Civic Participation (Trade Unions)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5269, in the name of Margaret Curran, on civic participation and trade union engagement with Scotland's civic society.
I begin by declaring an interest. My constituency party is supported by the Communication Workers Union, and I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I am very proud of both associations.
I welcome the holding of trade union week at the Parliament. I take this opportunity to congratulate Grahame Smith on his appointment as the new general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I have known Grahame for many years. He is knowledgeable and effective in his negotiations, and the Executive looks forward to many constructive conversations in the coming period. I am sure that my congratulations are shared by the members of the STUC general council who are in the public gallery.
It is a particular pleasure for a politician of my background to introduce this debate, the first in Scotland's Parliament to recognise and celebrate the role of trade unions. It is the first time that the STUC has organised a trade union week in this place. Like many other members, I hope that it will be the first of many.
Trade unions have had a bad press from time to time—I say to Mr Aitken that I am not pointing any fingers. I say unequivocally that parliamentary democracies and free societies require strong, independent trade unions—of that, there can be no qualification. From the outset, the concept of working people coming together to serve their interests and to prevent exploitation has been for the social good.
I do not have the time to go through the glorious radical past of the trade unions, from the Tolpuddle martyrs to Peterloo, but it is necessary to remind ourselves of things that are now taken for granted, but for which the labour movement has had to struggle: paid holidays, sickness pay, job security, equal pay, health and safety at work, skills training and—broadly, as the STUC would tell us—fairness at work. The list could go on.
Trade unions have developed in a number of ways, influenced, of course, by different political and economic regimes and societal factors. Despite the changes that have taken place over many years, the trade union movement has continued its core business of providing services to members, negotiating on their behalf, sometimes organising actions in their defence and lobbying Parliament to bring about change. Trade unions have never shirked from tackling Governments of every persuasion when they have felt the need to do so. That must be welcome in any democratic society.
The STUC was established in 1897. From its earliest days, it has consistently been a force for addressing the needs of ordinary people. Improving workplace conditions has been a central priority for the STUC, but it has also played an important part in wider issues such as international affairs, housing, education and transport, and in campaigning for social justice and peace and against inequality in all its forms. The STUC represents about 630,000 trade unionists—the members of 46 trade unions. It can speak for the interests of women workers, black workers, young workers and those who suffer discrimination not just in the workplace but in civil society.
There is considerable evidence around the Parliament this week of the work that is undertaken by trade unions on behalf of their members. From workplace safety to lifelong learning, the programme for trade union week has demonstrated the significant contribution that trade unions make, not just for their members, but for Scottish society as a whole. It is that wider role in civil society on which I think we should focus. A strong civil society is central to the Scotland that we want to create: confident, open and tolerant. Faith communities, voluntary organisations, political parties and trade unions all contribute towards Scotland's social capital. Collectively, those organisations provide the glue that binds our communities together.
Civil society is changing, with many large organisations experiencing declining membership, and there is a shift towards individual forms of participation, including volunteering, signing petitions and giving donations to single-issue-based campaigns. All those forms of individual action and participation are significantly increasing. As a result, trade unions, like other civil society groups, are facing challenges to the ways in which they traditionally engage and represent the views of individuals and communities. Representing and articulating the views of ordinary people has been a strength of the trade unions from the beginning. I am confident that they can do that again as we all rise to the challenge of the new civil society. That contribution has served unions well as they have developed those models of working, and we hope that it will continue.
Those of us who campaigned long and hard for devolution cannot forget the central role that the STUC and individual unions played in the campaign for a Scottish assembly and, latterly, in the Scottish constitutional convention. The institution in which we sit today in part owes its existence to those partners. They forged that new consensus, and the trade unions were foremost among them. Although they had to debate many difficult issues, their shared goal was to shape the principles—including equal opportunities for all—on which the Parliament was founded. I am pleased to recall that my party's strong relationship with the trade unions ensured that 50:50 gender representation was a reality in our selection process.
It is interesting to note from the history of the STUC that women have played an active role in it from the very beginning. When the STUC was established in 1897, a female delegate, Miss Irwin, obtained the highest vote in the election of the first parliamentary committee, which later became the general council. The first female president presided at the 1926 congress. I congratulate the work of the STUC women's committee which, following in those famous footsteps, is ensuring that women play their proper role in trade union life.
