Scottish Parliament, 29 April 2010

342 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

Living Wage

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6216, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on a living wage.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I begin by recalling a hustings organised by the Poverty Alliance that I attended earlier this week, and in particular the Conservative candidate, who was a good, fun, feisty debater. He was very right wing but fun to debate with and keen to persuade the audience that Conservatives care about poverty. I believe him, and I begin the debate by acknowledging, and by asking the whole chamber to acknowledge, that none of us in the Parliament is secretly twirling our moustache and thinking what a great thing poverty is. We all care about it. We have different policies to try to address it, but the concern and anger that exist about the level of poverty in Scotland today should be, and rightly is, shared across the political spectrum.

However, caring is not enough. Even just finding policies to deal with poverty and people in poverty is not enough. If all that we do is ameliorate the effects of poverty, generation after generation will face the self-same problem. We will allow the same problem to continue to be created year after year, generation after generation, and successive generations of politicians will continue to have to come up with new policies to deal with poverty.

We must not be distracted from dealing with the underlying structural causes of poverty in the way that we run our economy. We must go beyond that and recognise not only that poverty matters but that inequality matters. It is about not only the level of wealth that people have, but their relative wealth. It is about how well we share wealth in society, not just how much economic growth we achieve as a whole.

I refer members to the Poverty Alliance briefing that has been circulated. It explains, to those who might not be aware—some people in Scotland and the United Kingdom who do not personally experience poverty do not always understand or acknowledge it and think that it is perhaps a thing of the past—that almost 70 per cent of workers in, for example, the hotel and restaurant sector earn less than £7 an hour. As the Poverty Alliance points out, three fifths of those workers are women; it also points out the gender inequality that exists in low pay in the retail and wholesale sector and the public sector. What we do not know about is what happens in the contracts that the public sector lets. What happens to the workers who are in the private sector but fulfilling public sector contracts? We do not have enough information about how many of them are low paid.

There are different ways of calculating a living wage. The Scottish living wage, campaigned on by the Poverty Alliance, trade unions and other organisations, is based on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation minimum income standard. A living wage of £7 an hour would bring 70 per cent of single adults who are currently living below that level up to that standard. There are other options. If the principle of a living wage can be agreed, we will need to look at the level at which it is set, how we increase it in line with rising living standards or inflation, how we uprate it and whether we should change it to a proportion of the average income. There are a number of models, but I hope that we can agree on the principle.

We are clearly failing to reduce inequality in society. I am sure that members of all political parties will be aware of the arguments made in the book “The Spirit Level”, which explains why a more equal society is better for everyone—raising some people up to a safety net at the bottom is not enough; we must have a fundamentally more equal society.

Our motion recognises a number of things that we have to do to achieve that. We need to return to progressive taxation and end the scandalous situation in which people on very high incomes pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than people on low incomes. We need to tackle high pay as well as low pay if we are going to become a more equal society: one that will increase health and happiness, reduce social problems—there are too many to list—and reduce in-work poverty.

As I said, the organisations involved in the campaign include a number of non-governmental organisations and trade unions, but political support has been expressed in the Parliament and elsewhere. I acknowledge the members’ business debate that Frank McAveety led in the chamber not so long ago. The motion was supported by 22 members of political parties—that support represents a clear majority in the chamber. Some of the quotations from that debate are telling. Frank McAveety recognised that

“we will have ... heated debates”

in the coming months and years about the difficult economic circumstances to come and the choices that may have to be made. However, he argued that

“the fundamental point is that we should ensure that folk are not left behind, particularly those on the lowest rung of our community.”—[Official Report, 17 September 2009; c 19806.]

That is crucial—it is the nub of the issue. We must move beyond the idea of a safety net at the bottom and stop thinking that, as long as people get on to that lower rung and do not fall off it, that is okay. We need to have a society that fundamentally respects the equal dignity of all people. That must be expressed in material as well as non-material terms.

Fairness is a concept that I think is in every political party’s manifesto for the UK election: fairness, fairness, fairness. However, it is a concept that is open to interpretation—it means different things to different people. We need to be moving towards greater equality. It has never been more objectively clear that the more equal societies around the world are

“happier, healthier, safer and greener”.

If we want to achieve those social goods, instead of simply hitting the reset button on the failed economic model, we must ensure that what comes out of recovery is fundamentally better than what went before. That means having a more equal society.

There are many things that the Scottish Government, the UK Government and local government should do—indeed, some local authorities are doing them, and I am sure that that point will come out later in the debate. The Parliament should endorse the principle that a living wage for all is the least that a rich society such as ours can afford.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that unacceptable levels of poverty and income inequality continue to blight Scotland; notes that the income of the richest 10% of people in Scotland is approximately the same as the total income of the poorest 50%; further notes that, among working-age adults, in-work poverty is still on the increase; believes that a more equal society would be a happier, healthier, safer and greener society and that this must become a core objective of government at all levels, and therefore calls on the UK Government to commit to the immediate introduction of a living wage for all, set at £7 per hour, and on Scottish ministers to bring in this living wage for all public sector workers and employees of public sector contractors and for this change to be funded by tackling high pay in the public sector and by fairer taxation on both high pay and financial transactions.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the subject to the attention of the chamber and for the tone that he adopted, which I hope we will all adopt throughout the debate.

The Scottish Government’s position is very clear. We believe that a more equal society—I emphasise “more equal”—would be a

“happier, healthier, safer and greener society”.

That is why we have made it such a priority.

We agree with Patrick Harvie that the levels of poverty and income inequality in Scotland are unacceptable. We firmly believe that a fairer distribution of income and wealth is key to tackling poverty. Our overall approach is to try to create a more successful country with opportunities for all. One of the great prerequisites for the abolition of poverty and for more equality in our society is full employment, and we regard the drive towards full and fuller employment as a key priority in tackling poverty and inequality.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

With regard to the Government’s stated policy of redistribution, will the minister do one thing? Will he carry out an equality assessment of the £420 million cost of the council tax freeze—that is how much the Government has said it has cost—to establish who it has benefited most: those on the lowest incomes, or those in the highest income households?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

In actual fact, we have commissioned more general work on the council tax and, in particular, on its impact on those at the lower end of the income scale, which in relative terms is very unfair compared with its impact on those at the higher end. For us, the key driver for abolishing the council tax is its unfairness. It is related neither to income nor to wealth but to residency alone, which is not even a proxy for income or wealth levels.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

If the minister is arguing that people on low incomes are suffering particularly and that there should be greater equality, does he therefore agree that the council tax freeze has exacerbated inequality? Given that it does not benefit anyone who qualifies for council tax benefit, a disproportionate amount of the money that the Government has put into the freeze must, by definition, be going to people who are better off.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No. In fact, the council tax freeze has benefited many people who do not qualify for council tax benefit but who are nevertheless on a relatively low income. To qualify for that benefit, a person must be earning less than about £6,000 a year, and I would not call anyone who earns just over £6,000 a year as being particularly well off. The group of people, many of them pensioners, whose income is just above the threshold to qualify for benefit or rebate are spending a proportionately higher level of their income on council tax than they would pay under a local income tax. That is one of the reasons why we have been so insistent about the need to relate local government finance and revenue raising to the ability to pay.

Indeed, that would all be part of a wider reform that we would carry out if we had the powers to do so in this Parliament. In the meantime, however, I hope that whoever wins the election at Westminster—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will give way in a minute.

I hope that whoever wins the Westminster election looks at the fundamental issue of the interrelationship between taxation and benefits. Many of our taxes redistribute things the wrong way. For example, people who earn £150,000 a year pay far less, as a proportion of their income, in national insurance contributions than people who earn, say, £10,000 or £11,000 a year.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I give way to Patrick Harvie.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful. Although I agree with some of the minister’s points about tax and disagree with others, I am sure that he will move on to talk about the living wage and, principally, public sector workers for whom the Scottish Government is responsible.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will indeed continue in that vein if I can get a chance to do so and if there are no further interruptions.

The Scottish Government’s targets are very much focused on solidarity and reducing income inequality. Indeed, our primary target, which is to increase the proportion of income received by the poorest 30 per cent of households in Scotland by 2017, was chosen specifically to ensure that we focus on the working poor as a priority group. Our response to the challenge of low pay is being driven forward through “Achieving Our Potential”, our flagship policy on poverty and income inequality, and we share the commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Because I want to comment further on the issue of low pay, I will not have time to comment on the amendments that have been lodged.

On the Scottish Government’s public sector pay policy, I must first of all emphasise that the Scottish Government is not responsible for all Scottish public sector workers, many of whom are still under the aegis of either the UK Government or local government. Moreover, many of those who work for the Scottish Government and its agencies are subject to UK national pay bargaining procedures instead of having their pay set at the Scottish Government’s discretion.

That said, addressing low pay is one of the Scottish Government’s four key pay policy priorities in its 2009-10 public sector pay policy. The policy itself encourages public bodies specifically to consider their lowest paid staffing groups and makes it clear that policies should take into account delivery of the solidarity target that I have just mentioned. The most recent pay deal for Scottish Government staff had a particular emphasis on assisting our lowest paid staff, and the rise is a reflection of our commitment to recruitment and retention. Moreover, everyone in the national health service in Scotland, which is by far our largest group of employees, is on the living wage.

Unfortunately I do not have time to say much more. I will try to make further points in my closing speech.

I move amendment S3M-6216.2, to leave out from “therefore” to end and insert:

“welcomes the action that the Scottish Government has taken to freeze pay for government employees on higher salaries and the progress that the Scottish Government is making toward achieving a living wage of £7 per hour for government employees and employees of the NHS in Scotland.”

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I thank the Greens for bringing this motion to Parliament. I know that the issue is set out in their general election manifesto, and I wish them good luck in drawing attention to it through this debate.

However, I am happy to say that the debate allows me to draw attention to Labour’s own general election manifesto, which, in the “Living Standards” chapter, says, under the heading “Making work pay”:

“The National Minimum Wage is one of our proudest achievements. It protects and sustains millions of low paid workers. To ensure that the lowest paid share fairly in rising prosperity, the Low Pay Commission’s remit will have the goal of the National Minimum Wage rising at least in line with average earnings over the period to 2015.

To underline our commitment to helping the lowest paid we will ask all Whitehall Departments, within their allocated budgets, to”

consider how they can

“follow the lead of those who already pay the Living Wage. This will be supported by measures to address high pay in the public sector—reducing pay-bill pressure in the years ahead.”

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Mr Whitton agree that, had the national minimum wage been introduced in 1999 at the £5 an hour rate that the unions and others asked for, it would now be more than £7 an hour and we would not be having this debate? In Ireland, for example, the national minimum wage is equivalent to £7.50 an hour.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I thank Mr Wilson for his intervention, but the fact is that he and other members of the Scottish National Party seem to have some difficulty with the national minimum wage. History records that when the Tories tried to talk out the National Minimum Wage Bill in 1998 the SNP MPs, including our own First Minister, were in their beds asleep. It was left to Labour MPs to vote through the legislation. The SNP’s current Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, was also asleep when he was unable to say in an interview what the minimum wage rates were. That is not a mistake that I think Mr Wilson would make. I remind Mr Robertson and any others who do not know that, from October, the minimum hourly rate will rise from £5.80 to £5.93 for those over 21; from £4.83 to £4.92 for those aged 18 to 20; and from £3.57 to £3.64 for those aged 16 and 17. There will also be a new minimum of £2.50 an hour for apprentices.

The SNP is not the only party that seems to have a problem with the national minimum wage; the Tories, too, have form with the policy. As we know, they were deeply hostile to it from the start, saying that it was the end of the world and would cost thousands of jobs. Where have we heard that recently? Our proposed increase in national insurance from next April has brought similar cries of doom and gloom and comments about “the jobs tax”.

I accept that our amendment does not go as far as the Greens would like, but it recognises that it was a Labour Government that moved to tackle inequality in pay and to legislate for employers who refused to give their workers a decent hourly rate. No doubt many of those employers are signing up to the Tory campaign against the proposed national insurance increase. It is interesting to note that the measure, which would cost Marks and Spencer, for example, around £10 million a year, is opposed by its chief executive Sir Stuart Rose, whose salary is £15 million a year. Many of his workers would not have to pay the increase in national insurance and, in any case, one way for the company to get over its difficulty is to cut its chief executive’s salary by two thirds. I also point out that a Labour London mayor introduced the London living allowance and a Labour administration at Glasgow City Council introduced the living wage rate of £7 an hour for all its workers.

As we have heard, low pay remains a real issue for almost 700,000 Scottish workers, the majority of whom, as Mr Harvie mentioned, are women, who face particular problems in the hotel, restaurant and retail sectors. In local authorities throughout Scotland, 20 per cent of the workforce—again, the majority are women—earn less than £7 an hour. We on this side of the chamber believe that progress towards the introduction of living wage rates should be maintained where possible, and I commend our amendment to Parliament.

I move amendment S3M-6216.4, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:

“believes that the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was one of the most seminal pieces of the legislation of the twentieth century in terms of promoting dignity at work but regrets that it was finally passed without the votes of any Conservative or SNP MPs; welcomes the commitment in Labour’s 2010 manifesto to further increase the minimum wage at least in line with earnings over the next five years and the further extension of the living wage in government departments; notes the example set by Glasgow City Council in introducing a living wage for its employees, and supports the further extension of the living wage, working in conjunction with the tax credit system, to ensure that work always pays.”

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank Patrick Harvie for raising the issue and for the tone in which he did so. That is important, because none of us should doubt the good intentions of all of us in Parliament, whether or not we take a different perspective on how we reach the aim. Patrick Harvie showed remarkable political maturity in accepting that similar aims might be achieved in different ways.

The Greens’ motion acknowledges the difference between what the Scottish Government can do and what the UK Government can do. That takes us into what is perhaps the core of the issue when we first consider the concept of a living wage—the question why the minimum wage, which applies nationally, is not simply used.

