voirdd cyffredinol o HOWS- confidence that the Scottish Government has nothing to do with what I did for myself and sitting on the chair. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15760 in the name of Murdo Fraser on work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press the request-speak button now. Murdo Fraser, through the motion, will speak to removing the committee on behalf of the Economy Energy and Tourism Committee. On behalf of the Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, we are grateful for the opportunity to debate what has been for us an extensive, exciting and compelling inquiry into work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market. I can at the outset take the opportunity to express my thanks to all those who gave evidence to the committee, either taking the time to do so in writing or appearing in person. Particularly, we would like to thank the members of the public who contributed to our online survey, which we will say a little bit more about in a moment, and thank the members of the public and the employers who came to the Parliament day session that we held in Paisley, which I think was a very useful means of reaching a range of opinions that might not otherwise have been available to the committee and I think was appreciated and enjoyed by the people who attended. I also want to put on record my thanks to our team of clerks for their assistance to our colleagues at Spice and finally to my fellow committee members for their co-operative approach. As this is probably the final chance that I will get to say this in the chamber this session as a convener of the committee, I would like to thank my fellow committee members for all their support and enthusiasm and general good behaviour over the past five years. In introducing the debate on behalf of the committee, I would like to begin by explaining what we knew before our inquiry, before sharing how we engaged with Scotland's workforce and some of the findings of the inquiry. We knew at the start that Scotland was emerging from a recession that began in 2008. We knew that employment levels in Scotland were at their highest level since before the recession and we knew that those employment levels had continued to increase steadily since 2010. We also knew, however, that part-time working, the use of zero-hours contracts and temporary employment were also on the increase. An inquiry that the committee did into under-employment in 2013 highlighted those trends and concluded that under-employment should be considered alongside unemployment as detrimental to a productive economy. We wanted to explore what lay behind the recent promising employment figures. In its health inequalities report, which was published just over a year ago, the health and sport committee found that socioeconomic status and work quality are key contributors to health outcomes. That committee's report suggested that simply encouraging economic growth in itself might not reduce health inequalities. As a result, one of our key aims was to explore the effect of poor quality work on health and wellbeing. First, we had to address the question, what is poor quality work? Academics and professionals varied in their definitions, but the public, whom we invited to share their experiences using an online form, seemed clear that low pay, poor management and insecure hours made for poor quality work. Although most of the 600 people who responded thankfully described their job as good, the majority also reported that their job had affected their health. Most people felt that their jobs had deteriorated in the last five years, with many describing poor progression opportunities and increased workload. I thank all the witnesses and the people who wrote to us, met us and contributed to the inquiry. That illustrates how important fair work is to the people of Scotland on the scale of the response that we had. One person, sharing their experience of zero-hours contracts, put it quite simply when they said, I cannot live like this, not knowing how much money I am earning to keep my family. At the Parliamentary Day in Paisley in September, we spoke to local employers, employers and support services, and we heard similar stories. We also heard, however, that good management, secure employment and a say in how the workplace was run could make all the difference. It is clearly not all about pay. In formal evidence and more recently in work that we carried out on social enterprises, employee-owned businesses and co-operatives, we heard that employee engagement could bolster a happy, healthy and more productive workforce. It became clear then that the use of fair working practices could be the answer to ensuring worker wellbeing and improving labour productivity. Professor Chris Warhurst introduced us to the concept of high-road and low-road economies, and the economy can lean towards high-skills and high-wages, or towards low-skills and low-wages. Evidence suggests that Scotland has a recent history of favouring the low-road. The committee was struck by the need to, as Professor Warhurst put it, pave the high-road and block the low-road. Taking the high-road as the title of our report highlights his underpinning message of all our recommendations. Those will long memories might recall a Scottish soap opera of a similar name and perhaps a matter for our creative industries inquiry instead. We are pleased to see that the Scottish Government is already lining up the cobblestones to pave the high-road. We welcome the establishment of the Fair Work Convention and I hope that the session 5 economy committee in whatever guise will take a keen interest in both the outcomes of the convention and the future policy impacts of its work. As the cabinet secretary put it in evidence to us, Scotland is already punching above its weight on encouraging businesses to sign up to the living wage. The public sector in particular has taken that message to heart. That is promising, but we heard concerns about whether those private businesses who fulfil public sector contracts can meet the challenge. We did hear powerful evidence from those working in the care sector that they would like to pay more, or they would like to pay the living wage, but they simply cannot make the sums add up because of the amount of money that they are being paid from public agencies and local authorities for care services. I know that in the recent budget, the Scottish Government has announced additional funding to help to promote the living wage in the care sector. We will be interested to learn more from the Scottish Government about how that agenda can be progressed and how we square that circle with businesses that do want to pay more who have that ambition but feel constrained because of money coming from the public sector. More generally, we would like to hear more from the Scottish Government about how that and other fair working practices can be passed down through the public procurement chain. That would help to pave the higher road. The committee also welcomed the Scottish business pledge, but we cannot ignore that the fact that businesses have not been following over themselves to sign up to it. We are concerned that the language used to describe the pledge is not clear. Here we come to the question of blocking the low road. We would like to see a definition of exploitative zero hours contracts that makes it clear that those are not welcome in a fair work Scotland and the businesses that use those will not gain business pledge accreditation. Indeed, it was clear when we took evidence that the definition of what was an exploitative zero hours contract was not clear. That is an issue that I raised with the First Minister when she came to the convener's group and she could not give me a definitive answer at that point. She subsequently wrote to me as convener of the committee. We welcomed that clarity, but of course there was a whole period before that. We were asking businesses to sign up to the business pledge when we were not clear and they could not be clear what that definition was. It is important that that clarity is obtained and it is important that we do not have that confusion arising again in any similar or related matter. We know that the business pledge is being actively promoted by the enterprise agencies and here we have further concerns that the low road is far from being blocked. We have all heard in recent years negative press about alleged poor working conditions at Amazon's Scottish sites and yet this is a firm that receives significant regional selective assistance grant through Scottish enterprise when establishing itself in Scotland. The question that we have to ask is what expectation lies now on Amazon to use fair work practices? Do we expect it to reject the use of zero-hours contracts, for example, which it has become so notoriously associated with? The committee would like to see the Scottish Government review the process for awarding these big ticket grounds. We want to see funding go to employers who will not only create jobs in Scotland but will create fair and appropriately paid and secure jobs in Scotland. In conclusion, the committee would like to see fair work principles embedded across policies covering employment practices, procurement and business support. We believe firmly that in doing that we can encourage a more productive, more resilient economy for Scotland and we hope to see a commitment to those aims reflected in Scotland's performance framework. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary's response to what I am hoping will be a lively debate that holds the wellbeing of the Scottish workforce at its heart. I thank the committee for its report and for the invitation to me to give evidence to the inquiry. I listened to Murdo Fraser with some interest, and I have noted down a number of specific points. I think that one of them almost sounded like a conservative call for increased public expenditure, which might go down in history, as perhaps the first time I have heard that. Murdo Fraser said that he was only speaking in his role as committee convener. I say, Presiding Officer, that since my appointment as Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training, promoting fair work has been a key focus of the Government. It is very helpful that the committee has taken up through the inquiry. Our programme for government sets out our vision for creating a fairer Scotland. We are committed to promoting a culture of fair work. The committee's report highlights key areas where the Scottish Government has already taken action. One of those is, of course, the living wage, which was one of the issues raised by Murdo Fraser. I am sure that many in the chamber today have, like me, heard first-hand what the living wage can offer to people working in Scotland. I ought to say that when I talk about the living wage, Presiding Officer, I am talking about the true living wage and not the enhanced minimum wage, which the Government is currently in the process of introducing for over 25s. It has made a difference to individuals from being able to afford to decorate a nursery, for example, to having savings in the bank, perhaps to go on holiday. Those are the simple things that without the living wage would just not have been attainable for some people. Of course, it is not just the employees who can benefit from the living wage. I have often spoken of the benefits that it can bring to both employers and the wider economy. Indeed, it is not unusual to find employers who will tell you the difference that it has made moving to living wage, to their own productivity, to the reduced turnover of staff, to the reduced absenteeism and its part and parcel of the whole package of work. The Scottish living wage initiative is now accredited as of yesterday over 477 organisations in total, which means that we are on course to reach our 500 target by the end of March. The wider picture on wages is positive, too. According to a resolution foundation analysis published in January, pay in Scotland has grown faster than any other nation or region in the UK over the past two decades. We know that Scotland has the second highest proportion of employees paid the living wage or more as compared to the countries and regions of the UK. Last month, we made a decisive commitment to enable payment of the living wage in the social care sector. That is an important action that we believe will help to deliver fairer workplaces and better quality care in a sector sometimes characterised by low pay. Although I have to say that there are companies operating in the care sector who are signed up accredited living wage employers. I encourage other employers to follow that lead. It is not just about wages because, of course, fair work is about much more than that. The results in the workplace can often be tangible. Another area in which the committee welcomed the work of the Scottish Government was procurement. Again, the convener discussed that in his opening remarks. We are seeking to address a number of fair work issues through public contracts. From 1 November last year, all public bodies must consider how they can address fair work practices when preparing tenders to go out to competition. The new statutory guidance makes it clear that the Scottish Government sees payment of the living wage to be a significant indicator of an employer's commitment to fair work practices. That is one of the clearest ways an employer can demonstrate that it takes a positive approach to its workforce. However, the convener is absolutely right to point out that that is not the only measure. We are sending a clear message that exploitative practices such as the inappropriate use of zero-hour contracts and umbrella companies are not acceptable. You indicated that there is fair use of zero-hour contracts. Could you give us a definition of what would be fair use of zero-hour contracts? There has been quite a discussion around that. I am not quite sure, because I am not up on my football and budge from hearts, to make the point that she uses zero-hour contracts about half a dozen times a year to get staff in for very specific events that she would not be able to put them on a broader contract. We just have to be a little bit careful that we do not expand the definition so far as to include things that people consider to be perfectly okay. It is a difficulty of definition. I appreciate that. It was a specific issue raised by the committee in connection with the Scottish Business Pledge. We did have an interesting discussion at the committee on that. The programme for government makes clear that, in 2016, we will continue to raise awareness of the Scottish Business Pledge. More than 200 businesses have signed up since May last year. I want to see many more, and I welcome the committee's broad endorsement of it. I also acknowledge the committee's further advice in that area. For example, text on zero-hours contracts taken from the committee's report is now being added to the pledge website. Although zero-hours contracts can, in some cases, have offered one example, offer people the flexibility that they want, too often they become exploitative, such as when employers deny staff regular or sufficient working hours or unfairly penalise them for being unavailable or not accepting offers of work. The Government is taking steps to ensure that we are leading by example. We do not directly employ people on zero-hours contracts. I am going to run out of time. I wanted to say something about the pregnancy and maternity discrimination issues. We do not have Scottish-specific figures yet, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission reported that, across Britain, over one in 10 of new and expectant mothers reported having been dismissed, made compulsorily redundant, where