The Executive values the trade unions as key partners in what one might term another version of the union dividend. We have achieved much in recent years and the memorandum of understanding between the Executive and the STUC has enabled a strong and positive relationship to develop. That we have achieved a great deal could be argued on many fronts, including in my constituency where there is visible evidence of how the trade unions connect strongly with local people. The way in which the Communication Workers Union has worked effectively with local people to protect key local services is one example of that.
Does the minister agree that it might be helpful if, in awarding public contracts in future, some consideration was given to ensuring that trade union-friendly employers receive that public money? Surely our public money should go to good employers who recognise and promote trade unionism.
As my colleague with responsibility for such matters—Allan Wilson—has just pointed out to me, we have a new public procurement manual. Generally, the Executive promotes, and in practice maintains, a positive relationship with the trade unions. I will deal with our relationship with businesses when I come to the Tory amendment, but of course we want to encourage employers to be trade union friendly. We also want the value of trade unions to be recognised in society more broadly.
In the final minutes of my speech, I want to focus on the impact that trade unions have had on the legislation that the Parliament has passed. Three pieces of legislation demonstrate categorically the contribution that trade unions have made to ensuring that Scotland is a healthier and safer place in which to work and live. The Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 is an example of legislation that emerged from our joint work on ensuring that those who serve their communities in the public services have the protection that, sadly, they need on some occasions. Another landmark piece of legislation introduced the ban on smoking in public places, which is already benefiting workforces the length and breadth of Scotland. In that legislation, the interests of those who work in particular services and industries was directly taken into account.
Finally, the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Parliament, will address the plight of workers who suffer from asbestosis-related diseases. The bill will remove obstacles that prevent the awarding of fair damages claims, and it addresses the issue of relatives' claims so that people will not have to make terrible choices for their families. Such a measure has been a key trade union demand to which I am proud to say that the Executive has responded. The Executive and the Parliament have been bold in passing legislation with the support of trade unions, which have played a critical role in taking forward our ambitions for our country.
This week recognises those joint changes. This week takes us forward together so that we can tackle our future challenges of growing our economy and tackling poverty, growing our population and furthering social justice, and ending discrimination and building a Scotland of mutual respect and tolerance. That has been the dividend of our common endeavour since devolution was established. That is the dividend that the Executive and Parliament have received from working with trade unions. I hope that, this week, we will take the opportunity to pay tribute to the trade unions and the contribution that they have made to Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the strength and constructive nature of its partnership with civic Scotland; recalls that this began in the Constitutional Convention when a wide range of civic organisations, including trade unions, came together with the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to develop the blueprint for devolution; notes that this partnership is evolving as the Parliament and civic society work together to achieve social justice, and acknowledges the importance of the Executive working in partnership with organisations such as the Scottish Trades Union Congress, other non-governmental organisations and civic partners in Scotland.
The difference between us today relates not to the contribution of the trade unions but to the fact that our consultation process has such a narrow base. The interests that should be represented in it are those of wider society, rather than the somewhat narrow vested interests that the trade unions represent.
Will the member take an intervention?
I ask members to give me one minute.
I pay tribute to Grahame Smith and welcome him to his new position. I am sure that he will do very well and that his contribution will be in line with those of his predecessors. Although trade unions may not have the glorious radical past that the minister claims for them, I would be the first to admit that they have been an enormous influence for good in relation to issues such as health and safety at work, conditions of employment and pensions. I am pleased to record my appreciation of that involvement, although I accept that the minister's ability to praise the trade unions is somewhat greater than mine.
That may be explained by the fact that I have greater knowledge of the trade unions and their contribution. Given what Bill Aitken has just said, it is very disappointing that he cannot take the opportunity at this time to recognise the role of the trade unions. The fact that we recognise their role does not diminish our commitment to the voluntary sector or others. It does not narrow the agenda—it simply throws light on the particular contribution that trade unions have made. It is extremely disappointing that the Tories, who are supposedly in a new era, cannot bring themselves just to recognise that contribution.
I thought that in the one minute and 17 seconds that I was permitted without interruption I paid tribute to the trade unions for what they have done and are doing. The point that I must continue to make, if the minister will allow me to do so, is that we cannot have proper consultation if the influences on Executive and parliamentary consideration are so narrowly based. I am not picking out the trade unions specifically. I accept that vested interests—people with a bee in their bonnet—should be listened to, but why is so much attention paid to them? We must ensure that there is a much wider focus on public opinion in Scotland and that consultation is not restricted to the vested interests that are consulted at the moment.
Does the member agree that organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors are exactly the kind of vested interests to which he refers?
