put the detail in guidance, but I had always understood that the key principle of this Scottish Government was about tackling inequality. Indeed, it was a mere week ago that the Scottish Government spoke about the persistent inequality that exists in our society. The rhetoric was rightly robust, but we need to do more than simply shout, we need and must take action. By passing this amendment, the Parliament says that tackling inequality matters. It is one small step, but it is a central step to making progress. If we share an ambition for a more equal Scotland—and I believe that we do—we should be using our considerable public spending to deliver just that, as well as the right framework in which contracts are awarded. Having a clear, sharp focus on tackling inequality should be very much part of everything that we do. It can drive the public sector in considering how they can secure important gains for their local communities in the contracts that they award, and those are substantial sums of public money. Here is a practical opportunity for the Scottish Government to demonstrate that it matches its rhetoric with action by backing amendment 16 and ISO move. Thank you very much. I understand that Sarah Boyack is unable to attend the chamber today and that Claudia Beamish will be moving amendment 39, and I therefore invite Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 39 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to speak to amendment 39, which is intended to place a duty on the contracting authority when publicising the award of a contract to include a statement that sets out how the contract will help to achieve the contracting authority's sustainable procurement duty. The sustainable procurement duty, as we have already heard in this group, is an important provision in this bill, and it is essential that the requirements are met. This amendment will ensure that the duties, such as facilitating the involvement of SMEs and the improvement of economic, social and environmental wellbeing, are well publicised, clarifying the commitment of public bodies to promote positive social outcomes. SCVO have repeatedly stressed the need to put sustainability issues centre stage, and a clear statement of intent on the public contracts website would ensure that this is achieved. I am aware that, at stage 2 proceedings, the Deputy First Minister voiced her concerns that this amendment would place an undue burden on public bodies. However, my Scottish Labour colleagues and I still believe that an explicit duty to publicise the measures taken to fulfil the sustainable procurement duty would reinforce this commitment and prevent it from being sidestepped, and I hope that amendment is adopted in the bill today. I would also like to speak in support of Jackie Baillie's amendments and believe that it is imperative that we do see equalities on the face of this bill, and I hope that the whole Parliament will also agree with that. The sustainable procurement duty is not a small part of the bill, as Patrick Harvie seemed to suggest. It is a vitally important element of the bill, and I would argue that it is the linchpin of the bill. It requires public bodies to think very carefully about how the procurement process can make real improvements to their area and enable SMEs, supported businesses and the third sector to access contract opportunities. However, like every other section of the bill, we have to ensure that it is consistent with EU law, that it is reasonably simple to apply, and that it does not impose disproportionate burdens on contracting authorities. Can I just speak to the amendments in turn, starting with amendment 30? As I said at stage 2, I absolutely understand and appreciate Patrick Harvie's motivation in putting forward the amendment. However, my objection to amendment 30 is pretty fundamental. The general and sustainable procurement duties are framed with a view to helping public bodies to understand how the duty should be interpreted and applied within the overarching framework of EU law. Section 8, subsection 3 of the bill, makes it clear for authorities that any action that they take under the duty must be compatible with EU law duties. The effect that amendment 30 would have would be to create a situation where the bill would seek to impose requirements on public bodies to do things, even if those things are not compatible with European law. Clearly, that is not acceptable, and it is not a position that we can place public bodies in. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful to the Minister for Giving Way. That argument seems to suggest that there are things necessary to do in order to achieve sustainable procurement, which, in fact, are prohibited by the general duty. What are those things? What the bill says is that, at all times, in implementing the duties that are imposed on the bill, either the general duty or the specific duties, they must operate within the confines of European law. I would have thought that that would be a position that all members would appreciate the importance of. Patrick Harvie made what I thought was a valid and legitimate contribution earlier about the guidance that we should give to contracting authorities to help them to balance the different aspects of the sustainable procurement duty. He will be aware that section 90 provides for guidance. I would be very happy to engage further with Patrick Harvie in the process of developing that guidance about how we do that in a way that encourages contracting authorities to make the best and maximum use of the sustainable procurement duty, but we cannot put public authorities into a position where we are requiring them to do things, regardless of their compliance with EU law. That is a pretty simple point. If I can turn to amendment 16, which relates to considerations of wellbeing in the sustainable procurement duty and seeks to define wellbeing as including the reduction of inequality—something that we can all agree with as an objective—reducing inequality is clearly part of the authority's general duty in promoting the wellbeing of its area. Although I think that there is an argument for the duty itself to be framed in general terms, I am, as I said at stage 2, sympathetic to the intent behind this amendment. On further reflection and at risk of completely taking the feet from Jackie Baillie, I can confirm that I will support this particular amendment, demonstrating that her cynicism about ministers is as usual completely misplaced. If I can turn to amendment 32, the purpose of which is to place a duty in Scottish ministers when preparing guidance on the duty to consider the likely effects on global sustainability, the compliance by authorities with their duties under the climate change act 2009 and the UN guiding principles for business and human rights. Again, I want to emphasise here the need for the bill to be pragmatic and reasonably simple to comply with. The bill already provides a mechanism for dealing with companies that do not meet appropriate standards, contracting authorities who already have to comply with a range of requirements derived from EU law and equal treatment and national equality legislation, in addition to being subject to obligations under the human rights act. The public sector, as everybody is aware, procures a very diverse range of good services and works, and it is important that the statutory guidance that will support the duty is flexible, adaptable and is not seen to be disproportionate. I do not support Patrick Harvie's amendment, but I will re-affirm and re-issue the invitation that I extended to him at stage 2 to discuss how we use and invite him to be involved in the drafting of the statutory guidance that will underpin the duty to encapsulate the points that he is seeking to make about the wider implications of procurement exercises. I can give an assurance, and I know that that is an assurance that will be important to organisations such as Amnesty International that was quoted by Patrick Harvie, that we do see the development of guidance as an important opportunity to both identify and to explain how the UN guiding principles are best reflected in our procurement processes, and I hope that Patrick Harvie will take up that offer to be involved in the next stage of this process. Finally, amendment 39 from Sarah Boyack. Again, I will stress that keeping the burden on public bodies to a minimum is important. Section 14 of the bill will require a contracting authority to prepare and publish an annual report. That annual report will include a summary of regulated procurements and a review of whether those procurements complied with the authority's procurement strategy. I therefore do not think that it is necessary or proportionate to require contracting authorities to state in every single contract award notice how the contract will contribute to the achievement of improving the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area. I think that that would add an unnecessary and disproportionate burden of bureaucracy. In conclusion, I would ask that Patrick Harvie withdraw amendment 30 and not move amendment 32, that Claudia Beamish on behalf of Sarah Boyack does not move amendment 39 and reiterate my willingness to support amendment 16 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Thank you very much. I invite Patrick Harvie to wind up and indicate an intention to press Edward Torr. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. The Deputy First Minister described the sustainable procurement duty as the lunchpen of the legislation. I cannot read the bill any other way than to suggest that it is section 8, the general duties, which are the lunchpen, that they are the critical, the vital element that contracting authorities will be primarily focused on and the secondary focus will be on the sustainable procurement duty. I would disagree that the Deputy First Minister's description of the bill is accurate as the bill is currently drafted. I think that notwithstanding the smile on Jackie Baillie's face as she heard that her amendment would be selected, I think that she made a decent point that although ministers and civil servants may often take the instinctive position that less is more on the face of a bill and let's leave everything to guidance, Parliament I think does need to steer the development of guidance and even passing amendments to legislation which indicate to ministers the issues they ought to address when it comes to drafting the guidance gives Parliament the ability to give that steer and on issues as critical ethical issues as inequality, sustainability, climate change and human rights I think Parliament should do so. The Deputy First Minister also said particularly in relation to amendment 32 that the bill needs to be simple to comply with. Amendment 32 doesn't add huge complexity for contracting authorities for people responsible for procurement processes, it adds one relatively simple task for ministers to undertake, not for anyone else and if the Government is serious about addressing these ethical issues in the guidance then having the requirement to do so in the legislation seems a relatively simple and trivial task for Parliament to set them. This is about ministers' compliance with the legislation, not anything else. I'm grateful for the invitation to engage further however from stage one and two there's been continual indications that there would be attempts to address this during the passage of the bill and that I'm afraid it hasn't happened. So I'll be pressing amendment 38 to the vote and 32 when it comes to that time as well. Many thanks the question then is that amendment 30 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed this will be a one minute division please vote now the result of the vote on amendment number 30 is yes 39 no 80 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed to that brings us to group three sustainable procurement duty and strategy specific issues and I call amendment 15 in the name of Jackie Baillie which is grouped with amendments 31 19 and 37 and I ask Jackie Baillie to move amendment 15 please and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much Presiding Officer and I rise to speak to amendment 15 and all others in the group there was a suggestion made from a sedentary position that I quit whilst I was ahead but always the eternal optimist whilst I'm grateful for the support for amendment 16 from the cabinet secretary I live in hope that she will continue her same consensual manner with my remaining amendments. Amendment 15 seeks to promote compliance with the public sector equality duty and amendment 19 relates to public bodies setting out how they will promote compliance it's perhaps worth explaining that the public sector equality duty actually requires it's set out in section 149 of the equality act 2010 which requires that listed public authorities must have due regard when exercising their functions to things such as the need to eliminate discrimination harassment and victimisation and to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations the phrase due regard means that when public bodies make decisions they must consciously consider the needs expressed in the duty however the amount of regard they need to give depends very much on the nature of that decision so for example a procurement decision on a service for older people would require far more consideration rightly so than a procurement decision on purchasing stationary it should of course be exercised in a proportionate manner but I was driven to lodge these amendments because of an evaluation of the public sector equality duties by the equality and human rights commission it would be fair to say that they reported a very mixed picture and they reported that the good intentions were not backed by thought through and measurable outcomes so we know that the main challenge lies in implementation making consideration therefore of the public sector equality duty very much a key part of the procurement process will undoubtedly help us move from those good intentions to practical application and implementation and finally Presiding Officer I take the view that ultimately this bill is about the delivery of public services the delivery of good quality public services and you know irrespective of who delivers those public services whether it's the private sector the public sector or the voluntary sector we should expect the same high standards of delivery I therefore urge support for amendments 15 and 19 and amendments 31 and 37 which will be covered by Claudia Beamish thank you and in our call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 31 and other amendments please thank you Presiding Officer I would like to speak to these amendments which I believe in very strongly both of which deal with standards of health well-being and education of communities as well as animal welfare amendment 31 seeks to alter section 9 placing a requirement on public bodies to consider its policy on food procurement specifically the intention is for public bodies to endeavor to improve the health well-being and education of communities and promote animal welfare the policy aim behind that provision on health and well-being is mirrored by the Scottish government's own guidance catering for change buying food sustainably in the public sector so I see no reason why this cannot be incorporated into the bill itself we have a lot of good examples of sustainable procurement projects in Scotland today examples that immediately spring to mind are better eating better learning food for life food for change and of course the good work done by nourish Scotland and the soil association these amendments require public bodies to emulate these examples and work towards truly sustainable food procurement policies with local supply chains and at the same time further educate the public on the benefits there is no reason why these are meant why these methods of procurement cannot be universal and there are no issues as I understand it with EU compliance because East Ayrshire for example has demonstrated that this is possible a clear explicit reference on the face of the bill backed by guidance would ensure that we could make this happen rather than being dependent on enthusiastic individuals and groups and further as vice convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare I'm keenly aware that there's always a public interest in animal welfare issues of present of course there is a debate about the labelling of non-stun slaughtered meat more broadly humane production is a part of food quality and consumers have a right to choose individuals labelling is important there are many culture changes and there have been in recent years such as the consciousness of the welfare of chickens leading to free range egg purchase and of course the recent horse meat scandal has shown that labelling standards must be far more proactively enforced in the procurement process millions of animals are affected by the choices made by our public bodies with a substantial purchasing power so this amendment would ensure animal welfare is a real consideration consequentially passing this amendment means that the procurement strategy required under section 11 would automatically need to include how public body intends to ensure compliance on these issues as well as including these issues in its annual report and this further solidifies the foundations upon which this bill is built amendment 37 finally seeks to achieve the same policy aim as the amendment I've just spoken to but is designed to be more light touch in manner rather than requiring the public body to consider issues of health well-being and education of communities and animal welfare standards during each individual food procurement this provision would instead require the public body to include a general statement on its overall approach my colleagues and I would of course prefer that the more focused and comprehensive amendment 31 is passed however if this proves not to be possible then I would urge members to vote for this alternative which I'm sure they will agree is a wholly credible and reasonable compromise thank you thank you very much since now the member has requested to speak I now call the deputy first minister thanks president officer can I deal firstly with amendments 15 and 19 contractors which are performing what would otherwise be regarded as a public function whether that's for example the running of a prison or another public building are already subject to the public sector equality duty in relation to that function the application of the equality act will of course have been considered in detail during the consultation and scrutiny process that it went through and so I think there is an argument that it wouldn't be right to use this bill to seek to extend duties imposed by other legislation upon public bodies more widely than that but more fundamentally equality is already an integral part of this bill it's part of the sustainable procurement duty the guidance that will follow will elaborate on that and will make clear the connection between the equality duty and procurement processes it will be focusing our energy after the passage of this bill today assuming parliament does pass it on the development of that guidance and the regulations and in engaging with stakeholders including equality stakeholders in the development of these so I'm not able to support amendment 15 or amendment 19 I can turn though to amendments 31 and 37 I do think there is a reasonable issue here the arguments that were put at stage 2 and I listen very carefully to all of the arguments at stage 2 make me think or have made me think that there is a need to do more to put a specific reference to food procurement given the importance of that on the face of the bill amendment 31 would amend the sustainable procurement duty to require purchasers to consider how in conducting a procurement process involving the purchase of food they can improve health well-being and education of communities and promote the highest standards of animal welfare amendment 37 addresses the same issue but does so through the procurement strategy I think given some of the definitional issues in here I am of the view that is more appropriate and more proportionate to addresses issues through the strategy in section 11 of the bill as opposed to creating a new duty under section 9 so I am happy to support amendment 37 but I'm not able to support amendment 31 thank you very much and I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and indicate whether you intend to press her with thank you very much Presiding Officer Claudia Beamish set out the case very well for putting food provision on the face of the bill and indeed the compromise amendment that placed it within the procurement strategy I'm delighted that the cabinet secretary appears to be having a very consensual afternoon and she agrees with amendment 37 I live in hope for the rest I recognise however that the Scottish government has already produced guidance on procurement and welcome it is too but it covers the planning of procurement services developing a strategy and even encouraging public authorities to undertake equality impact assessments what is actually less clear is whether any of these assessments have indeed been undertaken and whether any you know measurable difference has been made so is there a difference between the government's good intentions