others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly that they felt they had to leave their jobs. That is an issue that many of us will have assumed disappeared decades ago and, in fact, it does not seem to have. Now, it is unlikely that Scottish figures will be much at variance from this, so we have moved to take some action that I announced a few days ago, and I hope that members will go and have a look at that, because it is important that we take that seriously as part and parcel of the whole fair work portfolio again. I will not say anything about the trade union bill, because I want to say something very quickly about the fair work convention. It will be reporting just in a few short weeks. I think that the committee's report has been very useful for the fair work convention as well. There is a lot of material relevant to the work that the convention is doing. It will report to us. That will provide a practical framework for employers, employees and others, and, of course, we will go into the new Parliament with those recommendations in place, and they will be given full consideration. In the meantime, I look forward to continuing to work with all interested parties to promote fair work in Scotland. Just in my dying seconds, Murdo Fraser discussed the issue of Amazon. I hope that he is happy to hear that I will be visiting Amazon staff tomorrow to discuss with them some of the issues that have been raised directly about their practices. Many thanks to the committee for what I think is an important and timely report building on the previous work that the committee did on under-employment. Just how necessary a piece of work is, I think, is brought home by the rather alarming extract in the report from the cabinet secretary's evidence, where the cabinet secretary told the committee that she did not like any of the definitions that she had seen of fair work and felt that it was highly subjective, suggesting that it was much easier to see a bad job than to provide a hard and fast definition of a good job or fair work. Therefore, the cabinet secretary for fair work admits that she is unsure what fair work actually is. There is a temptation to go down the kind of rhetorical route of asking whether the cabinet secretary for education knows what education is or the cabinet secretary for justice has any idea there. I think that that would be a bit unfair, because I felt that there was some welcome honesty from the cabinet secretary for fair work around the complexities of the area. It would be good if the Government demonstrated the same honesty when it came to the monthly reporting of the labour market statistics. We see when those statistics come out very often—quite sometimes hyperbolic claims—about return to pre-recession levels of employment, record employment in particular areas and so on. The committee report makes it very clear that there is rather less of that than meets the eye. The report says that the majority of evidence suggests deterioration in job quality. In particular, we heard of an increase in poor quality, low-paid and insecure work and a worrying prevalence of the use of exploitative zero-hours contracts. In other words, there may be more jobs, but the quality of those jobs leaves a great deal to be desired. That is something that, in those benches, we have been saying for a long time now that, when it comes to the labour market statistics, we have to look behind the headlines, not just because the numbers tell us something different, but because behind those headlines are the real-lived life experience of many people in Scotland struggling to get by on low-quality, poorly-paid jobs. I was struck in the report, as you might expect, by one example that happens to come from my constituency in East Lothian, a legal secretary who explains that she was taken on in 2008, with the promise of being trained as a paralegal. However, when the recession hit in seven years later, she is still an unqualified secretary. She cannot get a job elsewhere, but she has not progressed in this one. I am given too much responsibility, but no reward. She paid just enough not to be entitled to any tax credits, but not enough to live off or work towards a mortgage or pay off any debt. The company that I work for takes full advantage of the fact that people are terrified to leave, but there is no future in the role. That is the reality behind those statistics. We should not lose sight of the recommendations in the report about improving the quality of the labour market statistics. The cabinet secretary is quoted in the report accepting that the data is very broad brush and she agrees that it would be hard to break it down to a useful level and that even somebody working one or two hours a week would be classed as being in employment. It is very welcome that the report I hope that Ian Gray is going to acknowledge with me that the data that comes is the UK-wide data broken down for Scotland. Those are official statistics on which all of employment information is based across the whole of the UK. I do accept that, but two points to be made are, firstly, that the report makes clear that the Scottish Government does in fact pay on us to do additional work in order to provide more detail at Scottish level. The capacity is there to improve the statistics that we have. Secondly, the caution that needs to be applied when political points are made on the basis of the statistics in which the report says does not always bear examination. However, it is fair to acknowledge the work that the cabinet secretary and her colleagues have done towards increasing fair work, particularly around the fair work convention. However, I also just want to do the thing that the cabinet secretary ran out of time and was not able to do. There is no doubt that the possibility and chances of work being fair in high quality are increased in those sectors in which we have good trade union organisation and recognition from employers. It is extremely welcome that one of the final recommendations of the bill is that this is not quite how it is put in the committee report. This Parliament should continue with its opposition to the new trade union legislation, whether we do that by changing standing orders or by addressing the human rights issues around the implementation of the legislation in Scotland and by the Scottish Government. That should be and will be central to the degree that we can promote fair work in Scotland. I think that this was a pretty comprehensive and effective report produced by the economy committee. It took a huge amount of evidence, 11 panels by my account, a full day away in Paisley, and more than 600 responses. It is important to engage with experts who would not be considered to be academic experts and engage with a number of people who have probably spoken to the Parliament for the first time. All of that should be welcomed, and that engagement is reflected in the overall quality and substance of the report that was ultimately produced. In terms of the overall conclusion, some of them, I guess, were predictable and some of them were disappointingly predictable. The overall deterioration in job quality since 2008 is something that all members across the chamber, I suspect, will recognise and will have seen in their own constituencies. We should all be doing what we can to try and reverse those statistics. However, there was some light at the end of the tunnel most recently about a month or so after the report was published, because it was published on 14 January. The February 2016 labour market statistics coming out from the Scottish Government at least had some elements in there that could give us something to think that we might be last on the right track. If you look at under-employment, up until the recession of 2008, it hovered around about 10 per cent mark. However, after that, it shot up to 13 per cent, and it has broadly stayed there for a five-year period. However, last year, for the most recent statistics, it appears to have dropped from 13 per cent down to 12 per cent, which does not sound like a huge amount, but you are therefore talking about tens of thousands of people. In terms of looking at the shape of the graph, it would appear that if those statistics follow in the same vein over the next year or two, we could have at least a fighting chance of getting back to the under-employment levels that we had prior to recession. Although the results, I am sure, are correct from the committee, it looks on the face of it, at least on the most recent set of statistics, that we might be making movements in the right direction. I particularly like the quote that Murdo Fraser came out with today, paving the high road and blocking the low road. Today, at least, when he mentioned it, though he did not try to claim credit for it himself, he did quite rightly attribute it to Professor Warhurst, unlike in previous private conversations where he gave the impression that it was his own idea. The committee, as he whole, quite rightly wanted to see fair pay, security, safe conditions, respect, training and engagement. What I would say to the Government, and what I would be genuinely interested to hear in the closing submission, is just a bit of the detail in terms of the Government's response to some of the specific recommendations in the report. I am aware that there is not a formal written response yet, and I understand that the deadline is some two weeks hence, but given that we are debating the subject today, it would be good, I think, useful for the chamber and for Parliament to get a flavour of the likely Government's response to some of the specific issues in the report and other areas where we can make progress now instead of waiting until the next session of Parliament. Clearly, some of them will take until the next session. Some of them may well rely upon the report that we get in a couple of weeks' time in relation to the fair work convention, but perhaps there are items in there that the Government can respond to positively today and say quite clearly that they back them, or perhaps ones that they quite specifically do not back. For example, there were points in there about how we genuinely extend and improve the labour force data that we get. The exchange between the minister and Mr Gray pointed out some of the difficulties, but is there a way, if we put our heads together, of getting a more Scotland-specific workforce and job quality survey? I think that all parties would welcome that, because if we want to propose the right cures to the ills that we face, we need to ensure the accuracy of the data and so that we get the accuracy of the diagnosis. If we are reading the wrong data, or if we are not getting the right level of data that we require, it is more difficult for political parties and Government to get the right results. What is the Government's response to that? In relation to the national indicator for the national performance framework, what is the Government's specific response to that? It seems on the face of it a pretty sensible and fair conclusion that we ought to have some form of fair work index as one of the national indicators. We have 50 national indicators. Can we have 51, for example, if the Government sees fit, or do we have to remove one of the indicators because the number is capped at 50? I am not sure what the answer is to that question, but, again, in principle, what is the Government's response to that? Time is running out from my opening contribution, but I would close by saying quite simply that it was an excellent report. The more details that we get from the Government today, the better informed the debate will be. We now turn to the open debate. There is not much time in hand, I am afraid, and it is speeches of four minutes. Gordon MacDonald is to be followed by Johann Lamont. The overall employment situation in Scotland continues to improve. The latest figures highlight that we have record levels of employment higher than the UK. Average weekly wages are higher than in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, with more than 80 per cent of employees paying at least the living wage, and we have more graduates per head than any other nation of the UK. The committee heard in evidence that Governments opt to either support a high-skill, high-wage economy or propagate a low-skill, low-paid economy and insecure work. I believe that the Scottish Government is opting for the high road, but it would appear that the UK Government is aiming for the low road. The difficulty for Scottish workers who are in poor-quality low-paid work or are employed using exploiter of zero-hour contracts is that employment law, health and safety and industrial relations are all reserved to Westminster. Legislation in this area is in the hands of a UK Government that focuses on restricting trade unions rather than tackling bad employers. As Warwick University stated in evidence, poor quality cleaning jobs in hotels can get worse when workers are shifted into temporary work agency employment or retail workers put on to zero-hour contracts. With the poverty alliance highlighting the impact that this has on employees, those on zero-hour contracts can also face confusion about their rights to holiday, sickness and maternity pay, and fluctuating hours can make it difficult to access benefits. It is also normally at four minutes. It is also difficult to imagine how anyone is meant to manage their finances week to week with no idea of what their earnings will actually be. The Scottish Government, despite employment law being reserved to Westminster, is promoting fair work practices at issued statutory guidance last autumn that requires public authorities to consider how they can address fair work practices and discourage the use of inappropriate zero-hour contracts. The business pledge encourages employers to pay their living wage and Scotland now has the lowest proportion of employees paid below the current level of £7.85 per hour of any of the other UK nations. It was announced in the Scottish budget that £250 million is to be invested in social care, allowing councils to commission on adult social care from the independent or voluntary sectors on the basis that care workers are paid the new living wage of £8.25 an hour. It is not just an area of pay and insecure work. We have to focus. Devolution of the work programme will provide an opportunity to improve the existing scheme, creating a simpler and more efficient service to those out of work. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that half of men and a third of women who claim jobseekers allowance do so with six months of a previous claim ending. A significant section of those individuals will have moved into and out of work during this time. The committee was concerned about the lack of clarity between the DWP's policy of offering jobseekers zero-hour contract posts and the sanctions regime. Our concerns are that some people may have been forced into accepting unsuitable work from exploited employers. Any new programme must take into consideration individuals and their circumstances, otherwise we will continue the current revolving door of short-term employment, facing some of the poorest paid in the country. Finally, as Professor Chris Warhurst said in evidence, we should laud the good employers and set them up as exemplars, which is what can be done. We should provide support for the willing employers, we should educate the indifferent employers and we should regulate for the bad employers. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on what is an important report. Naturally, regardless of the characterisation of it by the previous speaker, it was marked by the way in which committee members came together, listened to testimony on people's experience and tried to respond to that. I think that there are very important issues and recommendations in this report, and I would urge those who will be in the Scottish Parliament after the next election to revisit this very important report, because I think that all of us were unified in the idea that we did not simply want to describe the scale of the problem, but that we want to have an influence on finding solutions to those problems. At heart, of course, in this report, there is a central truth. The issues around low pay, job and security zero hours contracts, lack of involvement in decision making within the workplace, those issues matter not just because they are bad for the health of individuals and their ability to plan for and support their families, but poor working practices are also bad for the economy and the capacity of the economy to be strengthened, to create opportunity and a better life for all. I do in passing say that there is nothing, I think, more despairing in this report than actually the recognition that there are people working unbelievably hard every day out doing their very best and very, very important jobs, but without significant reward, without even the guarantee that they can meet the needs of their families. That must surely be a spurt to us all. In the limited time that I have, I just want to highlight a number of issues. First of all, there is the whole question of flexible working, which sounds like a nice term, but there was a story and a description of one woman's experience within the report, which I think is worthy of reflection on. This is a woman who worked at the supermarket, has worked there all her life. At this time in her life, she has responsibility for the care of her mother and would need to be available round about 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock at night to ensure that her mother is able to be put to bed and is comfortable. However, she was advised by her employer that she had to be available from 6 o'clock in the morning till midnight, even though she might only be working 15, 16 hours in the week. At irony of that, she was unable to respond to that lack of flexibility. She could have ended up in a position that if she does give up her work, she is therefore less productive and able to support her own family but also faces the risk of sanction. That can surely not be just. As Karen Whiteford said, it seems that too often now flexibility is all on the side of the workforce and not the employer. I think that we need to reflect on that question. The lack of involvement of people in the workplace is a direct consequence for health and safety and for the protection of people in the workplace and the work that they do. It is most obvious in the oil and gas industry that we did hear evidence that people were reluctant to complain in case their jobs were on the line at a time when jobs were at risk anyway. It is important that we recognise that it is an important part of the participation and particularly the critical role of trade unions, perhaps in terms of wages and conditions, but as important as giving a voice to those in the workforce who can improve the quality of the work that is done if they are paid attention to. It is not an accident in the report that we linked pay and conditions and recognised that in terms of the issue of low pay. We recognise the potential of the use of the living wage, but we also have to recognise that it is not sufficient just to have the living wage if those on that living wage become more and more overstretched, doing more and more work, filling gaps and filling in for those who have lost their jobs. That is something that is happening more generally in the care sector, but with cuts to local government, we will also see that the badge of the living wage will not be sufficient to give people security and good quality work if they are having to do more in the time that they have been given. In conclusion, I just really wanted to flag at the point that the DWP is very important that they are not directing people to employers with bad working practices and then to sanction them for not taking those jobs. However, I finish at this point to the Scottish Government on the question of the business pledge. I understand the need for it at this stage to be voluntary, but if that pledge is to matter, it is to ensure that those who want to be good employers, who want to take the high roads, are not undercut those who cynically choose the low roads. I think that the business pledge that Government decisions around contracts are significant in rewarding those who would aspire to the good quality jobs that the report identifies. That is where, I think, Scottish Government action in particular is critically important in recognising its power to reward those who want to do the right thing. I wanted to talk about the title and maybe congratulate the committee and its convener for the choice, but of course Gavin Brown is stopping me to do that. It looks like it did not come from the committee. Because taking the high road is a fantastic title, it is very much a Scottish title, it is telling us what we want to know about the kind of society that this Parliament, this Scottish Government, want us to be. I read what Professor Chris Warhurst as the director of Warwick Institute of Employment Research said, what he had to say on the choice of what Governments make, because it is a question of choice for Governments, a lot more than choice about employers. There is a clear choice before us taking the high road economic option focusing on high skills or taking the low road economy's option focused on low skills and low wages. We know that this S&P Government wants us to be on the high road with many of our European neighbours. After what Gordon Michael said, I would like to go in the same direction and make it clear that I lived here for 30 years and the 30 years I lived in Scotland. I saw successive Westminster Governments who took us down the low road of low wages and low skills. President Professor, all debates we had in 2014 and all debates that we will have this year in the Scottish election campaign and thereafter in the EU referendum campaign are about the road we want to take for our economy, the road we want to take for our well-being, the high road or the low road. Sometimes we worked a lot on when I was in the committee that the idea that productivity is key to promote the benefits of a higher wages society for workers as much as for employees. Strathfag university professor of work and employment relations professor Patricia Finlay said to the committee that there is indeed an increased interest amongst policymakers and academics in linking job quality and productivity and here is the key. I agree that the discussion around jobs quality, around well-being at work must focus on job quality, productivity, innovation and competitiveness. The report talks about EU data identifying that there are relatively low numbers of workplaces in the UK where staff engage in problems solving activities. I can agree with that, our continental neighbours are a lot better at giving employees and employers the space to engage and work collaboratively. In the office, you would see for example many international and local energy and substance firms engaging with their employees. Some would say like never before and it's rightly so that we should do so. At the cross-party, a recent cross-party group, and all in gas, we heard about Nixon who gave us a great example of how to achieve better productivity by engaging employees and that's a good example to follow for employers. Nixon has a 30% improvement in productivity in just six months time. Engagement was the key and the offshore workforce found the solution to better productivity. We were told of a cross-party group that Nixon adapted the marginal gains theory, a system created by the British Olympic Cycle Team. One, the French Olympic Cycle Team must have missed somehow. Nixon encouraged staff to break down routine work activities in a bid to identify small gains. The move will see an addition of 140 million barrels of oil for Nixon and I'm delighted that Patrick Harvey is not here to hear that. It seems that everyone agrees when giving evidence for this report, Stephen Boyd from Scotland's Trade Union Centre, the STUC said that industrial democracy is weaker in the UK than across the EU. I agree with the trade union movement, the importance of effective partnership between trade unions business and given this key to the future of our economy as much as we are well-being. To conclude, I would maybe like to take a quote from the departing chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Professor Alan Miller, who said in the Holyrood magazine that Scotland has withstood extremely well the toxicity of the Westminster debate and reading the committee report, Scotland clearly has what it takes and we must keep a positive debate focusing on taking the high road. In general, I welcome the recommendations of this report, which backs up many of the things that Scottish Labour has been saying for some time. The Scottish Government has also made supportive noises but has not always taken opportunities when they were presented, and hopefully this report will be a spur to move beyond lip service in such areas. Having said that, I acknowledge that the big obstacle to the report's first recommendation, which calls for better research and improved data that can be used to establish a fair work index, is not the Scottish Government itself but the UK-wide Office of National Statistics. As the SDUC noted, the Scottish Government praised the weak hand dealt by the ONS very well. It presents ONS data in an accessible and up-to-date fashion, so it is the serious pressure applied at the UK level that is needed to improve the quality of labour forces statistics and enable the Scottish dimension to be properly explored. Of course, the Scottish Government needs to have a clear idea about how research and analysis should be extended. Perhaps it is just as well that the next recommendation gives the Scottish Government a steer on that, namely to ask the chief economic adviser for advice on what research would be useful and to ask the Scottish Government what it would do with such research. I am glad that the committee believes that the scope exists to place stronger emphasis on the living wage and fair work practices through the public procurement process. It is just a pity that the opportunity for the procurement bill was missed. If that opportunity had been taken, we might now be in a stronger position rather than merely encouraging public bodies to explore options. Mental health, of course, needs much greater support. Unfortunately, that is an area where the Scottish Government's progress is disappointing in several respects, including funding, waiting times, young people and workers in high-stress employment such as NHS. Better support for mental health services is not just the right thing to do, it is also an important factor in other respects. We need monitoring of mental health in the workplace to become more effective, otherwise we are more likely to suffer economic and organisational failures as a consequence of not addressing the problems of mental health in the workplace. Temporary contracts, zero-hour contracts and the lack of job security contribute to the stress of employment. Secure and stable working arrangements should be the default, not the exception. I welcome the approach of the Department of Work and Pensions, but again it is a pity that the opportunity of the procurement bill was allowed to pass by. The action against the clarification of exploitative zero-hours or short-hours contracts is both welcome and overdue. As a trade unionist, I clearly oppose the Tory attack on workers' rights in the trade union bill and regret that the Scottish Parliament was not allowed to take a stronger stand against it. I believe that good industrial relations are in the workers' and employers' best interests, so any help that can be given to get employers to see the light is very welcome. Like others, I look forward to the minister's response to the recommendations in the report. I begin by saying how delighted I am to be speaking on this debate today on the work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market, particularly as a member of the EET committee in this Parliament. I also compliment the convener on his balanced speech. It is important that all workers are entitled to a living wage, and I would suggest a living weekly wage, safe working conditions and secure employment. I support the actions that the Scottish Government has taken to improve employment standards in Scotland, including the promotion of the living wage, currently £8.25 per hour. Since the Government introduced the requirement to pay the living wage as part of its public sector pay policy, it has invested over £1.5 million per year in the living wage rate across the relevant parts of the public sector, which has directly benefited around 3,000 workers. Through the Procurement Reform Act 2014, the Government has promoted fair work and practice. The statutory guidance addressing fair work practice goes further than any other administration. It makes clear that paying the living wage is an indicator of employers' commitment to fair work practices and that doing so can have a positive impact on the quality of work. The act also requires public bodies to consider where any procurement exercise can include a question on fair work practices. I note that the Government has taken action to eradicate unfair working practices. The introduction of the Scottish Business Pledge has seen numerous companies sign on. Those companies have pledged to pay the living wage, abstained from using exploiter zero hour contracts, encouraged diversity in the workforce and adopted progressive workplace policies. Additionally, the Government does not make use of zero hours contracts and seeks to eradicate exploitive ones in order to create access to justice for all workers. The Government has committed to abolishing fees for employment tribunals under the Smith commission proposals. The UK Government is set to devolve employment tribunals to Scotland. However, the committee believed that the UK Government's draft legislative clauses fell short of a fully implementing in the recommendation of the Smith commission. As a member of the Health and Sport Committee, I commend the Scottish Government's efforts to improve health and wellbeing by improving quality of work and employment. Research shows a socio-economic gradient of health and employment, with many of those in low-skilled jobs suffering from poor health. Employers can take steps to improve workplace health by paying a living wage, involving workers in management, offering flexible working opportunities and providing opportunities for advancement. Furthermore, I again note that the Government has taken action to improve working conditions for those in the health and social care sector by promoting the living wage and the fair work practices. Over the course of this last year, the SNP Government has provided £12.5 million towards those ends. This year's draft budget sets out plans to invest a further £250 million per year through health and social care partnerships to protect and grow social care services. The SNP Government has also provided resources to local authorities to ensure that they have been able to commission care services that pay workers the full living wage. The fact that employment legislation remains reserved to the UK Government provides a challenge for this Government and the EETC committee. The UK Government's national living wage is well below the real living wage, which is calculated by the Scottish Government to address the basic cost of living. In addition, the UK Government's trade union bill threatens Scotland's positive relationship with trade unions. The working days lost per 1,000 employees to industrial disputes in Scotland is at the lowest of all the reasons that are in the UK. Therefore, if Westminster does not withdraw the bill, Scotland should be exempt. Finally, the SNP Government has established a fair work convention that will produce a framework for implementing fair work. The framework will support the Government's objectives of economic growth and inequality reduction. I welcome the publication of the fair work convention framework so that the SNP Scottish Government can continue to work to improve the standard of living for workers throughout Scotland. Many thanks, and I call John Wilson to ask you to keep to your four minutes, please, Mr Wilson. Firstly, I will make a declaration that my member of Unite the Union and, speaking in this debate, is a former director of the Scottish Small Pay Unit. I would like to commend the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and its members for bringing this debate to the chamber today, because it is quite important that we continue to keep this issue at the forefront of everything that we do. As has been mentioned already and is covered in the report and findings of the committee, it is important that we continue to ensure that people across Scotland are in high-quality work that pays well. It is rewarding and has good working conditions where individuals feel respected and well treated in their work. Employment numbers alone are not enough to measure the success of the jobs market in Scotland. There is no point in having high numbers of people registered as employed if their work does not provide them with adequate pay, gives them too few or too many hours, or does not provide them with secure and dignified work. The work wages and wellbeing online questionnaire found that 68 per cent of respondents stated that the quality of their work had deteriorated over the last five years. 