From the member's perspective, that may well be the case, but the problem for the CBI is that it is not listened to. Very little legislation that goes through the Parliament and is sponsored by the Executive pays any heed whatever to business interests. Less attention is paid to those who create the wealth and bring in the money than to those who, perfectly naturally, spend the money. Until we get matters back into kilter, the governance of Scotland will be ill served.
The minister dealt with three pieces of legislation in respect of which the trade unions have played a prominent role. I agree that the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which was voted through unanimously, was legislation that should have been introduced many years ago. Of course, the problem could have been dealt with by other means. As the minister reminded us in this morning's edition of The Herald, we legislate too much. We could have dealt with the issue simply by taking cases of assaults on ambulance drivers, for example, on indictment. However, it is good that the legislation has been passed.
I feel very strongly about the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill. The minister will be aware that I have been closely involved with that legislation, on the basis of my work in the outside world, when I saw the effects of insurance companies dragging their feet on the settlement of claims. The bill is another positive contribution.
However, until we are prepared to widen the circle of those who have influence in Scottish political affairs, we will not have a balanced society. There is a consultation process every time it is hinted that a piece of legislation will be introduced, and every time the same people, with the same vested interests and the same axes to grind, write in and are listened to disproportionately. We know that the vast majority of the population of Scotland are basically neutral on certain pieces of legislation, although we accept that people who have suffered in particular circumstances will feel very strongly about their experiences. It is regrettable that such an imbalance exists. The only way to sort it out would be for members to agree to my amendment.
I acknowledge the achievements of the trade union movement and welcome the fact that it has modernised and become much more realistic in recent times. That is a good thing. Although I look forward to working with it in the future, I have the right to demand that the Parliament work with a rather less exclusive group.
I move amendment S2M-5269.1, to leave out from "its" to end and insert:
"a partnership with civic Scotland, but stresses that such a partnership should be on as wide a basis as possible including the private sector and business and enterprise groups in order that a more balanced approach be taken towards the governance of Scotland and the achievement of social justice."
Bill Aitken made some valid points about how important it is for the Parliament and the trade union movement to interact and engage with the business community. However, the purpose of the motion is partly to celebrate and pay tribute to the history of the trade union movement in Scotland, so it is rather regrettable that the Executive's motion is so partisan. Instead of adopting a self-congratulatory position, as the Executive is prone to do, it would have been much better simply to pay tribute to a movement that is an important part of Scottish society and to acknowledge its history, its present role and the engagement and good works that it will undertake in the future.
We will not support Mr Aitken's amendment, and although we will be happy to support the Executive's motion, we think that its tone is somewhat inappropriate. However, it would have been churlish not to recognise that today's debate is about acknowledging the role of the trade union movement and its significance to Scotland.
As the minister said, various dynamics exist in our society. There is a constant battle between capital and labour, which is not always manifested on industrial battlegrounds or in strikes. Whether one takes a Marxist perspective or the perspective of Adam Smith, there is always some sort of clash. If we are to protect the rights of workers and society more broadly, it is important that people should come together to protect themselves, not just on pay and conditions, but on broader matters. The Scottish National Party pays tribute to the trade union movement, not simply for the way in which it interacts to ensure that the best benefits are achieved for its members, but for its desire to participate, both with the body politic and with wider civic society, to ensure that Scotland is a much better society.
We should be proud of the history of the trade union movement in Scotland, which Tom Johnston and others have written about at length. Sadly, that history is often not reflected in more contemporary historical accounts. Tragically, as is the case with many aspects of Scottish life, we do not know our own history. The minister was quite right to mention Tolpuddle and Peterloo, but those events took place south of the border. I accept that the labour movement is international and that many of its struggles are international and do not relate just to happenings north and south of the border. For example, there was and continues to be a significant labour movement in the North American continent and elsewhere.
However, the history of trade unionism in Scotland, which could be said to go back to the radical risings of 1820, is significant. We must accept that before trade unions came along in Scotland, weavers such as the Calton weavers were the first groups that came together because they recognised that they had to stand up against the interests of the people to whom they were selling or by whom they were being used, abused and whatever else. They also recognised that they had broader interests. We should pay tribute not just to the people who made sacrifices and, in some instances, gave their lives south of the border—although it is important that we do that—but to the Calton weavers and the people who were involved in the 1820 rising. Such events are fundamental to Scottish history and to the history of the trade union movement in Scotland.