David Whitton reminded us of the minimum wage level. A single adult with no children who works full time for the minimum wage is eligible for tax credits. That is support from the Government so, on the face of it, there is an argument about why that support is not simply provided through a different minimum wage level. Mr Whitton also described the proposed minimum wage increase in October. After that increase, the same adult with no children who works full time and who is currently eligible for tax credits will see that eligibility cease.

That situation reflects the margins at which the minimum wage is set. Someone who works 40 hours a week for the minimum wage is eligible for about £10 a week in tax credits. That sum of money is not significant, but it makes a difference for people who receive that wage level.

It is worth noting that, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, income inequality is greater now than at any time since the 1950s. The IFS says:

“it is fair to say that youth unemployment and income inequality have risen under Labour, and that ... the incomes of households with the lowest incomes are now lower than they were in 1996-97.”

The key question to ask is why. If we are interested in tackling that, we must understand the consequences.

In another report, the IFS says that factors that we might consider to be drivers of inequality, such as the ageing population and the north-south divide, explain little of the change in inequality in the past 40 years. It says:

“More surprisingly still, the earnings gap between men and women has actually acted to reduce inequality, as the relative earnings of women have ‘caught up’ with those of men.”

The IFS says that the most important drivers of increased inequality are occupation—the earnings gap between unskilled workers and professional or managerial workers has widened—and education, as relative wages among better-educated members of the workforce increased throughout the 1980s. The IFS says that that is consistent with the idea that skills-biased technological change was responsible for much of the increase in inequality, as new technologies have complemented the work of skilled and educated workers but substituted for the work of lower-skilled workers.

The IFS also says:

“households headed by an individual with a degree are ... four times wealthier than households headed by an individual with no qualifications”

and that inequalities in wealth are much greater than inequalities in income.

If we want to tackle inequality, it is clear that the best way to do so is through a thriving economy, a more skilled workforce and levelling up rather than trading down.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I understand the argument, but it is curious that Derek Brownlee acknowledges that inequality in society increased all through the period of economic growth that we had before the recent recession. Why did economic growth over all those years not achieve what he says that it would achieve now? Is not progressive taxation the only way to reduce inequality?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We have a progressive tax system—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

No.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The system might not be as progressive as Mr Harvie would like it to be, but it is undoubtedly progressive.

The point is that different models of economic growth exist. If we have a more skilled workforce and a higher economic growth rate, inequality will be tackled. That is the best way of dealing with inequality. It is much more important to focus on creating new skilled jobs and on growing the economy to tackle inequality and poverty.

I move amendment S3M-6216.1, to leave out from “a more equal” to end and insert:

“economic growth is the best means of tackling poverty and inequality, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to pursue measures to boost the economy, create jobs and improve the standard of living for all.”

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Like other members, I commend the Greens for initiating the debate.

I strongly disagree with the Conservatives’ approach. Our taxation system in the United Kingdom is not progressive. How can a taxation system be progressive when the lowest quartile of taxpayers pay six times as much in tax as a proportion of their income as do those who are in the highest quartile? The gap between the richest and the poorest has widened under Labour, from not a bad start when it took over.

The taxation system is not progressive and is incredibly complex. The United Kingdom’s tax code is the largest in the world at more than 1,000 pages; it overtook that of India when Gordon Brown was the chancellor. That does not necessarily cause problems for the very wealthy, who can hire expensive tax advisers and lawyers, but the constituents and people in Scotland whom we are talking about do not have the benefit of being able to recruit accountants or tax advisers and are faring worse.

Simply relying on a trickle-down approach is not right—we need to take a radical look at our taxation system. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government can also change direction and must do so. The minister said that no equality assessment of the council tax freeze policy had been conducted. In the four years from 2008 to 2012, the council tax freeze will cost £700 million. Movement towards free prescriptions will cost a further £130 million and free school meals will cost £50 million. That £880 million package disproportionately helps high-income families rather than low-income families. That is a fact.

Mr Brownlee quoted the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Its assessment of a council tax freeze in England and Wales, which would be comparable to the freeze policy in Scotland, is that “the largest cash gains” would go to the richest households, as they tend to live in larger properties with the largest council tax liabilities.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That is precisely why council tax has a link with income, although Mr Purvis and the SNP always argue that it does not. If he argues that people who live in larger houses benefit more and are richer, and therefore that that is unequal, council tax must by definition be more progressive than he has spent however long in the past 10 years complaining that it is.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

If Mr Brownlee wants to argue that council tax is progressive, that is a whole other debate. He would lose that argument with the low-income pensioners and other individuals who come to my advice surgeries, who would say, “The only way that the system can be progressive is if I move house.” How on earth is that fair or progressive?

The Government’s approach, which is costing £880 million, benefits high-income families that earn more than £100,000 a year more than it benefits low-income families.

What would make the biggest impact on inequality? One proposal, which is in our manifesto, is that of lifting the income tax threshold.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will Jeremy Purvis take an intervention?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Jeremy Purvis does not have time for an intervention.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Given the difficult economic situations for the budget, it is not fair that the Government’s pay policy puts more cash in the pocket of someone who earns higher wages than it puts in the pocket of someone who earns lower wages. That happens because of a simple percentage increase in wages. The Government’s policy is to have a 1 per cent uplift, which would mean that the 5,300 people who work in the public service in Scotland who earn more than £80,000 would have considerably more money in their pockets than would someone who earns £15,000. One of the best ways of achieving the aim on which I think we all agree is to change radically the Government’s pay policy. It is regrettable that the Government has not said that it will do that.

I move amendment S3M-6216.3, to leave out from “therefore” to end and insert:

“believes that, during the tight financial climate, public sector pay policy should be structured to ensure that those on lower incomes benefit more than those on higher incomes from pay changes.”

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to the open debate. I have no spare time, so I ask members to keep speeches tight, please.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The debate is important. It is not just about the mechanics of the living wage in isolation but about the bigger picture of social justice, fighting inequality, tackling low pay and the basic concept of liberty that is embedded in the Beveridge report and the Attlee Government’s creation of the welfare state.

Of course, no one suggests that the living wage is a magical golden bullet that will solve all Scotland’s most intractable social inequalities at a stroke, but I strongly support the work of the Scottish living wage campaign and of organisations such as the Poverty Alliance.

Some might say, “Doesn’t the minimum wage already look after low-paid workers?” The minimum wage was a major achievement by the Labour Government in 1998 and of course it addressed extreme low pay. I remember leaving the Commons bleary-eyed at 9 am after 28 divisions in an all-night sitting before the National Minimum Wage Bill was finally passed. I felt proud—not in a self-serving sense—that politics could make a difference for the thousands of low-paid staff in the Highlands and Islands and throughout the UK who received an immediate boost, such as bar staff in Aviemore, catering workers in Fort William and shop assistants in Inverness.

The minimum wage worked for extreme low pay, but a living wage is another tool to tackle the plight of low-waged workers in Scotland. We do not need a crystal ball or to search for the ancient predictions of the Brahan seer to work out whether the living wage will work. We have only to examine the experience in London, Oxford and Glasgow or, on the international stage, in Calgary, Los Angeles, Maryland, San Francisco or the 120 other cities throughout the United States and Canada that have a living wage policy.

In Calgary, economic analysis after the introduction of the living wage reported increased income for lower-paid staff; improved health and quality of life; and reduced dependency on Government assistance. The study showed that Calgary was able to attract better workers and improve productivity. The results were consistent with many of the other living wage cities in the US and Canada.

To come back to the Scottish context, where did the £7 an hour figure come from? Patrick Harvie covered that. Work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that a single adult working full time needs more than £7 an hour to reach a minimum socially accepted quality of life.

What is the scale of the problem? Frank McAveety referred to that in our previous debate on the matter, but the figures vary according to which survey is used. The Scottish living wage campaign quotes the figure of 700,000 low-paid workers in Scotland, based on labour force survey data. The Scottish Government—as I hope the minister will testify later—uses the annual survey of hours and earnings, and the most up-to-date figure from that survey that I could find from the Scottish Parliament information centre yesterday was 386,000 low-paid workers. Let us consider snapshots in other sectors: there are about 5,000 low-paid workers in the NHS. Figures that I got from written answers show that, in my region, there are 869 in the Highland Council area, 407 in Moray, 631 in Argyll and Bute, 360 in Orkney and, interestingly, none in Shetland.

What about the effect on business? Private sector suppliers to local government, the NHS and the Scottish Government should be encouraged to build a living wage into contracts. A Scottish living wage employer award should be developed to encourage uptake by employers in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Guy Stullard, a director from KPMG Europe, is quoted by the Fair Pay Network as saying:

“We have found that paying the Living Wage is a smart business move as increasing wages has reduced staff turnover and absenteeism, whilst productivity and professionalism has subsequently increased.”

A number of organisations have incorporated that into their procurement policies.

Poverty wages are bad for business and communities and have no place in Scottish society, which is part of the sixth-biggest economy in the world. Making work pay is the route out of poverty. My experience on the doorsteps is that people want a hand up not a handout. It is about fairness and equality. More than 60 per cent of low wage workers in Scotland are women.

Finally, Presiding Officer, as I am running out of time—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Very briefly, please.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The living wage provides a virtuous circle, using the multiplier effect. We estimate that between—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am sorry, but I have to move on. I gave you fair warning.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Patrick Harvie’s motion is timely, but it is in two parts. The living wage is one part, but the last lines in his motion—those about the gap between the richest and poorest in the public and private sectors, and about fairer taxation and financial transactions—must be part of the debate because, if we want to help our people who suffer from poverty and low wages, we must have an economy that is gearing up to give them work. We will do that partly by encouraging business and by ensuring that tax avoidance is taken into account.

The way in which the public sector attracts leaders to its ranks has to be competitive. At the top, that is the case, but it is also the case at the bottom because, although 9 per cent of people in the public sector are on lower pay, 29 per cent of people in the private sector earn less than £7 an hour. The public sector has set a lead and it is important for us to remember that the Scottish Government has attempted, through the solidarity approach, to get the emphasis on to taking people in lower pay out of the danger area.

In 2008, 454,000 people in Scotland were earning less than £7 an hour and 63 per cent of them were women. That is one of the major issues that the minister and others have raised: we must regard it as a central part of the argument about low pay and a living wage. Figures show that 70 per cent of people who work in hotels and restaurants and 51 per cent of people who work in the retail and wholesale sector earn less than £7 an hour. Those are large parts of the private sector. The Scottish Government would like to have the powers to deal with that, but there is no proposal in the Calman commission’s recommendations for the Scottish Government to deal with private sector pay.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Other countries that had heavy industry but have had to modernise their economies have found models with which to move forward and reduce the gap between those who are at the top of the tree and those who are at the bottom. That has been done by fairer, progressive taxation. If we are to have the money to support the development of the economy that will allow people in the private sector to get better pay because it is expanding, we must tax things such as international financial dealings. The SNP believes in such transaction taxes—the Tobin tax—and is looking to the G20 to find agreement on that. We must not punish countries that have been financially prudent, such as Canada and Australia, but we must agree to make that tax money available to help to tackle poverty not only here, but in the developing world.

Greece’s failure to capture tax from avoiders and the rich is part of the source of its debt—as well as its speculation in collateralised debt obligations. The point is that we must have a tax system that allows us to provide meaningful support to the people who need to get a living wage. David Stewart gave us the example that points the way: Calgary has a booming economy and that is why it has been possible to attract people to that area. We must have a developing economy in Scotland so that the private sector starts to catch up with the public sector.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I congratulate all those who were involved in the living wage campaign throughout the United Kingdom—I think that it started in London—and those in Scotland who have pursued it. They have played an important role in addressing and in asking us to challenge poverty and low pay.

Tackling low pay has not always been an area of consensus. Indeed, even inside the Labour and trade union movement, there was a long argument about the extent to which free collective bargaining would ensure that low-paid workers would be properly remunerated. There came a time when we considered the fact that there was a disproportionate number of women among the low paid and we recognised that the trade unions in themselves could not protect low-paid workers. Therefore, our movement came to the view that Government intervention was necessary to protect people’s entitlement to a basic level of pay to save them from the exploitation that some of us remember all too well, such as security guards being on £1.50 or £2 an hour.

Such exploitation was justified in the name of the economic growth and prosperity that are mentioned in the Tory amendment. It is significant that, when the economic crisis emerged, the first solution that some people within the business community proposed was that the national minimum wage was a problem, so perhaps we should get rid of it. We should commend the businesses that are responsible and that recognise that part of good business and their being in partnership with our communities is that they ought not to exploit people.

The briefing from the Poverty Alliance recognises that, in the debate, the living wage is not the same as the safeguards that have been put in place through the national minimum wage and the tax credit system. One is not a substitute for the other, but they reinforce our commitment to ensuring that people do not languish in low pay.

We have to consider whether any measure will make a difference to the people about whom we purport to care. The Tory amendment talks about economic growth as being the best way out of our difficulties but, beside that, we must have shared prosperity, which will not happen by accident. Government must introduce measures that will make that difference. The national minimum wage presents such an example, and the living wage creates such a challenge for us all, wherever we are.

Rob Gibson talks about the big picture—the huge issues—but that cannot be an alibi for not doing what we can, where we are. The Scottish Government must be challenged on its priorities. It usually describes its anti-poverty strategy in terms of three issues: the council tax freeze, the extension of free school meals, and free prescriptions. Any equality assessment of that strategy will tell us that those do not benefit the poorest people in our communities.

Jeremy Purvis’s party talks about exempting from paying tax anyone who earns less than £10,000 a year, but the Institute of Fiscal Studies tells us that the beneficiaries of that policy would be three of the four wealthiest groups in the income table. I wonder what equality assessment has been done on that. We need an honest and focused approach, and we need tough targets and monitoring. I regret that the Scottish Government has not continued the challenge of producing an annual report on whether it is meeting its targets on poverty, because such reports can be a spur to action.