14 per cent felt that I had stayed the same, with only 18 per cent saying that the quality of their work had improved. The results are clear. Even if employment is up, the quality and standards of work is not. What good is it to provide jobs if those jobs do not offer the dignity, security and finances that employment should guarantee? It is clear that no one who works full-time should be in a situation where they find themselves in work poverty. The current national minimum wage is simply not enough. The UK Government's so-called living wage is not adequate and it makes the distinction between the UK's living wage and the Scottish living wage in this context. Although that pay boost is welcomed and still falls short of the minimum that is required to pay an appropriate living wage, coupled with the Westminster Government's attack on the welfare state, the so-called living wage fails to provide a decent rate of pay for the average worker. That is why, in terms of the campaign going forward, the campaign for a £10 minimum wage by 2020 should be supported. The UK Government has further attacked the rights of workers through the introduction of the trade union bill. The rights of workers have been attacked by every opportunity and I am attaining that still as the case. The right to collective action and bargaining is crucial for continued employment rights and welfare. Individuals have a right to be secure and confident in their employment and, as such, employers should have to work with trade unions to secure good working conditions. Casual and agency staff in short-term contracts are no excuse to ignore employment rights. Employers should be challenged to show that contracts are justified and working conditions are fair. Employment has the ability to offer people both financial and personal rewards. However, this is, unfortunately, not always the case, as we have heard through the report and we hear every day in the press. In modern-day Scotland, no one should be a wage slave or self. We must ensure that work is decent, honest and fair, that it provides good wage and good working conditions. In a country such as ours, that is not too much to ask. I look forward to the report's impact in future parliaments, but especially in relation to asking employers to consider seriously the issues that have been raised and the recommendations that have been made. I also look forward to the Scottish Government responding to the report in a positive light to ensure that we root out all the bad employment practices that unfortunately continue to exist in Scotland today. I remind members who participated in the debate that should be in the chamber for closing speeches. I ask members to keep to their time, please. Colin Gavin Brown, four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That has been a pretty interesting debate. I want to return to some of the excellent contributions that were made. Before I do that, there are two points that I want to pick up on. The first one is the criticism by the Scottish Government that the UK Government national minimum wage is not the same as the living wage. Of course, today that is absolutely correct, but by the end of the parliamentary term at Westminster, I suspect that it will not be correct. However, I will point out that the national minimum wage by the UK Government is higher than the SNP that we are proposing at the general election, and indeed it is higher too than was proposed in the white paper where we are to be an independent country. They are correct to point out the fact, but I think that a bit of context is probably necessary. The second point is one that was made by Gordon MacDonald and Christian Allard. A point that I think was absurd and in some ways lessened the quality of the debate, saying that the UK Government over a 30-year period has intentionally taken the low road when the Scottish Government has taken the high road. No Government wants to take low road deputy. I do not think that there is a political party in this place that wants to go down that track. Of course, Governments have got things wrong over the years, but if what they said was true, the Scottish share of income tax receipts would be far higher in percentage terms than the UK share of income tax receipts, and we all know that that simply is not true. I am happy to give way to Mr Allard. I thank the member for giving way. I am talking about taxation, I am talking about high road and low road, and I gave some EU example. We do not agree that when France gave Google a bill of £1.3 billion for in-pay taxes, the UK Government has settled for a fraction of its £130 million for the same period. That is exactly what we are talking about, a low road and a high road. I genuinely do not understand the point that the member is making. I point out a whole host of areas where successive UK Governments of different political stripes have pushed hard to try to bring in high-quality jobs, whether that is inward investment, whether that is what successive Governments have done for science, engineering or medicine. Governments of all shapes and sizes want the best high-quality jobs that they can bring in. They do not always succeed, but to suggest that they intentionally do not want them is just an absurd proposition. There were a number of highlights, one of which I particularly thought was Johann Lamont's thoughtful contribution, in which he made the point very eloquently that poor working practices are not just bad for the individuals concerned, but they are ultimately bad for the economy as a whole. I would go a step further and say that, in the medium to longer term, they are actually bad for the employers as well, because there might be short-term boost to the bottom line by paying workers less and not treating them well. That sets up a terrible precedent, and it does not do your business any good in the medium term in terms of its potential and sustainability. I think that the point was well made by Johann Lamont. In the final minute, Presiding Officer, I want to return to the point that I made earlier. I hope that the Government, in its minister and her summation, can respond specifically to a number of the issues raised in the report. I talked about the new national indicator and improving labour force data. There were some other excellent reports and suggestions about the Government commissioning specific research from the Office of the Chief Economic Advisory. That is a good idea. Are there things that can be done in the public procurement processes? Of course, there are challenges, but there are other further angles that we can take, particularly looking at the supply chain and not just the individual main contractor. Finally, there was a specific conclusion about mental wellbeing monitoring and performance indicators across the workplace. A lot of great ideas will obviously get full written response in due course, but anything that we can get from the Government today, I think, would be welcome. Indeed, as members have said, work wages and wellbeing do matter to us all. What people do when they get to work, how much and how they are paid, how they are treated and what work does to their lives are all pretty fundamental questions. There are fundamental importance, most of all, to working people in the trade unions, but, as we have heard from all sides, they have a wider significance beyond the workplace, too. Poverty wages, exploitation and insecurity are reckless disregard for workplace safety, victimisation of workers who demand rights at work. They tell us about more than just the bad practice of a few rogue employers. All of those things happen in Scotland today. While a consensus on most of the recommendations in the report is to be welcomed, there are no grounds for complacency. The Scottish Government says that it sets high value on good employment practice, and saying so is a step in the right direction, just as it is for companies that sign the Scottish business pledge. However, saying so is not enough in itself. It is not enough for the First Minister to appoint a Cabinet Secretary with fair work on her job title unless she can reach a shared view as to what is acceptable employment practice by companies that seek Scottish Government endorsement. That shared view came in the end, but only after considerable confusion. As the committee's report says, there was an initial failure to make explicit that companies using exploitative zero-hours contracts could not sign up to the Scottish business pledge and the committee rightly calls for the Government to adopt much clearer definitions in that area. Nor is it enough to have a Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work if she is not in the loop when it comes to decisions or even discussions about awards of Government funding to inward investors, when some of those companies, as we have heard, fly out the most basic expectations about fair treatment of employees. Ministers telling us that these are decisions for public servants and not for them is also not enough. Stewardship of public money is the job of ministers who are directly accountable to Parliament and the larger the sum, the more important the accountability is. In pursuit of consensus, the committee asks very politely that ministers should look again at the process of making high-value awards of regional selective assistance to consider whether changes may be required. In my view, that review should not take long, given what we know already. If companies take Government money without respecting even the spirit of Government policy, then surely there can be no doubt that changes are required and the sooner the better. On the question of the living wage, the committee has also chosen its words with care, but nonetheless reaches a strong conclusion. Scope exists, says the report, to place stronger emphasis on the living wage and fair work practices through the public procurement process. We have heard that view echoed again from a number of speakers in the debate today. It is perhaps a pity that the Scottish Government has not been more ambitious in exploring what further scope might be available before and now, but if the next Government following the election follows the committee's advice to explore the options to the full, it could make a real difference to many low-paid workers in contracting companies. Last but not least, the report lays out the case against the Tories trade union bill. The evidence reflected in this report clearly points to the conclusion that workers who are organised in trade unions are much less vulnerable to exploitation than those who are not. Fair work conventions, business pledges and living wage policies are all to be welcomed, but the biggest defence of all for decent work, wages and wellbeing is the ability of working people to organise themselves in support of their rights at work. That is why stopping the trade union bill is so important and why this side of the chamber welcomes this report and why we look forward to the responses from the Government to the whole range of recommendations in the report in the near future. Many thanks and I now call on Roseanna Cunningham, cabinet secretary, six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In closing, I'd once again like to thank the committee and indeed all of those who took the time to give evidence for their valuable piece of work, and I will send my response to the committee on the main recommendations later this week. This report and today's debate really does reinforce my belief in the importance of looking at fair work. The increasing recognition that how people are treated in the workplace has an impact on their health, their wellbeing and their productivity is welcome and it is something that we need to build on. As I said in my opening remarks, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has been able to take action in a number of areas to promote fair work. I have just gently said to Lewis that there has been a lot more than simply talk over the last year and a half. There has been a very great deal done as well. I am happy that the committee has acknowledged the importance of the work that the Government has undertaken and I appreciate the support for improving working practice that has been an evidence in this debate. I think that we would all agree that more needs to be done to spread the message and to support employers, employees and their representatives to improve conditions in workplaces. In the coming weeks, the Fair Work Convention will publish its framework and will set out the views of employers and trade unions working together in partnership on what fair work means. I expect that the framework will demonstrate the flexibility and aspiration that the committee has requested. Importantly, with this report and other recent studies from the Resolution Foundation and others, we will have a strong evidence base that we can then take to employers across the country to promote the benefits of a fair approach. I think that many of those benefits have been clearly articulated today. I want to try to respond to some of the contributions that were made. I do not have enough time to go through everybody's contributions. Ian Gray, I certainly concur with Ian Gray's comments regarding trade unions and the trade union bill. Those comments were echoed by a number of other members on more than one side of the chamber. He also discussed the labour market stats. Yes, there are issues with the labour market stats. One of them is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how the statistical analysis is derived from the raw numbers. It has been of some interest to me to discover that there are people who think that the labour market stats are a total head count as opposed to a sample survey. I do not want to get too bogged down in a detailed discussion of how the stats are compiled, but I gently suggest that Ian Gray's remarks about hyperbole might