The minister was correct to pay tribute to the important role of women. We do not have to go back to the beginning of the STUC to find evidence of their role. Within our lifetimes, in the protests at Plessey and Lee Jeans, for example, it was ladies who showed commitment and courage in standing up to many of the challenges of Thatcherism. I do not wish to be churlish, but I have to say that in some cases they were advised by their trade union delegates and officials to get out, stop the occupation, cease the fight and instead fight on another front. Thankfully for the history of Scotland and the history of the trade union movement, the rank and file held the faith and managed to bring the leadership round to continuing to support and maintain the occupations. We pay tribute not only to those who hold positions in trade unions but to those who are involved in the broader labour movement.
We must also accept that the trade union movement is part of not only our history but our present. The minister is right to say that the movement has evolved. The nature of trade unions has moved on in my lifetime, from the time when they operated in the shipyards, the steelworks and the coalfields and membership was predominantly male, manual labouring and working class, to the present situation in which, for example, in my household it is my wife rather than me who is a member of Unison. In many cases, women are the main members of societies in which white-collar workers predominate. That reflects economic and social changes. Whether we go back to the treatise of Marx or the treatise of Adam Smith, the role of the trade union movement is part of the society in which we live.
We recognise the role that the trade union movement has played in interacting with the body politic, but we must also pay tribute to the trade union movement as a whole. We must acknowledge what it has done for Scotland in the past, what it does at present and what it will continue to do to make Scotland a better place. Whether a person is a worker or a businessman, we are all in this together and have a shared interest in civic society.
I am happy to support Margaret Curran's motion. We should all recognise the important part that the trade unions have played in Scottish life.
I have had very good experiences, which go back to the unsuccessful referendum campaign of 1979, of dealing with trade unions. For whatever reason, leading Labour and Liberal politicians did not take part in the referendum campaign. Apart from the Tam Dalyell and Jim Sillars roadshow, all the other public meetings of which I am aware were organised by trade unions and addressed by trade union officials and relatively unimportant politicians such as me, leading councillors and the like. We campaigned energetically but unsuccessfully on that occasion.
I again had happy dealings with the trade unionists in the Scottish constitutional convention, although we did not always succeed. On one occasion I was made incandescent, as were many Liberals and trade unionists, by one of the compromises that inevitably happen in such organisations. The number of MSPs for the Parliament was set at 129, which the Scottish trade unions and many people in the Liberal party thought was too small. I think that we were right. The Parliament would have benefited from having a larger number of members. Back benchers are currently so heavily engaged in our various committees that we do not have enough time to take a wider view. We would have gained from having more members.
We certainly co-operated happily with the trade unions. The gentleman from the Labour Party with whom I negotiated most left politics to become owner, manager and promoter of what is probably the leading comedians centre in Edinburgh. I am not sure what that tells us, but he has certainly been extremely successful.
My personal experience of trade unions has been good, but in the 19th century, the Liberal party somewhat lost the plot. We helped to start the trade unions, but in opposing the aristocracy we put too much emphasis on helping manufacturers rather than the trade unions. However, we now have very good relations with the trade unions and value their work.
We should explore ways of involving the talents and public interest of trade unionists more at a local level. Consultation at a local level is not as good as it should be. For whatever reason, good or bad, we have stopped supporting the Scottish Civic Forum, which was supposed to act as a conduit through which small local organisations could influence the Parliament.
We have to replace the Civic Forum with other arrangements. We should encourage the development of community councils and similar bodies. Trade unionists can play an important part in developing ideas for their community. We should have constructive discussions about how best to co-operate with and involve people, rather than just consulting them by sending them a piece of paper and asking them to tick various boxes, which we then ignore. People should be made real partners. We should extend the opportunity to become involved to the people who Bill Aitken mentions in his amendment; we should have an inclusive society. Trade unionists can make a good contribution to their communities as well as nationally.
I hope that the minister and Parliament take that on board. We need there to be good relations between the Executive, Parliament, trade unions, community councils and everyone else. We can perhaps compete to be more consultative and effective than the other lot. I welcome the debate and hope that we all agree to make the best use of the talents and energies of trade unions nationally and locally.
I declare an interest as a proud trade unionist. I am a member of Amicus and Unison, am involved through my constituency with the Communication Workers Union and am in regular contact with the STUC.
There is a notion among some on the right that trade unions should be restricted to the workplace—and some think that they should not exist at all. I believe that trade unions have a right to represent their members not only in the workplace but in wider civic society. They are an essential part of a healthy democracy and those who value democracy should ensure that their role is at the heart of civic society.
It is acknowledged properly in Government and civic institutions that trade union involvement in the democratic process should be a given. The growth of trade union involvement should be encouraged actively by all those who work in the Parliament and the Scottish Executive.