I would like the minister to clarify what has been done by the Scottish Government. I understand that although Nicola Sturgeon costed a package for introducing the national minimum wage to the NHS, it was vetoed by John Swinney. Is that true? Has the Government considered how it can use procurement policy not just in its powers to address the needs of public sector workers but to challenge the private sector to improve the scandal of private sector low pay? Will the minister support Glasgow’s approach? Will he acknowledge housing associations that are implementing the minimum wage? Will he, when he sums up, identify not just the principle that he believes in, but the areas in which he has control and power in terms of that principle’s being implemented?

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

This is not the first time that the Parliament has debated a living wage and poverty, and it is not the first time that I have spoken on the issue. So important is the subject, however, that I congratulate the Scottish Green Party on bringing it back to Parliament for debate.

The health of society is inextricably linked to inequality. It is worth reminding ourselves of some of the basic facts. In a nutshell, the United Kingdom is one of the most unequal of the world’s developed countries. That inequality has widened considerably in the past couple of decades and, most important, has grave consequences for crime, health and educational attainment—in fact, for any parameter related to individual and societal wellbeing that we care to mention. The elimination of inequality, therefore, should not be an optional add-on to a party’s policies. Parties that do not put it at the top of their agenda do not deserve anyone’s vote—not even the votes of the superwealthy. Research shows that even the superwealthy are not immune to the ill-effects of the social malaise known as inequality.

Let us look at some of the figures. One in five people in the UK lives in poverty. Since 2002, the poorest tenth have become £9 a week poorer and the richest tenth have become £94 a week better off. According to the Office for National Statistics, the poorest fifth pay more tax as a proportion of their income than the richest fifth and there is overwhelming evidence that socioeconomic mobility in the UK is a myth. UK Government figures that were released this year show that in England, the lives of children from families of low socioeconomic status, who have the same high IQ as children from families of high socioeconomic status, start to diverge at the age of only 22 months. That is socioeconomic determinism.

According to Ben Morgan of Oxfam, even if we add up the value of everything people at the bottom of society own, we will still find them deep in debt. They do not just have next to nothing; they have less than nothing. They are people who play by the rules, he says, but who still need to borrow to stay afloat, however hard they work. It is impossible to live like that endlessly. The mortality figures bear Mr Morgan out: the poor die young. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund, the life expectancy of a child born in Calton in Glasgow is 28 years less than that of a child born just a few miles away in Lenzie. In short, inequality kills.

So, what are we going to do about it? We cannot raise everyone to the wealth of the super-rich. The planet does not have the resources, and emphasising individual greed does not benefit society. By all means raise tax on the superwealthy and institute a Robin Hood tax, but before that we should clamp down on tax evasion and avoidance. If one totals estimated evasion, avoidance and otherwise uncollected tax, tax dodging in the UK is estimated at £130 billion annually. There is no need for cuts in public expenditure; just deal with the tax evaders.

If we want to encourage people to pay tax, we should stop turning our money into nuclear weapons, profits for arms manufacturers, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and hundreds of service personnel. There should be no more weapons of mass destruction, no more illegal wars and no more lies.

We could set maximum wage ratios in public bodies. With the huge amount of evidence to show that inequality is a cancer, the various Governments in the UK can and should lead the way by setting maximum wage ratios for public bodies. We should set a decent minimum income for all, funded by redistributive—not regressive—taxation, by savings on military expenditure, and by scrapping identity-card schemes.

Furthermore, if we institute a living wage, we can give people the dignity of living on their earnings, instead of their suffering the humiliation of working while still being unable to support their families. They will be happier and healthier, and they will undoubtedly live longer. “A living wage” is well named.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I am pleased to contribute to a debate on such an important subject. The living wage is not a new idea and the achievement of a living wage has been a campaign in the Labour movement for nearly 100 years. The Independent Labour Party first debated the living wage programme in 1924, and adopted it two years later at its annual conference. Even so, there was considerable debate about it among socialists at the time. One major argument in the ILP was that a living wage was unachievable in a capitalist society. James Maxton made the point that while the ILP wanted socialism, the workers wanted a living wage, and the fact that capitalism could not provide it was a big propaganda point against capitalism. As Johann Lamont said, the trade unions inside the Labour Party were concerned that it might interfere with free collective bargaining. However, an accommodation was reached. The ILP’s living wage policy applied to Government employees first, followed by workers in firms receiving Government money—another point that was made by Johann Lamont—and then, after two years, to all other industries.

That is happening at the moment. In March last year, following London’s action five years ago, Glasgow City Council adopted the living wage model for its staff. It is especially pertinent that we are debating the issue between international workers memorial day yesterday and May day at the weekend—a holiday that was given to workers by the late Michael Foot. Yesterday, I spoke at the third international workers memorial day service at Summerlee heritage park, a museum in my constituency, which was organised by North Lanarkshire Trades Union Council. There was also an event there in February to launch the NLTUC’s campaign for a living wage of £7 an hour in Lanarkshire.

Since then, I have been trying to engage my constituents in supporting the campaign because it is important that they do so. To inform them about it, I included an article on the campaign in my most recent newsletter. However, I was badly let down by a company called Mailbox Nationwide Ltd, and my newsletters have not been delivered to the vast majority of my constituents, which is extremely disappointing. The company has been blasé about it. Unfortunately, it means that my constituents do not have the appropriate information to help in the campaign to press the council on that important policy.

The living wage campaign is about securing a decent pay packet that allows workers to access housing, pay their bills, feed and clothe their families, and have disposable income to spend on activities that better-off people take for granted. In February, Richard Leonard, writing in the Morning Star, pointed out that a wage that was set at the London rate of £7.60 an hour would lift 25 per cent of the entire workforce in North Lanarkshire above the breadline. Even if North Lanarkshire adopted the Glasgow rate of £7 an hour, the lowest paid fifth of all women workers would benefit. In a news release from the GMB union, Richard Leonard also made the point that part-time women workers living in the Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill UK Parliament constituency receive the poorest pay in Lanarkshire, with more than 60 per cent—nearly 5,000 women—on less than £8 an hour. It is a major equality issue; a living wage would have a dramatic impact on low-paid part-time women workers, and would help in the quest to close the unacceptable gender pay gap.

There can be no doubt that Labour’s minimum wage was a radical step in supporting workers. When it was introduced it raised the floor for the lowest paid 20th percentile in North Lanarkshire. Unfortunately, many employers simply use it as the rate for the job, and there are still too many working poor people in our society. I hope that North Lanarkshire Council heeds the call for the policy, as it would be fitting for the council to become one of the first to implement a living wage. The ILP championed the policy in the 1920s, and three of its socialist members were linked to Lanarkshire. Bargeddie was the childhood home of John Wheatley, Jennie Lee was first elected to Parliament as a Lanarkshire representative at the age of 24 and, of course, Keir Hardie was born in Lanarkshire. In Parliament in 1912—almost 100 years ago—Keir Hardie called for basic workers’ rights, such as a maximum eight-hour working day and a minimum living wage that matched the cost of living. That is what we should now be pursuing.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to the wind-up speeches.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The debate started with Patrick Harvie saying that it is not sufficient for parties simply to care about the issue, because sentiment will not make the difference that we need. I agree. We need to look at actions, both those that the parties promise in their different approaches and those that they have taken in Government, whether at UK or Scotland level.

Johann Lamont quoted the Institute for Fiscal Studies review of the tax policies of all the parties. It is fair for her to quote that report, but let me quote in full what it said about our proposal to lift the tax threshold:

“In isolation, this giveaway could not be described as progressive, but to consider the distributional impact of the Liberal Democrats’ package as a whole we must also consider who would lose from the tax rises they would introduce to pay for this tax cut”.

What makes the policy progressive is not the proposal in isolation, but the fact that we would pay for it by a mansion tax on properties that are valued at more than £2 million and, as I said in my opening speech, by closing the loopholes for those who can afford tax advisers and who thereby contribute to the £40 billion of tax avoidance that has continued during the many years in which Johann Lamont’s party has been in UK Government.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Can the member tell us how many properties in Scotland are valued at more than £2 million and would therefore qualify for the mansion tax?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

For band G and band H properties, the minister will know the figure. He will also know that taxing properties in that way would allow us to lift 533,000 people in Scotland out of paying income tax. He has the figures, so I am sure that he will be supportive of the policy when he has regard to them. Indeed, that shows one of the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom. If we have a United Kingdom policy that recognises that Scotland has more people on lower wages and fewer £2 million properties, perhaps we can be more progressive across the UK so that the south-east of England, which the minister is forever condemning and criticising, becomes a little bit more redistributive within the United Kingdom.

Let those who seek to raise such issues be clear about the effect of their own policies. As I pointed out, for the period 2008-12 the Scottish Government will have provided a £700 million tax cut through the council tax freeze. We know that the 130,000 properties in band A and households with less than £16,000 will not gain from the council tax freeze. We need openness from the Government on that.

Finally, the SNP’s Rob Gibson said that low pay occurs particularly in the hotels and restaurants sector, but he suggested that the Scottish Government can do nothing about that because it has no levers over the economy. I gently point out to him that hotels and restaurants—in his area and in my constituency—are now facing increases in their tax bills, for a tax that is fully devolved to his Government, of up to and over 100 per cent. Last week, John Swinney finally wrote to me to confirm that a number of options for transitional relief are available to hotels and restaurant businesses. However, as Rob Gibson knows, the SNP voted against any such support. Does he think that such increases in devolved taxation, which have been introduced while his party is in Government, will have no impact on jobs and wages? I hope that he will reflect on that policy, as I suspect that the scale of the increase will have an impact.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

In the main, the debate has been very good and has had the appropriate tone, which Patrick Harvie set in his opening speech. With levels of poverty in Scotland that are unacceptable and with in-work poverty on the increase, the Conservative response is that we need to boost the economy so that jobs can be created. As a policy response, our priority is to keep people in work and to try to create new jobs to help more people to get into work.

The debate takes place at a time when unemployment has again been on the increase. The most recent figures, which were published last week, show that the number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom has increased by 43,000 to 2.5 million people. In Scotland, the figure increased by 6,000 to a total of 208,000. Combined with the inevitable fiscal squeeze on the Scottish budget, those figures suggest that we face a serious issue.

However, the debate so far has not explored the potential impact of Mr Harvie’s proposals on the private sector and, from a money point of view, on the public sector. The private sector is currently struggling. Businesses are trying to keep their heads above water and are struggling for survival. My slight concern about the motion and about the implication of what many contributors to the debate have suggested is that the proposals could cost jobs. The Poverty Alliance’s very helpful briefing suggests that its proposals would benefit 60 per cent of employees in the retail sector. If the retail sector was forced to increase the wages of 60 per cent of its employees, that would inevitably cost jobs and make it extremely difficult to create new jobs in that sector. For the hospitality sector, the figure was put at 70 per cent.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does Gavin Brown accept that, even for the private sector, a question of will is involved? Any private sector business that was willing to have a maximum wage ratio of 10:1 would be able to afford the policy.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

However, Mr Harvie must accept that most, if not all, private sector companies are bound by contractual entitlements at every level of the organisation. Whether at the lowest level, in the middle or at the level of senior management, there are contractual entitlements that companies cannot simply ignore. Ultimately, if companies did that, they would end up before an employment tribunal and would have to pay the money anyway, in addition to the legal costs.

As regards the impact on the public sector, budgets have already been squeezed this year. According to the Centre for Public Policy for Regions and according to the Scottish Government’s chief economic adviser, the outlook for the next five years is extremely worrying. My concern is that, given that there will be a fixed amount of money coming in, an increase in the wage bill now will inevitably lead to jobs being lost and jobs not being created.

For those reasons, the Conservative party will vote for the amendment in the name of Derek Brownlee.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the debate to Parliament. From different angles, we have expressed our shared values about the desire for a more equal society. Members have highlighted how low pay has an impact on certain sectors within our communities, in particular on women. We have heard about the social justice dimension and the impact on families. We have also heard about the benefit that a living wage can bring to society. I welcome the minister’s desire for full employment, which is an objective that we share.

I want to spend a couple of moments on the business case for a living wage. Many of the research documents that are available to us, including a study of the living wage in London, identify that the benefits of the living wage include easier recruitment and retention, reduced recruitment costs, higher-quality staff, better attendance at work, better productivity, motivation and loyalty, and better-quality service. My colleague David Whitton was about to mention the Staffordshire University business school study on the economic impact of the living wage in Stoke-on-Trent, where the economic multiplier effect—that is, the impact of the living wage on the economy—has been very positive. The study concluded that, for every £1 an hour more that was paid to a public sector care worker, £1.63 was injected into the local economy. That suggests that, combined with the social values that we have already expressed, a living wage would be “a smart business move”, in the words of Guy Stallard, who is the director of KPMG Europe. Fair Pay Network quotes Guy Stallard as saying:

“We have found that paying the Living Wage is a smart business move as increasing wages has reduced staff turnover and absenteeism, whilst productivity and professionalism has subsequently increased.”

Therefore, a strong business case can be argued in favour of the living wage.

The debate has raised some interesting subjects, including the council tax freeze. I recollect the interesting work that the Glasgow Herald carried out in relation to Scottish Government ministers and the benefit that they have gained from the council tax freeze. We should reflect on the points that Mr Purvis made on that issue.

Local income tax is not often mentioned, but we did hear a mention today of that unworkable tax, which was condemned by most of Scotland. Perhaps we will hear about it again in the near future.

Ironically, Mr John Wilson challenged my colleague David Whitton on the subject of the national minimum wage. The SNP slogan was “Stand up for Scotland”, but SNP members were not able to get out of bed for the low-paid people of Scotland.

We should acknowledge the good work that was done by the Labour mayor of London, who introduced the living wage, and by the Labour-led Glasgow City Council. We need to provide good examples of the social impact and benefit of a living wage, as well as the economic impact, which I have sought to argue for this morning.