also be directed to his own colleagues, because, equally, that can, as negative comment, be just as misleading. Murdo Fraser raised the issue of Amazon, which I was very briefly able to touch on in my opening remarks. I indicated that I would meet them tomorrow, but I have to point out that the same organisation that Willie Rennie described in the chamber as terrible—one that Fife would be far better off without—was, in fact, welcomed by his party in 2005 by Jim Wallace, the then enterprise minister, who described Amazon's arrival as excellent news for Scotland. I have a copy of press comments from Duncan McNeill welcoming Amazon investment in Gwric. The point of repeating that is to remind people that, of course, when jobs are the issue, there is more than one real driver in the kind of comments that are made at the time. Gavin Brown wanted more detailed responses from Government, but in five minutes that is impossible. I gave him one regarding the blizziness pledge. I gave that one at the outset, as a detailed response. In fact, we have already taken action on that. I hope that he will manage to hold on for another couple of days to get the considered total response. He also raised the issue of a Scotland-specific job quality survey and a fair work index. A review of the national performance framework is currently reaching its conclusion. I understand that we can expect new indicators relating directly to fair work, and no doubt Gavin Brown will want to have a look at those, if that is the case. On the broader research question raised by John Pentland, I have to reassure colleagues that quite a lot of specific research is already underway and will be published when the pieces of work are complete. We also contribute funding to help to build capacity for research among academic and other stakeholders, for example the University of Strathclyde's innovating works project and research by Oxfam and the Poverty Alliance. That is an on-going programme of research. Johann Lamont correctly reminded us that, as important as the living wage is, it is not the sole indicator of fair work, which is why I said that in my opening remarks, because it does sometimes become a key iconic leader in the fair work debate, but it is not the only thing. On the matter of definitions, which was raised by Ian Gray and Lewis MacDonald, it can be difficult to specifically define concepts. Lawyers make sometimes an entire living out of those definitions, but one of the reasons that we set up the fair work convention was to help that process. Definitions by definition leave out things or include things about which there will be endless debate that will never end. In conclusion, I welcome the helpful report from the committee. It is recognition that much good work has happened and it is called to do more to promote fair work. I believe that this Government has led the way and I am personally committed to further action with the powers that we have at our disposal, but we really cannot get away from the fundamental fact that we could do far more in this area if we had the full set of powers around employment law devolved to Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary and I call and join Michael Pyn to wind up the debate on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Ms McAlpine, maximum eight minutes please. I think that this has been a worthwhile debate on a worthwhile committee report and that is important given the issues at stake and the level of engagement that the committee had. We need to do right by the 600 people who responded to our questionnaire and engaged with the committee. The convener mentioned some of the difficulties that we had in defining what was good or bad work given that most people that we spoke to felt that they had a good job. In the conclusions of the committee, we did come up with a number of aspects that we believed workers should be offered as standard in any good quality employment. Those were regular and sufficient pay, which allows for a decent standard of living, secure employment, safe working conditions, working hours known and mutually agreed in advance of shifts, a culture of mutual respect, training opportunities and routes for advancement and employee engagement in company organisational decisions. That is a good framework to be moving forward with. We have in the executive summary agreed that list and I welcome the comments from the cabinet secretary that she will send out a clear message on good employment practices and the exploitative contracts and working practices on unacceptable. Turning to the debate, Ian Gray highlighted examples of the human cost and the need for better data in that particular subject. As the cabinet secretary and others have pointed out, the data that we use comes from ONS. That same point, as I recall, was made in oral evidence to the committee by the STUC, which, as I recall, was very disparaging of the ONS data and its ability to adequately break down Scottish labour markets, notwithstanding the additional funds that Scotland pays for that breakdown. On data, Gavin Brown mentioned something that would possibly be a little bit more encouraging, and that there was light at the end of the tunnel with the Scottish Labour market statistics showing a slight drop in under-employment, albeit a very small one, but it perhaps indicates over the last year an encouraging trend. I thought that that was an important point to make. In paragraph 203 of the committee report, the conclusions welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to living wage, and 204 welcomed the new procurement guidelines, which were highlighted by Richard Lyle in the debate on the living wage and fair work. Gordon MacDonald, in his contribution, spoke of that being an indication that the Scottish Government was following what has come up repeatedly in the debate, the high road in that regard, but that it was hindered by the UK Government's control of employment legislation. That differentiation was made in the committee's report. It is important to state it, even though we are not going down political lines. Mr MacDonald and others also highlighted the measures in the Scottish budget to pay home care workers the living wage. Of course, home care workers were a subject of great interest to the inquiry with several organisations representing the sector and its workers, highlighting the rapid staff turnover in the sector, which, obviously, must have an effect on patient care, and which, hopefully, the introduction of a living wage should address. Johann Lamont, in her contribution to the debate, highlighted the difficulty placed on carers such as one witness that gave very powerful written evidence, I believe, on her inability to plan the care of her elderly mother, because the supermarket that she worked for was not flexible and did not allow her to plan and that the flexibility was all on the side of the employer. That is obviously a situation that is unacceptable in faces far too many workers these days. It is something that the committee hopes the fair work convention can pay attention to in its conclusion. The committee said that it appreciated the joint chair's comments that the inquiry conclusions will feed into the convention. I quote, "...play a part in its deliberations and outcomes." I think that that was very welcome. I know that the cabinet secretary also told the committee that the fair work convention is independent of government but will work with government in a constructive manner. I am sure that independence from government is also an opportunity for it as well. John Pentland talked about the need for better research again, which the committee also called for in terms of purely practical recommendations. The committee praised the work of Oxfam Scotland as it builds its human kind index and recommended that the fair work convention considered carefully Oxfam's conclusions. Although I am summing up for the committee, there was a lot of talk on the business pledge. There has been a lot of debate around the business pledge and whether help should be given to companies in certain circumstances. I agree with the calls by the committee and the conclusions that we reach a target for the companies that are signed up to the business pledge. I welcome the news that 200 have already done so. The committee recommends that all account managed companies be encouraged to sign up to it. I think that there is more that we could probably do to publicise the business pledge. I know that I visited a company in my constituency recently, DS Smith in Lockerbie, who had taken on four apprentices this year, had a great apprenticeship programme planned, paid their apprentices double what the normal apprentice wage was, had increased training remarkably from 100 hours to over 1,000 hours, were obviously paying the living wage with no zero hours contract, had a great gender balance in their operation, but when I mentioned whether they knew about the business pledge they hadn't been aware of it even though they ticked all the boxes for the business pledge, so I'm now encouraging them to go forward and sign up to it. It's important that we all encourage companies that we can see are doing a great job and are promoting fair work in their communities, that they sign the pledge and are then held up as examples, because there are a lot of good examples out there. One way to move forward is to praise the good examples as well as attacking too many examples of bad practice as well. Just to conclude, the cabinet secretary has acknowledged the consensual aspects of the debate and looked forward to the fair work convention and says that its framework will be to respond to the committee and to the contributions made today. I'm sure that that's something that we can all welcome. I, for one, am looking forward to the fair work convention's framework when it's published in the next few weeks, and I think that it's something that we can all look forward to with great anticipation. That concludes the economy, energy and tourism committees debate on work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15758 in the name of Alec Neil on social security. I invite those members to wish to participate in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now and to indicate in advance that we do not have a lot of time in hand. I call on Alec Neil to speak to you and to move the motion. Cabinet secretary, 10 minutes please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to open today's debate setting out progress and plans on social security, particularly since this is the first really important social security debate that we have had since we know that we are going to take over powers for 11 benefits sometime in the near future, and we will actually have the power to act on these social security measures for the first time. It's a bit of an historic day for the Parliament and indeed for Scotland. I look forward to, hopefully, all the Parliament working together to ensure a smooth and safe transition to delivery of social security in Scotland. Recent debates in the Parliament show the interests that members have in this area and I want to particularly pay tribute to the work of the welfare reform committee in supporting through their consultation the work that they did on new powers and the excellent work that they have done over a period of years in relation to welfare benefits. I'm pleased to see that their conclusions match very closely with my own priorities in terms of what we need to do to take forward the social security agenda in Scotland. Our first priority is to ensure a smooth and safe transfer of the powers from London to Edinburgh. In all the consultations that we did last summer on the issue of social security, the number one concern of everybody all the stakeholders was to ensure that people continue to receive their benefits on time and in the right amount right through the transfer period. I give a pledge today that that will be our number one priority to make sure that that happens during the transfer of the powers. Our vision and principles are designed to ensure that people are treated with dignity, fairness and respect. I believe that those are fundamental principles that we can all agree on. Like every other MSP and MP, no doubt members will have had at their constituency offices and surgeries members of the public who have expressed real frustration about different aspects, particularly of the medical assessments associated with DLA and PIP. Everything from feeling as though their medical situation was treated in a very cursory fashion right through to winning an appeal and then being called again almost immediately for another medical assessment and also people with lifetime conditions being called in for an assessment to see if they fit for work but it's very clear they'll never work again. All of those things are important to people as is the money itself and I think when we treat people with dignity and respect then we can both streamline and make much more humane the whole assessment process and that certainly will be one of our top priorities. I'm also pleased to announce to the Parliament the outcome of the first stage of our planning for a delivery vehicle to take forward the new powers. Over the last 18 months we've been engaging with people and organisations across the country in terms of how best to deliver the new social security powers and the outcome of this engagement has allowed us to form a consensus that dignity and respect are to be at the heart of everything that we do in policy and delivery and that we need to do things differently and take a fairer approach and we've obviously still got a lot of work to do in doing that. We've already committed to bring forward Scotland's first social security bill before the end of the first year in the next Parliament assuming that we are re-elected to government. Our ambitions are that this legislation will reflect a distinctively different, fairer Scottish approach to social security. Up until now, the role of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in relation to welfare has been the role of mitigation. In the context of falling budgets from the UK Government, we have been left to pick up the pieces and do our best to try to mitigate the worst impacts of some of the very big cuts to certain benefits that have taken place particularly in the past six years. In terms of the scale of those cuts, they have resulted in costs to Scotland of £6 billion between 2010 and 2016. We are doing everything we can to help and in the three years to 2016, we have invested just under £300 million to mitigate the worst impact of those cuts. As the independent poverty adviser to the First Minister reported a couple of weeks ago, we have got to do everything in our power to try to improve outcomes when we get those new powers. She pointed out that we have to proceed with ensuring safe and secure delivery in the transfer, as I have referred to twice already, and we absolutely agree with that. She also laid out the fundamental principle that public service delivery of social security policy has to be respectful, person-centred and preserve the dignity of people in poverty. That is fundamentally what we intend to do. Our vision is that social security is important to all of us. None of us know when we might rely on the social security system when we hit a bad patch or possibly become very ill or disabled. We have therefore got to be able to support each of each other when we each need that kind of support. Our powers impact on some of the most vulnerable people in society, and everyone in Scotland, in that I believe, has an interest in ensuring that people have a decent standard of life when they hit difficult times. We aim to use the powers in a way that better meets the needs of the people of Scotland. Engaging with our