Trade unions, through the STUC, the campaign for a Scottish assembly and the referendum campaign, helped to create this Parliament and were a cornerstone of the constitutional convention. We have their input and commitment to thank for the central role of equal opportunities in the Parliament. I say to Bill Aitken that I also believe that there are a large number of Labour women in the Parliament because the trade union movement supported the 50:50 campaign.
Does Cathy Peattie agree that the trade union movement should be obliged and entitled to represent workers in their workplace from day 1 of their employment, rather than only after 12 months?
We have moved a long way to ensuring trade union membership within the workplace. I am concerned that there are still places where trade union membership is not encouraged and we all have to fight to change that.
Trade unions are frequent contributors to consultations and evidence taking, although it is unfortunate that sometimes their potential contribution is overlooked.
The STUC and the Scottish Executive have agreed a memorandum of understanding, which has led the way in the United Kingdom and given rise to further agreements such as the protocol to prevent two-tier workforces in public services.
Trade unions' civic involvement covers a huge range of issues from community campaigns to international solidarity; peace, freedom and nuclear disarmament; environmental campaigns; campaigns against unemployment, deprivation and exclusion; and campaigns against racism, sexism, sectarianism and all other forms of discrimination. Trade unions seek to extend the benefits of organisation to migrant workers and others and to promote, support and defend the arts.
We should congratulate the STUC on organising a trade union week in the Scottish Parliament and I urge every MSP to support it, speak to the unions and attend as many meetings as they can. Today is a good day for the Parliament and I welcome the representatives of the STUC.
On behalf of the Greens, I congratulate Grahame Smith on his recent appointment, and share the sentiment expressed by Cathy Peattie and others that trade unions are essential to the development of a strong civic society.
I have been particularly inspired by the work of the Australian Builders Labourers Federation, which, between 1968 and 1973, instituted a programme of stopping work on environmentally destructive projects, particularly in Sydney. By 1973, 36 green bans were in operation on projects that would have involved the destruction of green spaces and housing in working-class communities. Indeed, those workers held up projects worth up to £12 billion. In the words of Jack Mundey, the secretary of the BLF,
"What is the use of higher wages alone, if we have to live in a city devoid of parks, denuded of trees, in an atmosphere poisoned by pollution and vibrating with the noise of hundreds of thousands of units of private transport?"
Those are stirring words from one of the leading trade unionists of his generation.
Recently, I learned that Australian Greens senator Robert Brown had discovered that Petra Kelly, founder of the German green party, visited Australia and saw at first hand the green bans that the unions had imposed on untoward developments in Sydney. She took back to Germany the idea—and terminology—of the green ban, which, as best as we can know, gave rise to the term "green" as used by the German green party and, now, by other green parties around Europe, including the Scottish Green Party. Our party's very name originates in the trade union movement. In declaring that workers are concerned as much about environmental and social justice as about what is happening in the workplace, the BLF in New South Wales started the green movement in politics, which is why I am proud to say that the Greens support trade unions and indeed have been working very constructively with the STUC.
Trade unions are vital if Scotland is to move not just into a realm of political democracy through the Parliament but into a realm of economic democracy. To ensure that workers' rights are comprehensively built into the system, economic planning must involve trade unions and have workers' concerns at its core. In that respect, we can learn much from the European countries that recognise that the concept of social partnership is key; that workers, as well as employers, have a stake; and that the Government's role is to bring both together.
As a result, I completely reject Bill Aitken's nonsensical claim that the CBI creates wealth, while trade unionists simply spend it. Trade unionists the length and breadth of Scotland are a key part of creating wealth and a prosperous and diverse society, and their role must be recognised by ensuring that, at all levels, they have more participation in economic development not only in Scotland but across Europe. For example, the European Union public sector procurement directive should acknowledge that workers' rights, environmental responsibilities and social justice must be key aspects of central Government contracts. I am very proud that the European Federation of Green Parties supports the efforts of the European Trade Union Confederation to secure a public services directive that protects workers' rights throughout Europe.
For me, trade union issues and green issues go hand in hand. I very much welcome the debate and this opportunity to emphasise the role of trade unions in Scottish civic society.