Johann Lamont asked some key questions, which I will repeat to the minister, in relation to the powers that are available to him. The SNP often talks about the powers that it does not have, but the Scottish Government does have powers in this regard, which it should be using. The point that was made about the debate between the health secretary and the finance secretary over the NHS and the living wage was particularly interesting. It would be nice to hear an answer on that, and on the procurement strategy and policies of the Scottish Government, and the impact of that on advocating the living wage and making it a reality. There is also the impact on Government departments and pay policy to consider.

The living wage provides a virtuous circle of spending in local communities, with the economic multiplier that it brings to the local economy. It is fairness in action for both the employer and the employee. It is a good marriage between economic efficiency and social justice. I seek members’ support for the amendment in my name.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree with Gavin Brown and Andy Kerr: this has been a fairly civilised and good debate. It is perhaps a shame that it is restricted to just over an hour, as the subject is very important. I will try to answer the points that have been put to the Government as far as I can within my time, and to explode some myths that have been perpetuated yet again.

The Labour Party’s commitment to a living wage would be more credible if it had done anything in its past 13 years in power to implement it, which it has not done. As Elaine Smith articulately pointed out, it has been Labour Party policy to have a living wage since 1924, 86 years ago. During the interim, there have been six Labour Governments, yet we still do not have a living wage. The Labour Party has a record of failure and incredibility on the issue.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Liberal Democrats talk about a mansion tax. To impose a mansion tax in Scotland would require them to undermine the Scotland Act 1998 totally and to override the powers of this Parliament and the rights of local authorities.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the minister give way on that point?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, I will not. They cannot even tell us how much money the mansion tax would raise—and they talk about prudence.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Well, if the minister would—

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The member could not answer the question when I asked him it, so he should sit down.

As far as myth is concerned—

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the minister give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The minister is not giving way, Mr Purvis.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On the myth about the National Minimum Wage Bill, let me point out that there were 33 Scottish Labour MPs in bed at the time, too. Indeed, Tony Blair was in bed at the time of the division that Mr Whitton referred to. Facts are chiels that winna ding—that is the reality.

The other myth, which Johann Lamont articulated, is that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth tried to veto a plan to implement the living wage in the national health service that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing proposed.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That is a lot of nonsense. As Andy Kerr should know, being a former health minister and finance minister, we have actually implemented that plan from 1 April.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The minister is feart.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If we have implemented it, how can it have been vetoed?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Feart!

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Ah’m no feart o you, Duncan.

On the wider issue, the current lowest rate of pay in Scottish Government core activity is £6.53 per hour. Under this Government, that will increase to £7.23 an hour from 1 August. Unlike the Labour Government in London, the SNP Government in Scotland is implementing the living wage.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The minister is not taking an intervention, Mr McNeil.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Labour has had 13 wasted years; we have had three productive years, in which we are implementing the policy that Labour failed to deliver for 86 years.

Of course I pay tribute to Glasgow City Council and to the leadership of Steven Purcell—we have done so publicly. Elaine Smith has referred to North Lanarkshire Council. It is the only other Labour-controlled council in Scotland, and it has had to be brought screaming and kicking to implement the equal pay and single status strategy, which—

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Will the minister take an intervention on that?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No—the member did not sit in on the debate.

Only now is North Lanarkshire Council being brought screaming and kicking to implement that pay strategy, at a very late hour. We will take no lessons from the Labour Party on the living wage. It is to the eternal shame of the Labour Party that over the past 13 years the level of income inequality in the United Kingdom—under Gordon Brown’s stewardship—is now the worst that it has been in decades. That is Labour’s record. We are proud of our record. We are delivering the living wage, not just throughout the national health service in Scotland but throughout every area of government for which we are responsible. We can be proud—but not Labour.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I thank Alex Neil for his kind remarks about my constructive tone. Oh, the tragic irony.

Seriously, I recognise that Alex Neil and members of other parties have acknowledged that the debate is not just about poverty; it is also about income inequality. In his opening remarks, the minister was challenged by members such as Johann Lamont and Jeremy Purvis on the impact of the decision to freeze the council tax. There is an entirely valid debate there, which I will address in a few minutes, in responding to Jeremy Purvis’s points.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does Patrick Harvie regret that the SNP whips prevented someone with a great record on this issue from participating in the debate? John Wilson has been involved in the campaign for a living wage for many years. Does Patrick Harvie agree that it is a disgrace that the SNP whips prevented that man from speaking in this debate?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I would very much have welcomed his contribution to the debate.

Let me move on. There are measures that the Scottish Government can take. Alex Neil said that the debate is not all about the Scottish Government, and that we should consider local government, too. The Scottish Government has the power to use the historic concordat, single outcome agreements and so on to ensure that local government is delivering in this respect. The minister said that the Scottish Government cannot control or regulate the private sector. Yes, it can, through procurement—as Johann Lamont mentioned—and also through the various agencies.

Let us consider, for example, the tourism sector and the support that Government agencies give to it. That support could be contingent on the adoption of a living wage. We cannot directly control what the UK Government does but, in many subject areas, we have shown that, when Scotland takes a bold stand, it has an impact across the political culture and among all political parties throughout the rest of the UK. We can give leadership.

David Whitton asked us to recognise Labour’s record on the issue. I entirely do so. I agree with aspects of Andy Kerr’s amendment. I entirely agree that

“the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was one of the most seminal pieces of the legislation of the twentieth century in terms of promoting dignity at work”.

I hope that David Whitton agrees that the 1998 act in itself is not enough but needs to be built on and developed. An uprated minimum wage of £3.64 per hour is unacceptable. We must acknowledge the age inequality in the minimum wage system.

Jeremy Purvis’s comments were important. He made a case against the council tax freeze. There is a case for and a case against the freeze, and we can have that debate. I might have much sympathy with the argument that Jeremy Purvis made; other members might have less sympathy with it. However, his comments were important for another reason. We must acknowledge that a difficulty that we have arrived at across the political culture is that all political parties, whether they are in government or in opposition, have found themselves painted into a corner. Throughout my life I have heard ministers from the four other political parties that are represented in the chamber today allowing tax to be portrayed ever more starkly as a political villain. We are told that public services are good but tax is bad. That just does not add up. We have had promise after promise of Swedish levels of public spending and public services, with American levels of tax. That cannot work and we should not be in the least surprised that after decades of such talk we have become an ever more unequal society.

If we are to turn that round and reduce inequality, we need our whole political culture to change. We need greater recognition that tax—paying collectively for public goods—is a positive thing in society. On the day when I see a Government-sponsored television campaign that urges people to shop tax avoiders that is backed by as much money as are the campaigns that ask people to inform on benefits cheats, I will know that we have made progress. Far, far more money is lost to the Exchequer through tax avoidance than through people in poverty trying to play the system instead of sitting back and letting the system play them.

Derek Brownlee acknowledged that inequality is important. However, we must recognise the need for progressive taxation instead of the current system in which vast salaries are paid on the false premise that a tiny group in society have some kind of magical powers and we must not lose the best of the best—that is a lie and a con and we have to throw it out. If we want a more progressive taxation system, we need to challenge those values.

Johann Lamont reminded us that there are people in the business community who will take any opportunity to challenge or criticise the minimum wage.

Political parties, instead of using the UK election campaign to compete on policies to crack down on tax avoiders and bonus junkies, are courting the tax avoiders and the companies that they run, as leaders of the business community. The parties are even seeking those people’s advice on the tax and national insurance decisions that face us. That is the political culture that we need to throw out if we are to become the more equal society that all members have said on paper that they support.

Democratic Reform

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6215, in the name of Robin Harper, on democratic reform.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The Scottish people are about to go to the ballot boxes again and this time round they will vote in one of the most extraordinary elections that we have faced for some time. The sitting Prime Minister himself described the election as “wide open”.

I hope that there is an open invitation for more diversity to be brought to the green benches of the House of Commons at Westminster. However, the voting system that is in use for the general election does not, cannot and will not reflect the true colours of Scottish opinion. We will be left yet again with a Parliament at Westminster that does not truly reflect how we cast our votes, because we cannot yet vote under a system of proportional representation.

The Scottish Greens have brought this debate to ensure that the Scottish Parliament speaks proudly and positively on the issue. We want to give the Scottish Parliament a chance to make a clear stand against the long-discredited system of first past the post and in favour of a fairer system of voting for the Scottish people in the Westminster elections.

More than that, we want to tell people throughout the United Kingdom that PR is already working, and working well, here in Scotland.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Rubbish!

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I thank George Foulkes for that intervention.

During the past eleven years, Holyrood has matured into a successful, modern, European parliamentary democracy. PR has served us well and we should say so clearly, particularly at this time.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I will not take an intervention from a member who has already indicated his view by describing my speech as rubbish before he even heard it. I advise the member to listen.

The mood of public opinion has turned firmly against first past the post. The polls have demonstrated an appetite for change and some of the most recent results show that public support for proportional representation is at an all-time high, with around two thirds of the public in favour. In 1999 and 2003, I remember how many people felt that their vote had counted for the first time. I am quite sure that they included Conservatives who had not thought that their votes had counted for a long time.

Even Alex Massie, from that bastion of Conservatism, The Spectator, has questioned how sustainable first past the post is. He said:

“Electoral reform didn’t matter a damn when the Big Two won nine in ten votes; if they only win six in ten then matters seem rather different and you have an awful lot of people sitting on the sidelines, frustrated and feeling ignored and shut-out from the conversation.”

The current system of first past the post means that tens of thousands of voters see their votes go to waste. The Electoral Reform Society reckons that about 70 per cent of votes are wasted. The system allows a party that receives a tiny minority of votes to win a clear but undemocratic majority of seats. For example, in 2005 Labour won 55 per cent of the seats contested, with just 35 per cent of the popular vote. That was absurd. Most people voted against their local member of Parliament and barely a third of votes delivered Labour a whopping majority. It is no wonder that confidence in politics has fallen so low. An unfair electoral system mixed with an expenses scandal makes for a pretty toxic cocktail.

In Scotland there is a system of proportional representation for every layer of government apart from Westminster. Scottish voters are used to voting for different political parties in the constituency and list votes for Holyrood and, by and large, they understand well how to use their votes to get the results that they want—although the results are not necessarily those that members of the Scottish Parliament want. Westminster remains a political pariah, with its archaic system of voting, which was intended for a two-party state. The system is well past its sell-by date.

The single transferable vote system offers the best and fairest form of proportional representation, while preserving a local link between members and the areas that they represent. Every voter’s preference counts. There is no need for tactical voting. Voters are likely to get at least one member of Parliament from a party that they support, even if that is not their favourite party.

Generations of establishment MPs have protected a system that favours their parties but which seriously disadvantages their constituents.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I thank Robin Harper for his support for STV and for extolling its virtues, but will he say why he made a submission to the Arbuthnott commission in favour of the additional member system—and not STV—for the Scottish Parliament?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

At the time it seemed the best system available to us, and there was a good record of it working extremely well in Germany.

As I said, generations of establishment MPs have protected a system that favours their parties but which seriously disadvantages their constituents. It must not be allowed to continue. Any Government should either be backed by a majority of the electorate or be prepared to work as a minority Administration. Fairer votes have worked at Holyrood and in Scottish local government, and the time has come to bring reform to the Westminster Parliament too. I urge members to back the call for Holyrood’s successful use of proportional representation to be set up as an example to inspire reformers in that last bastion of wasted votes and overpowerful minorities.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the current UK general election must be the last to use the discredited first-past-the-post electoral system and that the single transferable vote is the best way to ensure that the public receive the democratic representation that they deserve in future.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I have not been convinced by Robin Harper’s arguments—he might not be surprised to hear that. I noted that, in his contribution, he did not use the word “constituent” or “electorate”, which is telling. There was no evidence in his contribution that STV would ensure that representatives are more accountable to their constituents than to their party leaders. Robin Harper’s contribution was flawed in that respect.

In the amendment in my name, we state clearly our position, which is that we should continue to maintain the constituency link. There are arguments for and against us in that respect, and the first-past-the-post system has many challenges, but we cannot move away from the fact that it has successfully provided an opportunity for communities to elect and deselect representatives on many occasions, sometimes to the detriment of members of this chamber. Local examples include Dennis Canavan and Jean Turner, in respect of whom communities in Falkirk West and Strathkelvin and Bearsden had an opportunity that would not have been afforded to them under the STV system.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The point that the Labour Party must answer is that the first-past-the-post system also gave us Mrs Thatcher, despite the vehement opposition of two thirds of the electorate.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I would not disagree with Robert Brown on the fact that we unfortunately had Margaret Thatcher for that period.

There is no evidence that the use of STV in local government has increased voter turnout. We have raised that issue in the chamber on a number of occasions. It is a fixation of the media that we have not been able to increase voter turnout, and during the recent local government elections there was no evidence that the introduction of the single transferable vote system had enabled us to increase voter turnout. I also note that STV for local government has created comfort zones in many multimember wards throughout Scotland. I cannot see how the electorate have benefited since we introduced the system for local government in 2007.

I am not one for defending the minority Scottish National Party Government, and I will not start this morning, but I cannot help but observe what the so-called proportionality of this Parliament has created. I ask members to recall the events of last year’s budget, when the Green party had such a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the minority Government’s budget. It should be noted that 4 per cent of the regional votes were cast in favour of the Green party, and nearly 1 per cent for Margo MacDonald. It was clear from the budget negotiations that those who were elected with the fewest votes were able to make their demands of the minority Government.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It is arithmetical reality that the Green party in this chamber had two votes on the budget. Any other two members could have negotiated had they wished to. The question is one of the power of the whips, which controls back benchers. It would be a far better and more mature democracy if back benchers of all political parties threw their weight about.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

It is a mathematical fact that more than 10,000 votes were cast in favour of me in my constituency of Glasgow Springburn, while 10,000 votes were cast in favour of Patrick Harvie in the whole of the Glasgow region. Considering that, I think that the effect that Patrick Harvie had was disproportionate.