and their actual practice in implementation and the truth is Presiding Officer we just don't know but you know if we care then let's signal its importance by putting it on the face of the bill not just in guidance but actually on the face of the bill the cabinet secretary has done it once this afternoon let me encourage her to do it again and again I say if this is a public service irrespective of whether it's delivered by the public private or voluntary sector people have a right to expect the same high standard and importantly that includes compliance with public sector equality duties I move many thanks the question is that amendment 15 be agreed to are we all agreed parliament is not agreed this will be a one minute division please vote now the result of the vote on amendment number 15 is yes 44 no 75 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed to I now call amendment 31 in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 15 and ask Claudia Beamish to move or not to move it has been moved the question therefore is that amendment 31 be agreed to are we all agreed parliament is not agreed there will be a division this will be a 32nd division please vote now the result of the vote on amendment number 31 is yes 44 no 75 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed I now call amendment 16 in the name of Jackie Baillie which has already been debated with amendment 30 and asked Jackie Baillie to move or not move moved thank you the question is that amendment 16 be agreed to are we all agreed we are I now call amendment 32 in the name of Patrick Harvie which has already been debated with amendment 30 and asked Patrick Harvie to move or not move moved member has moved the question is that amendment 32 be agreed to are we all agreed parliament is not agreed there will be a division this is a 32nd division please vote now the result of the vote on amendment number 32 is yes 10 no 109 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed I now call amendment 14 in the name of James Kelly already debated with amendment 11 and to ask James Kelly to move or not to move member has moved the question is that amendment 14 be agreed to are we all agreed parliament is not agreed there will be a 32nd division please vote now the result of the vote on amendment number 14 is yes 44 no 75 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed to and that brings us to group 4 circumstances where participation is restricted or no offer sought and I call amendment 33 in the name of Mary Fee which is grouped with amendments 35 and 36 and to ask Mary Fee to move amendment 33 and to speak to all amendments in the group please thank you Presiding Officer amendment 33 aims to enable and support the third sector in the procurement process the third sector often provide high higher levels of care and innovation across a range of services yet are often excluded due to the size and costs associated with participating in procurement contracts the alliance briefing for the bill shows that a history of competitive tendering processes has acted as a barrier to the third sector and many have completely disengaged with the process even when this service could have made great contribution and we need to support and protect our third sector and excluding specific contracts and specific circumstances would do that this proposal is similar to that of supported businesses and would bring long lasting benefits to the third sector who have had to work with tightened budgets and increasing pressure over recent years amendment 35 would require ministers to lay regulations specifying what a health and social care service is for the purpose of this bill rather than it being an option and would guarantee clarity for contracting authorities and guidance in my view cannot be an option in a health and social care sector amendment 36 again would require ministers to lay regulation and guidance specifying what regulated contracts may be awarded without seeking offers again encouraging and enabling participation and I move amendment 33 in my name thank you thank you since no other member has requested to speak I call on the deputy first minister thanks Presiding officer amendment 33 as we've just heard from mary fee would allow public bodies to limit participation in a regulated procurement to third sector bodies I said at stage 2 in our repeat again today I'm sympathetic to the aim of that amendment but I don't believe it would be EU law compliant and I'll explain in a bit more detail why that is the case it might of course be possible in the case of some procurement exercises to restrict competition to the third sector but that depends on the particular circumstances of the competition in some cases the treaty obligations which flow from EU law will apply even at the contract values within the scope of the bill restricting competition in such cases would be discriminatory and therefore incompatible with EU law one question we have been asked and it's an obvious question is how is it that we can limit competition to supported businesses as we do in this bill but not limit competition to the third sector and the straightforward answer is that EU procurement law makes specific provision to restrict competition to supported businesses it doesn't make specific provision for the third sector which is a much broader category of organisations while we can't accept amendment 33 I would still like to emphasise the importance we attach to the third sector role in delivering public services our response to the Christie commission report on the future delivery of public services emphasised that the third sector has a crucial role to play because of its specialist expertise its ability to engage with vulnerable groups and its ability which I think is particularly important to be flexible and innovative indeed one of the four priorities at the heart of this bill is improving access to public sector contracts particularly for small businesses and third sector organisations if I can turn now to amendment 35 the power in subsection 3 of section 10a is drafted to be consistent with other subordinate legislation provisions in the bill it's the government's intention to bring forward regulations under this power so changing the mate a must will have no practical effect the amendment is therefore unnecessary but it would also lead to inconsistent legislation amendment 36 in a similar vein it's not necessary the power in section 10c is drafted to be consistent with other powers that are already in the bill and ministers do have discretion in how that power is to be exercised so the may here and the use of the term may at this part of the bill is absolutely appropriate so with those comments I would ask that these amendments are not approved many thanks and I invite Mary Fee to wind up and indicate if you wish to press or withdraw thank you Presiding Officer and can I thank the Deputy First Minister for her comments we heard a lot in evidence about this bill being an enabling piece of legislation and I think it's incumbent upon us as politicians to support and encourage our third sector and the valuable work that they do and restricting contracts to the third sector would level the playing field as it does in helping supported businesses and restriction would also allow for continuity of care and support whose value is immeasurable to those that are receiving care and also it gives continuity to those providing the care and while I absolutely accept the sympathy offered by the deputy first minister we need more than sympathy and we need action to support this sector and in relation to amendments 35 and 36 and the remarks made around ministers and their discretion in guidance I am not confident that allowing ministers to have discretion will give us the level of guidance that we need and I will be pressing all my amendments thank you many thanks question then is it amendment 33 be agreed to are we all agreed palmit is not agreed there will be a division this is a one minute division please vote now the result of the vote on amendment number 33 is yes 42 no 76 there was one abstention the amendment is therefore not agreed to I now call amendment 35 in the name of mary fee which has already been debated with amendment 33 and I asked mary fee to move or not move thank you member has moved the question therefore is that amendment 35 be agreed to are we all agreed palmit is not agreed there will be a division this is a 32nd division please vote now the result of the vote on amendment number 35 is yes 42 no 76 there was one abstention the amendment is therefore not agreed to and I now call amendment 36 in the name of mary fee which has already been debated with amendment 33 and I asked mary fee to move or not move member has moved the question is that amendment 36 be agreed to are we all agreed palmit is not agreed this will be a 32nd division please vote now the result of the vote on the amendment number 36 is yes 42 no 76 there was one abstention the amendment is therefore not agreed to that now brings us to group 5 supported businesses and I call amendment 2 in the name of mark griffin which is group with amendments 20 and 3 and I asked mark griffin to move amendment 2 and to speak to all amendments in the group please thank you Presiding Officer I move amendment 2 and rise to speak in support of amendment 2 and 3 in my name these amendments apply only to public bodies in Scotland who have procurement activity amount to five million pounds or more now as I as I stare at stage 2 I don't think that that is unreasonable of us to expect a public authority who are spending over five million pounds to award at least one contract to a supported business the amendments which I have table seek to achieve the government's own stated policy ambition in the supported business framework that public authorities should award at least one contract to a supported business these amendments do not say that an authority must award a contract to a supported business but simply ask them to set out how they are working towards the government's own aim the deputy first minister made comments at stage 2 on the amendments which I have tabled again and has also tabled a government amendment which I support as it is that I move in the right direction but the deputy first minister did say she had two particular issues with the drafting of my amendments but did have sympathy for them firstly that the amendments would require public authorities to quite effectively ask public authorities to look into a crystal ball by asking them to look ahead to what procurement activity they could restrict to supported business now on the surface that might seem reasonable but actually when you look at section 14 of the bill on annual procurement reports and in particular 2D that line states that annual procurement reports should include a summary of the regulated procurements the authority expects to commence in the next two financial years now if contracting authorities can set out a summary of the regular regulated procurements that they expect to commence in the next two years then why would it be so difficult for an authority to set out where it intends to restrict procurement to a supported business in a single year the second point of objection was that the deputy first minister did not want to set the bar too low in terms of procurement from supported business that we should not simply allow public authorities to simply tick it off as a good deed done for the year and I completely agree with the deputy first minister but there are public authorities in Scotland today that are not even hitting that low bar of a single contract with a supported business and a response to FOI requests submitted to public authorities across Scotland there are 44 of those in Scotland who do not have a single contract with a supported business those are insignificant public authorities with low levels of procurement they range from health boards government bodies and local authorities right across the country and while I agree entirely with the deputy first minister that we don't want to set a minimum level so that authorities think they don't have to go beyond that level but when so many in such large bodies are not even awarding a single contract now I think it's about time they were started pushing harder and a movement a movement to in my name thank you thank you very much before I call the deputy first minister can I ask the chamber if members could take their conversations outside of the chamber please I call the deputy first minister to speak to amendment 20 and other amendments in the group thanks president officer helping supported businesses is very important to the government generally and also in relation to procurement and that commitment was reflected in the bill as drafted and I think low members would accept that at stage 2 though I did give a commitment to the infrastructure committee that I consider what more might be done in particular in relation to the reporting of levels of engagement with supported businesses because I think Mark Griffin makes a reasonable point that we need to ensure that our expectations of public bodies are delivered in in practice as a result of that I am pleased to bring forward amendment 20 that will require public bodies who prepare an annual report to include in that report a summary of the steps taken to facilitate the involvement of supported businesses in regulated procurements during the year covered by the report that's got the same overall effect or a very similar overall effect to amendment 3 I think it is preferable to amendment 3 though amendment 3 is mark Griffin has alluded to refers to an a quote at least one contract to a supported business now I would absolutely agree with mark Griffin that that is not an unreasonable expectation and we should be very firm in our expectation that we expect public authorities doing procurement processes to have at least one contract with supported businesses but I do want to be very careful that we don't send a signal to public bodies that says just one is enough we shouldn't be playing to the minimum on what is a very important issue and I think amendment 20 gives mark Griffin what he is seeking in terms of reporting without that limitation that I think would be a concern amendments 2 and 3 amendment 2 would require public bodies to state in the corporate procurement strategy and I think I apologize to mark Griffin if I picked him up wrongly in his opening speech but I think it is important to distinguish between procurement strategy and the reports on procurement strategies which I think he may have slightly mixed up in some of the points he was making but amendment 2 would require public bodies to state in their strategy whether they intend to restrict competition to supported businesses and how they intend to ensure that they award at least one contract to supported business I won't repeat my points about playing to the minimum of saying one contract is enough my objection here is the one that mark Griffin described as the crystal ball objection and I think I was quite a good description to be very fair to him but because this is talking about the strategy which a public authority has to prepare at the start of a year what would effectively be asking public authorities to do is to decide at the start of the year whether at any point during that year they intended to run a procurement that would be appropriate to restrict to supported businesses and in the procurement strategy if this amendment was passed they'd be expected to be pretty definitive about that but at the start of the year they won't necessarily know what all of the requirements for procurement will be throughout the year so I think we would just be putting on the face of the bill something that in a practical sense would be very difficult to the point of impossible for public authorities to meaningfully deliver and I would ask mark Griffin as I asked him at stage 2 just to think about that practical objection to the amendment that said and as I've repeated today I am sympathetic more than sympathetic actually a totally in agreement with the intent behind these amendments especially in relation to reporting because you know that it's the reporting that will let us ensure that our expectations are being delivered and that's precisely what amendment 20 is seeking to address so I would ask mark Griffin to withdraw amendment 2 not move amendment 3 and I would ask the chamber to support amendment 20 thank you can I invite mark Griffin to wind up and indicate the intention to press her withdraw thank you Presiding Officer I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments and that movement as I said earlier and the lodging of amendment 20 I think the point I made around the procurement strategies and annual reports was that in annual reports a public authority is expected to look forward two years to the procurement that would be carrying out and so I didn't find a great difficulty in a procurement strategy of asking a public authority to look forward one year to identify areas where they could restrict procurement to a supported business which would then allow the supported businesses around Scotland a lot more confidence in where their work was coming from. The main thrust of these amendments though is about allowing the Government to meet through a procurement strategy its own policy to have every public authority in Scotland having a contract with at least one business I don't want to see every public authority across Scotland simply having one contract but I think this step is required to push the ones who are falling below that even low bar to meet that standard there are 44 public authorities in Scotland who don't have a single contract with a supported business as I said at the outset these are not insignificant these are local authorities these are the health boards and central government organisations and with that in mind I intend to press my amendments thank you many thanks in that case the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to are we all agreed Parliament is not agreed there will be a division this is a one minute division please press your voting buttons now the result of the vote on amendment number two is yes 43 no 76 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed to I now call amendment six in the name of the deputy first minister which has already been debated with amendment 11 and I ask the deputy first minister to move formally please moved thank you question is that amendment six be agreed to are we all agreed we are we now move to group six consideration to be given to various employment practices and I call amendment 17 in the name of Jim Eadie which is grouped with amendments 24 42 and 43 and I ask Jim Eadie to move amendment 17 and to speak to all amendments in the group and I ask for the best of order for Mr Eadie to do so please thank you very much Presiding Officer I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendment 17 this amendment seeks to promote compliance by contractors and subcontractors with the provisions of the health and safety work act 1974 the purpose of this act of this amendment is to extend the minimum content that a corporate procurement strategy should contain to include a statement of the authorities general policy on promoting compliance with health and safety legislation this amendment places a requirement on those contracting authorities which are compelled by the bill to produce a corporate procurement strategy to include in that strategy a statement of the authorities general policy on promoting compliance with health and safety at work act 1974 and any provisions made under that act health and safety did not feature in the public consultation on the policy content of the bill I am therefore indebted to Kathy Jenkins of Scottish of the Scottish hazards campaign group and Louise Taggart of families against corporate killers two campaign groups focused on improving health and safety in the workplace thereby reducing the toll of work related death injury and illness both organisations recognise that good work has been done to date by the Scottish government but believe that this additional step could further enhance the public sector's role in driving good practice on health and safety after the provisions of this amendment are implemented across the public sector in Scotland it would be a very welcome development and go some way towards helping reduce the incidents of family members having to hear that a death could and should have been prevented had an employer only complied with its health and safety duties this amendment will allow us to embed health and safety into the foundations of our procurement strategy this being so I hope that deputy first minister will welcome my amendment and support its inclusion in the bill many thanks I now call Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 24 and other amendments in the group please thank you Presiding Officer there is a postcard on the notice board in my office that reads prepare your daughter for working life give her less pocket money than your son it is disappointingly still the case today that there is a gender pay gap with women earning on average less than men and that's despite good legislation with the equal pay act and undoubtedly good intention in this chamber but the lesson here is that it is not enough to have legislation in and of itself it is the implementation that makes the