First, I must declare my interests as registered in the register of members' interests. My constituency party has a constituency agreement with Amicus; I am a member of Unison; and I was supported by the STUC in the production of my consultation on culpable homicide.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and to nail my colours firmly to the mast, as the Tories have done. I was brought up in a Labour and trade union household and I remember my mother, who never earned more than £100 a week, negotiating for fair pay and better holidays for the people she worked with, against the wishes of the people who controlled the industry. When I started work, joining a trade union was the natural thing to do—I joined what was then the National Union of Public Employees. The relationships that started then remain strong.
In many ways, I cut my political teeth in the trade union movement. I join other members in congratulating Grahame Smith on his appointment as general secretary of the STUC. He was a great support to me when I was chair of the STUC's youth committee and a member of the STUC general council and I am sure that he will make a positive contribution to public life in Scotland.
David Cameron has tried to reinvent the Tories, to make them softer, cuddlier, more approachable and more attractive to wider society. He is in his first year of office as party leader. However, the amendment to the motion shows us the real Tories, who cannot even bear to use the words "trade union" in an amendment. The amendment uses the word "partnership" twice and calls for a "balanced approach", but the balanced partnership that is called for is to be with the
"private sector and business and enterprise groups".
Members may call me old fashioned, but that does not look much like a balanced partnership. In a partnership, both sides should be represented. If the partnership is to work, employer and employee are both needed.
I am looking at the amendment and that is exactly what we are asking for. We simply ask for the addition of the private sector and business and enterprise groups. Nothing in the amendment excludes the trade union movement.
The amendment would delete from the motion everything that refers to the trade union movement and it does not mention trade unions. Either Bill Aitken does not know what is in the amendment or the amendment sets out what the Tories want to do.
I believe in a social partnership. Where is the CBI when we talk about a social partnership? The trade unions and the STUC asked whether they could get round the table on a social partnership basis, but the Tories' friends told them to get lost. If we want a genuine partnership, everyone must be represented at the table. I want the consultation that Mr Aitken talked about to be meaningful.
During the past few years, I have spent a good deal of time giving detailed consideration to culpable homicide by corporate bodies. During the summer, I issued a consultation paper on a change to the law on culpable homicide in Scotland because four of my constituents had died in a terrible tragedy and there is growing concern that Scottish workers are twice as likely to die at their work than are their English counterparts. I wrote to a wide range of groups, including all the business organisations, and asked for responses, but the biggest business organisation has yet to respond to my consultation. That is not partnership working. I genuinely wanted to hear everyone's views on the issue.
If we are serious about partnership, everyone must get round the table. The issue is not what is bad or good, or right or wrong; it is about people working together. The trade unions are workers, consumers and earners and they deserve their place in the Parliament. I welcome the motion in the minister's name and I hope that members will support it.
I offer the Parliament the apologies of my colleagues in the Scottish Socialist Party, who will be absent from this afternoon's debates. They are attending the funeral of Rosie Kane's father, who, sadly, passed away this week.
As members appreciate, the SSP attaches great importance to the role that trade unions play in civic Scotland and to the issue that we will debate next. Like other members, I will nail my colours to the mast, as Karen Gillon put it. I have been a trade union member all my working life and I am proud of that. The SSP group welcomed the new general secretary of the STUC, Grahame Smith, to our meeting yesterday, which took place as part of the organisation's trade union week in the Parliament—other members rightly welcomed that initiative.
The SSP is an unashamedly pro-trade union party. We are immensely proud of our trade union record: no group of workers that has come to ask for our party's help has ever been turned away empty handed. These past three years, I have been on picket lines and have enjoyed delivering the full support of the SSP to firefighters, nursery nurses, bus drivers, electricians, civil servants and textile workers. As all workers know, it is actions that count in politics; they are far louder than words.
At the centre of the debate is Labour's relationship with the trade union movement, which the minister mentioned in her opening remarks. That has been an interesting historical journey and it is quite right that it should be the centre of the discussion. A hundred years ago, the trade union movement established the Labour Party. Why did it do so? Because coal miners, gas workers, railwaymen and individuals such as James Keir Hardie were sick to the back teeth of the Liberals, which, as Donald Gorrie rightly pointed out, were the party that working men primarily backed. They were sick and tired of the repeated failure of the Liberals to represent their interests. Keir Hardie who, like myself, was a native of Motherwell, said at meetings the length and breadth of the country, "You see they Liberals; they don't give a monkey's about working people. We need a party of our own." To his immense credit, he devoted his life to that cause and established such a party. He realised that, in the final analysis, the Liberals sided with the coal owners against the coal miners, with the shipbuilding companies against the shipyard workers and with the bosses against the people. The situation remains the same to this day.