Patrick Harvie referred to The Spectator, so I refer him to an article in it by Fraser Nelson that is headlined, “The pitfalls of a minority government”. He states:

“The Greens were bribing”

the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth,

”asking for £22 million for some home insulation scheme, then upping it to £33 million. As always with the PR system, the tail wags the dog.”

I could not have put it better myself.

I do not fault members for seeking to negotiate the position to their advantage; I simply point out that every system, including proportional representation, has its flaws. Surely it is unacceptable that those in the chamber who received the fewest votes can command such power during budget negotiations.

I note from today’s Business Bulletin that the SNP is silent on the issue. SNP members may argue for a more proportional system—we will hear from them—and they may argue against the first-past-the-post system, but I must ask why so many SNP members seek the prize of the constituency MSP position. Many of them shadow constituency MSPs, and many have sought the prize successfully—Nicola Sturgeon and Bruce Crawford among them. They had such enthusiasm for seeking constituency representation during the previous session that they will surely continue to support that constituency link and the first-past-the-post system.

In conclusion, as I have said, there is no perfect system, but we need to be clear about the fact that we wish to retain the constituency link. We should reflect on the fact that the STV system is flawed and serves up many anomalies. I ask members to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S3M-6215.2, to leave out from “the current” to end and insert:

“there is no perfect electoral system, with each having advantages, disadvantages and the potential to produce anomalous outcomes; acknowledges the value of the constituency link in promoting and preserving accountability and the service of elected representatives; believes that democratic reform should encompass far greater change than simply potential changes to the system of election, and welcomes the significant progress in this regard, including devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, the ending of hereditary peerages in the House of Lords and the enactment of the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.”

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity afforded by the Scottish Greens to debate the topical issue of voting systems. I regret that that is where the consensus ends, because I do not agree with the terms of the motion that the Greens have lodged and the aim to introduce a single transferable vote for Westminster elections. Having heard Paul Martin’s contribution, I think that there is a degree of consensus between us and those on the Labour benches, not least on the basis of the sedentary intervention from George Foulkes, with whom I have some sympathy—at least on certain occasions.

The first-past-the-post voting system has served us well over many years. It has delivered stable Governments at Westminster, with a parliamentary majority that has allowed them, whatever their political complexion, to tackle the difficult issues facing the nation. At a time of economic recession—the worst in recorded history—and crisis in our public finances, now is not the time to change the voting system to prevent any party from achieving an overall majority.

The great advantage of the first-past-the-post system is that it puts the voters in charge. When they feel that the Government has run its course, they can vote for it to be replaced in its entirety. Of course, that is exactly what happened in 1997, when, as my party knows to its cost, a Conservative Government that had been in power for 18 years was replaced wholesale with a Labour Government. Although that was a very uncomfortable experience for my party, I have no doubt that it reflected the mood of the country at the time.

The difficulty with proportional representation is that it transfers power from the people to the politicians.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will Murdo Fraser give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry—I have only four minutes. Let me make some progress.

There has been much debate about the issue in the past few weeks and talk of the possibility of a hung Parliament. Let us imagine that we had proportional representation and were virtually guaranteed hung Parliaments in every election. If that was the case, we could even have a situation in which, post election, the Liberal Democrats do a deal with Labour, who might have come third in the election, and put it back into power. That outcome would clearly be unacceptable to the people, but that is what happens if we have proportional representation.

Robert Brown referred, rather inaccurately, to the history of Margaret Thatcher, who never obtained less than 40 per cent of the popular vote. Under proportional representation, we could face a scenario after the election in which Gordon Brown continues in office as Prime Minister with the support of the Liberal Democrats. Someone who has been rejected by the people could be propped up in office by the Lib Dems under PR. That is why PR is wrong.

The worst aspect of PR is that it has allowed the extreme socialists of the British National Party to gain a foothold in the European Parliament as representatives of English constituencies. Under the first-past-the-post system, those extremists would have no prospect of being elected, but under PR they have been given a leg up, which has provided them with a platform for promoting their pernicious policies. The election of two BNP members of the European Parliament is the best possible argument against the use of PR for Westminster elections.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

The member mentioned the European Parliament elections, but BNP candidates were elected because people voted for them, not because of the voting system. Why have many tens of BNP councillors been elected in England under the first-past-the-post system?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is deeply to be regretted that the use of PR has resulted in the BNP being given a platform in the European Parliament. It was a mistake to move away from a first-past-the-post system.

We do not believe that the current system is perfect; indeed, we have called for it to be reformed. Far too many constituencies in which Labour MPs are elected have very small electorates in comparison with those in which Conservatives MPs are elected. We need a fairer distribution of seats, and we believe that the Boundary Commission should be given that remit. A more equitable distribution of seats would provide a fairer outcome for all and would mean that the good aspects of the first-past-the-post system in delivering strong and stable government would be preserved.

I move amendment S3M-6215.1, to leave out from “UK” to end and insert:

“first-past-the-post electoral system has delivered decades of strong and stable government in the United Kingdom; regrets that the adoption of proportional representation for European elections has resulted in the election of members of the British National Party; supports the retention of first-past-the-post for Westminster elections, and calls for the necessary reforms to be made to the system so as to ensure a fairer outcome in future UK elections.”

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I begin by clarifying that I am pleased to support the Green party’s motion, particularly as the UK general election campaign enters its final week. The campaign has raised many issues, not least the need for electoral reform. The Scottish Government supports Robin Harper’s call for an end to the first-past-the-post electoral system and the introduction of proportional representation.

The advantages of PR are well known, but there are those who tell us that PR inevitably leads to unstable government—we have just had one such rant from Murdo Fraser. That is not true. There are examples of successful and stable Governments around the world that have been elected under various forms of PR. Germany is an example of a stable country that is led by a Government that was formed under PR. Elections in Germany are decided by the additional member system. PR is widely used throughout Europe. Outside the UK, every other European country, except France, uses it. In the European states, there are 15 coalitions, seven majority Governments, including Greece, and three minority Governments.

Paul Martin said that the system that is used for Scottish Parliament elections, the additional member system, encourages the behaviour that he referred to. The use of an STV system would knock that on the head. Where does Labour stands on the alternative vote system, which Paul Martin did not mention once? Where does Paul Martin stand on that?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

We have not heard Bruce Crawford—or any other member—use the word “electorate”. Is he suggesting that STV should be introduced for Scottish Parliament elections?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The SNP has advocated the use of STV for many a long year because it gives parties an incentive to present a balanced team of candidates to maximise the number of high preference votes that they receive, which helps the advancement of women candidates and candidates from minority groups, who might otherwise be overlooked in the search for a safe candidate in a first-past-the-post election.

The first-past-the-post system is implicated in many things that turn people off politics: safe seats that the campaign treats as if they were irrelevant; the targeting of swing voters in marginal seats that makes all parties sound alike; and the adversarial posturing that goes on between elections. There are no safe seats under STV, candidates cannot be complacent and parties must campaign everywhere, not just in the marginals. Reforming the voting system is part of the process of reconnecting the people to politics, and in that regard it could make a significant difference.

Since 2007, we have had a minority Government in Scotland and, prior to 2007, we had a coalition Executive. The combination of those factors has not led to instability, as the detractors of PR would have had us believe. PR provides a more accurate reflection of voting intentions and gives people the opportunity to elect a wider and more representative range of candidates that reflects the make-up of society, while still allowing candidates to maintain a close link with the communities that they represent.

In 2007, there were many who argued that the minority Government would not survive. Few would have predicted how successful it would have been three years on. It has meant that new ways of working together have had to be adopted, which have allowed us to deliver for the people of Scotland. I will take a moment to highlight the achievements of the minority Government, the list of which is comprehensive.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Perhaps the minister should not do that just now.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Okay. I guess that I will conclude there, as my time is up.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

We have heard some extraordinary things so far in the debate. Paul Martin cited Fraser Nelson, of all people, in support of his proposition, while Murdo Fraser used the current situation under the first-past-the-post system and the prospect of a minority Government at Westminster as an argument against PR, which seems a bit peculiar to say the least.

It may not come as a surprise to the Parliament to learn that Liberal Democrats will support the motion on democratic reform, which is a timely call not just for proportional representation to be used in Westminster elections, but for the introduction of the STV system. I welcome Green support for the cause but, as Robin Harper fairly acknowledged, it has been the remarkable success of Nick Clegg in the prime ministerial debates and the surge in support for the Liberal Democrats that has put the issue smack in the centre of the political debate.

Social justice is a cause that Labour members go on about—they claim that it is close to their hearts. Democratic renewal is very much a social justice issue; indeed, it is central to the delivery of social justice in our country. I understand the naked political interest that causes Labour and the Conservatives to favour the first-past-the-post system that so favours their parties and to reject the fair system of PR that gives proper representation to other parties, but I find it extremely difficult to regard as a principled stance a position whereby one person’s vote is treated as having three or four times the value of another person’s vote. When the polls show that the three major parties all have support of around 30 per cent, the public are, I think, rather surprised to discover that that could result in the Tories and the Labour Party gaining 260 seats each and the Liberal Democrats getting only 90 to 100. Welcome to democracy, Westminster-style.

To be fair to Labour, it has played a major part in introducing PR to Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections—Paul Martin tried to expunge that record—but on voting reform at Westminster, it has been hugely evasive. As has been mentioned, Labour’s last-ditch conversion to the non-proportional alternative vote system took place only when it became clear that it was going to lose the general election.

Of course, PR has a downside. It brought back the Scottish Conservatives from the land of the undead and it gave the minority SNP Government its chance—although there is an interesting twist to that, given that yesterday it was revealed that Alex Salmond has lost half the support that existed for independence when he became SNP leader for the second time: the figure is down to only 15 per cent.

There is another interesting aspect to the potential for PR at Westminster. Its use would destroy the artificial Conservative majority in England and the artificial Labour majority in Scotland, thus restoring a commonality to political trends across the UK and taking the sting out of the West Lothian question.

Those are interesting quirks, but STV PR would put the people and their concerns at the centre of the political process. The country has manifestly had enough of the two old parties; of the electoral pendulum swinging back and forth between them; of a war in Iraq that was entered into against the will of the British people; of billions of pounds of public money being poured into the banks without it being a condition that the obscene executive bonuses be ended; and of Mrs Thatcher and her destruction of society, which was carried out when the Conservatives had a majority of the seats but only a proportion of the vote and against the gritted objection of two thirds of the public. Labour’s intransigence on voting reform has a great deal to answer for.

Voting reform at Westminster is not just a long overdue measure of social justice and popular empowerment in itself. It is central to a swathe of long overdue political reforms that are required to clean up the system, not least of which is the need to end the Prime Minister’s ability to call a general election at a time of his choosing.

Something interesting is happening at this election. People—young people in particular—are reconnecting to the issue, girding their loins for something different and seeing hope, optimism and opportunities for the future. Much of that focuses around the boring, anorak, but vital question of fair and equal votes. Tonight the Scottish Parliament can play its part in the process by backing the motion.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I thank the Green party for bringing us the debate on STV PR. I confess that I was beginning to get withdrawal symptoms, because it must be at least two years since we had such a debate. As a self-confessed geek about electoral systems, I thank the Green party for providing me with a timely fix.

It is important for us to understand why we are debating PR today. It is because the Labour Government, in its death throes, is desperately trying to find a lifeline for when it is thrown out of office next Thursday. Labour members have watched the return of the Tories in the Scottish Parliament through PR, and they realise that the Labour Party might need PR for itself at Westminster in the future.

I agree with the Greens that STV PR is necessary for Westminster. There is no point in trying to renew that discredited institution by bringing in more new members of Parliament than at any time for about 100 years if we do not also renew the electoral system that encouraged some of the excesses. Channel 4 did an analysis that showed that those who were most at fault—those who made the most claims—were those who were in seats that had the biggest majorities.

STV PR puts the voter in charge and gives every voter a voice. Perhaps after yesterday’s events in Rochdale, the Labour Party does not really want voters to have that voice. STV PR takes the power out of the hands of political parties. It allows the voter to choose between parties and between candidates in each of those parties. If women wish to vote for only women candidates, they can do so. If they want to vote for only male candidates, they can do that, too; STV PR allows them to do so. If people wish to vote only for their preferred political party and for no other, there is nothing to stop them.

STV PR will stop forever the obscenity of the only people who have an impact in a UK general election being a handful of voters in a handful of marginal seats that change from one election to the next. That is what determines the UK Government. STV PR will give everyone an equal vote, regardless of where they live in the UK. Everyone’s vote is not equal while marginal seats and the support of people at the polls in those seats are, frankly, courted and bought by political parties.

At the moment, Scotland has four different voting systems—local government, Westminster, Europe and the Scottish Parliament—and that is unsustainable. I worked hard to ensure STV PR for local government, and I believe that it should be introduced for elections to the Scottish Parliament. It is imperative that the Westminster Parliament also introduces STV PR.

I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made earlier in the debate. I found Murdo Fraser’s amendment and speech to be quite shameful. Although it is true that BNP members were elected to Europe under a proportional representation system, the fact is that people voted for them, and they did so because the Labour Party and the Tories have all but abandoned constituencies to the BNP. It is worth reminding ourselves that BNP members have been elected in council elections all over England under the first-past-the-post system. It is not the electoral system that is at fault for letting in the BNP; frankly, it is down to the other political parties.

I want to pick up very gently on the Greens—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should be winding up. Speeches are four minutes.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

On the Greens and Arbuthnott, I welcome today’s conversion to STV PR. The Greens are coming home, and it is very welcome.

George (Labour, Lothians)

The title of today’s debate is “Democratic Reform”, and that does not just cover the system of election to the House of Commons. First, we must reform the unrepresentative and unelected second chamber at Westminster: the House of Lords. That could be done by abolishing it, and for a while I was in favour of that; I voted for abolition when I was a member of the House of Commons. However, after further discussion and consideration, I am now in favour of a 100 per cent elected second chamber at Westminster, on the clear understanding that the second chamber be kept as a revising legislature. On that basis, the second chamber could be elected under proportional representation. There could be a very good argument for that, and the single transferable vote could even be used with, ideally, a third of the membership changing at every election.