stakeholders at every stage and ensuring that what we are going to do is serve their needs and aspirations as well as live up to their hopes about a social security system that is more humane. We believe that there are five basic principles that should underline a Scottish social security system. The first one is that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland. The heart of our approach is an understanding that social security plays an important part in tackling poverty and inequality. Where some people face additional challenges and costs in their daily lives because very often of ill health or disability, it is right that all of us help to meet those costs. It is important to supporting people to participate fully in our society. Principle 2 is respect for the dignity of individuals at the heart of everything we do. At every step of our engagement with individuals, we will treat them with dignity and respect. Principle 3 is that our processes and services will be evidence-based and designed with the people of Scotland. The starting point for the design of our policies and processes is that they are based on the best evidence and that the individuals who are affected by them should have their say and are listened to. Principle 4, we will strive for continuous improvement in all our policies, processes and systems, putting the user experience first. In the first instance, our priority will be to ensure a smooth transition, as I have already said, so that people have confidence that they will continue to receive the support to which they are entitled. The final principle is the need to demonstrate that our services are efficient and valuable for money. We know from our consultation that the system can be complex for individuals. We will look to reduce the bureaucracy involved in claiming benefits and ensure that at all stages people are provided with the relevant information on how the system will work for them. In terms of delivery, we intend to set up a new social security agency for Scotland. I can see that after having examined all the available options. We already have a distinct separate policy agenda that will be reflected at every stage from policymaking to implementation and delivery. The social security agency will work with stakeholders, practitioners and experts from local government, the third sector, and representatives of organisations across Scotland. It will build on some of the excellent relationships and innovative approaches that are already in place. When you analysed all of his proposals, did he ever foresee, as the Conservatives described it, as a benefit stampede coming to Scotland? No, not at all. I think that it would be inconceivable, particularly with these benefits, because they relate to severe illness and disability. I do not see people deliberately trying to make themselves disabled or ill in order to come to Scotland to claim a benefit. We already have a number of free benefits in Scotland such as free prescriptions, and that has not ended in a stampede from elsewhere in the UK. I do not believe that that will end up in a stampede either from other parts of the UK or from anything else. As with many schemes already existing, although they are not part of the social security administration, there is a requirement for residency in Scotland in order to be able to qualify for certain types of assistance. Clearly, that will also be the case with the schemes that are administered in social security by the Scottish Government. Can I say that our new agency will be accountable directly to Scottish ministers who in turn are accountable to this Parliament and will be answerable to the people of Scotland on social security in a way that has not been possible before? By working with local Government and all our other partners in each performing a meaningful role in the process by which we take this work forward, together we will help to ensure that the dignity of users is held in its proper regard and reflects our wider commitment to participation in the debates and decisions that matter to most people. Today is an important step in the journey to the day when the first devolved social security benefit payment is made in Scotland, but still much work needs to be done. Following the initial appraisal of all the available options for delivery, more detailed work will be required to develop configurations for the overall social security system in Scotland. Our proposals will be fully costed and appraised as a fuller business case, which will be published later this year. Unfortunately, our run-out of time but the members will be aware of the commitments that we have made in terms of our early priorities, some of which I know are shared by members of the Labour benches. I look forward to the rest of this debate when, hopefully, we can get on to some of the prospects of delivering an enhanced system for our people. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call Neil Findlay to speak to you in move amendment 15758.27, please. One of the most depressing features of our politics over the past few decades has been the tone of the debate over social security or welfare, as it has sadly become labelled. Over 100 years ago, socialists and liberals and social reformers, progressives in the churches and trade unions argued for a system of social protection to end destitution. They argued for sick pay, unemployment benefits, pensions, holidays, a reduction in the working week and policies like that. Over time, campaigning in the welfare state, as we know it, emerged with the social security system a key element of it. It was the creation of that welfare state, often in the teeth of opposition from the forces of conservatism. Some things have never changed. They ended the reliance on the poor house, destitution, provided universal healthcare, housing and protection for all. In short, we moved from a society in which we abandoned the poor in the needy to one in which we collectively, through our taxes, took responsibility for our friends and neighbours who were in need of our help. The welfare state civilised our society, allowing everyone irrespective of their power and wealth to access education, healthcare and a basic income. I wonder if the member would agree with me that the Conservatives should note the work of George Burns of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, who was the champion of the pension, who was so successful that he managed to defeat Bonner Law, the Conservative Cabinet Minister, and the Conservatives should perhaps note that when people act on matters like this, they suffer. I am sure that that is the case. He was probably in Mr Stevenson's class at school, but I think that he makes a very valid point. From all that emerged the post-war consensus where Governments of whichever persuasion accepted the need for a decent social security system until the dark cloud of thatcherism cast its very ugly shadow of our society. From then until now, the debate and the tone of the debate around social security has become one steeped in a negative culture of blame and division set in worker against worker, the able-bodied against the disabled, young against the old and host community against immigrants, creating a system that treats people with suspicion instead of compassion, a system that increasingly stigmatises people with the language of scroungers, shirkers and defectless. I agree absolutely with the Cabinet Secretary. Any of us, at any point in our lives, could find our world turned upside down by a debilitating illness or a physical disability. The arrival could be the arrival of a child or a parent in need of round-the-clock care or we experience an extended period of unemployment. I think that we would all say that, but for the grace of God, go I. With the devolution of social security, we have a real opportunity to do things differently. On the welfare reform committee, there was a great deal of consensus between Labour and SNP members. We will, of course, as always, leave the Tories out of this, although I would say that Mr Lamont did at least remain silent most of the time. We agree with the Government that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland, that respect for the dignity of individuals should be at the heart of everything that we do, that our processes and services should be evidence-based and designed with the people, that any Government of which other persuasions should strive for continuous improvement in policy processes and systems, putting the user experience first, and that services are efficient in value for money—nothing controversial there, I hope. When creating a strong foundation for that new welfare system, we would all want that foundation to be very robust, but what is more important is what we build on top of those foundations and how any new system is funded. We want to see a system that is publicly run, accountable to this Parliament, not one that is hived off to the public sector or an agency elsewhere that can be blamed if things go wrong. We want a system that helps people to participate in our society and get back into work when and if they are able to do so. We want a system in which child poverty is at its centre.  On Monday, the Labour leader Gizia Dugdale set out how our proposals were offered children leaving care and going into higher education, a full-time grant, giving them the best opportunity to complete their studies and move on in life. After months of campaigning, we have won the argument for paying care workers the living wage. SNP members voted against it half a dozen times, but let us put that in the past and celebrate the fact that, like the bedroom tax members' bill that came forward from the Labour benches, our campaigning has played dividends again. The next stage is to secure a better deal for carers by raising the level of carers allowance to match the level of jobseekers allowance, worth £600 a year to carers. Labour has made that a firm commitment, and we will more than double the level of maternity grant that is made available to new mums, providing £1,030 helping struggling mums with the cost of a new baby. It cannot do any of that if you do not have a plan to address austerity, and I still have to find the Government's plan for addressing austerity. We can do that because we have come up with a funded range of options incorporating our income tax changes, initially changes to the basic rate, then the higher rate, a refusal to implement Osborne's tax cuts for the top 15 per cent of earners by maintaining the threshold, rejecting the SNP's tax giveaway to the wealthiest through the abolition of APD, and the combination of our tax plans combined with a commitment to tackle child poverty and the gross inequality in our societies at the heart of our plans for a Scotland where everyone has an opportunity, where everyone is valued and where everyone is looked after. I look forward to continuing the debate on the future of our social security system, and I am sure that we will hear more from members during the debate. Deputy Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's important debate. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is working together with the UK Government on a smooth transition of those new powers to ensure that individuals currently in receipt of those benefits continue to receive them on time. However, although the work of the welfare reform committee of which I am a member has gone some of the way to raising key issues in relation to the delivery of social security, I am aware of some concern as to the level of concrete preparation for this transition. I therefore urge the cabinet secretary to do all he can to ensure that the process is as smooth as possible. It is vital that existing claimants do not experience any delays and payments, and the Government's recent IT record does not fill the public with much confidence. First, it is important to recognise that, thanks to the Scotland bill and the work of the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister in reaching an agreement on the fiscal framework, the Scottish Government will soon have more control over welfare than it has ever done before. Those wide-ranging powers are welcome on the side of the chamber and give us an opportunity to discuss those important issues in depth. For too long, debates about social security and welfare have been simply an exercise in criticising the policies of the UK Government, which has become a pastime for ministers and cabinet secretaries. The Scottish Government now has an opportunity to offer its alternative plans for dealing with those complex issues that are attached to welfare provision. The Government has made much of the broad language of fairness, respect and indignity in terms of the overall culture of the social security system that it intends to create, words that I am sure will draw support from every member in this Parliament and the wider public outside the chamber. However, it is crucial that the cabinet secretary now sets out to the Scottish taxpayer some concrete proposals for the delivery of those powers and how it intends to pay for any possible divergence from the policies of the UK Government. Furthermore, in ensuring fairness, the Scottish Government also needs to show how it can improve the delivery of services in Scotland. In that regard, the Scottish Government has some pressing questions that it needs to address. I have no reservations in stating my support for a lower welfare, high-pay society, and the UK Government's efforts in driving employment to a record high go some way to a sustainable solution, one that gets people back into the workplace and increases financial independence, while at the same time building a system that is available to those in need of support. In the past, the Scottish Government has taken apparent pleasure in condemning UK Government policies such as the work programme, which incidentally managed to take over 43,000 long-term unemployed Scots back to work since 2011. However, it now needs to state how it will incentivise work and design, a system of social security that discourages welfare. I give way to the member. Bruce Crawford. I thank the member very much for giving way. He has asked the Scottish Government to outline what its proposals were. When will we hear what the Conservatives proposals are, and can he begin to outline them today for us, please? Annabelle Lamont. It is very clear that we always have believed that the role of the Government and the role of societies to give a helping hand to those in need, while at the same time ensuring that the system that we have put in place through welfare, through benefits, incentivises, encourages and helps those who want to get back to work to do so. I strongly believe that it should always pay to be in work, and I hope that the Scottish Government shares that aim, too. The SNP and the Scottish Government ministers have consistently called for a moratorium on all-benefit sanctions imposed on those individuals who do not meet the conditions attached to their benefits. The Scottish plan will now have the responsibility for not only designing a social security system that works for those in need, but it will also have a duty to every hard-working Scott to protect the structure of that system from those who may wish to abuse it. The Scottish Government therefore intends to enforce sanctions on those individuals who fail to adhere to the standard set. I give way to the cabinet secretary. I will make it clear that, under the Scotland bill that is currently standing, even in the devolved benefits, we will not have responsibility for the sanctions. You will have the possibility of creating new benefits and the possibility of having conditions attached to those benefits. The Scottish Government needs to be clear about how any conditions attached