difference so equal pay audits are a key implementation tool now members will know that equal pay audits consider gender gaps gender pay gaps they also consider pay gaps by ethnicity disability and working pattern they are relatively easy to carry out there's lots of support for employers including tool kits and hands-on advice about how to conduct an equal pay audit and what to do with the results you know it really is as easy as abc but it is what you do with the information that you get that is absolutely crucial the benefits for business are well documented improve productivity improve staff retention improve performance all positives that we can agree on many employers recognise that the greatest asset they have is in fact their workforce so it's not good for the quality of their product or service if one set of employees is treated differently from another set of employees because they happen to be female or they happen to be disabled and taking action to close the gap sets those businesses ahead of their competitors so what's not to like at stage two the cabinet secretary said she wasn't sure that this would be consistent with our obligations under EU law on equal treatment of suppliers but you know already in the bill public bodies can and will make judgments about what matters to them in deciding contracts they will be deciding who gets a contract and who doesn't on a range of different criteria these all appear to fit with our EU obligations so why not this and if the cabinet secretary was being consistent she would recognise that this fits too and again the cabinet secretary at stage two defaulted to a mantra of not on the face of the bill but it will be considered in guidance let me just encourage the cabinet secretary to break free from her civil servants because by supporting amendment 24 she can make a positive difference to enhancing equality in relation to pay something that will be warmly welcomed by women and disabled people across this country. My thanks and I call on Ken McIntosh to speak to amendment 42 and other amendments in the group please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I want to speak to amendments 42 and 43 in my own name and also support all amendments in this group. I'd also like to draw members' attention to my trade union membership as declared in the register of interests. Presiding Officer, as with this bill as a whole I'm torn between praising the Scottish Government for recognising the power of procurement to shape the moral economy and justising it for not following their own reasoning and doing so much more. The two amendments in my name are designed to help capture legislation the whole concept of the decent job not work at any price not exploitative demeaning or impoverishing jobs but sustainable employment which recognises the importance and dignity of work although they voted against us at stage two I am very pleased the Scottish Government has recognised the strength of the arguments in favour of trade union recognition. Political discussion in our country often portrays the economy as riven by a clash of interests between employer and trade union. When all the evidence demonstrates that success and prosperity depends on partnership between the two, that collaborative approach allowed the German economy to withstand the worst of the recession. Research overwhelmingly suggests that recognising trade unions will improve the health and safety of our workplaces and in the context of this bill in particular amendment 43 will ensure that public funds are used more effectively. Trade unions remain at the heart of the efficient delivery of all of Scotland's public services from the NHS to the rail industry. We need to extend that thinking and that government in all its forms behaves and follows that thinking. Quite simply, if companies like Amazon fail to pay their taxes, refuse to recognise trade unions and employ workers on zero-hours contracts, then they should not be receiving public funds. I particularly want to thank my own trade union community, a progressive trade union, which I am very proud to be a member of, who originally proposed amendment 43. I congratulate the Scottish Government for working with community and trade union colleagues in the STUC in drafting the amendment before us this afternoon, which I believe could be a landmark amendment recognising trade unions here in Scotland. Amendment 42 is essentially about promoting equality, and it would allow the Scottish Government to encourage employers to minimise wage ratios between the highest and the lowest paid. It is worth reminding ourselves that the majority of people living in poverty in our country are not unemployed, but they come from working households. The vast majority of Scots will also be only too aware that, over the past four years, wages have failed to keep pace with rising prices from food to fuel bills. However, it is certainly not the case that we are all in this together. In 2012, the average chief executive of a FTSE 100 company was paid £4.8 million per year, or 185 times the average salary, and that has risen from £1.2 million in 1999. According to the Equality Trust, wage ratios in the voluntary sector are estimated to be around 10 to 1, in the public sector to be roughly 15 to 1 and in FTSE 100 companies to be approximately 262 to 1. There are many steps that the Scottish Government can take to reduce that wage gap and to promote equality. In the education sector alone, I would simply highlight the contrast between the pay and wage increases that are enjoyed by university principals and the widespread use of zero-hours contracts. In public procurement, the Equality Trust has again estimated that none of the large public service industry organisations—those are the companies that carry out this work—paid their chief executive officer less than 59 times UK median earnings. One example in particular would be Serco. Its previous chief executive was paid an estimated £3.1 million in 2010, which is six times more than the highest-paid UK public servant and 11 times more than the highest-paid local authority chief executive. Research demonstrates that reducing inequality is just one of the ways that we can promote faster and more durable economic growth. The cabinet secretary said that she agreed with my arguments on those amendments at stage 2, but then encouraged members to vote against them. If she shares Labour's desire to build a more resilient, a more sustainable and a more ethical economy, I urge her not just to have sympathy with the arguments, but in this case to vote for both amendments. Many thanks, Deputy First Minister. Thanks, Presiding Officer. I take the amendments in this group in turn, starting with amendment 17. I support amendment 17, which is in Jim Eadie's name. That amendment will ensure that public bodies sit out their policies on the very important issue of health and safety. Nothing we purchase should ever be at the expense of the safety of those who are involved in its manufacturing, construction or provision. In fact, I hope that nobody would disagree that equal pay audits bring benefits and clarity to both the employer and the employee alike. Promoting equal pay for equal work is something that I hope each and every one of us in this chamber agrees with wholeheartedly. Of course, the Scottish Government is committed to the reduction of the gender pay gap. We have a significant programme of work under way that is aimed at increasing women's economic participation, tackling occupational segregation and reducing gender imbalances throughout public life. I take the view that it is outrageous that the Equal Pay Act, which I can say at fear of giving away my age, which everybody will know anyway, was passed in the year I was born, is still not fully implemented. I think that it speaks badly of successive Westminster Governments that it has not been fully implemented over these 43, nearly 44 years. Pay discrimination on the basis of any other protected characteristic is also equally unacceptable. Jackie Baillie said rightly, and I will say it again today, that we do not think that limiting competition to companies who have conducted an equal pay audit would be consistent with our EU law obligations regarding equal treatment of suppliers. For example, it could potentially exclude bidders who have not carried out an audit but who are nevertheless complying fully with equal pay requirements. She also said that the bill, although her speech in that respect was written before I conceded one of her earlier amendments, does provide for guidance to be issued on how workforce-related matters should be considered in a procurement context. I am happy to repeat the commitment that I have given consistently throughout the legislation to consider this issue in the context of that guidance. It is for very similar reasons that I am not able to support Ken Macintosh's amendment 42. Mandatory contractual obligations, whether we like it or not, can only be imposed in procurement, where they are relevant and proportionate to the actual subject matter of the contract. If I can turn to amendment 43, Ken Macintosh lodged an amendment at stage 2, which I said that I agree with the notion that effective employee representation and trade union recognition are important and are to be supported. I did have a reservation about the amendment that he lodged at stage 2. I highlighted that a clear regime is already in place under the trade union and labour relations act 1992, which includes measures concerning the recognition of trade unions. However, I was keen to see if we could reach agreement on an amendment about trade union recognition. I am very pleased that Ken Macintosh took me up on the offer of further dialogue to see if we could agree a positive approach that we would find acceptable. In light of that, we have amendment 43, which Ken Macintosh has put forward, and I am very happy to support. In conclusion, I support Jim Eadie's amendment 17, Ken Macintosh's amendment 43, but not amendments 24 and 42. I welcome the comments by the Deputy First Minister and the support that has been forthcoming from the Scottish Government. I am grateful that the Government has listened to and acted upon the representations that it has received on the issue of health and safety. I move amendment 17. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Did I hear or no? I didn't. Thank you. We are agreed. We now move to group 7, on the call amendment 18, in the name of Claudia Beamish, group with amendment 21, 22, 26 and 27. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 18 and speak to all other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As you have highlighted, I would like to speak to my amendments 18, 21, 22, 26 and 27, all of which address the issue of climate change in the procurement process. The policy aim behind these amendments is to ensure that the greenhouse gas emissions associated with goods and services procured are taken into account by the contracting authority when making a decision about who is granted a contract. During the stage 2 process, I lodged amendments that were intended to place a climate change duty on contracting authorities, which would require them to receive from the economic operator a statement setting out the climate change impact of any contract greater or equal to £4 million. The contracting authority would have also had to have included in its award statement a notice stating that what the climate change impact was. However, I have decided not to relodge these amendments, which are quite specific at stage 3 and have instead gone for a more light touch set of amendments, which still emphasise the importance of greenhouse gas emissions in the procurement process, but in a way that I believe is more manageable, both for the contracting authority and the operator, I see this as an initial step to build on in the future. Of course, one of the most evident ways in which greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced in the procurement process is through the addressing of the transportation of goods. I recently met with a group of medical students from Edinburgh University who have researched the possibility of having hospital food sourced more locally, and I am well convinced by their arguments. Currently, some of the food provided at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary is sourced from Trowbridge in South England, which produces many unnecessary greenhouse emissions through fuel and free storage. Sourcing more food from Scotland would not only have the positive impact on carbon emissions, but it would also result in fresher local food for patients, and this is surely something that can be looked at by the NHS and other public bodies. My stage 3 amendments seek to add additional aspects to the existing duties in the bill. I have tried to keep these as simple as possible. Section 11 requires contracting authorities, which expect to have significant procurement expenditure to produce a procurement strategy, which I believe is a sensible provision. With 18, I suggest that the statement required to be produced by the contracting authority should include how its procurements can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the provisions, as they currently stand, require the statement to address community benefit and now, after stage 2, fair trade. I believe that this would be an appropriate place to incorporate these climate change obligations. My amendment 21 seeks to amend section 14, which requires that contracting authority to produce an annual procurement report related to its strategy. Again, I see no reason why climate change cannot be included in these reports. This would be consistent with my intention of a climate change to be addressed in the strategy. My amendments 22, 26 and 27 are consequential amendments related to the two that I have just described. I am aware that the Scottish Government does not agree so far with my intentions with the regard to including climate change provisions and have argued that the Climate Change Act already covers these issues, making my amendments perhaps a needless duplication. However, I believe that my proposed amendments would highlight the importance of greenhouse gas emissions in the procurement process itself and reinforce the provisions found in the Climate Change Act where procurement is not specifically addressed. I recognise the challenges faced by public bodies such as COSLA in taking forward such a requirement. However, these rethought amendments are drafted in order to enable relevant regulation to be implemented in a simple and time-sensitive way. There are carbon assessment tools available and already in effective use. The regulations could of course be revised as necessary. I hope members and indeed the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that, if we are actually to achieve our climate change targets, the issue of greenhouse gas emissions must be addressed in other legislation where it is applicable, not just in the Climate Change Act itself, and underline the cross-party commitment to addressing this most pressing global challenge by adopting it within the procurement bill. Thus, I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will still consider those amendments today. Thank you very much. The purpose of those amendments is to require public bodies to provide a statement on their approach to using procurement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the procurement strategy and to require detailed reporting on the emissions produced and how those have been calculated. I stress at stage 2 that Claudia Beamish has covered some of the territory in her contribution. The climate change duties already exist under the Climate Change Act 2009. Specifically, that act provides ministers with the power to make provision, and I quote, requiring relevant public bodies to prepare reports on compliance with climate change duties, and that any such report must in particular contain information relating to how procurement policies of relevant public bodies and procurement activity by relevant public bodies have contributed to compliance with climate change duties. The recently established Public Sector Climate Leaders Forum, on which Claudia Beamish sits as an observer, is currently looking at the issue of standardised reporting against the public body's duties in the Climate Change Scotland Act. Claudia Beamish used in her contribution the term needless duplication, although she attributed it to me, not to herself in relation to her amendments. However, I think that it is the appropriate description of those amendments, and I say that politely as possible, because I do not doubt the intention behind the amendments that she has put forward. As we developed the bill, the strong view that was expressed, particularly by local government stakeholders, was that existing legislation on climate change and the environment already established significant duties, and I have read out what the terms of those duties are, and that to impose additional duties would not necessarily add anything to what is already contained in other legislation. Of course, the bill specifically covers the environment through the general duty on sustainability and in doing so at least public bodies with quite an important degree of flexibility that will allow them to take a pragmatic and meaningful approach to dealing with environmental issues in their procurement activity. Given those comments, and given in particular my comments and indeed quotations from the Climate Change Act 2009, I would ask Claudia Beamish to reflect on the fact that we would be legislating here for needless duplication and ask her to withdraw amendment 18 and not to move amendment 21, 22, 26 and 27. I have listened with care to what the cabinet secretary says. I am still minded to press my amendments because I do believe that I have tried to make them as light touch as possible. As the cabinet secretary says, the climate change duties are there, and I do understand the delicacy of moving forward collectively with COSLA and other public bodies. I want to see this on the face of the bill because I think that it is a very important aspect of the bill that sends a clear message and continues to enable us to be climate leaders in our field. The tools will be developed and become more sophisticated as time goes on. Therefore, I believe that it is important that I press amendment 18. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to or are we all agreed? We are not, they will therefore be a division and this will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote and amendment 18 is yes, 44, no 75, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 19, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is already debated with amendment 15, Jackie Baillie to move or not. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not, there will therefore be a division and this will be a 32nd division. The result of the vote and amendment 19 is yes, 43, no 75, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 37, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is already debated with amendment 15, Claudia Beamish to move or not move. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No, we are not, there will therefore be a division, please vote now. The result of the vote and amendment number 37 is yes, 103, no 12, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 7, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is already debated with amendment 11. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are, thank you very much. Amendment 20, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, to move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 21, in the name of Claudia Beamish, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will therefore be a division, please vote now. The result of the vote and amendment number 21 is yes, 44, no 75, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 3, in the name of Mark Griffin, Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not, there will therefore be a division, please vote now. The result of the vote and amendment number 3 is yes, 43, no 75, there were no abstentions, a very good pardon, 76, no, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now, amendment 22, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 18. Ms Beamish to move or not move. To move. Not moved. Move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will therefore be a division, please vote now. The result of the vote and amendment number 22 is yes, 45, no 74, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now move to group 8 and I call amendment 38, in the name of Jackie Baillie, in a group on its own. Jackie Baillie to move and speak to amendment 38, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. If anything, this amendment proves that persistence does eventually pay off, more will be explained later. I did in fact bring in an amendment at stage 2 calling for an annual report so that we could measure activity across the public sector, allowing Parliament to consider the overall success of our approach or if there are shortcomings to understand and improve them. With £10 billion spent each year by the public sector on procurement, it is right for us to have the highest standards of accountability and transparency. Rather than chasing down reports from every public sector body, that brings the information together in one report to paint a picture of Scotland as a whole. There are, of course, precedents for such an approach, that transcend political parties, that transcend Governments and occur in every session of this Parliament. At stage 2, I drew attention to Peter Peacock and Liam McArthur's amendments calling for annual reports. Roseanna Cunningham and Paul Wheelhouse in Government are both bringing forward amendments for annual reports. An amendment calling for an annual report is nothing unusual. I am there for that, whilst the cabinet secretary declined the advances at stage 2, she has agreed with the proposition. The amendment that I moved today has Government approval. Let us be honest. That does not exactly happen often, so I am extremely tempted to rush to the vote before the cabinet secretary changes her mind. However, it is fair to say that our colleagues in COSLA did not wish to see additional reporting burdens and a proportionate way has been arrived at to capture the information required. I am grateful to the Government for securing that and to COSLA and local authorities for their support. It would be equally fair to say that when I tabled my amendment at stage 2, certain civil servants had visions of masses of reports from every public sector body landing on their desk. Indeed, members of the bill team threatened the head of procurement policy branch, one Ian Moore, with exactly that. On that basis, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree with me that we should henceforth call this the Ian Moore amendment. That said, I hope that he is getting a bigger desk to receive all those reports. I move amendment 38. I would like to consider very briefly what subsection 3, which means that the Government will have to consider things that it might think are appropriates, might mean for small contractors. I would like to briefly discuss the effectiveness of the policy and the mechanisms for enforcement. I guess that at this point I may be wearing my cross-party group on construction, convener's hat, and I would like to reflect on the concerns that the engineering contractors, concerns that will be shared across all small contractors, have about the mechanisms which are in the bill to deal with the situation where public procurement is not handled properly. I simply want to re-concern myself with the fact that they believe that very small businesses will not be taking procurers to court—that is the reality—and they feel that an ombudsman would be an appropriate way forward. I would also like to recognise that I have had discussions with the Government. The cabinet secretary is very well aware of that. She has given me a response that I well understand and accept. I think that there is an opportunity in the future to address this. I am not pressing her to do so now, but I do suggest that there is an opportunity if reports are going to be made to consider whether that might be something to look at in the process of seeing how this bill heads in so that we can get to the right answer maybe a bit quicker. Jackie Baillie said earlier on that I am taking an entirely consensual approach to this bill this afternoon. In case any of my colleagues are wondering if I have taken leave of my senses, I think that this is the second of Jackie Baillie's amendment that I am going to vote for. There is method in my madness here. I have detected the fact that I annoy Jackie Baillie more when I remove her ability to engage in unjustified rants against the Government, so that is why I have decided to be so consensual. Seriously, though, I made very clear at stage 2 that I agree that effective reporting on procurement performance is extremely important. It is only by effectively reporting that we know whether our expectations and the obligations in this bill are being properly implemented. The reason I declined Jackie Baillie's advances at stage 2 was not to put too fine a point on it that her amendment was badly drafted, and I thought that we could draft it slightly better and make it more consistent with the aims and objectives that we were trying to achieve. I did offer to work with her prior to stage 3, and I am pleased that the result of that work has been an ability to support amendment 38, which will result in the publication of an annual report in a manner that recognises and respects the ethos of the broader procurement reform agenda of working in partnership across the sectors and whether or not it delivers more work for Ian Moore. More in the procurement division, time will tell. In relation to Nigel Donne's points, he has, as he has said, taken great care to raise his particular issues of concern. There have been discussions between Nigel Donne and my officials about how we address those issues as we move forward with the procurement reform agenda. I am very happy that those discussions continue and that we seek to involve Nigel Donne in them as we develop our thinking around issues such as an ombudsman and the particular issues that he raised. With those comments, I am happy to support amendment 38. I thank Jackie Baillie to wind up and I take it to press her amendment. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I intend to press the amendment. Can I at the outset reject the notion that the amendment was badly drafted? I think that we have some very superb parliamentary staff who do draft very competent amendments, and that really is the excuse that we should have moved on from a long time ago. Can I say, though, that at the danger of not of misquoting the Deputy First Minister, she hasn't been entirely consensual about the whole bill. I think that she won't have found me saying that she has been in that respect, but I do welcome the newfound consensus that she has arrived at with me. I also welcome support for all the other amendments that I would draw her attention to, but she seems not willing to move on those. Can I just say to her in passing, Presiding Officer? My husband has always said that he has found that it is preferable to agree with me rather than disagree. Can I encourage the cabinet secretary to do likewise? Many thanks. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 39 in the name of Sarah Boyack, Claudia Beamish to move or not move. And so the question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 39 is yes, 44, no, 74. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move on to group 9 and I call amendment 41 in the name of Mary Fee, grouped amendment 23. Mary Fee to move amendment 41 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Sir, and as my amendment is a fairly straightforward one, I will be brief in moving my amendment. If the aim of the procurement bill is to reform and increase the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of communities, let us get behind that principle and reduce the level of community benefit threshold from £4 million to £2 million, which would greatly improve the opportunity to bring benefits to all our communities through economic, social and environmental action. Reducing the community threshold benefit from £4 million to £2 million would maximise the benefit that we could bring to not only to communities but to individuals across Scotland. Amendment 20, in the name of Jackie Baillie, would require data to be collected to demonstrate what benefit is being achieved as a result of a contract, including a community benefit requirement, and would allow those benefits to be assessed and monitored. We need clarity, transparency and accountability in procurement. The amendment, in the name of Jackie Baillie, would assist in this process, and I move amendment 41 in my name. Thank you. Thank you. I call on Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to speak in support of amendment 23. There are undoubtedly some excellent community benefit policies and practices, and we are learning all the time. I hope that the procurement bill does indeed spread that good practice more widely and that we become increasingly better at securing positive outcomes. I was given a recent example of really positive community benefit policies with the commonwealth games, but I was also told that we didn't know the extent to which the organisations that are contracting with the games are improving, for example, women's chances in industries in which they are currently underrepresented, because we're not collecting the data that would actually help them make that assessment. We know that there's a difficulty in getting workplace data, whether it's from the commonwealth games or, indeed, from arm's length organisations. If we are to be able to judge whether community benefit clauses are truly effective and learn for the future, then we absolutely, as a baseline requirement, need to collect appropriate data. It is a bit of a no-brainer. At stage 1, the cabinet secretary appeared to support the approach that I had suggested. At stage 2, she was at pains to say that she and I were in agreement about the need for good quality data collection, but the difference was in how we achieved it. She referred to blanket approaches to community benefit clauses being unhelpful in capturing the nuance and diversity of these, but I have to say, and I say this genuinely, I think that she misunderstands the purpose of my amendment. This amendment sets out a requirement to collect data. It doesn't tell you exactly what data it wishes to be collected or how to do so. It would be a matter of detail that is properly for ministers and properly for guidance. I even went so far as to give a power for ministers to set out in guidance how that should be done, so you can collect data in a way that captures the nuance and the diversity in contracts. There is no rational reason for resisting this amendment. The amendment is entirely motivated by a desire to understand and learn from our experience. It cannot be right that we should have community benefit clauses but do not measure them in a way that allows proper scrutiny and analysis. I would urge the cabinet secretary to change her mind to support this amendment. I hope that she will again demonstrate that, where we agree, she is willing to make progress by supporting amendment 23. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Amendment 41 seeks to reduce the threshold for contracts where contracting authorities must consider imposing community benefit requirements. As has been explained previously, the rationale behind the current threshold of £4 million is that this is essentially the same level as the level at which public works contracts are covered by the EU Public Procurement Directive. That is a widely recognised level and it seems to be a fairly simple and straightforward approach. It is also important to point out that the threshold was subject to consultation and that the majority of respondents supported the threshold that was set out in the bill. I have said repeatedly as this bill has gone through Parliament that I am not wedded to this threshold and that I intend to keep the threshold under review. It is worth reminding members that section 20 enables the threshold to be amended by order if, after review, that is considered appropriate. However, I really think that any change to the threshold should follow such a review. It should not be made arbitrarily at this stage, because whether or not you agree with £4 million as the threshold, there is a rationale for setting it at that level. There is no similar easily understandable rationale for setting the threshold at £2 million, other than that it is half of what the threshold is at the moment. I say again that that will be kept under review. If, after due review, it is considered that it would be appropriate to change the threshold, we will use the powers that are already in the bill to do that by order. The other point that I have made previously, and I will make again today, is whether the threshold is set at £4 million, £2 million or any other level. We are emphatically not saying that it is only contracts above that value that should be considered for community benefit clauses. That is the threshold at which the duty applies, but it does not mean that if public bodies are procuring below that threshold, as many will be doing, that they are not expected to have regard to community benefits. They absolutely are. Of course, we are already having very significant success in community benefits in our major public contract. I think that that is the explanation of why we should take time to review this, and if changes are required we should make them, but we should not arbitrarily make them at this stage. On amendment 23, I recognise the importance of capturing reliable data on the actual achievement of community benefits, but I believe that the issue is addressed through other provisions of the bill. Section 14, subsection 2 of the bill, as I have no doubt Jackie Baillie will remember, was amended at stage 2, so annual reports will now include a summary of the community benefits that were fulfilled over the year. In addition to that, contract award notices for higher-value contracts will have to include a statement of what the authority believes the contract will deliver. The amendment that Jackie Baillie is putting forward, I would argue, is unnecessary, given other provisions in the bill. With the greatest respect, I would say that that is a very rational reason for saying that we should not pass the amendment that she is proposing today. Against that background, I would ask Mary Fee to withdraw amendment 41, and Jackie Baillie not to move amendment 23. If those amendments are moved, I would ask the chamber not to support them. Many thanks. I call on Annabelle Ewing, having pressed her request-to-speak button. Right, I pressed it in error, but I apologise for setting off. Right, no problem. Thank you very much. I now call on Mary Fee to wind up and press her withdrawal. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have listened carefully to the Deputy First Minister's comments. I am pleased to hear or saying that there is a commitment in government to review the thresholds that would be required for community. It would be beneficial if the Deputy First Minister could listen to my summing up, as I had the court to say to listen when the Deputy First Minister was speaking. I look forward to the review that the Deputy First Minister has said that she is committed to making, and perhaps eventually the threshold for community benefit will be reduced. However, I would say that it is perhaps unfortunate that that review had not been timed to finish before this bill went through Parliament, so that this procurement bill could have done something about that threshold to bring benefits to our communities. She would accept that you cannot have a review of a bill before the bill becomes legislation. The review must follow Parliament enacting the legislation. I absolutely accept that point. However, while there is an acceptance that some stakeholders support the view of four million, some do not, the Deputy First Minister is committed to keeping that under review. I am quite sure that this is not an issue that has just suddenly arisen during this consultation. I am sure that Government would already have been aware of the issues around procurement and community benefit. It seems that, when the Government chooses, it picks and chooses what EU regulations it decides to abide by and not to abide by. I think that we need a bit of consistency in the approach that we are taking in relation to EU regulations. I am disappointed in the approach taken, and I will be pressing my amendment. As Jackie Baillie said just briefly, Jackie Baillie's amendment is a bit of a no-brainer. It is a sound amendment. We need to be able to assess the benefits to know that we are doing the right thing. Although I accept the words that the Deputy First Minister has offered, I am not entirely convinced that we will get the outcome and the benefits that we need. There are two points that are worth making just for clarity. I should point out to Mary Fee that this point has got nothing to do with EU regulations. We have simply set the threshold at the same level as public work contracts, but it is not an issue of compliance with EU regulations. However, the other point is this issue about a review. We have a review of legislation after the legislation is enacted and enforced. Mary Fee said that we should have considered those issues during the legislation. We had a consultation in advance of introducing the bill. That is the normal way in which those things are done. We specifically asked the question about whether respondents thought that the threshold was set at the right level, and a clear majority of respondents said that, yes, we think that it is set at the right level. I think that the idea that we somehow did not go through due process simply does not withstand scrutiny. The point that I am making is that we have set a threshold. We have based that on a clear rationale, but we have built into the legislation the ability to review it against experience and change it by subordinate legislation if that seems appropriate. Surely that is a far more orderly and better way of proceeding than simply to pluck a new figure out of thin air that has not been consulted on and stick it into legislation today. I struggle to understand the logic behind the response from the Deputy First Minister, because the Deputy First Minister said in her response to me that the threshold was based in accordance with guidelines set by the EU. She said that there is nothing to do with the EU. Yes, she did. I find that the confusion is not helpful. No, I am sorry. It is either in line with the EU or it is not in line with the EU. Perhaps this best demonstrates where we are with procurement. It is some kind of grey area that there is very little clarity around. I take it then that you are pressing your amendment. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. Right. There will therefore be a division. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 41 is yes, 44, no 75, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 23 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 41, Jackie Baillie, to move or not. Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 23 is yes, 44, no 71, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 24 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 17, is Baillie to move or not. Moved. Thank you very much. So the question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 24 is yes, 44, no 73, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 42 in the name of Ken Macintosh. Ken Macintosh to move or not. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 42 to thunderous applause is yes, 45, no 73 and the amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to group 10. I call amendments in the name of Jane Baxter. Groups amendments 4, 5, 25 and 8. Jane Baxter to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As has become increasingly clear over the weeks since stage 2, there is widespread public concern and condemnation of zero-hours contracts when they are imposed upon employees with no guarantee of minimum hours work or where they are restricted by their contract from seeking other work with which to supplement their income. Recently published research from ACAS highlights the findings that employees on zero-hours contracts are too afraid to search for a new job and feel excluded from the sense of security that other full-time workers enjoy. Members will be aware that, for many workers, zero-hours contracts often mean people working to earn their poverty and, despite technically being employed, forced to use food banks just to get by. There are some limited circumstances where zero-hours contracts suit both employer and employee, and my amendment seeks to make allowances for such mutually agreeable circumstances. In the main, however, I believe that it is important that appropriate provisions are made to ensure that those exploitative employers who wrongly enforce employees into zero-hours contracts are prevented from bidding for public sector contracts. Accordingly, when I moved this amendment at stage 2 of the bill, I was disappointed that it was not supported by colleagues across the chamber. I noted that the cabinet secretary indicated at that time that the Scottish Government would be dealing with this matter through work force-related guidance, but in my view, this does not go far enough, and I am very keen to see this amendment included in the bill itself. I move amendment 1 in my name. Very much. I now call Anil Finlay to speak to amendment 4 and other amendments in the group. Thanks, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 4. We know that the Scottish Government public and local authorities, health authorities and so on tend a huge amount of public contracts. Therefore, it is surely right that all the companies that procure public contracts pay their fair share of tax, the very tax that they pay for the public contracts that they are benefiting from. The organisation Ethical Consumer has recently carried out UK-wide research evaluating the behaviour of 20 major companies that are beneficiaries of public authority contracts. It reported that 14 of those companies were involved in avoiding tax, of which many have been recipients of public contracts in Scotland. As a Parliament considering procurement, it is surely correct that we legislate where we can and where we can use the powers that we have to develop policy that ensures the exclusion of those companies whom we know to be involved in tax avoidance. A similar point was made in an early day motion at Westminster, lodged in light of the ethical consumer report. The motion called on the UK Government to bring forward a set of legally binding procurement rules that subject companies delivering and bidding for the delivery of public service contracts to high ethical, environmental and anti-tax avoidance standards. That seems to me to be an entirely legitimate aspiration. However, it is not just me who agrees with the sentiment of that motion. The SNP at Westminster no less also believes that that is a worthy aspiration. In fact, Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster and his colleague Mike Weir, both signed the motion. Mike Weir indeed was a co-sponsor. I ask the Scottish Government, are you in agreement with your Westminster colleagues and ready to legislate when you have the power to do so, or is it the case that you say and do one thing at Westminster where you have no power and do something completely different here when you have the power to deal with those matters? On amendment 5, Presiding Officer, I wish to declare an interest as a member of United Union. I begin by paying tribute to the outstanding work done in Blackliston by the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster under the excellent chairmanship of Ian Davidson MP. I am sure that the cabinet secretary would want to pay tribute to Mr Davidson's stewardship of that committee and the work that he has done. His work has exposed the activity of some of the biggest names operating in the UK and Scottish construction industry. Companies like McAlpine, Keir, Skanska, Balford, Beattie and Amy, the fourth bridge constructors joint venture and many, many more, all bought into and were up to their necks in a conspiracy against workers whose only crime was to stand up for their workmates by raising concerns about health and safety, psych conditions, washing and toilet facilities or wages and rights at work. Those companies created, funded and sustained an illegal list of those they saw as undesirables. People banned from working on construction progress projects because they were or were alleged to be trade union political or environmental activists, many victimised for the most spurious of reasons. It was victimisation and it was McCarthyism. It is not over yet because this was and still is a major human rights abuse and no one has yet been held to account for their actions. Since that was exposed, I have worked closely with colleagues on the Scottish Affairs Committee and with the UK at the GMBN tonight to raise the profile of this issue in this Parliament and across Scotland. I want to welcome members of those unions to the gallery today. It is their campaign that has moved the Government to some limited action in this bill and I want to commend them for that. We have come a long way since this issue was first raised in this chamber. I regret that the cabinet secretary's offer to meet me earlier on in the process was withdrawn. I do not know why that is the case, but that is, of course, her prerogative. I do, however, feel that, whilst the Government has gone somewhere in this, they could go further and put my amendment on the face of the bill and make it crystal clear to employers what is expected and what will happen if the blacklisted workers want to secure future public sector contracts. My amendment will mean that there is nowhere for those companies to hide. They will have to own up to what they have done, apologise to the victims and pay adequate compensation negotiated by the victims' representatives. Failure to do so is clear that there will be no contracts awarded to them. The amendment gives the opportunity for those companies to self-clean and, if they fail to do so, they will in effect be blacklisting themselves. Siobhan Reardon, the programme director at Amnistad International Scotland, says that the right to form and join trade unions is a fundamental human right to discriminate against someone on that basis, including the use of blacklisting as a violation of that right, and as the bill stands it does not go far enough. I agree with her. In conclusion, 400 Scots were on the consultant association's blacklist. I believe that to be the very tip of a large iceberg. We will never know the true extent of the scandal, but I want to pray tribute to the real heroes of this story, not politicians, not trade union leaders, but the ordinary electricians, joiners, stealer-rectors and scaffolders who are upholding health and safety standards and the principles and values of trade unionism, of looking out for their fellow workers, were victimised and, as a result, had their livelihoods taken from them. They refused to be beaten. I hope that because of their actions and the actions of their trade unions, the construction industry of the future will be better than the industry of the past. I now call the Deputy First Minister to speak to amendment 25 and other amendments in the group. Thanks, Presiding Officer. These are a really important group of amendments because they are dealing with issues that I hope all of us in this chamber will agree are totally unacceptable. Tax avoidance, blacklisting and the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. Sections 22 and 23 of the bill allow the Government to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which economic operators should be excluded from competition for public sector contracts. I have already made clear that we intend to make regulations regarding blacklisting. Also, when the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill becomes law, we will also consider what the regulations are able to do to maximise our actions to eliminate tax avoidance. We will also consider how the guidance on workforce matters that the bill legislates for can help us to address zero-hours contracts. The Government agrees with many of the comments that have been made by Opposition members on those matters and stand firm in our determination to tackle those three issues. Amendment 25 in my name strengthens the provisions of the bill relating to tax avoidance. Amendment 25 will make clear that the regulations will address instances where there has been a failure in relation to any matter of tax compliance, whether that is failure to submit a tax return, failure to pay tax on time and not just a failure to pay tax generally. That amendment is preferable to amendment 4 in Neil Findlay's name, although let me be absolutely clear that the objectives behind those two amendments are the same. The Scottish Government will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that tax avoidance will not succeed in Scotland. We have made our position consistently clear over a prolonged period of time and we will continue to do so. The Government has been equally clear that it is totally opposed to the practice of blacklisting. Neil Findlay will, I hope, acknowledge the work that the Government has done and will continue to do with the trade unions on this matter. I would also take the opportunity of welcoming trade union members to the gallery and paying tribute to those workers in many parts of the country and in many different sectors who were victims of the practice of blacklisting but also who have so bravely worked to bring this practice to light and to help all of us resolve to ensure that we address it for the future. The reason that I do not support amendment 5 is not a principled reason and I would ask Neil Findlay to reflect on that carefully. It is a practical reason. We need the flexibility in the legislation to ensure that we can respond quickly if there are changes to legislation in reserved areas, changes that I hope very much we will see. For example—this is a specific example—in the context of blacklisting, some trade unions have argued that the 2010 regulations, which are commonly referred to as the blacklisting regulations, need to be strengthened. If that happens and we are advocates of that happening, we would need to be able to adapt our approach quickly to bring it into line. That is why proceeding on the basis of strong, robust regulations that give us that flexibility is preferable to the route that Neil Findlay is proposing. I do not see why the acceptance of my amendment precludes a guidance whenever it needs to be. It would also require us, depending on the nature of the change that was made to other legislation, to change primary legislation. As all members are aware, that takes more time to do, so that fulfills the objective. I say this in all sincerity to Neil Findlay that there is not a single shred of light between us in our abhorrence of blacklisting and our determination to do everything that we can to tackle it. I want to do it in a way that is effective and to make sure that we are able to respond to changes that we are not in control of, but to make sure that, at any given time, our legislation here in Scotland is as robust as it possibly can be. I would ask him to reflect on those comments in the spirit that they are offered to him. We will continue to work with him and other members, with trade unions, to ensure that we are responding as quickly and as effectively as possible. If I can turn briefly to amendment 1 on zero-hours contracts. Again, I think that the Government has made absolutely clear our opposition to the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts, so I have no issue at all with the sentiment behind Jane Baxter's amendment 1. The issue that I have with the drafting of this amendment is just a very serious and fundamental question about the practical workability of the amendment. Asking a purchaser as this amendment would do to monitor whether or not a bidder employs staff in zero-hours contracts to assess whether or not they signed up to that contract willingly and whether or not they did so following legal or trade union advice is simply not a realistic thing to expect purchasers in every contract to do. I think that it would place burdens on purchasers that they could not reasonably be expected to discharge and I do not think that that would make for good legislation. That is why the approach that I am proposing to use the guidance on workforce matters provided for by section 24 of the bill to look at what we can do through procurement to tackle the use of zero-hours, inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts in addition to our other steps in this area is a much better thing to do. As I have said, in all areas where we have referred to guidance, I am happy to continue to work with members and with the infrastructure committee to look at how we get that right. I hope that, across the chamber, there will be an understanding and an appreciation that what we are talking about here is not a dispute in any way on the principles of tax avoidance of blacklisting or of inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. What I am proposing is that we do that in a way that allows us flexibility, that allows us to make sure that our provisions are as effective as possible, and I believe that the amendments 25 and 8 in my name do that. I would ask members to support those amendments over amendments 1, 4 and 5, which I do not think fulfil the same purpose as effectively. I just wanted to speak in support of Neil Findlay's amendments in relation to blacklisting, but I very much take the sentiment in which the Deputy First Minister has expressed her position on that, and also to clarify Jane Baxter's amendment in relation to zero-hours contracts. I totally take the reason why she expressed that case fundamentally in terms of ending exploitation of working men and women, but what I was slightly puzzled by was the contrast between clause 2 and clause 6 in her drafting in relation to how clause 6 would work in practice and if she can shed any light as to the point that that clause makes, which is to give effectively an opt-out in relation to zero-hours contract covering legal advice, the advice of trade union or indeed where an employee agrees to accept a contract that fails to specify guaranteed working hours, that would be enormously helpful in understanding the purpose of that amendment. Many thanks. I now call on Jane Baxter to wind up and press or withdraw her amendment. Whilst I listened to the cabinet secretary's response with interest and I'm pleased that she agreed that these are really important amendments, I'm very disappointed that she's indicated that the Scottish Government will not be supporting this amendment today, and I'm not convinced that practicability is a barrier to taking this forward in the context of the zero-hours contracts. Whilst inclusion in guidance is obviously to be welcomed, it does not go far enough in my opinion and I still wish to see my amendment included in the bill. Similarly, I'm disappointed that the Scottish Government will not accept the amendments from my colleague Neil Findlay. I believe that this Parliament has a clear responsibility to send out a message to employers that a restrictive, unwieldy and unfair zero-hours contract are not acceptable and that public money should not be used to support them. I'm grateful to Tavish Scott for asking such a complicated question just shortly before I was due to respond. For the purposes of information, clause 6 says that a contract is not for the purposes of this section a zero-hours contract if, after being given the opportunity to seek legal advice or the advice of a trade union, a rather elected representative of employees and an employee agrees to accept a contract that fails to specify guaranteed working hours. I suppose that it's at least making sure that if an employee does make that decision it's an informed decision and it's based on having accurate information and good advice and saying that I'd like to press amendment 1. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. It will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 1 is yes, 39, no, 78. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 4, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 1. Mr Findlay, to move or not? Move. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. There will therefore be a division. A 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 4 is yes, 42, no, 75. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 5, in the name of Neil Findlay, to move or not? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 5 is yes, 42, no, 74. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 25, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, in the name of the Deputy First Minister to move? Move. Thank you very much. And so, the question is that amendment 25 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Thank you. Call of amendment 8, in the name of the Deputy First Minister. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 8 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Thank you very much. Call of amendment 9, in the name of the Deputy First Minister. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are, thank you. Now call amendment 43 in the name of Ken Mackintosh. Ken Mackintosh, please move. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed, therefore we have a division, please vote now. threshold 4. The result of the vote on amendment 43 is yes. There are 105, no 12 and no abstentions. The amendment is agreed. Amendment 10, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, moved. Is that amendment 10 agreed to? Are we all agreed? It is. Amendment 26, in the name of Claudia Beamish, to move or not? No move. Ar gyffinion nhw, 27, yn ymief yng nghymru Cl callediabimys, maith gyffinion nhw ddim yn wir? Nid yn wir. Miker. Rwy'n edrych o'r件 i Gwbl 11 eich craffi yn y famousig panfnad ar gyfer y Gwbl 44 yn y mae Constant Swinom Patrick Harbey, yn y gwyfyr i'r amgueddfa, gan wir i'r cyffinion i Gwbl 44. The bill describes the sustainability duty and community benefit requirements as improving the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of an authority's area. Later in the bill, it describes that area by reference to the area by reference to which the contracting authority primary exercises its functions disregarding any areas outside Scotland. My amendment seeks to remove the words disregarding any areas outside Scotland. This is intended to remove some ambiguity in relation to the permissibility of ethical and fair trade procurement practices. The Scottish Fair Trade Forum and Amnesty have both highlighted how this kind of definition could be a barrier to considering the global impacts of purchasing decisions. I am aware that there have been some changes to the bill at stage 2 and the Scottish Fair Trade Forum have welcomed the inclusion of a statement of a public authorities general policy on fairly and ethically traded goods. I welcome that as well, but a statement of policy is not necessarily the same as a clear commitment to action. The Fair Trade Forum goes on to say that they believe the bill as it stands that its wording may cause confusion about what is possible to procure and could unintentionally reduce the procurement of ethical and fair trade goods. To give a few examples, the BMA Scotland in their evidence to the committee highlighted the estimated 10 million surgical instruments used in the UK each year manufactured in northern Pakistan. Most of the 50,000 manual labour in the industry are paid less than a dollar a day for a 12-hour day of work. Little job security, serious health and safety risks, as well as contributing to the proliferation of child labour. Other examples include sexual and physical harassment of workers, people expected to work over 80 hours a week, illegal working hours and a ban on unionisation, indicating that some of the issues that Neil Findlay was seeking to raise in his amendment at a domestic level are also global issues, and we should be seeking to address them. Obviously, a procuring authority, a contracting authority, may not have access to all of the relevant information about global impacts when it is making a decision. As far as I can see, the bill prohibits them from taking that information into account by saying disregarding any areas outside Scotland. The amendment simply seeks to allow those decisions to be fully informed by information about global impacts that are available at the time when decisions are being made. I move amendment 44. Many thanks. No other members asked to speak, so I call the Deputy First Minister. Thanks to Patrick Harvie for lodging this amendment. I absolutely agree with him on the importance of recognising and understanding the global impact of procurement. He is right to point to the fact that we have made changes at stage 2, specifically in relation to fair trade. I am very happy to speak further with the fair trade forum about any concerns that it has. Clearly, we were anxious to respond to the issues that it raised, but in a way that was appropriate. I think that we have done that in terms of some of the changes that we have made. Before I go on to what I was going to say, I think that the point that he referred to that the BMA has made is a good illustration of the general point that he is trying to make. There is nothing in the bill, as it currently stands, which prevents public bodies from acting in a manner to secure improvements of economic, social and environmental wellbeing, wherever they may arise. A point that I made at stage 2 was that, specifically, the bill, as it stands, does not prevent an authority from taking account of wider global or international issues if it considers that appropriate. However, section 9 places a duty on public bodies. It is therefore right that we ensure that the duty that we are placing on public bodies strikes the right balance, one that is both proportionate and manageable in a meaningful way at a practical level, and that is what section 9, as it is currently drafted, seeks to do. The amendment that Patrick Harvie is putting forward, my concern about it, is that the scope is so wide. For example, it could lead to challenges against a public body, that that public body failed to consider a perceived benefit that might accrue from literally anywhere in the world. A duty that is being placed on a public authority that has a scope quite as wide of that does make it very difficult for public authorities to discharge their duties in a way that they can be reasonably confident that it does not open them up to legal challenge. That is not to say that I do not think that we have an obligation to address the issues that Patrick Harvie has talked about today. I repeat the offer that I made to him at stage 2 to discuss how we can use the statutory guidance that is going to underpin the sustainable procurement duty to try to encapsulate what are perfectly legitimate points that he is making about the wider implications of procurement exercises. That is particularly relevant when we are talking about large procurement exercises. I hope that he would take me up on that offer. I think that he makes legitimate points, but the translation of his argument into the specific amendment 44 that he has put forward today would result in legislation that was drafted so widely that it would hinder, rather than help, public authorities. I think that there is a more effective way that we can try to deliver the ends that he is rightly talking about in the chamber today. I have a late bid from Mark Griffin. Very briefly, please, and then I'll ask the Deputy First Minister if she wishes to say anything further. I apologise for being slow but, as Patrick Harvie mentioned, the amendment removes disregarding any areas outside of Scotland from the definition of a contract in the authorities area. We will not be supporting the amendment. We feel that the amendment would be too vague to implement in practice and would make the scope of a contract in authorities area too uncertain. We agree with the principles and we have tabled amendments around global sustainability, taking into account environment, fair trade and other issues, but, as I said, I just think that that is not a practical step and that it is a burden too far for local authorities. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Do you want to add in further? In that case, I call Patrick Harvie to wind up and indicate an intention to press her with draw, please. Thank you. I am sorry that the Government and indeed the Labour Party as well do not seem to be open to that argument. It seems to me that the central part of the Deputy First Minister's argument against the amendment is that it would be very difficult to take account of impacts anywhere in the world, but that surely is what we need to do if we are going to have an approach to sustainability which is global. That is the intention that the Deputy First Minister seems to be agreeing with, but the practical reality, of course, will be difficult. Of course, it will be challenging, but that is the task at hand. It does seem to me that we either need to set that challenge to ourselves and to public bodies or not. I would like to press the amendment, but assuming that the Government's support is as robust as it seems to be today, I will be happy to have a discussion with the Deputy First Minister after the bill has passed to see if there are other approaches to the amendment. The amendment has been pressed. The question therefore is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palant is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 44 is yes, eight, no, 109. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. It brings us to group 12, which is the final group. If members are brief, we may be able to keep to the timings as indicated. I call amendment 28, in the name of Tavish Scott, group with amendment 29. I ask Tavish Scott to move amendment 28 and speak to both amendments in the group. I thank James Kelly for giving us an earing at stage 2 and indeed his own amendment in this group. This amendment would ensure that procurement provisions that we are agreeing to today cover the spending of £1 billion of taxpayers' money. Government created the Scottish Futures Trust, which in turn created a financial model known as Hubcos, who build schools and hospitals. Hubcos are managed and led by large private sector businesses, businesses who make profit and charge management fees for building a school or indeed a health centre. However, it appears that neither the taxpayer, Parliament or Audit Scotland know how much profit or what fee is levied. I would wish to suggest that financial secrecy needs to be replaced with financial transparency that the Deputy First Minister rightly described in her opening speech in introducing this bill to Parliament. Scotland's five Hubcos are led by 15 main corporate businesses. Small businesses in Scotland, builders, surveyors, small construction companies, architects can only hope to be a subcontractor under this arrangement or indeed a subcontractor of a subcontractor. Hubcos, therefore by definition, exclude thousands of Scottish businesses from tendering for work. That means that Parliament and Audit Scotland do not know whether we achieve value for money. That under the Hubco model is never indeed tested. There is no tender, for example, to build the six schools in the north of Scotland by the miller-led north Hubco. Again, there is a lack of financial transparency and a belief that economies of scale may deliver better value for money, but we simply do not know how much profit, for example, will miller group make on the building of those six schools. Parliament simply doesn't know what management fee is miller group receiving for this contract. Again, Parliament does not know. Hubcos are not financially accountable despite the vast amount of public money being spent across Scotland on projects that we, of course, would all wish to see happen. Will Hubco businesses be subject to Parliament's policy on the living wage and community benefit that we've just discussed this afternoon? They surely should be. Finally, could I ask Parliament to consider the views of the Federation of Small Businesses, Andy Wilex, who said on this issue, on Hubcos, just this week? I'm astonished that the Scottish Government is deliberately excluding so much taxpayer-funded buying from the scope of their reforms. We are urging MSPs to look again at the legislation and ask if it is really appropriate for us to turn a blind eye to the purchasing practices of arm-length bodies and Hubcos. The Federation of Small Businesses is supportive of the bill, but they see it as an area that needs to be addressed. I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, given its very fair observations about the importance of financial accountability, would extend that to the particular group of organisations. Many thanks. James Kelly, to speak to amendment 29 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I rise to support amendments 29 and 28 in this group. The premise of the procurement bill is good procurement practice, covering the £10 billion of public contracts. Therefore, it seems strange that it doesn't cover the issue of Scottish water. Scottish Water has a £500 million capital expenditure programme, and last year, it had revenue expenditure of £837 million. In relation to the CAPEX, there is contribution to that in terms of the Government's loan. This is public money flowing through Scottish Water. It is right not only that there is accountability around that, but we are able to influence it through the processes in the bill. Similarly, the Scottish Futures Trust is just, as Tavi Scott correctly pinpoints, a £1 billion of public expenditure. That would be an additional tenth of the money that the bill already covers. There are real issues around accountability for how the money is spent. Some of the claims made by the Scottish Futures Trust in relation to savings. In relation to those particular amendments, there is a weakness in the bill if those amendments are not included, because not only is the expenditure then not accountable for that. It also means that all the other provisions that we are trying to bring forward in the bill in relation to areas such as blacklisting, zero hours and contracts are not covered. It is a real glitch that those amendments are not included, and I would urge support for both amendments. Failure to include the SFT hubcos in Scottish Water in the list of organisations in the schedule was a surprise to many. During the course of the process through committee to this stage today, the questions have been asked and re-asked about why they are not there. The matter has been addressed, to some extent, in the letter that was written by the Deputy Presiding Officer to Maureen Watt, convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, in which she points out that, by agreement, Scottish Water will abide roughly by the rules that exist here and that the SFTs have agreed to do some or the hubcos have agreed to do something similar. Therefore, begs the question, why are they not included on the list of organisations that will be covered? I think that the question has been asked repeatedly. It has never been answered to my satisfaction, and for that reason I will support the amendments today. It would be helpful, no doubt, to explain, as I have done at previous stages of the bill, why hubcos and Scottish Water are not included in its ambit. Hubcos, first of all—I should say just as an observation to Tavish Scott, although I am sure that he will correct me if my recollection is wrong here—I seem to recall that the concept of hubcos was first developed by the previous administration and taken forward by it, but hubcos are not public bodies, they are institutionalised private public bodies. Their private partners are procured after open competitive processes. Scottish Water is publicly owned, but Scottish Water is subject to a very different regime of EU legislation. The bill, regulations and guidance will be drafted to dovetail with EU public procurement rules. Indeed, the bill currently does this in relation to Scottish Water by excluding utilities contracts, which is consistent with the existing EU procurement law approach, because it is subject to a separate legal regime. Applying the bill to a body that is subject to a different EU law framework would create considerable complexity and create some risk for all concerned, as it would require work with two very different EU legal regimes. That said, at stage 2, I undertook to write to the committee after further dialogue with both the Scottish Futures Trust and Scottish Water, which I did on 6 May. I sent that letter to the committee. The letter makes clear that SFT intends to work with hubcos to encourage them to adopt the good practice in the bill where that is appropriate. Indeed, I should point out to the chamber that that is already happening in a number of areas, including community benefit clauses, being one example of that. She will be away from correspondence that we have had in relation to the point that Tavish Scott was making about the involvement of smaller firms within constituencies that he and I, others in this Parliament, represent. The notion of Scottish Water using regional rural frameworks might be a way of getting around that, having the transparency that both James Kelly and Tavish Scott were referring to, but allowing more of an involvement of companies in the multiplier effect that that brings to our local economies to be used. I am more than happy to discuss the issue relating to Scottish Water with the member if he would find that helpful. If I am understanding his point correctly, I would point out that there is nothing in the bill that prevents the use of framework contracts, so I am not sure that his point necessarily hangs together in that respect, but if I have misunderstood him, I am more than happy to engage further with him. I was pointing out that, in relation to SFT and hubcos, a number of areas covered by this bill already are in use community benefit clauses being the example that I would cite. With regard to Scottish Water, it has also provided an assurance that it supports the general principles of the bill and will continue to adhere to its key components. Again, I would highlight that Scottish Water already does adhere to many of the key components of this bill. It advertises via the Public Contract Scotland website. It uses standard pre-qualification questionnaires. It uses community benefit clauses in its major contracts. Those are all issues that the bill addresses that Scottish Water is already adhering to, even though it is not part of the overall framework of the bill. I would ask Tavish Scott to withdraw amendment 28, James Kelly not to move amendment 29 and to ask the chamber not to support either of those amendments. I thank you very much. I call Tavish Scott to wind up and indicate an intention to press her with draw, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I take the Deputy First Minister's remarks in relation to some of the provisions of the bill that she has just described apply to some of those bodies, and that is progress. What I thought was interesting is that the Deputy First Minister did not respond to the major concern that I think many of us have, and that is financial accountability to this Parliament. I would hate to repeat all the same points, but we do not know because of the structure of these hubcalls. I am not saying that this structure was right whenever it was introduced. I take a point about when it was introduced. Whenever it was introduced, it was right. We do not know how that can deliver value for money. We do not know when schools are put into the programme that we achieve value for money, because there is not a tender at that stage. That seems to me in the Government's interest to seek to do that. Therefore, if the hubcall model is not achieving that, perhaps that should be considered from first principles. For many of the reasons that James Kelly, Alec Johnson and others have expressed, it does appear to me to be a fundamental point that £1 billion of public spending should be included in the provisions of this bill, and that is one that we should support. Many thanks. Members will note that we have passed a agreed time limit for the debate on this group to finish, and I exercised my power under rule 9.8.4AC to allow the debate on the group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. However, the question now is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all? The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. This will be a one minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 28 is, yes, 56. No, 61. There were no abstentions. Amendment 29 is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 29, in the name of James Kelly, already debated with amendment 28. I ask James Kelly to move or not move. The member has moved. The question therefore is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palms is not agreed. There will be a 30-second division. Please vote now. Order. The result of the vote on amendment 29 is, yes, 56. No, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That ends consideration of amendments. Can I ask members leaving the chamber to do so as quickly and quietly as possible, please? The next item of business is a debate on motion number 10005, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Procurement Reform Scotland Bill. Members who wish to participate in this debate should press the request to speak buttons now. I notify the chamber that we are tight for time. I therefore call on Nicola Sturgeon to speak to and to move the motion. Deputy First Minister, if you could do so in around eight minutes, I'd be most grateful. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin this debate by thanking all those who have contributed to the development of this bill. I want to thank members from across the chamber. A range of stakeholders, stakeholders with an interest in procurement from various different perspectives, have contributed hugely to our procurement reform agenda. I know that we will continue to do so, and I am very grateful to them. I also want to thank the infrastructure and capital investment committee, whose scrutiny of the bill has led to a significant number of improvements. Lastly, if I can place on record my thanks to my own officials and the bill team, who have worked very hard on what is, at times, a very technical and very complex area of law. It is fair to say that, as the bill has progressed through the parliamentary process, it has stimulated some very passionate and lively discussion. That is a good thing. What I want to do in those remarks, though, is focus on what I believe is a remarkable degree of consensus about what our ambitions should be in relation to public procurement. All of us across party divides support the broad aims of the bill, which are to ensure that the £10 billion every year that the public sector spends in Scotland is spent wisely and it is spent fairly, and to ensure that we use that spending wherever we possibly can to generate additional benefits for our communities, for our businesses and for our citizens, and indeed for the wider world, which is something that Patrick Harvie sought to highlight in some of his own amendments. The bill contains a strong statement of intent that good procurement practice must mean thinking about the bigger picture when planning a procurement exercise. The new general duties in the bill will help to achieve that and the greater transparency that the requirements on advertising, contract registers and published strategies will deliver will help to understand how procurement is performing and what it is delivering or not delivering and enable us to take action if the latter is the case. Jackie Baillie's amendment, which was agreed today, will include national reports to Parliament and will help us to ensure that we are able to monitor performance and strive for ever greater results. As we debate the bill, it is important that we remember that procurement must continue to deliver value for the taxpayer. The Scottish model of procurement, as it has increasingly been recognised, has at its heart the need to strike the best balance of cost, quality and sustainability. Delivering savings, reducing waste and improving quality through innovation are all vitally important objectives for our public services and are at the heart of what professional procurement staff are employed to deliver. The bill needs to help them to perform that important role and not hinder them in doing it. We have also got to remember that the public bodies that we are asking to embrace the requirements in the bill already have a complex and demanding set of rules that they must comply with in relation to the overarching European law and procurement. In framing the bill, we have had to work hard. I know that this has not always been popular when I have used this explanation to keep the new rules as simple and as easy to understand as we can and to keep them compliant with EU law. Perhaps it is a sign that I am an eternal optimist, but I will take it as a sign that we have managed to strike a reasonable balance in this bill by the fact that there are some stakeholders who think that the bill does not go far enough and that there are an equal number of stakeholders who think that it goes far too far. Perhaps it is a sign that we have struck a balance. I believe that we all share the ambition that public procurement in Scotland should be business-friendly through standardising processes, streamlining bureaucracy and encouraging innovation. The business-friendly aspects of the bill are particularly important when it comes to small businesses, third sector organisations and supported businesses. I want to make sure that the bill delivers real improvements for them in terms of their ability to access public contracts. I believe that we also all want companies bidding for public contracts to conduct their business in an ethical manner. I certainly want it to be the case that only businesses that comply with their obligations in law are successful in winning public contracts and providing the power to make regulations and issue guidance on the selection of bidders and the exclusion of companies from the procurement exercises. The bill will address those issues and it will help us to ensure that only reputable companies win public contracts. I want to ensure to Parliament today that addressing issues such as the living wage, blacklisting, inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts and issues to do with promoting equality generally will all be central to how we frame the regulations and guidance that will underpin the legislation. I firmly believe that the bill will establish a national legislative framework for public procurement that is both business-friendly and socially responsible. It is not always easy. I remember saying in the debate at stage 1 of the bill that there are tensions running through this whole agenda that can often feel very difficult to reconcile, but we must reconcile it. It is important to emphasise both sides of the equation, business-friendly and socially responsible, so that we strike an appropriate balance. I believe that the bill does that, but the regulations and the guidance will of course be crucial to ensuring that we continue to get that right. I mentioned stakeholders at the outset. The contribution of stakeholders in the next stages of the process will be extremely important in making sure that both the commitments that I have given during the process about reflecting particular priorities and guidance are delivered and that we do that in a meaningful and robust way. We have had a huge number of responses over 250 as we have gone through the consultation on the bill, and we need to harness all of that expertise as we go into the next stage. I think that we have our will when we pass it later on. I hope that we will have delivered a piece of legislation that can make a big contribution to improving procurement performance and, importantly, that we will deliver those improvements without imposing unnecessary or disproportionate burdens or, indeed, opening our public bodies to substantial legal risk. On this occasion, as I have already alluded to, given that much of the bill is couched in terms of enabling powers and very deliberately so, stage 3 will feel perhaps more like the start of a process rather than the end of a process. As we work through the various pieces of regulation and guidance that the bill provides for, it will be important that we continue to engage comprehensively with all stakeholders. As I have said, I have also given a number of commitments to partnership and cross-party working, and I am happy to restate that the Government will continue to approach all of its work on procurement reform in a fully inclusive manner. I think that this bill is a good piece of legislation that will make a difference, but one of the other points that was made at an earlier stage of this bill is that legislation is but one part of our procurement reform agenda. It was never going to be the case that we could resolve all of the ills around procurement or some of the wider social and economic issues that we have touched upon in relation to the bill through this one piece of legislation. I think that we have done a good job in giving ourselves the tools to do so, but our wider programme of procurement reform continues to be very important. I think that Scotland is rightly gaining a good international reputation for its record and its work on public procurement. I think that this bill will contribute to that, but the work that comes after it in terms of the guidance and regulations and on our wider agenda will ensure that we continue to move forward to get better at it so that that £10 billion that we spend every year is spent well and in a way that delivers benefits right across our society. I am grateful to the First Minister for curtailing her speech, however I do have to notify backbench members that if I am to call everyone, I will have to give speeches of three and a half minutes. I now call on James Kelly at maximum seven minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to take part in the stage 3 open debate on the procurement reform Scotland bill. I would indicate that the Labour Party are supporting the bill at stage 3 when the division comes round at quarter past six. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon in the sense that the £10 billion of public sector spend that is available to influence through the bill is an opportunity, not only for good procurement practice, but in order to implement more fairness in our communities throughout Scotland. However, I think that the bill, although we are supporting it, is an opportunity. Labour interacted seriously with the bill throughout. We submitted a suite of amendments at stage 2, all of which, with the exception of one, were rejected by the Government. Although we have seen some progress this afternoon in terms of a number of amendments from Jackie Baillie and one from Ken Macintosh, I think that if you examined the bill that was initially published and looked at the final version that we are going to vote on shortly, there is very little difference in it. For such an important bill, an important piece of legislation, it makes you wonder as to how good the parliamentary process has been during the course of consideration of these stages. In terms of the living wage, I am not going to rerun the arguments that we have had. I am sure that people will be delighted to know. What I would say is that I am obviously disappointed that the Labour amendment has not been included. I genuinely believe that it was a real opportunity to extend the living wage. In terms of the SNP amendment, I think that that is a result of the pressure from CAMP, such as the STUC, SCVO and others. That has moved the SNP to include provision for the living wage in the bill. As I said earlier, I am not convinced that that is strong enough and I remain convinced as to how much difference that will make. In terms of moving the living wage forward, what we are really interested in is monitoring the impact of the bill and the changes that Nicola Sturgeon announced earlier. It might be useful if there was a living wage unit in order to do that, because we want to see whether the effect of those changes results in more people being paid at the living wage. I think that there also remains a big issue, as I have consistently raised in recent weeks, in relation to people working on Scottish Government contracts and prisons. We had the example a couple of weeks ago of the National Museum of Scotland shop, who are not paid the living wage. If the amendments that Nicola Sturgeon has brought forward to match her rhetoric with implementation, we have to see some movement for those workers. What is also needed moving forward is a national living wage strategy. One of the interesting things in recent weeks is that we have seen more businesses come out for the living wage KPMG nationwide. There is an opportunity to extend the payment of it, not just in the public sector but in the private sector throughout Scotland. On some of the other issues, I regret that the provisions of the bill and community benefit will not strengthen to cover more contracts in terms of the threshold being reduced. I also would have preferred to have seen that the amendment was not selected for inclusion, but I would also have liked to have seen inclusion of community benefit in relation to apprentices. That could have been a real opportunity. In terms of aggressive tax avoidance, we could have been stronger on that. If people are adopting practices of aggressive tax avoidance and they are then taking money from the public purse, that is something that we should have more control over. I welcome the movement that there was on trade union recognition in relation to Ken Mackintosh's amendment and Jackie Baillie's amendment on annual reporting. I think that annual reporting and monitoring is important going forward on this bill because we can then see the effect of the £10 billion and the effect of some of the changes that have been put forward. However, that was not matched by support for changes on blacklist in zero hours contracts and supported businesses. Jackie Baillie's point about an equal pay audit was a very important one, particularly when you see that, if you look at the living wage, 64 per cent of the people who are not on the living wage are women, that is £256,000. That shows, as Jackie Baillie said in her contribution, that there is still a long way to go. Another issue that I agree with Nicola Sturgeon on is that it is not just about this bill, it is about the processes around procurement. One of the issues that businesses bring to all MSPs is that there is frustration around the process. They feel that it is too complicated and it needs to be simplified. It is not just a case of legislation, it needs to be a simplification of the process. In summary, Deputy Presiding Officer, we are always supporting the bill at stage 3. We have attempted seriously to bring forward robust amendments that I think would have made the bill stronger and would have made the procurement process stronger. I will be very interested in going forward to see how the bill plays out and what impact it has on that £10 billion of spend. I look forward to examining that in Parliament and throughout the country. Many thanks, and I call Alex Johnston. Maximum five minutes, lest we be better. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I rise to support this bill. I think that we have come to a position where we have something that we can all agree on. Of course, if I had been doing this myself, if I had never had the chance to be the Cabinet Secretary, I might have done something very different. However, my additional chapter on compulsory competitive tendering remains in the death drawer where it may stay for some time. However, the priorities in getting this bill through Parliament and on to the statute book was to make sure that we had a procurement system that was simple to understand, easy to access, maximise the opportunities and minimise the burdens on those companies who bid for contracts. Always in my mind, although we have been talking about big companies in many cases, I have had small businesses. My concern has always been that small businesses often miss the opportunity to participate in Government contracts. If we can deliver that, we will have done something very worthwhile. It is the case also that during the process we have seen the Government introduce some changes that will strengthen the position of the third sector and will do something for supported businesses. Those are two groups that, in initial evidence to the committee, felt that they had been disadvantaged by processes in the past, and I hope that they feel that their position has been strengthened to some extent. There is a significant case that we said that the bill will require fine-tuning through regulation. Indeed, the minister has made it clear that the nature of the bill will allow that to happen as the process goes on. As we have gone through both at stage 2 and at stage 3, the Labour Party has tried particularly hard to introduce a series of other issues that, in my view, would have taken the bill beyond the issue of procurement. I wish to almost take this opportunity to apologise for the fact that I voted against all their proposals. The reason for that is that I want this bill to be about procurement, and I want it to be simple and easy to understand. While I do not agree with all the principles that the Labour Party has brought forward, it is essential that, for the good of Scotland, as we go forward, that those issues are all addressed. I hope that the Labour Party will find opportunities to bring them to the chamber and force them on to the political agenda so that we can discuss them in that environment. I do not believe that the procurement bill was the place to have that argument. For that reason, I think that we have a piece of legislation that is fit for purpose. We will find supporters and detractors among those who are likely to take advantage of it. We will, at the end of the day, deliver a framework upon which we can build over time. I hope genuinely that it will deliver efficient use of public money and fair distribution of contracts across Scotland's many businesses, supported businesses and third sector organisations. If we can look back and believe that we have achieved that, I think that we will have a great deal to be proud of. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate and we are very tight for time. Maximum three and a half minutes. Jim Eadie to be followed by Drew Henry. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this stage 3 debate. I would like to begin by paying tribute to all of those individuals and stakeholders who have contributed to the process of scrutinising and strengthening the provisions of the bill. I believe that the bill at stage 3 is a better bill than the one that was first published on the issue of fair trade and ethical practice. I argued at stage 2 with the support of the Scottish Fair Trade Forum for measures to strengthen the bill. I was therefore pleased that the Government responded by tabling an amendment to include a statement of a public authorities general policy on fairly and ethically traded goods and services as part of its procurement strategy. In the words of the Scottish Fair Trade Forum, this will help to build on the significant progress that Scotland has already made as a fair trade nation. The bill as amended at stage 2 will for the first time compel public authorities to state their policy towards ethical and fair trade. I very much welcome that, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work alongside the Scottish Fair Trade Forum to make that possible. I was also pleased that the amendment tabled by me this afternoon, which seeks to promote compliance by contractors and subcontractors with the provisions of health and safety legislation, has now been incorporated into the bill. I put on record again my thanks to the Scottish Hazards Campaign Group and Families Against Corporate Killers for highlighting the issue. On blacklisting, the Government has made it clear throughout the passage of the bill that it is totally opposed to the unacceptable practice of blacklisting. The Government has worked closely with the trade unions to develop comprehensive guidance that will require companies seeking public sector contracts to disclose whether they have been involved in blacklisting. That guidance includes a new standard pre-qualification questionnaire requiring suppliers to disclose if they have breached laws to outlaw blacklisting. No one should doubt the Deputy First Minister's commitment on this issue. As by me at the committee on 11 December, if the Government had gone as far as it is possible to go, she stated that anything that we can do to banish blacklisting will be done. I am pleased that the Government has followed through on this commitment this afternoon in outlining how this can be done most effectively. The Government's approach was also welcomed by families against corporate killers, who stated that we have also been heartened by the recent announcement on the exclusion from public sector contracts of companies that engage in blacklisting, particularly because so many of those blacklisted have been so because of their health and safety activities. There has been much discussion this afternoon on the living wage. James Kelly said that the bill had not changed substantially since stage 1 and then proceeded to say that the amendment on a living wage was as a result of pressure from the STUC and others. The Government's amendment, which was passed today, places an explicit reference to the living wage on the face of the bill. Whatever differences we have, we should welcome that. The Scottish Government is doing all that it can with the powers that it currently has to address the issue of low pay and the amendments passed this afternoon will mean that businesses that want to work on public sector contracts will have to clearly demonstrate how they plan to remunerate their staff. The test that must be applied to the bill is whether or not it will make a difference. Will it improve the pay and working conditions of people employed across Scotland? Does it drive economic activity across the supply chain? Can it strengthen the position of small businesses and the third sector? Does it promote fairness in employment and fair trade practices? I believe that, on all those crucial tests, the bill has succeeded and, for those reasons, it deserves to pass at stage 3 tonight. Thank you, Henry. We followed by Linda Fabiani. We should not underestimate the sheer scale of what the public sector can do by using its purchasing power. The public sector affects every aspect of life in Scotland. Because of the significance of the public sector, it has the opportunity to make a difference. One of the problems over the years is that we have underestimated how we can use procurement as a force for positive change. Alex Johnson said that he did not support much of what the Labour Party had been attempting to do because he did not see the significance or relevance of that to procurement. However, if Jim Eadie is right in saying that we can use procurement to affect changes in relation to health and safety, we can use procurement to affect changes in a whole raft of things across the public sector. The cabinet secretary, Jim Eadie, has made reference to the fact that we have moved forward in relation to what the Government has put in the face of the bill with respect to the living wage. I think that there are a number of positive changes that have been made. I think that there is a genuine acceptance that procurement can make a difference and that we should be using our powers in this Parliament to improve things. Nor should we underestimate what we can do. It is disappointing that we have just pulled back from using those powers to the full. It is all very well to say that there will be a reference to the living wage on the bill, but we could have gone much further on whether guidance does anything remains to be seen. I hope that it does. However, we could have gone much further in specifying a legal requirement on the bill that forces the Scottish Government to say to its contractors and subcontractors that one of the conditions for you getting this contract is that you will pay the living wage. That may well have a financial consequence, but that would be a matter for the Scottish Government to ensure that that price is paid in the contract to ensure that it happens. There is a good example of that happening already, the example of Renfrewshire Council. Renfrewshire Council, in response to the unison care campaign, has specified that the contractors for care must pay the living wage. There is a cost to the council for that. At no point during the bill have I used a financial argument against having a mandatory requirement for the living wage. It has entirely been a legal point. I agree with him that we should use the procurement bill to the maximum to promote the living wage, so it has never been a financial argument that he has heard from me. The fact is that using that financial clout could have been underpinned legally as Renfrewshire Council is doing to make sure that not just the Scottish Government, but every public sector provider does the same. You could do it because it is being done, and it is a shame that councils such as Renfrewshire are being left on their own to do it. We should have the full force of the public sector lined up in support of that initiative. Let us support the bill, positive changes, but we could have done much more. We are short of time in how much we can all say, but in one thing I would say in response to Hugh Henry is that I have not seen an awful lot of councils, Labour, or otherwise running forward to push for this. In fact, when you do the investigation quite often, some of the procurement they carry out—no, I do not have time—leaves a lot to be desired. I am not convinced having looked at all the work that has been done through this that we could, in fact, put that in the face of the bill, and I am really pleased with what the cabinet secretary has brought forward. She is absolutely right. Public procurement already has a complex and demanding set of rules. I think that there is a balance that has been achieved in the procurement bill, and it has been a long time coming since the cabinet secretary's own government came in in 2007 and started to revise procurement, started to make it better, started to streamline it, trying to cut down on the bureaucracy. What I think is absolutely wonderful is to have that two-pronged approach, which is business-friendly but socially responsible. That is extremely, extremely important. Legislation is only one part of the reform agenda, and I am glad to hear that we can look forward to more coming forward to try to achieve those aims. One of the things that I believe is both business-friendly and socially responsible is to put an emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises when we are looking at public procurement in a country like Scotland, where we have defined localities, defined areas, where we have local authorities doing a lot of public procurement. I think that well-being and the support that comes for small and medium enterprises and well-being of communities can be combined. I know that it is difficult because we operate under procurement rules of Europe. It is very, very hard, but there are innovative ways of managing that kind of thing. After all, in Scotland, small and medium enterprises account for over 99 per cent of enterprises, over 53 per cent of employment and 36.5 per cent of turnover. It is very, very important. I know that there has been a lot of discussion going on about the possibility of breaking contracts into smaller lots to be able to take the best advantage of small and medium enterprises. The directives will have to be looked at very carefully to allow that kind of thing to happen. However, I think that that is where we are right in having a fairly straightforward bill, procurement bill in legislation, that then allows you to look carefully at future directors and to transpose them for the best possible advantage. In East Kilbride, where I represent, this is extremely important, there is a task force set up by South Lanarkshire Council. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to go along to their meetings because they seem to have some problem about whether I can keep things commercially confidential. I hope that they take that on board. I hope that South Lanarkshire Council, in looking at East Kilbride, will look at the importance of small and medium enterprises, and I think that that is something that could be done in communities across Scotland for the wellbeing of that community and their economic success. Thank you very much. I intend to call the remaining two members, Tavish Scott, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Three minutes each, please. I am with Jamedie. I am going to apply the does the bill make a difference test. I think that he is quite right about that. For this reason, some years ago, a very bright and impressive school cook on the island that I live on where my children went to school, tried to introduce local lamb on to the school menu. She went through hoops and hoops and hoops to overcome local government procurement. To this day in Shetland—I am going to use the bill to encourage Shetland to do a heck of a lot better on this—the sourcing of local beef and lamb and fish for local schools and other care centres and other public sector provision is not done at that local level. I hope that, using the community benefit regime that the Government has introduced and all parties are very much supported through the passage of this bill here today, that measures that are in this bill will assist our local councils and other public sector providers to ensure that provision can help the local economy in that kind of way—in that case, local agriculture—in that kind of way, which would be beneficial, I would have thought, for so many reasons, not least of which, on the food miles arguments of many of these other ones that we make in a different context. I do hope that this bill is a considerable step forward. I would like to thank the Deputy First Minister for taking it forward in the spirit in which she has done. I particularly look forward to Jackie Baillie's annual report now being used. She will forgive me if I hope that hub calls come under a degree of more scrutiny than they have in the past. If that is a mechanism that the Government has supported today, then I applaud that. I think that is a good step forward. The two other aspects that I did want to highlight were, firstly, the access that Linda Fabiani has rightly been pointed to for contracts for our small business sector. I do not think that any Government has gone far enough in this area yet. Those big framework documents, those big structures that are in place in terms of procurement across Scotland, I think are tricky to put it mildly for smaller businesses across Scotland of all kinds—construction, white-collar, blue-collar, professional bodies, professional businesses, for example, providing architectural services. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister has been on the end of numerous representations on this, and I do hope that her Government is able to make a big step forward using the measures that we are going to pass today. The final point is just to observe that when we do pass legislation like this, and when much of it, as the Deputy First Minister illustrated in her opening remarks, will depend on the secondary legislation that is subsequently considered by Parliament. There is a job for all of us to do on that, because I suspect that that is where we genuinely can make a difference to the kind of issues that many members have raised this afternoon. Many thanks, and finally, Jackie Baillie, three minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I dispense with the normal thanks that are customary in the interests of time, but thank you. You know who you are. At the heart of this bill, it is very much about improving procurement in the public sector and getting the maximum advantage from expenditure of some £10 billion each year. For me and for others in the chamber, it is much more than that. It is about how we use that substantial amount of money and the influence of the public sector to drive change—change in the standard and quality of services, change in the rights of those who are employed to deliver that service. How staff are valued and treated matters. The living wage, equal pay audits, public sector equality duties all should be on the face of the bill, not just in guidance. The one thing that I learned from my time as a minister is that what you put on the face of the bill is what matters to you and your Government. That is a political choice, and I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not believe that those areas are of sufficient importance to include on the face of the bill. Let me touch on equality in the equal pay gap, because the Deputy First Minister, in rejecting equal pay audits, could not help herself. She departed to the usual attack on Westminster. Let me ask the chamber how many times is equal pay, gender pay gaps or the pay gap itself mentioned in the body of the white paper? Is it once? Is it twice? Is it even three times? Let me tell the chamber that it is not mentioned at all. You need to go to annex D on page 607 to get a mention of wage equality. That tells you all that you need to know about the SNP's priorities. Women, included as an annex, are simply an afterthought. Let me turn to the living wage, because the cabinet secretary has portfolio responsibility for tackling child poverty. She would agree that report after report is unanimous about the scale of the problem and what we need to do to begin to tackle it. The majority of those reports say that there is much that the Scottish Government can do now, including implementing the living wage. You only need to look at the sharp increase in in-work poverty and the increase in queues at food banks to know the importance of making work pay. As James Kelly has already said, that has a greater impact on women who are 64 per cent of the 400,000 workers that would benefit. The cabinet secretary knows that women are more generally employed in low-paid jobs. Many work part-time. That bill could have made a huge difference to them. It could have been so much bolder on the living wage, on equal pay, on the public sector equality duty and on improving women's lives. That is not a bad bill, and I welcome her agreement to a number of amendments from across the chamber, but I think that it is a missed opportunity. In advance of the referendum, the SNP has discovered women, and I welcome that new-found interest. I am always delighted to see more women in the cabinet, but it is no substitute for taking practical action to improve hundreds and thousands of women's lives right now. Many thanks, and I now call Gavin Brown in the closing speeches. Four minutes maximum, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to make two points in closing for the Scottish Conservatives today. The first one is that we broadly support the approach taken by the Government towards the bill as a whole and also to the amendments both at stage 2 and stage 3 today. Because, while there were a number of powerful arguments put forward by the Labour Party, by the Green Party and indeed by the Liberal Democrats about amendments that they wanted to see, had we passed all of those amendments, I think that there would have been a negative consequence to business across Scotland. Had we put additional requirements for the living wage and sustainability and animal welfare and reducing inequality and climate change and the third sector and wage ratios, equalities, zero-hours, equal pay, tax avoidance and blacklisting, all in one go, I think that there would have been a significant risk that many businesses would have increased their costs. The £10 billion of procurement that has been mentioned by all parties would not have gone nearly as far as we all wanted to go. In particular, I think that we would have seen even fewer small and micro businesses engaging with the public sector and even attempting to win public sector contracts. I think that there is broad agreement across the chamber that there are not enough SMEs doing business with the public sector. I think that there is broad agreement that everybody wants to see them getting a larger slice of the pie and doing more business. However, had we implemented all that everyone wanted to happen today, the process would not have been simplified and it would have been made more complex. In the absence of a formal impact assessment, we may well have lived to regret making all those decisions. The second point that I want to focus on—this is a plea to the cabinet secretary, because she is right when she said that this is not the end of the process, in some ways it is the beginning. One particular issue that I hope can be taken forward by the Government when it comes to guidance and regulation is not an area that Linda Fabiani touched on in her speech. That is the size of contracts, because the most common complaint from small businesses is that they are precluded not officially, not legally from getting involved, but they are precluded because the size of the contract is simply too large for the business that they currently have. It is an issue for businesses in almost every constituency in Scotland, and the key question to answer is how can we unbundle more of those contracts so that small businesses have a fighting chance? They do not want special treatment, they just want the ability to compete against the bigger players and the opportunity to win more business ultimately. FSP Scotland and its briefing for the stage 3 debate put it well that it thinks that the statutory guidance on procurement strategies and annual reports will be vital to ensure that we get smaller lots and better small business access. Section 9 of the bill, as will hopefully be passed, does talk about facilitating the involvement of small and medium enterprises, but my plea to the Scottish Government is to go a step further. In section 9A, guidance can be published on that specific point, and I ask FSP Scotland to think carefully about that in the coming months so that we can get formal guidance that does unbundle the size of contracts and give smaller businesses the opportunity to compete. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As has already been said, we will be supporting the procurement from the bill at decision time tonight, because we feel that the public sector procurement can achieve much more than the positive effect of that individual contract. It has been said already repeatedly that we spend £10 billion a year on procuring goods and services in Scotland, and we need to see the full economic, environmental and social benefits that vast sum of money can bring. The procurement reform bill can and should have been used to ensure payment of the living wage in public contracts, maximise community benefit from procurement, demonstrate the Scottish Government's commitment to meeting their climate change targets, condemn the use of exploitative zero-hours contracts, tax avoidance and blacklisting, promote equality and support contractors committed to achieving equality, encourage sustainable food procurement, support skills development with apprenticeships, support the third sector, and support people with disabilities into employment. Those are the areas where we have sought to strengthen our legislation, and we feel that the procurement reform bill could have been a much more ambitious piece of work if the amendments that are tabled by Labour members had been taken on board completely. We do, however, welcome the Scottish Government's support on Jackie Baillie's amendments on equality and Kevin Macintosh's amendment on protecting trade union recognition and Sarah Boyack's on food procurement. We also note that the Government's amendments passed this afternoon on the living wage following the campaign. We have had alongside trade unions and the poverty alliance and the Government's amendment on supported workplaces. While those amendments are an improvement, we still feel that the Government could have gone further by accepting its own amendments. The Scottish Government, particularly on living wage, only requires contractors to include a general policy statement on the living wage and the air procurement strategy. Our amendment would have required the payment of the living wage to workers. The Scottish Government recognises that its amendment does not require the payment of the living wage to workers, so I would ask what practical effect that will have. In all the debates that there have been in this Parliament on the living wage and procurement, the case of refit versus needers action has been mentioned. There has been no practical way put forward by the Labour Party how we get over that. Can Mr Griffin explain how we deal with the case law that exists and the current rules that there is in Europe? There was evidence submitted by Thomson solicitors to his own committee. I am sure that the member would wish to be as ambitious as he was on alcohol minimum Europe pricing as he could be with the living wage. We would have seen a much stronger bill for that and the take-home pay packets of thousands of people who are on public contracts boosted as a result of that. Another area in which I think that the bill could have been strengthened was around zero hours. I would ask the question of the cabinet secretary why the Government could not commit to introducing contract performance clauses that stipulated that successful bidders must not use zero hours contracts, since contractors already have to demonstrate through KPIs how they are meeting the requirements of contract performance clauses. Could the Scottish Government not have used those KPIs to monitor zero hours contracts? That would be helpful if the cabinet secretary would be able to clarify that. The procurement strategies and annual reports are another area in which we have welcomed that development. They cover community benefit requirements that they should deliver value for money, timescales for payments, summary of procurement activity in the next two years. That is a lot of good information that should drive up best practice and help companies bidding for work. What is still missing, though, from those procurement strategies, is that reference to supported business, which I pushed in my amendment. We spoke about the Government's own policy that every public authority should have at least one contract with a supported business. It seems strange that we have a procurement reform bill that does not set that commitment in legislation. We debated that issue earlier, but I think that when 44 public authorities do not award a single contract to supported businesses, we really should have a stronger commitment. The Scottish Government has worked to ensure that staff members who are directly employed get the living wage. Local authorities have taken a lead, too. Although we have seen some moves in the private sector recently, the private sector has not kept pace with the public sector on the living wage as much as we would have liked in terms of what the Scottish Government has done and what local authorities have done in areas such as Renfrewshire. That bill gave us the opportunity to force private companies bidding for contracts to paste after the living wage and see that transformational knock-on effect that it would have had in the private sector. For that reason alone, we will look back and say that that was a £10 billion opportunity. The Deputy First Minister has eight minutes until 6.15. I thank everybody who has contributed not just to the process of the bill, but to the debate this afternoon. There are a few themes that I will pick up on that have been raised during the course of the debate. The process of the bill has gone through. I agree entirely with Jim Eadie. I think that the bill has improved as it has gone through its parliamentary progress. James Kelly managed to say both that the bill had barely changed during its progress due to Scottish Government resistance to change, but he also said that the Scottish Government had been forced into making changes on the living wage due to pressure. The reality is that we have made changes where the case for change has been made, both in principle, in practice and in legal terms. We have made very important changes on the living wage. The bill is stronger now in respect of the living wage. We have made changes on tax avoidance, on reporting requirements, on trade union recognition, on health and safety, just to name a few of the areas where the bill has been strengthened. I think that that is a credit not just to the Government but to everybody who has been involved in the scrutiny of this piece of legislation. The second theme relates to the importance of the bill. It is a point that I made in my opening remarks, but it bears repetition, and many members speaking in this debate have made it this point. We spend £10 billion through the public sector every year. It is vital that we ensure that that spend delivers economic and social benefits, and that is what we have sought to do through this bill. It is what we will continue to seek to do through the regulations and guidance that will flow from it. I know and I accept the reality that Labour needs to manufacture divisions with the SNP. In fact, opposing the SNP now seems to be Labour's only real purpose in life. Nevertheless, notwithstanding that, it is interesting that many of the so-called divisions during this bill have been about how we achieve change, not if we achieve that change. We might not always have agreed—we might not always have felt able to agree—because of legal constraints with Labour on how to advance certain priorities. Nevertheless, we have sought at every turn to find the best way possible of achieving the same objectives. The living wage is a case in point here. Unlike Alex Johnson, and with the greatest respect to him, I have no objection to using the procurement reform bill to advance the objective of the living wage. On the contrary, I would have liked to have supported Labour's amendments. If I had felt that those amendments were legally competent, I would have put them in the bill at its introduction. I could not because of the legal restrictions that I have already outlined and I will not rehearse today. I would simply say to Hugh Henry that the whole purpose of the guidance is to further support councils like Renfrewshire to do what they are doing. The restriction is not in encouraging and supporting councils, it is about making it a mandatory requirement through this legislation. Again, the objective is shared and how we do it is the point of division. I hope that we can all now unite about doing it in the way that this bill enables. On occasion, it has been a bit amusing to hear Labour members and Mark Griffin use this argument in his summing up about the minimum wage—sorry, about minimum pricing, not about the minimum wage. The issues are different in my view, but I recall the debates on minimum pricing for alcohol, where Labour opposed that legislation with the honourable exception of Malcolm Chisholm, tooth and nail, for the specific reason that they thought that it breached European law. It would risk challenge on European legal grounds. They demanded to see our legal advice and said that, in all conscience, we could not pass this legislation because it was a risk that it would breach European law. It is just a bit rich now to hear them make the arguments that they are making in relation to this. I hope now that all members will work with us in developing the guidance. The STEC Unison, the poverty alliance, whom I had a very productive meeting with last week, have agreed to do so. Tavish Scott made a very good point. There is a big job for Parliament now to do in scrutinising the secondary legislation. The other theme that I just want to touch on is this theme of striking a balance. There are tensions that run through this agenda, and I have always been clear about that. There are competing interests. The public authorities want value for money. They have to think about affordability. Bidders want simplicity and ease of access to contracts. Tax payers want rightly value for money in its widest sense. Those different interests do not always align easily. We have done our best in this bill, and we will continue to do our best to strike the right balance between them. I want specifically, because Gavin Brown raised some of those points to say a word about SMEs. I absolutely endorse the desire to see SMEs get a bigger slice of the public procurement cake. I would, though, share just some figures. SMEs make up 37 per cent of our economy. They currently get 46 per cent of the £10 billion in public contracts. I would like that to be more. Section 9 says that public authorities, when undertaking a regulated procurement, have to look at how they facilitate SME involvement. Gavin Brown is right that the guidance will be important, and I certainly give him an undertaking that will give serious consideration to that. In conclusion, I think that we have done a difficult job well. I think that we have provided a framework for public procurement that allows us now to develop the guidance and the regulations that will give effect to the economic and social objectives that many people rightly want to see public procurement deliver. I have said repeatedly, and I will repeat again in the last few seconds of the time available to me, that we are determined to ensure that the £10 billion of public sector spend on contracts is spent in a way that delivers economic growth, that delivers advantages and benefits for our businesses, that delivers social benefits, that ensures that disreputable companies do not get their hands on public money, that we stamp down on tax avoiding, on blacklisting, on the inappropriate use of zero-hour contracts, that we do everything we can to promote and further the living wage. I think that those are the objectives that all of us can sign up to. Now that we have the bill and the statute book, we can get on with the job of making sure that it delivers on those objectives. Again, I will simply end by thanking all members who have contributed to this process, and encourage them to continue to do so. In closing, I ask the Parliament to pass in a few seconds time the procurement reform Scotland bill in order to make big improvements in this agenda. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Members will wish to note that the members' debate immediately after a decision time is in the name of Bill Kidd's, and it is on recovering health costs for as best as related conditions and diseases. That debate will start immediately at 6.15 after decision time, and we have only one decision for tonight as a result of today's business, and that is on the procurement reform Scotland bill, and we now come to decision time. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion number 1005, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the procurement reform Scotland bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to, and the procurement reform Scotland bill is now passed. It is decision time. We now move to members' business.