There is no question but that if Keir Hardie was around today, he would be horrified to see what has become of his beloved Labour Party, which has assumed the mantle of the Liberals of 100 years ago. It clearly does not give a monkey's about working people and prefers what it calls partnerships with business and global conglomerates.
Will the member give way?
Sorry, I do not have time.
Members do not have to take my word for it. Think about what the nursery nurses got when they came to the Parliament looking for support, or about when the unions came to the Parliament asking for the protection of public services and got privatisation. When the unions argued for the protection of jobs at the Solectron, Motorola and Lexmark sites, they were told, "There's nothing we can do." The workers at Mackinnon Mills in Coatbridge have now been on strike for 10 weeks over their pay of £3.29 an hour, which is below the national minimum wage, but what has the Executive done? Did it immediately call in its partners in industry and say that the situation is not on? No; it said that the decision is a commercial one and that it cannot do anything about it.
As usual, Bill Aitken is completely wrong on the matter. His amendment, which says that the Executive is not listening closely to business, the private sector or enterprise groups, could not be more wrong. Labour members were right to berate him for that, because it is complete bunkum. The fact is that the STUC has far less influence on the Executive than business, the professions and enterprise groups have. Business has a disproportionate influence on the Executive, which eclipses almost completely that of the unions.
The motion talks about partnership. The problem with the theory is what happens to the interests of all the partners when the interests of one partner are inimical to those of the others or, in other words, when we cannot satisfy all the partners at the same time. On every occasion when such conflicts arise, Labour has nailed its colours to the mast, as Karen Gillon said, and sided with capital. The partnership is estranged, if not entirely abusive.
I am proud to declare my interest as a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland and GMB and as a lifelong trade unionist. As a Labour and Co-operative MSP, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am proud of my party's continuing link with the organised industrial wing of the labour movement. I am delighted to support a motion that acknowledges the central importance of the trade union movement to a democratic, progressive Scotland.
I am pleased that the newly appointed general secretary of the STUC, Grahame Smith, and members of the STUC general council are in the public gallery to witness our proceedings—welcome, colleagues. It is right and fitting that they are here because, as members have said, the STUC took a leading role in the campaign for home rule and the establishment of the devolved Parliament. It played a crucial role in the defence of working people's interests in the years of Thatcher, Major and the Tory offensive. I should note that the pettifogging terms of the Tory amendment show clearly that, despite the avuncular Mr David "Call me Dave" Cameron, the Conservative party has not changed fundamentally.
The STUC played a vital role in the 50:50 campaign. I am proud to be a member of the only major party in Scotland that formally included that condition in its selection process. If it were not for the assiduous part played by the trade unions in the Scottish constitutional convention, it would have been a weaker and less commanding body.
The STUC, along with other civic partners, continues to play a positive part in the moulding of Scottish society. The Labour-led Executive recognised that in a memorandum of understanding, which is a formal mechanism for continuing dialogue between the Government and the trade union movement. That is a good thing. I congratulate the trade union movement on its work in a number of areas: its backing of the determined to succeed initiative; its work with the Scottish Women's Convention; and its essential work on and support for the various campaigns and initiatives relating to the protection of workers who serve the public. Those are all vital and laudable areas of work.
I will go into some detail on the Scottish union learning fund and the one workplace equal rights project. The union learning fund, which was established in 2000, has so far committed £4.9 million of investment in 69 union-led learning projects from 25 separate unions. In 2005, the Executive and the STUC developed a proposal that led to additional funding being provided for the creation of the STUC skills and lifelong learning team. That has meant an increased day-to-day partnership approach to union learning. There is also the Scottish union academy, which will be a very good thing when it is fully developed and which is essential to the development of union-led learning in future. I commend the trade union movement for the one workplace equal rights project, which complements the Labour-led Executive's one Scotland campaign and its attack on racism in our society.
In talking of social and economic justice, I say that I hope that our colleagues at Westminster will also be able to play their part in supporting the enactment of a trade union freedom bill in the year of the 100th anniversary of the Trades Dispute Act 1906. Such a bill would allow trade unions to carry out their essential work on a level playing field. The STUC and the Trades Union Congress support those reforms, which, while modest, are the norm in most of Europe. I commend the STUC and the TUC for that. Free trade unions are a positive contributor to the democratic, progressive Scotland most citizens would like. They are a force for good. They combat poverty and they enrich our nation. I commend the motion.