to future benefits, for example, would be enforced or how they would impact on claimants. Furthermore, the devolution of those powers to this Parliament gives us an opportunity to deliver some social security benefits in a way in which it takes better account of local circumstances. There is scope to use the existing expertise of local government in dealing with the administration of existing payments, along with the greater knowledge of local labour markets to tailor the approach delivery to best suit the needs of local people. Perhaps there is even an opportunity to better align some social security with our health and social care system, and those are certainly options that this Parliament should explore. The Scottish Government now has an opportunity to outline its plans for social security to the people of Scotland, and the people of Scotland are in doubt here listening and waiting to hear what the Scottish Government's plans are. I move the amendment in my name. I now move to the open debate. Tight for time today. Four-minute speeches. Claire Adamson to be followed by Willie Rennie, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to open today with a quote with one of the architects of the social security system, Barbara Castle. There was no welfare state, and people had to rely mainly on the poor law. That was all the state provided. It was very degrading, very humiliating, and there was a means test for receiving poor relief. I believe that Barbara Castle and her Labour colleagues, as mentioned by Mr Finlay, of that time, would be appalled that today, in the 21st century, we are back to situations for the experience of the unemployed, carers, disabled people and pensioners of our social security system, designed by the architects to be their right to protection and a safety net, is regarded by many in Barbara Castle's works as degrading and very humiliating. But our experience on the welfare reform committee is that, time and time again, informal evidence at our USAE sessions and at committee visits, including one to Craig Miller last year, that those in need and vulnerable are left feeling degraded and humiliated and stigmatised by their interaction with the social security system. Cabinet Secretary has praised the work of the welfare reform committee and, in one of the written anonymous submissions to that committee, we heard the following evidence. As I look back to my time as a claimant, I cannot help but see with clarity that my dealings with ATOS and the benefits system in many ways contributed to my becoming profoundly sick. The benefits staff were polite, but they were part of what I could call a punitive and abusive system. I am therefore delighted to welcome the announcement from the Scottish Government that a new benefits agency for Scotland will have dignity and respect at its heart. The new agency will be responsible for the delivery of £2.7 billion of social security payments in Scotland. That is just the tip of the iceberg—only 15 per cent of the overall budget for social security in the UK—but it is nonetheless welcome. The Scottish Government will be in a position to influence the way we deliver disability living allowance, personal independent payments, carers allowance, funeral payments and cold weather and winter fuel payments. Significantly, the Scottish Government will also be able to top up or create new benefits and I welcome the announcements. Already given by the Cabinet Secretary, particularly in the area of carers allowance, it lays it to the same level as jobseekers allowance and to abolish, instead of mitigating, the bedroom tax. To take a licence of the concerns regarding the delivery of universal credit, especially how it might affect vulnerable adults and those with addictions, as well as recognising how it might impact on women seeking to leave a predicament of a domestic violence situation. That was highlighted by the work of the welfare committee in the area. By highlighting the briefing from MS Scotland, a condition that multiple sclerosis has known to my family, Audre from Inverness, in its briefing, says, My last assessment for DLA caused me to have an anxiety attack. The assessor was not listening and the report was full of inaccuracies. To Audre from Inverness, I hope that the future her experience will be one of dignity, fairness and respect. The cabinet secretary is right that this is a big day. It is one of those historic events where for the first time debating how we are going to establish a new Scottish welfare system with, as he says, 11 benefits. In those circumstances it is right that we all do come together. Just like in the days when the first welfare state was established, there was a cross-party effort, as Neil Findlay pointed out quite rightly, that it was the liberals, reformers, the socialists who came together to form the new fabric that was to be our new society. I think that today, although it is still a relatively small budget, it is still a significant moment, and I think that we therefore need to get the foundations right just as beverage got it right all those years ago. So I welcome the tone from the cabinet secretary. I think that he is adopting the right approach, the fact that he involved a large number of stakeholders, a full range of events across the country to engage all the people who are experts in this area to devise a system that is right for Scotland. I do not want to unnerve the cabinet secretary, but I also agree with the money's priorities as well. Having dignity, respect and fairness of the right things, and having an accessible system that is fair and has the confidence of the people is crucial as well to having a welfare system that gains the confidence of people in Scotland, so it is there for when we need it, in difficulties, because, as I was listening to him on the radio this morning, he was quite right, because we all might need this welfare system at some point or another, and I have relied on it in the past, as has my wife, and I am sure many people in this chamber, too. The way that he has set out the foundation for today's debate is absolutely the right one. I regret some of the comments from other members in the chamber at the weekend, which I think pander to the worst fears about the emerging welfare state. There is not going to be any stampede. We need to tone down the language so that we can build the proper foundations for this new welfare state. I also agree with him on abolishing the bedroom tax. He must be getting deeply worried by now. That is three things that I have agreed with him on. We need to get rid of the bedroom tax, something that I worked with Nicola Sturgeon on to get the UK Government to deliver the flexibility that was necessary to implement the mitigation measures. I agree with him on that. Ever since, in fact, I met the housing association managers on Fife who were able to tell me, very point blankly, that people had just given up on paying their rent. It showed that the system had just ground to a halt. Therefore, we need to have a system that gains confidence of people. In Scotland, carers allowance, likewise, we should bring that in line with the job seekers allowance. That is something that we should be trying to achieve over time. There is quite a lot of work that we can do around the work programme. I was struck by visiting some of the drug rehabilitation projects, particularly one in Cercodi, who said that there is a compulsion for certain members, certain users of their service, to go for a work capability assessment when they are not ready. Those people in that organisation want the drug users to get back into work because the best route out of poverty is the best way to deal with their all-round problems, not just their drug abuse but their housing problems and their family problems, too. Putting faith in the organisations that are working with drug users and others so that they can make the judgment about when it is best to come forward for a work capability assessment. That way, I think, we can personalise the service around individual needs. I am pleased to see that people are planning to work with Skills Development Scotland, the colleges and charities to develop that kind of system. It is not going to be easy, but I think that that is the kind of approach that we will be seeking to adopt. For the fourth time, I agree with Alex Neil this afternoon. I am glad that the cabinet secretary in his contribution has reflected some of the comments, findings and recommendations that the welfare reform committee has made. I think that it is important that, in any system, we reflect dignity, fairness and respect. I do not underestimate the challenges that lie ahead. Mistakes will no doubt be made, not everyone will be happy with every decision that is made. I think that, at least, if we start out with those basic principles and the other five principles that the cabinet secretary mentioned, we will be starting off in the right way. I reflect that this might be my last contribution in this Parliament, or at least one of the last contributions. In a sense, it is quite apposite, because, just under 37 years ago, just after the election of Margaret Thatcher, I left teaching to become a welfare rights officer. For 15 years, I worked in many of the poorest communities in what was then the old Strathclyde area, dealing with the consequences of unemployment, poverty and deprivation and trying to help people through a very complicated welfare benefits system. One of the things that was frustrating day in and day out was just the way that people were treated. They were not treated with dignity and respect, and there was certainly very little fairness. However, the other thing that I have been reflecting on is that one of the things that the way that Strathclyde approaches and indeed the other regional councils in Scotland shows is that, if there is a political will and determination, in spite of adversity and difficulties in limited budgets and in those days, yes, certainly limited budgets and limited powers, many good things can happen if politicians are determined to make it happen. In Strathclyde, not only did they invest in welfare rights officers to go out and to help the disadvantaged, they decided, for example, on the water referendum, they used their powers to the full effect to stop water privatisation, they had a social strategy for the 80s that concentrated and put resources into the poorest communities and to give additional education resources in early years, which was groundbreaking at the time and into schools in the poorest area, and in home helps and in home makers working with families that helped to get the families out of poverty. However, also in social work, we had an imaginative use of section 10 and section 12 monies in the Social Work Scotland Act that actually helped those families when the Government benefits system was letting them down, and we had the very courageous decision, for example, to use limited powers and budgets to help miners' families in 1984 during the miners' strike. I could take much longer, Presiding Officer, but unfortunately I see that I am running out of time, so what I would draw from that is to say to the Cabinet Secretary that if you are determined to make a difference, then despite the obstacles in front of you, you can make a difference. You can make a difference for the carers. You can make a difference for families where children and women are living in poverty. You can make a difference for the disabled. It just depends on whether we are determined to give a priority to that, Presiding Officer. It frustrates me that, in leaving this Parliament, I have done well in the last eight or nine years, as is every member sitting in this chamber, but my poorest constituents have not. If we are going to make a difference in benefits, then we have to follow through on the words that I agree with and show that, by our actions, we will make a difference to those who are disadvantaged in our society. I was very pleased when this Parliament accepted an amendment of mine to the Scottish welfare fund bill that enshrined dignity and respect in that act. I think that that clearly showed the way that this Parliament is going. I truly believe that dignity, respect and fairness should be at the heart of the new social security system that we shape. What I want to see is fairness and not fear. We have already heard from the Conservatives about how they say they want to incentivise work. Maybe Mr Lamont can get to his feet and tell us how an 87 per cent cut to the employability fund will actually help the Scottish Government to get people into work. You can stand, if you wish, Mr Lamont and maybe give us your explanation of how you think—I thought that you wouldn't know—he can maybe also explain to us the situation that many folks who have relied on the ability to get to their work now face. We have heard at the welfare reform committee from folks whose cars have been lifelines to get them to the employment, giving them freedom and independence, and yet, of late, we have seen 13,900 folk in Scotland lose the higher rate of DLA and their cars. That is not helping people to get into work, I would say, Mr Lamont. The stigma that has been caused by the Tory Government and its use of language about people who have had to rely on the social security safety net has led to other major difficulties. The MS Society Scotland has said that 33 per cent of folk do not claim the benefits that they are entitled to due to the public stigma. I think that that is absolutely shocking and that the Tories have a lot to answer for in that regard. The bureaucracy, the paperwork, the assessments, the climate of fear that has permeated throughout our society is something that I think that the Tories should be completely and utterly ashamed of. I hope that we as a Parliament in shaping a new system will get rid of that climate of fear, will cut down on the bureaucracy and paperwork and on the constant assessments that some people have to go through. There are some parts of the current system that I think that we should retain and improve on. Mary Curie, in her briefing today, has talked about the current system of fast tracking of benefit claims for those with a terminal condition. I am sure that the Scottish Government will ensure that that continues. However, it would also be useful if carers allowance for the families of those with terminal conditions could be fast tracked to them. I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider that. I see him nodding his head here. I want to give another example that enables Scotland to have said about the difficulty in terms of horrendous forms and the fact that some folk have to justify every bit of support that their children need in minute detail. I hope that we will look at that carefully and deal with that. I hope that we will build dignity, respect and fairness into the systems that we create over the coming months and years. I hope that we can eradicate the climate of fear and bring back the social security safety net that we all may need in our lives. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. It is an honour to speak on social security in Scotland. The new powers of the Scottish Parliament has now presented a huge opportunity for us to build a fairer Scotland. A new list of historic decisions will be made for the people of Scotland. Of course, the area of benefits and setting the complexity of the whole area is going to be challenging. We need to ensure that any changes that we make are fair, they are suitable and that they do not have a negative impact on any other benefits that we receive. As many recipients of social care make a contribution towards their costs, there is no point in increasing someone's benefits for all the increase to be observed by increased care costs. Not only does the Parliament have the challenge to change and the ability to create benefits, we have the opportunity to make major improvements in the process. I often have constituents come to my drop-in surgeries who are confused about the social security system and that they often need help and support in completing just simple forms. I would like to see major improvements in the claim and decision-making process for benefits. I strongly feel that it is important to boost the third sector organisations that provide support and advice to people applying for benefits and appealing decisions. However, the relationship between recipients and developed benefits will be a challenge. If we get it wrong, then we will make things very much more confusing for people, perhaps even hardship. Let's not do this. Let's make sure no one suffers as a result of the new powers to Parliament that has acquired. We must be user-friendly, particularly amongst those who are less able and those amongst the minority communities who have historically had difficulties in dealing with these issues. Presiding Officer, it's well and good to ask for new powers. It's well and good to hope to deliver good services, but actually doing it is a challenge in itself. I believe that the Scottish Government, whoever is in power, will do their very best for the communities out there. I want the communities out there to feel secure and safe with the fact that the Scottish Government is in fact able and capable of delivering a service that they can be proud of. I just hope that we can live up to that challenge. My hearty prayers and good wishes go to whichever Government in office to deliver a sound, secure, safe and appropriate service to the people of Scotland. There's no point in asking for more powers if we then fail those people that we have made promises to. I wish them all well and I hope that we can make sure that no one is going to be less well-off after the new powers transferred to us. Social Security is a concept that is enshrined in article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it states that everyone as a member of society has the right to social security as an entitled to realisation through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each state, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his or her personality. That's the declaration. What worries me about a social security system, the one that we are looking at in the past now, is that the Conservatives aim to repeal the human rights act and the impact that they will have on fundamental rights to social security. I see the cabinet secretary and many others this afternoon have talked about respect and dignity in the system, and that is something from being a member of the welfare reform committee that we have been asked of over and over and over again. I want a system that quite literally takes a person with a long-term condition such as MND or MS or a person with a terminal illness like cancer or a person with a mental health issue. It takes them in the palm of its hand and tells them it's okay. We care. We will support you. We will make your last days on this earth as easy as possible, or even a system that makes it and tells people who have found it difficult to get into work or facing redundancy. A system that says, don't worry, we will help you with training and support to find a job. We have talked a lot about fairness today. All I have heard for years is that that is all people want. They want a system that gives them the fairness that they are looking for. The evidence that we have had at committee tells us this over and over and over again. They want a system that allows them to navigate easily and caring in the toughest times of their life. We have many ideas and we have had many briefings from Marie Curie in MND Scotland and MS today, who have a manifesto called Get Loud for MS. They should get loud with their manifesto because we need to know what people need, what people want and what they aspire to. Others, as we know, have called for a system that fast-tracks people facing terminal illness. You have got no idea of the families that I know, and you have maybe come across them yourself, who have faced continual reassessment, continual formfilling, when they have only got months left of their life to live and that life should be spent with their family, not filling in forms, not going for reassessment and not facing down a system that does not care. We have heard some of the proposals from the Scottish Government today, and Chris Kerr has announced to the same as Jobseeker's. The South Lanarkshire Kerr's network that I have been involved in for many years now will be absolutely delighted to see that, because it is something that we do not take cognisance of. We all want to abolish the bedroom tax, maybe not all of us, but we certainly do, and we will look forward to that. Introduction of flexibilities around universal credit, most eloquently put by my friend Claire Adamson, when she talked about the challenges that people face there, and scrapping the 84-day rule that removes income from families of disabled children with their in-hospital.  It is not acceptable that a person with MND or any other disease has put through their assessments and reassessments when they should be spending, as I said, those last few days with their family. We have heard lots of words today—fairness, dignity and respect—so, if we can conspire to put together a social security system with these three facts, I believe that we can demonstrate a system that values everyone in our nation. As others have said, the Scottish Parliament is to assume important new powers with regard to several aspects of the social security system as a consequence of the Smith agreement. The work that the Government has been undertaking in advance of those powers is to be welcomed. I appreciate that all options must be considered, including the DWP continuing to operate Scotland system in order that it can be evaluated even if there is no appetite for them. Therefore, I assume that option 5, outsourcing by procurement, was also included for the same reason. Note that option did not perform well against the sixth criteria. I personally would be very concerned if Scotland's social security system became a vehicle for private sector profit. Last week, we discussed the Scottish National Action Plan on human rights year 2 report. SNAP has consistently argued that the benefits of human rights approach in the commissioning and delivery of services are a point that is made in the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland briefing for this debate. Much of the work done by SNAP so far has been in changing culture and practice in the delivery of existing services and the setting up of a new system is a golden opportunity to embed that human rights approach in it from the very beginning. Both the Alliance and Enable also argue that a cultural shift in the delivery of social services can be created. Both organisations stress the need for a person-centred approach to decision making and budgeting, which seeks the best outcomes for the individual and their families. Both also consider that this is an opportunity to change the way in which social security is described and discussed, and others indeed have mentioned the derogaty terminology used around benefits and welfare. I hope that a more positive attitude towards disability, for example, can be encouraged. It is my hope that as this process continues, that it will be inclusive and responsive to the concerns of the people who will be involved in the system. Turning now to the Labour amendment, I think that the majority of members of this chamber recognise that addressing the inequalities that affect childhood are key both to a fairer society but also to a more prosperous country, whose economy will be supported by a highly trained and skilled workforce. While we all agree on this matter, there are shocking statistics on the extent of child poverty and inequality in Scotland today. More than one in five children living in poverty, the most disadvantaged children at age five being 13 months behind the average in terms of development and, indeed, evidence of inequality of opportunity starting before birth. That is why we are arguing that addressing child poverty should be top priority and that the devolution of social security powers is one tool that we will have in future. However, we need to be honest about revenue. Addressing such deep-rooted inequality will cost money, and this Parliament will need to raise the revenue to affect those changes. We should not run away from saying so or discussing the best ways of doing so. The Tory amendment is intriguing, and I am being sort of polite in saying that. In a sense, speaking of the benefits of the workforce and treating people with dignity and respect, the latter cannot be said for the welfare reforms brought in by the UK Government under the direction of Ian Duncan-Smith. As for the benefits of the workforce, the current UK Government has done its utmost to reduce in-work benefits. Now, as someone who supports the UK remaining in the EU, I can only hope that Mr Duncan-Smith brings the same success to the leave campaign as he has to the welfare reform programme. Finally, this Parliament will begin to gain substantial new powers from the very time that the new Parliament is convened and, increasingly, it will do so through the course of the session. I agree with the cabinet secretary that we should work together to ensure a smooth transition, but the exercise of the new powers by the next Government, whoever that is, must be robustly scrutinised by the Parliament. Its success must be measured in terms of outcomes and not of assertions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me just start briefly by offering some respect to Hugh Henry. If that was his valedictory address to us here today, there is no better subject that he could have been speaking on. He is not always someone that I have agreed in every detail, but I absolutely share his commitment, which I acknowledge, to trying to make the lives of people in Scotland better, even if we differ sometimes about methods in doing so. In doing so, I think that that addresses dignity, fairness and respect that the cabinet secretary anchored the debate on quite properly. Sir William Beverage, who underpinned much of what we are engaging with today has evolved a lot since the Beverage report was started in 1941 with a survey, but, nonetheless, the approach that was taken then is one that we live with today. Perhaps one of the important things to think about is what is the society that we are part of, what is the society of which we wish to be part in future. We can all contribute to society. I think that we would all accept that. I am not certain that the Conservatives, however, would agree with my assertion that we do not have to be a worker to contribute to society. I think that the amendment that the Conservatives bring forward anchors social security and support in being an employment. Lots of people contribute to society without being able to, willing to or being an employment. We must separate the needs of people in our society from the ability to financially be part of our society. Many people simply cannot be that, and I would fundamentally disagree with colleagues on the Conservative benches. Quite a lot of the debate has been about mechanical issues. Inevitably, the cabinet secretary talked to a great deal about how we will do that. Beverage, quite interestingly, in his budgets for his proposals, put a cap on the administration cost of the system that he proposed of 5 per cent. That is a pretty good starting place for the cabinet secretary to perhaps think about in the modern efficient world with good-quality computer systems that we might do even rather better. It is also worth thinking that, perhaps, smaller uplifts in how much we expend can perhaps have bigger impacts than we think. Beverage's system actually only increased expenditure on social services by 50 per cent. He would think that, for the radical transformation that it affected, it would be much more. It was much more fundamentally that it refocused what we were doing. The system that preceded it for the previous 30 years came from Lloyd George's introduction of the old age pension act, which he introduced in 1908. The House of Lords vigorously opposed it, and in 1911 their sales were trimmed so that their powers to block legislation were reduced. I fear that we are back in the position of the House of Lords with adding extra members, as the Tories plan to do, having undue influence over public policy. The bottom line is that we need to focus on people. The original system was the Chelsea pensioner system introduced in 1689 by King William and Queen Mary. My great-great-grandfather was a Chelsea pensioner from 1818 because he was an army pensioner. Today, we are in a different position. We need to make sure that we are able to afford what we do, but we have to focus first, middle and bottom on the people that we are trying to support. I am sure that we will be doing that. Many thanks. We now move to closing speeches. I call on Alex Johnson four minutes. Please, Mr Johnson, up to four minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Right at the beginning of this debate, Alex Neil said that this was a historic day, and I agree with him. Those are exciting times indeed as we move forward and take advantage of the powers that have been given to us or will be given to us by the new Scotland Bill. I have to contrast my experience of the provisions regarding tax on the Scotland Bill and those regarding welfare. I found the tax provisions simple and easy to understand, and they have as a result not been a particular source of discussion during this whole process. The welfare provisions, on the other hand, I thought were complex and difficult to understand, and although I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say that we perhaps did not understand them correctly initially, it has been necessary for substantial changes to have been made. In the spirit of co-operation that we have had today in this debate, most of the way, I would like to take credit to some extent for having not accepted those welfare proposals as they originally appeared and contributed, I hope, to the improvement that we have experienced. However, there are ways in which we will differ from others in this debate, and perhaps that is easiest to point out if I can contrast my views with those expressed by Stuart Stevenson just a moment ago. I do believe that work is an extremely important factor in encouraging people to participate in life and in society. As a result, I have no qualms about suggesting that social security, as it goes forward, should be tied wherever necessary to encouraging and supporting people back into work. I also believe that there is no issue regarding some form of conditionality being attached to the payments that we make. It is often said in the debate that somehow conditionality is inappropriate. I believe that those who contribute their hard-dened taxpayer contribution to the schemes that we are going to develop will expect some form of conditionality within the system. Turning to the remarks that the minister himself made, I could not agree more with the first point that he made, and that is that it is essential that we get a smooth and safe transition. There should be no gaps between one provision and the next, because those who are dependent on that support cannot allow that to happen. However, he perhaps failed to raise one other issue that I would put in the same area, and that is the issue of the cost of providing services. Those of us who look closely at the development and evolution of the Scottish welfare fund realised that, at its outset, the cost was too hi