The Lords would be the revising legislature, but the House of Commons would provide the Government, which needs to be stable. As Murdo Fraser rightly said, during most normal elections, the first-past-the-post system provides that stability. The first chamber would provide the Government and the second chamber would be the legislative chamber.

To achieve that, and to get some stability, we would need a written constitution to define the way in which both chambers would be elected and the respective powers of each. We need a written constitution anyway, because we now have the Supreme Court and the separation of powers needs to be more clearly defined. We also need it because we have devolved institutions, such as the Scottish Parliament, which need to have a clear role and their responsibilities set out in a written constitution. I hope that England will move towards having an English parliament sooner rather than later.

The electoral systems that I have described for both Westminster chambers are only part of democratic reform. I am in favour of voting at the age of 16, and I hope that the next Labour Government, to be elected next Thursday, will move in that direction. I am also in favour of compulsory voting, which Helen Liddell has recently been advocating, and which has been very effective in Australia.

I am also in favour of voting taking place over the weekend. Why do we vote on a Thursday? Except for historical precedent, there is no logical reason. It would be much better if people could vote over the weekend when they are not working. Elections could even be held over Saturday and Sunday to make it easier for people to vote. All that is part of democratic reform.

The Liberals say that our arguments in favour of the first-past-the-post system are naked political interest. What about their arguments in favour of STV?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

George (Labour, Lothians)

No, no, no. I am in my final minute.

Are their arguments in favour of STV just pure benevolence? Are they doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not. That is naked political interest.

As for my good friend Robin Harper, whom I have known for decades, it is manifest rubbish for him to say that the system of election to this Parliament is great. We had a situation in which some man called Tymkewycz—no one knew who he was—got elected as an MSP for the SNP but then gave it up for some reason; Shirley-Anne Somerville, who was fifth on the list and had been rejected by the people of central Edinburgh then suddenly arrived as an MSP without any election whatsoever. That is not democracy. We have the craziest system for election to the Scottish Parliament, and if anyone thinks of adopting it, they are completely insane.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Presiding Officer, I plead insanity.

Some of the arguments that have to be made about fairness need to be explored from the point of view of the proposition of single transferable votes in multimember seats. In that circumstance, there is an open list. Reconnecting with the people and holding MSPs to account could take place in that system. People would have a choice of candidates from the parties and would not need to vote for the ones that they did not like. In multimember seats with open lists, people could hold their MPs, MSPs and councillors to account.

The additional member system is more proportional in Germany, where half the members are elected by constituency and the other half are elected from the lists. The Labour Party made sure that, in the arrangements for the Scottish Parliament, we had 73 constituency members and 56 top-up members, which is less proportional. It did not want full proportionality, which is where Labour members’ arguments about the first-past-the-post system fall down. All the time, they have tried to keep things as undemocratic as they can.

British democracy is a contradiction in terms, but it is an idea on which we must take advice from people down south. Will Hutton, writing about the subject last Sunday in The Observer, said:

“Above all, if fairness is a value that we care about, the voting system is an offence to any conception of fair political representation. A state that can collude in this degree of unfairness in its electoral system is unlikely to be especially fair itself.”

Having the debate about allowing people to be elected by a fairer system will change that state fundamentally. In fact, I believe that, once we do that, we will never again have majority government in the old form.

It is interesting to hear Lord Foulkes arguing for England to have a parliament of its own. That is fine. England’s set of priorities may mean a different range of candidates getting elected there. However, what we have in Scotland is a four, five or six-party system that suits our needs.

It is of concern to me to hear the Labour Party and the Conservatives maintaining the argument that fairness is less important than majoritarianism. The SNP has long taken the principled position that votes must be fair and represent the views of the people, and we have championed proportional voting systems for decades. The only way of ensuring that the public’s opinion is put into practice is to have the fairest system. Today’s debate about STV in multimember seats addresses such questions for the first time.

As a Highlands and Islands member, I remember the Kilbrandon commission, which discussed PR for Scotland but found that there was some problem with very large seats with scattered populations. Nevertheless, it is possible to produce a variety of solutions to that, rather than have the whole of the Highlands and Islands as one seat.

The background against which we are having the debate is a British system that has been so unfair that, since elections became secret, the majority of people have probably voted against the person who was elected. Only once or twice in the past 100 years has the person who was elected belonged to a party that had a majority of the vote. That cannot be fair. We must move to multimember seats and STV.

I support the motion in Robin Harper’s name.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

From speeches that I have made in Parliament before, members will know that I have always wanted electoral reform. In previous debates on the subject, over the years, I have supported the basis for my position by quoting one of my Labour heroes, Aneurin Bevan, who said:

“The purpose of getting power is to be able to give it away.”

I have also pointed out to colleagues previously that Labour was founded to break the established electoral system, as a modern, pluralist society requires that we reconcile the needs and desires of different sectors of society.

In this morning’s earlier debate, Elaine Smith rightly referred to James Keir Hardie and the principles on which he founded the Labour Party. As the MSP for the constituency in which James Keir Hardie was born, I am proud to share his conviction in and support for electoral reform. Just as Elaine Smith was right to highlight Labour’s views on the pay and dignity of working people, I agree with the words of the Labour Party in 1913, which stated that

“no system of election can be satisfactory which does not give opportunity to all parties to obtain representation in proportion to their strength.”

To me, that is a matter of principle, and there is much about the outcome of PR systems that is flawed. For example, we have never been told what shady deal was done behind closed doors to get Patrick Harvie his convenership of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. However, every now and again we get indications of the outcome, and this debate might well be one of them.

Tricia Marwick says that she is getting withdrawal symptoms through the lack of discussion of the subject. Why has it taken three years from the first STV elections in local government for the issue to be raised again, especially since all of the pro-reform triumvirate opposite told us that the new system that had been introduced was insufficient to meet their demands and the principles of proportionality? Why have we never been asked, in the three years of this parliamentary session, to look again at the new local government system? I well remember the cries of the oh-so-principled parties opposite that we needed six and seven-member wards in local areas for STV to be acceptable to them. Yet, now that the new system has delivered SNP and Lib Dem councils all over the country and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is weighted in favour of the SNP, they have all gone quiet. Because they now have the power that they wanted, the new system suits them just fine. They are doing well enough for the issue to have disappeared from the radar screen until now.

I cannot agree with Murdo Fraser that the debate is welcome. The timing of the debate, in the middle of a general election campaign, and the abandonment of a chance for the Greens to discuss environmental issues, for example, expose it for the opportunistic backroom deal that it clearly is. I suggest that Robin Harper and Patrick Harvie would have been better analysing the failures of the SNP on climate change rather than helping it out as part of their backroom deal.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

We did that two weeks ago.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

The Greens could have used their time this morning to do that—it was not their debate a couple of weeks ago. This is their time, this morning, and neither of their two choices has been to debate climate change or environmental issues. They have clearly brought to the chamber a debate that suits their partnership with the SNP Government. I would have thought that, in the middle of a general election, the Greens would have wanted to talk about the environment in at least one of their subject debates. That just goes to show that, if we really want to hold the Government to account on its failings on climate change, we must look to Sarah Boyack and the Labour Party for a genuine commitment on the subject. I thank Patrick Harvie for giving me the chance to say that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Like Tricia Marwick, I have had some withdrawal symptoms. However, the déjà vu that I sensed from listening to the speeches of Paul Martin and Michael McMahon has quickly reminded me why I wanted to get off the drug in the first place. Those of us who sat on the Local Government and Transport Committee when it introduced to local government elections the democratic reform that is the single transferable vote will remember Paul Martin’s contributions to that debate, and he has still not learned any different.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Will the member take an intervention?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Not at the moment, thank you. I am just starting.

Paul Martin’s amendment is, however, correct in saying that

“there is no perfect electoral system”.

That is why we have every single system working somewhere in the United Kingdom. We have the first-past-the-post system for Westminster and English local government elections; the additional member system for the Scottish Parliament elections; a form of the alternate vote system for the London mayoral elections; STV for Scottish local government elections and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly; and the list system for European Parliament elections. So, we have plenty of practice in using different systems.

There is no perfect system—they all have their advantages and disadvantages—but the advantage of the single transferable vote is that it transfers power to the voter, which is the one thing that the Labour Party and the Conservatives do not want. They do not want power to be transferred to the voter. Under STV, the voter has the choice of whom to elect, not the parties, and that is the huge advantage of the STV system over any other voting system.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

My brief intervention is to give Iain Smith the opportunity to correct what he said at the start of his speech. He said that, having listened to me, he understood why the Labour Party opposes electoral reform. He sat on the Local Government and Transport Committee with me and heard me making those arguments. Will he retract his accusation?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I listened to Michael McMahon’s speech this morning and I do not retract anything that I said.

The single transferable vote and proportional representation are, first, about accountability of members to the electors, because the electors have more choice in who they vote for and can therefore hold candidates to account at elections.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the member accept an intervention?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I do not have time. I have only two minutes left.

They are also about accountability in the Parliament. The Conservatives and Labour do not want strong Parliaments. They talk all the time about strong Governments. Yes, we can have strong government but what they mean by that is a Government that can do anything it wants without proper accountability to the Parliament, which is elected. Proportional representation is about ensuring that Parliament properly represents the views of the public and is able to hold Governments to account and keep them in line. Strong government is all very well if the Government is doing things right. Unfortunately, time and time again throughout the last decades, we have had Labour and the Conservatives following each other in turn, doing the wrong things and getting away with it because there is no proper accountability in Parliament.

They can bury their heads in the sand. Things are changing and the electorate is waking up to the fact that it has the power. However, we must change the system, which can result in a situation where electoral estimates suggest that if the voters voted 30 per cent Labour, 30 per cent Tory and 30 per cent Liberal Democrat they would get a result of 306 Labour MPs, 210 Tories and 102 Liberal Democrats. How is that putting power in the hands of the voters to change the Government, as Murdo Fraser claimed in his opening remarks? Of course it does not put power in the hands of the voters. It puts power in the hands of a corrupt, potty electoral system. That is not acceptable and we must change it.

Finally, I wish to respond to Murdo Fraser on the issue of the BNP. The list system is not the best system to elect a European Parliament. It is more likely that parties such as the British National Party will get elected under a list system than under the single transferable vote. That is why I want to see a proper system that gives the voters power to prevent people from parties such as the BNP from being elected. However, as Tricia Marwick rightly said, it was not the voting system that elected the BNP, it was voters. That was a result of the mainstream parties failing to take the BNP head on and prove that the politics of hate does not work. We must ensure that we do that in future. All parties must do that. We must ensure that the politics of hate does not work and bring in a system of voting that allows us, perhaps, to talk about the politics of hope.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The tendency of some politicians and parties to behave like the emperor Nero and fiddle while Rome burns never ceases to amaze me. Everyone knows that the major issues to be addressed at this time and in this election are the recession, economic recovery and the crisis in our public finances. The economy is the mother and father of all issues because everything that affects the wellbeing and welfare of the people flows from it. It is the overriding issue on which the Conservative and Labour Parties are focused, albeit from different perspectives and with different messages, as one would expect. However, we can always rely on the political Neros of this world to miss the point, and lo and behold, the Liberals, the Scottish National Party and the Greens have not disappointed us. We want to talk about the economy. They want to talk about PR and single transferable votes. How irrelevant! As Bill Clinton rightly said, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am sure that David McLetchie will note with great enthusiasm the strong focus on economic policy in the Green party manifesto, but surely he is not saying that he does not recognise that there is also a fundamental crisis in democracy in the UK. Surely we cannot approach the UK election after the year that we have just had without acknowledging that crisis and its importance.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We have a democratic system of government in all our Parliaments in the United Kingdom and every single adult in the country will have the opportunity to exercise their vote in the election next week.

We have been over the course on voting systems before, but it is worth while to say again that we are far more likely to see a change of Government in this country with a first-past-the-post system than we ever are with STV. STV would not have produced the political landslides that we have seen in recent times, whether for the Conservatives in 1983 or the Labour Party in 1997. There would be no more Portillo moments. Why? Because the single transferable vote in multimember constituencies gives even more power to the party machines than does first past the post.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

It does not.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I will explain it to the member. Under STV, what decides the Government is not the election but the backroom deals that are cut after the election. It is a not a system that asks the people to decide who governs. It is a system that shuts people out of decision making.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No. I want to make some progress. I will come to the member’s point.

In doing that at national level, it undermines the principle of consultation and community representation—the principle that the member that we elect, irrespective of their party, has a responsibility to all their constituents, as opposed to being at the beck and call of their party and its bunch of local activists. Paul Martin made that point well.

For proof of that proposition, we have only to look at what happened in our STV council elections. As we all know, we have three or four-member wards and all the political parties limit the number of candidates that they put up in each ward to the number of seats that they believe can realistically be won. In virtually every case, only one of the three or four seats is up for grabs and the election focuses on the battle between the parties for that one seat. Two thirds or three quarters of the seats in the ward can safely be predicted before a single vote is cast or counted. There are as many safe seats under an STV system of election as there are under first past the post. Arguably, there are more safe seats under STV. The argument that STV somehow promotes accountability or empowers voters is wholly false.

As George Foulkes said in his excellent contribution, and as is evident from the range of points in the Labour amendment, there is far more to democratic reform in the UK than arguing about one particular system of electing members to councils and Parliaments. We believe that we need democratic reform. We need fair and equal votes in fair and equal constituencies, with equal votes of equal value—a principle that is enshrined in the American constitution.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should wind up.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We should enshrine that principle in our governance and the election of members to our Parliaments in the UK. It is something that we do not have at present.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must conclude.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That demonstrates that we have a lot more to focus on than obsessing about a single voting system. There are many more important issues facing the country than how we elect the Westminster Parliament.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Reform of the voting system for Westminster is not a key issue for ordinary people who are considering their choice of party in the forthcoming election. I cannot confess to experiencing the withdrawal symptoms that Tricia Marwick mentioned. I have been out on the doorsteps and the subject has not been mentioned once.

