Of course I applaud that, because I was one of those employers before I entered this Parliament.

There is a very simple choice. The previous Labour Government introduced the minimum wage, enhanced trade union recognition rights and introduced the Equality Act 2010. The next Labour Government will get rid of zero-hours contracts, ban fire and rehire practices and give day 1 employment rights. The choice that faces the Scottish Government is more of the same or a Labour Government that will make a difference to fair work and workers’ rights.

What I will say to Liz Smith reflects another point that is relevant to this debate: we need to understand that we must improve employment and fair work practices in conjunction with business. Bringing forward such proposals absolutely requires that sort of interrogation.

There was a very interesting dialogue between the Scottish National Party and Conservative front benches—between Neil Gray and Murdo Fraser—in which an artificial and binary choice seemed to be presented between fair work or a new deal for business. This is a genuine reflection. As somebody who has been through the steps of introducing the real living wage, I know that it is not straightforward. It took our business three years to deliver and implement it, and it took careful planning. It is not a question of browbeating people or telling them to do it. If the Scottish Government was really serious about the issue, it would look at how it could help businesses to go down that road. I do not think that it is an either/or situation.

I will come to the cabinet secretary in a moment.

Equally, it is about providing assistance, but I say to the Conservatives that most businesses want to do the right thing. They want to do right by their people and to ensure that they are paid well for the valuable work that they do. The reality is somewhere in the middle. We need to provide assistance towards fair work, and there should be a recognition that businesses want to do it.

I am happy to give way.

I begin with a declaration. When it comes to fair work, I think that deeds matter much more than posture. I am very clear about my record as a person who ran my own business. My business was the first independent retailer in Edinburgh to become an accredited living wage employer. I stand by that, and I stand by the deeds of past Labour Governments. There is much that we can agree with in the Government’s motion, but ultimately it comes down to deeds rather than simply stated intent.

Let us also be very clear that the UK Conservative Party has a wretched record on workers’ rights. It has presided over an explosion in insecure work and the longest pay squeeze in history.

I will in a moment.

Working people are facing the largest fall in living standards in a generation and, despite what Mr Fraser says, there is a ticking time bomb of mortgage payments because of the disastrous consequences of the mini-budget, which he so eagerly seeks to dismiss.

They are all listening intently online. As every member knows, this is a hybrid chamber.

Critically, Ivan McKee acknowledged that a floor would be useful, and John Mason said that we need to be careful of divergence. That is precisely why we need to be very careful about how we set out the devolution of employment law. John Mason said that that could not be done instantaneously and that we would want to create a framework. That is exactly what we are doing.

Therefore, if SNP members think that the devolution of employment law is important and that we need to take care of it, why would they vote against our amendment, which would improve workers’ rights not just in Scotland but across the UK?

I will in a moment.

Let us be clear about what our amendment does and does not do. The operative words are “leave out”, not “leave out to end”. Our amendment would not remove reference to the devolution of employment law; it would simply insert what we propose to do within 100 working days to bring forward legislation to enhance employment law.

I will in a moment.

As Maggie Chapman rightly pointed out, we have seen a “crumbling” floor under the Conservatives. The new deal for working people would repair that floor, and it sets out a framework in which the devolution of employment law could occur.

I think that Liz Smith was first, so just give me a moment.

Critically, I ask this. Ivan McKee begged the question why we thought that a Labour Government might be able to take power. I know that we cannot rely on opinion polls, but there is at least the suggestion that it is possible. If it is not going to be the Labour Party that legislates to devolve employment law, who will it be? I do not see the Tories doing it any time soon.

There is a very simple choice. Do people want to vote for a Labour Government that will bring forward legislation within 100 working days to improve workers’ rights, or do they want to vote for another Conservative Government? That is the choice that people face at the next election.

I am happy to give way to Liz Smith.

The pictures from Sunday night clearly show that the incident constituted a premeditated attack on the police. Fireworks were being aimed directly at police officers, who were having to wear riot gear to prepare themselves. Will the minister consider a full ban on the sale of fireworks to private individuals, apart from in relation to organised fireworks displays? Will she give serious consideration to holding meetings with authorities in Edinburgh, including the council, to discuss measures that should be taken to tackle such outrageous behaviour, should it happen in future years?