Perhaps voters do want some renewal of the parliamentary system following the seismic events of Westminster expenses and the global banking crisis and a general desire for more accountability, but as David McLetchie and George Foulkes said, democratic reform is about more than just reform of the voting system. It is about devolving power from the centre, which the Labour Government has done through devolution; reform of the House of Lords; increasing voter turnout; and engaging with the electorate on decisions that affect their lives.

Labour has supported and benefited from the first-past-the-post system, but we gave up that vested interest when we took part in the Scottish Constitutional Convention and supported a proportional system for the Scottish Parliament. That system has been reviewed by the Arbuthnott commission, which supported the continuation of the additional member system and rejected the use of STV for the Scottish Parliament. There is a lot to be said for the system that we have.

The Scottish Green Party’s motion focuses on a system of proportionality from which it benefits. Perhaps it would be fairer to the Green party to have STV, but that does not mean that it is the best proportional system. No system is perfect, but if we face a choice, we must focus on the principles that matter to us. The first-past-the-post system has provided stable government for the UK, people understand it, and I do not see any real demand to change it. An STV system means highly localised politics, and that is not best for government. There are serious weaknesses in an STV system.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I will give way to Patrick Harvie, who supports the motion, but he should be brief, as I have a lot to say.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I understand the argument about stable government, but why is it right that a Government that does not have a majority of support among the public should have the right to a stable mandate?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

There are weaknesses in every voting system. I will deal with the weaknesses of the STV system. I suppose that it depends on what matters to a person. The link between a constituency and its elected member matters to Labour, and an STV system seriously weakens that link. Commentators say that an STV system with multimember wards creates a pervasive clientism, and they talk about members becoming super-social workers as they compete with one another for profile. Even supporters of STV cannot deny that there are weaknesses in it. Ideas for government will suffer under such a system, as politics become more localised.

Trends in Ireland show that the STV system is not even necessarily proportionate. In 2007, Fianna Fáil received 41 per cent of the vote and 47 per cent of the seats; Fine Gael received 27 per cent of the vote and 30 per cent of the seats; and the Greens received 10 per cent of the vote, but got only 3.6 per cent of the seats.

Robin Harper said that voters are disillusioned because Labour and Conservative Governments have had large majorities, but there is support for majority government among voters. It is not true that everyone out there is demanding coalition Governments, which often result from STV systems. There are various views out there. Criticisms have been made of coalition Governments that Labour has been part of. Coalition Governments are criticised on the basis that manifestos are thrown aside, programmes for government are negotiated, and the voters do not get a chance to vote on those programmes. We must be realistic about the weaknesses in all the systems.

Minority government also creates anomalies. Smaller parties have a disproportionate influence on big decisions. The SNP Government can generally use the fact that it is a minority Government as an excuse for not implementing its manifesto. There are anomalies in every system, and STV is not the answer to the criticisms that have been made. The suggestion that PR would not have given us a Thatcher Government is questionable.

In its 2005 manifesto, Labour said that it has always said that it is prepared to consider change by way of a referendum. We support the first-past-the-post system and say that there must be consensus on any change. There are principles that we must stand on, and any change must be made only if it is supported in a referendum.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

It is strange that the four Labour members who have spoken have not mentioned the alternative vote system. I wonder what they are running away from in light of their manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on that. Not one single Labour member has mentioned that system. George Foulkes made criticisms of the additional member system which Pauline McNeill defended, but not one Labour member has talked about—

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the minister support AV?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I do not support AV; I support STV. That has been made clear.

There has been a great deal of focus in the general election campaign on the implications of a balanced Parliament at Westminster after the vote on 6 May. Many people, including members today, have tried to portray a balanced Parliament as a disaster waiting to happen, as if the only way in which a country can be run is by an election giving unfettered power to one party, regardless of the breakdown of votes. We should view the prospect of a balanced Parliament more positively. I say to David McLetchie in particular that, if no party has an overall majority, there will be opportunities for parties to work together to find common ground. An obvious example would be all parties working together to address the current economic crisis. Instead, the media, politicians such as Murdo Fraser, and others have claimed the economic crisis as a reason to fear a balanced Westminster Government. There has been much speculation that a balanced Parliament would lead to terrible consequences—that it would wreak havoc on the markets, and precipitate a sterling crisis and the intervention of the International Monetary Fund—but the statistics and facts simply do not back up that view. Ten of the 16 countries that enjoy a triple A rating from the main credit agencies, including Canada, the Netherlands and Austria, have coalition Governments.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the minister confirm which of Greece and Germany has a majority Government and which has a balanced Government?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

There is a majority Government in Greece—we can see the economic crisis there—and there is a coalition Government in Germany, where there is relative stability.

History has shown that majority Governments in this country are not in themselves a means to economic stability. In 1976, the majority Callaghan Government called in the IMF as the value of the pound plummeted. In 1985, sterling fell to little over $1, despite the fact that Thatcher enjoyed a clear majority. A lot of nonsense has been talked about such matters in the chamber this morning.

Proposals for reforming the Westminster voting system are not without precedent. In 1917, the Representation of the People Bill included proposals for a mixed STV and AV system. The STV proposal was rejected by the unionists and supported by the Liberals—no change there then. That proposal, which would have dramatically changed the face of Government in the UK throughout the 20th century, inevitably fell following a long period of deadlock between the House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords, which we need to see the end of.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

What was so stable about January 2009, when the First Minister advised us that he would not be blackmailed by the Green party on the budget?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I will say what has been stable about the SNP Government. We have got three budgets through the Parliament and 1,000 extra police on the streets, the council tax has been frozen and taxes for businesses have been reduced throughout the country. That is what stability from the SNP Government means.

Let me deal with Murdo Fraser’s view that STV allows members of extremist parties to be elected. PR is designed to provide representation to parties that achieve a reasonable share of the vote. That applies to small parties with democratic values, but I accept that it can also apply, particularly in some systems, to extremist parties. However, as other members have said, the voting system does not cause that. A first-past-the-post system can also let in extremist parties. Recent local authority elections in Barking, Stoke-on-Trent and Burnley are examples of that. There is a vital difference between representation and control. Obnoxious parties can be represented under PR, but it is almost impossible for them to gain control. By contrast, the BNP has all the borough council seats in part of Burnley despite having obtained nowhere near the majority of the vote. Representation is often a step towards political defeat for extremist parties. The public scrutiny that comes with being in office quickly exposes their inadequacy and the inadequacy of their policies.

A poll that was conducted yesterday by YouGov and The Sun shows that 37 per cent of people throughout the UK who were asked thought that a hung Parliament would be a good thing, whereas 47 per cent thought that it would be a negative thing. By contrast, 49 per cent of those in Scotland who were asked thought that a hung Parliament would be a positive thing, whereas only 40 per cent thought that it would be a bad thing. That is because minority government has been working in Scotland and the SNP Government has been delivering for the people of Scotland.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I will start by addressing a point that Paul Martin made. When we have combined with the Labour Party and the Liberal party to defeat the Government in vote after vote in the chamber, I have not noticed any reluctance by the Labour Party to use the two Green party votes. Paul Martin made an entirely spurious point. Does Labour want us to hand over the government of this country entirely to the SNP for the rest of the session? I think not.

Tricia Marwick dealt with Murdo Fraser’s point well, and I will say no more about that. However, his assertion about having fairer constituencies and ensuring that they are nearly precisely the same size is like shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic: it will achieve nothing. Neither he nor the other Conservatives have explained to me or to anybody else exactly how that would achieve more democracy.

Bruce Crawford made the important point that there would be no more marginal seats under STV. The other important point is this: the two major Westminster parties share between them 337 or so safe seats; that is, seats where the result of the vote can virtually be spoken for. Those parties want to keep that situation and the power that they have had over the country for generation after generation. They swap power between themselves and they do not want to let anybody else in. Pauline McNeill claimed that there is no lust for proportional representation among this country’s population, but will she explain to me why the Liberal Democrats, who support PR, now lead the Labour Party in the polls? It is precisely because proportional representation is one of the Liberals’ policies.

I liked Robert Brown’s phrase about restoring commonality, because that is exactly what STV is producing in our councils. A restoration of commonality means that people know that they can take their problems to the councillor of their choice, by and large. That is one of the things that STV delivers at local level.

I mentioned Tricia Marwick’s contribution, for which I thank her very much. George Foulkes will be absolutely delighted to hear that, like him, the Green party supports the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement with an elected second chamber. Like him, we believe in having a written constitution. Like him, we believe in 16-year-olds having the vote. Those are all things that would improve democracy. I plead with George Foulkes to go one step further towards a democratic electoral system.

Iain Smith made a good point when he said that although the other two main Westminster parties, Labour and the Conservatives, want strong Governments, they do not want strong Parliaments. That has been clearly seen. Their idea of stability is to have Prime Ministers who, one after the other, surround themselves with a phalanx of special advisers who divide them from not only the people, but their own back benchers. Those Prime Ministers have ruled from behind a palisade, not letting even their back benchers into conversations with them, let alone hearing the views of Opposition parties.

David McLetchie said that everybody knows that the economy is the overriding issue. Yes, of course it is. The Green party has debated the economy every time that the subject has arisen in the chamber. We have also debated the environment every time that the subject has been brought to the chamber. Today we assert that, with an election shortly ahead of us—the result of which we do not know, but which will certainly not be helped by the first-past-the-post system—we must acknowledge that the electoral system is a problem. David McLetchie also said that there would be as many safe seats under STV as under first past the post, but that is not the case. There would be as many people who would think that they might be elected, but a greater variety of parties would be safely represented under STV. That is what we want—greater fairness of representation.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Will the member give way?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

No, I am sorry; I have about 20 seconds left.

We would like, as a result of STV, to see everybody’s vote count: no more marginals and no more safe seats.

Glasgow City Council (Recycling)

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Glasgow City Council regarding recycling. (S3O-10290)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I have just got my card into the console in time.

Scottish Government waste officials have met Glasgow City Council on a number of occasions to discuss recycling. The most recent meeting was in mid-March, when officials discussed issues including the zero waste plan and Glasgow’s plans to improve recycling performance.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Glasgow City Council has been criticised for having a poor recycling record, but that record is improving, with an additional 25,000 bins for glass collection and 40,000 bins for organic waste collection. Given that a factor in reaching its targets is the high number of tenement properties, which make collection difficult, what financial account has the Scottish Government taken of that in order to help Glasgow to have better targets so that every house has access to recycling facilities?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The Government recognises the challenges that Glasgow City Council faces in increasing its recycling and compost uplift. I do not think that anybody wants to minimise the extent of those challenges, nor do I want to minimise the extent of the ambition in the council.

Considerable support is available to local authorities to improve their performance, which includes the advice and guidance that Glasgow currently receives. Glasgow City Council gets its share of the total local authority budget and has to decide how it applies the funds. Other types of support are also being developed. I think that Pauline McNeill will find that Glasgow is getting as much help as it is possible to give it in the circumstances, and we hope that that will result in increased recycling levels in that council area.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is a fact that Glasgow City Council has the worst recycling rate in Scotland and it is projected that it will spend £13 million in landfill tax alone, an issue that is reserved to Westminster, as we all know. Have any representations been made to the United Kingdom Government to ask it to consider suspending landfill tax, which could deliver capital spend of £130 million in Glasgow?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am not aware that any such approaches have been made by anyone in Government in recent months. There is a new approach to defining municipal waste, which means that Scotland has already met the revised 2013 landfill directive target, so we are making considerable progress.

I reiterate that we accept that Glasgow City Council faces significant and particular challenges in maintaining and increasing its levels of recycling, and we want to do everything in our power to help it to overcome those challenges.

Schools (Indiscipline)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to address indiscipline in schools. (S3O-10305)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The Scottish Government is supporting local authorities and schools to promote positive behaviour and relationships and to create peaceful learning environments. Curriculum for excellence provides opportunities for a broad, flexible and individualised curriculum that contributes significantly to keeping children and young people motivated and engaged in relevant and enjoyable learning.

The Government provides support to local authorities and schools through funding the positive behaviour team with £600,000 a year and the pupil inclusion network Scotland with £50,000 a year. Strategies and techniques supported by the positive behaviour team include nurture, restorative practice, solution-oriented approaches, staged intervention, cool in school and the motivated school.

“Behaviour in Scottish Schools 2009” research indicates that overall perceptions of positive behaviour, low-level negative behaviour and serious indiscipline and violence have improved across the board, particularly in secondary schools.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Last week, the schools minister rightly highlighted the value of outdoor learning in helping pupils to become more enthusiastic and self-disciplined. Will the Scottish National Party deliver in this parliamentary session its 2007 manifesto commitment to five days of subsidised outdoor education for children from our most deprived communities?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Substantial progress is being made towards that goal. Indeed, at the event in Aberdeenshire to which Elizabeth Smith referred, an online resource was announced that will give schools much easier access to outdoor learning. In the past, one of the major obstacles to outdoor learning was the fact that, because of fears about health and safety issues, because of cost or just because of availability, some teachers were not sufficiently aware of the opportunities. The online resource that we have produced should help to address those issues and contribute towards achievement of the target.

Child Protection Strategy

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of various recently reported high-profile child protection issues, whether it has reconsidered its overall child protection strategy. (S3O-10284)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government is constantly working to improve Scotland’s child protection system. We are nearing the end of a major review of national child protection guidance and will issue draft revised guidance for consultation in early June.

Last year, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education completed its first round of multi-agency child protection inspections, with every local authority area in Scotland visited. That has given us, for the first time, a comprehensive picture of how child protection services are performing across the country. We are now well into the second round of inspections and are looking for improvement in every area. We are also implementing the getting it right for every child approach, which emphasises early intervention, taking action to improve children’s lives before serious child protection concerns arise. Every child death is a tragedy. Where things go wrong, we must learn and improve, but the overall system is sound and improving.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

As I am sure the minister is aware, a range of respected professionals in Scotland think that there are significant societal problems that are beyond the reach of any one service and that our failure to respond is causing concern in our communities about our care system and the impact that such problems are having on our society in general. The minister mentioned the comprehensive review that is under way. Will he take on board the concerns of genuine professionals that a response is beyond any one service and that it may be time for us to take a more universal view of what will genuinely protect children in Scotland?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I agree with the sentiments that Mr McCabe expresses. Professionals’ concerns are focused on children who are affected by parental substance misuse. That is a key issue with which we must grapple and to which we must find solutions. A number of initiatives are on-going on that front, especially as part of the getting it right for every child approach. A pathfinder scheme in Angus is focusing on the problem of children who are affected by parental substance misuse. I reassure Mr McCabe that we are conscious of the need to find solutions in such areas and are not complacent in any way.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Staff working in child protection do a difficult and sensitive job. Although all of us are shocked and disturbed by the high-profile cases of children who tragically fall through the net, those are not the norm. We do not hear about the many cases in which children are successfully protected and families are supported. Will the minister reaffirm the Scottish Government’s support for the dedicated staff who work in such difficult circumstances?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is only natural that we remember in particular the minority of child protection cases that have a tragic outcome. When children are not kept safe from harm, we must look carefully at what has happened and learn from that. However, we must not forget the thousands of children who are supported and kept safe by our child protection services and the thousands of families who are given the help that they need to provide the right environment for their children. We do not hear about those cases. The First Minister and I have said many times that child protection practitioners do a difficult and vital job. On the whole, they do it well. They deserve our support and thanks, and should not be singled out as scapegoats and blamed for the crimes of others.

Tax Havens

George (Labour, Lothians)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what bodies for which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is responsible, apart from Caledonian MacBrayne, have subsidiaries based in tax havens. (S3O-10270)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

David MacBrayne Ltd is the only national, devolved public body for which the Scottish ministers are responsible that has established an offshore subsidiary company.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I assure the cabinet secretary that I thought carefully before lodging my question and I am not asking him to answer for previous Administrations. However, given what he and the Scottish National Party said in opposition, does he not think that it is quite wrong for a body for which he has responsibility to be tax dodging? Will he think again and get that changed?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Lord Foulkes referred to the decisions of previous Administrations, to which I need to refer to put my answer in context.

The previous Administration took the decision that the establishment of an offshore crewing company in 2006 was necessary to avoid putting Caledonian MacBrayne at a competitive disadvantage in relation to potential bidders for the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services contract. The arrangements were cleared by the then Scottish Executive and Her Majesty’s Treasury. They are part of an industry approach that is designed to avoid competitive disadvantage and are not unique to the Scottish jurisdiction—they are United Kingdom arrangements. National insurance concessions have been agreed with the Treasury to reflect that, into the bargain.

The “Scottish Public Finance Manual” states clearly that the motivation for undertaking a change of this type cannot be tax avoidance. The motivation behind the arrangement is to enable Caledonian MacBrayne to compete effectively and to ensure that it can provide the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services. Most members took that position in advance of the change of Government in 2007.

Domestic Aviation

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it supports an increase in domestic aviation between Scotland and other mainland United Kingdom airports. (S3O-10310)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government does not support an increase in domestic air services where practical and more environmentally friendly alternative forms of transport exist.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

That is encouraging. I have lost count of the number of times that the minister has told me in glowing terms of the statistics for his travel choices and his desire to reduce his reliance on domestic aviation. Why, then, is his neighbour in the ministerial tower, Jim Mather, responsible for an agency—VisitScotland—that is placing adverts in English newspapers that tell people to fly to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen for a day trip to Scotland? The adverts will either increase domestic aviation, in which case they are incompatible with the minister’s previous answer, or they will not do so, in which case they are a waste of money.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

My colleague Mr Mather is most vigorous, energetic and successful in promoting Scotland’s economic development. I look with great interest at the work of High Speed Two Ltd, part of whose remit is to consider the case for extending sustainable transport—high-speed rail—to Scotland. If that key initiative is pursued, hundreds of flights per week will be taken out of domestic aviation from Scotland, to be replaced by effective, environmentally friendly means of transport. The Government is utterly committed to that; would that some others were.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Notwithstanding the thrust of Patrick Harvie’s question, will the minister examine how we can increase the number of domestic flights in and out of Wick airport, which has spare capacity? As a matter of priority, will he ask the enterprise network and his transport officials to examine how we can maximise that opportunity?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Wick airport is one airport where practical, more environmentally friendly options are substantially more limited, therefore it is an important part of the transport infrastructure for the far north of Scotland. I note, in particular, that take-up of the air discount scheme is lower in Caithness and the north of Scotland than elsewhere. I encourage people to register for the scheme, as that will reduce the cost of air travel and make journeys more effective. I talk regularly to the airlines that serve Wick, and we are supporting their operations. I will continue to talk to them and I have taken note of the issue that the member raises.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Notwithstanding Patrick Harvie’s views, I trust that the minister recognises the valuable contribution that Prestwick airport makes to the economy of Ayrshire, and, indeed, the equivalent contribution that I am sure airports make to other areas. I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to do everything possible, wherever and however it can, to support the development of Prestwick airport and the local jobs that rely upon it.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Prestwick airport is clearly an important part of the economy of the area that the member represents.

It may be appropriate to take the opportunity to thank airport operators for their substantial contribution to ensuring that transport continued to operate in a way that limited the damage that was done to transport choices recently when there was ash over the United Kingdom. They did a very good job.

A96 (Inveramsay Bridge)

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made to upgrade the A96 at the Inveramsay bridge. (S3O-10306)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are progressing options to upgrade Inveramsay bridge with Network Rail as part of the wider priority of improving the Aberdeen to Inverness rail line. Once that work is completed, consultation on a preferred road alignment for the replacement Inveramsay bridge will take place as part of the upgrade of the A96.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am somewhat disappointed that the minister is still not saying when we can expect to get rid of the bottleneck at Inveramsay, as promised by Alex Salmond in his 2007 election leaflet. People in Gordon expected action during this session of Parliament. With just a year to go and no road works yet in prospect, they are justifiably feeling a bit let down by the party in which they put their faith. When can we realistically expect action on the bridge? Are we looking at another broken promise?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The first and only action that has ever been taken to address the issue of Inveramsay bridge stems from the personal intervention of the member for Gordon. People in that constituency very much welcome the fact that we included the project in the strategic transport projects review. We have engaged in looking at the three options for road interventions. It is clear that working with Network Rail, in the context of our improving rail services for people between Aberdeen and Inverness, is likely to be the most effective way forward. We expect to get information from Network Rail on the options and the alignment. We are making the kind of progress that was never even contemplated by any previous Administration.

Freedom of Information

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it remains committed to freedom of information. (S3O-10311)

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The Scottish Government is, and always has been, fully committed to freedom of information, as set out in the six principles on freedom of information that we published back in 2007.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

It is one thing for the Scottish National Party to waste its own money on spurious court actions, but why does the SNP Government not stop wasting public money and drop the appeal in the Court of Session that is trying, on spurious grounds, to block the release of information? Will the minister at least put in the public domain a list of the requests for information that the Government is currently blocking? What has the Scottish Government got to hide? Is it trying to block the release of information until the expiry of its term in office?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I recognise Robert Brown’s deep and long-standing commitment to freedom of information, but I say to him that only a small proportion of requests were rejected as invalid following the court decision. After further consideration, some of those were subsequently accepted as valid. The vast majority of requests have been dealt with as normal. In the last quarter of 2009, the Scottish Government released some or all of the information requested in two thirds of cases.

On the court decision, there is a genuine difference of opinion between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Information Commissioner regarding the implications of a complex legal judgment. That difference of opinion has largely been resolved and we now disagree on only one fairly small technical point. It would not be appropriate to comment on that technical point, as we may need the Court of Session to clarify it. However, we can say that it is a relatively small technical point that is likely to affect only a very few FOI requests.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Following the “Panorama” programme on the abuse of older people in their own homes and the exposé in The Herald on neglect in residential care, I asked for details of discussions within the Scottish Government and discussions with the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, to establish whether what ministers were saying they were doing in relation to this serious matter was actually being done. Does the minister agree that it is entirely inappropriate to use a court ruling to prevent that information from coming into the public domain, given how important it is to give people confidence that older people are protected wherever they are cared for?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Johann Lamont has raised a point that is obviously very important to her. The minister concerned will have heard her pleas, but I assure her that, on all occasions, the Scottish Government is fully committed to the intention behind the freedom of information principles.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes general questions.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2355)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today, I will be putting forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Labour is committed to protecting investment in our schools and hospitals. Last week, on television, the Deputy First Minister was asked eight times whether she would match that promise; eight times she failed to do so. Will the First Minister promise to protect investment in schools and hospitals?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes. [Laughter.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The question, though, that voters will be asking themselves is this: when the First Minister says yes, is that the same as when he said yes, he would cancel student debt; when he said yes, we would have smaller class sizes; when he said yes, first-time buyers would get grants to help them; when he said yes, he would match our school building programme brick for brick; or when he said yes, he would build the Glasgow airport rail link? The trouble is that no one believes the First Minister’s promises anymore. He breaks them all, so why should we believe that he will protect Scotland’s schools and hospitals?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The answer is yes for the 65 out of 94 headline manifesto commitments that the Government has already achieved.

As Iain Gray asked a longish question, perhaps I can give the chamber a few highlights of the things that have been achieved. We have achieved a council tax freeze over the past three years; the small business bonus scheme, which was opposed by the Labour Party; and abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. We also reversed Labour’s decision to downgrade the accident and emergency units at Monklands and Ayr hospitals and delivered funding for 1,000 more police on the streets of Scotland. I know that the chamber is anxious for me to go on to list the other 60 but, with the Presiding Officer’s forbearance I will list just one more: the Scottish National Party is the only party committed to public services in Scotland against the cuts being planned by each and every one of the London parties.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Let us look at the SNP’s commitment to public services in Scotland. Two and a half thousand teachers and 1,000 classroom assistants have been cut; the Edinburgh airport rail link and its 3,000 jobs have been cut; the Glasgow airport rail link and its 1,300 jobs have been cut; and £2 billion-worth of schools and hospitals have been cut, the cost of which has been a cut of 30,000 construction jobs.

Thirty years ago, I was a teacher organising strikes against Tory cuts; now our teachers are organising strikes against nationalist cuts. The First Minister’s economic spokesperson has just been on the television, saying that under the SNP there will be no miserable cuts. What are these—happy cuts?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I wonder whether Iain Gray has had the opportunity to read the report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. I know that it embraces all the London parties and perhaps we will get the opportunity to come to the other two in due course. The IFS report, which was published yesterday, says that Labour has not specified 87 per cent of the cuts implied in its budget programme.

Labour plans to cut £250 billion from front-line public spending departments throughout the UK, which implies a £25 billion cut for Scotland. The economic adviser to the Scottish Government first revealed that and it was confirmed—[Interruption.] Does Iain Gray or Andy Kerr dispute the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which confirmed the information that the Scottish Government supplied? The reality of the spending programmes of the London parties and of the mountain of cuts that the Labour Party plans is being laid bare in the election campaign. What better argument could there be for Scotland to have control of its resources, to ditch the £100 billion of wasted expenditure on Trident nuclear weapons and to take the only alternative to the decade of despair that every London-based party plans?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister’s record on cuts is second to none. He has made more cuts than any politician in the past 13 years of British politics. Now we read in no less than the Financial Times about the cruellest cut of all—cutting a deal with the Tories. We should not be surprised, because the SNP’s London leader, Angus Robertson, votes with the Tories more often than Scotland’s only Tory MP does. David Cameron’s local champion must be Alex Salmond, who voted with David Cameron 70 per cent of the time. Alex Salmond could not get out of his bed to vote for the national minimum wage, but he gets out of his bed to vote for the Tories. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I ask the First Minister to tell us now: will he betray Scotland by doing a deal with the Tories?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray seems blissfully unaware that, in this Parliament, he votes with the Conservative party 75 per cent of the time—[Laughter.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I remind Iain Gray that we started the election campaign with a Labour chancellor—Alistair Darling, for whom Iain Gray used to work—saying that the cuts that the Labour Party planned would be tougher and deeper than those of Margaret Thatcher. I know that Iain Gray will want to provide the advice that he gave Alistair Darling in the past and to give advice in the future, but it is significant that Gordon Brown had no problem with meeting Margaret Thatcher, although he seems to have considerable problems with meeting old-age pensioners in Halifax. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. [Interruption.]

George (Labour, Lothians)

It was Rochdale, not Halifax.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Lord Foulkes, when I ask for order, I expect to have it.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

2. I am delighted to hear that my party is so popular with so many opponents. I am not in the least surprised at that development.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2356)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Annabel Goldie’s party does not seem to be popular with many voters.

As far as I can judge, the Prime Minister is not in a mood to meet anyone at the moment.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Last Sunday, in a television studio, the First Minister was asked:

“had Thomas Hamilton, the Dunblane killer, survived and been sentenced to life imprisonment in a Scottish jail, would you have released him if he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer?”

The First Minister replied, “No”. I agree totally with his answer. Will he explain the difference between the mass murderer Thomas Hamilton and the mass murderer Mr al-Megrahi?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It seems to me that the hypothetical case of Thomas Hamilton would not have passed the first principle in the Scottish Prison Service guidance for the release of prisoners on compassionate grounds. Annabel Goldie knows what that principle is.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I will cut to the chase and leave the First Minister to explain. The point is that the integrity and status of our Scottish criminal justice system are at stake and that the First Minister has publicly stated two irreconcilable and totally contradictory positions in relation to two mass murderers. I ask him again how he justifies that contradiction. How can he support the release of one mass murderer and totally oppose the release of another?