I should also declare an interest. I am a member of two unions: the National Farmers Union Scotland, and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which, under its charter, has the right to act as a trade union. This has been an interesting debate—with the participation of Margaret Curran, it has been like the old times. I do not know why Ms Curran has been kept away from us, because we have missed her. This is the kind of debate in which she excels because she does not let facts get in the way of a good argument.
The Conservatives are not opposed to trade unions—I admire the work of many of them. I congratulate Grahame Smith on his appointment and hope that he has a successful time in post. If he wants to come to the Conservatives' corridor for a chat on any issue, at any time, we would welcome him. As Kenny MacAskill correctly said, this is a narrow debate, which could have been wider. Mr MacAskill described the tone of the motion as "somewhat inappropriate". No one is arguing about the role of trade unions or knocking the proud history of their good works. I had been going to mention, before Bill Butler did, the education role of trade unions. I have been in employment around the United Kingdom and I have seen the Mechanics Institute in Burnley and so on. It is not just the Carnegies of the world who did that sort of thing for the ordinary folk out there. The trade unions should be very proud of that.
However, I have issues with the clarity and openness of political funding. I do not object to a trade union member donating money to politics, but he should not be told by his union where he should put it.
The member will be aware that his party's Government introduced legislation that requires every trade union to hold a political fund ballot. All those ballots have been successful in the past. If he is in favour of such a partnership and the positive role of trade unions, will he tell us why the Conservatives have removed all reference to the trade unions in their amendment?
I do not believe that we have, because we have talked about a broader partnership. As Donald Gorrie said, the issue is community involvement for the various groups. It is not about who is more equal than others but about the wider connection with society, which is what I thought the Scottish Parliament was supposed to be about.
I take it that David Davidson would agree that every corporation that donates to the Tory pary should ballot its employees or, at least, its shareholders before it makes those donations.
That point is answerable at every shareholders meeting every year. Questions are asked and the answers are there for everybody to see.
One or two other members made interesting comments. Cathy Peattie went on about people coming to the Parliament. This week, we have had Help the Aged and a range of other organisations in the Parliament, and we welcome that. I do not object to trade unions coming. They have as valid a right to be here as every other campaign group.
I was interested in Mark Ballard's comment that there should be no more construction work in Scotland. I wonder whether the unions favour that comment.
Colin Fox was right to talk about actions not words and to say that the unions established the Labour Party, which I think he said is now supported by business-based life peers.
I congratulate Bill Butler on his comments on the union learning fund.
When I was an employer, my staff were free to join any union that they wanted to join—I did not believe any nonsense about what employees can and cannot do—but the relationship that I had with them was based on my experience of working with them. Workers must have choice. I do not object to what the minister said, but I object to the style in which she said it.
I declare my membership of the Transport and General Workers Union and the highly active Scottish National Party trade union group. I have no issue at all with Margaret Curran's motion. I could nitpick about it if I really wanted to but, as Kenny MacAskill said, today should be a celebration of the work of past, present and future trade unions. The Tory amendment is a bit disingenuous, so we will not be supporting that.
The work of trade unions for workers in Scotland has been covered, so I will focus on the movement's support and campaigning work. We all know that the trade union movement in Scotland is overwhelmingly opposed to all nuclear weapons and does not support the replacement of Trident. Unions also believe that there are grounds to justify an independent inquiry into the use of Scottish airports by Central Intelligence Agency rendition flights and do great work in campaigning against dawn raids and for the rights of asylum seekers and their children.
I would like the Government and Parliament to join those campaigns. The STUC does not recognise matters as being reserved or devolved; it just recognises whether issues are right or wrong and campaigns accordingly.
In international matters, too, our unions have long supported trade unionists in adversity and solidarity causes. The Fire Brigades Union's long hard work to help the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa is an example of that.
Trade union rights in Central and Latin American nations are a particular interest of mine. I was privileged to meet trade unionists in Peru while it was under the oppressive Fujimori regime. Thankfully, things in Peru are improving somewhat, but they must be watched carefully. Despite all the talk about the sweep of the left wing and socialism through Latin America, there are still quite a few countries in the region that have not been caught up in that change and could do with being watched. When Gilberth Bermúdez, the general secretary of Costa Rica's SITRAP union visited me a few years ago and told me of the on-going struggle in his country against the world's largest fruit companies and when Doris Calvo spoke at the SNP conference of her people's struggle against the kidnapping and intimidation of union activists, I was glad to know that Bill Spiers, the STUC and trade union members throughout Scotland were offering support.
However, the struggle is still going on. SITRAP banana and pineapple members have been threatened with mass sackings and, inside the plantations in Costa Rica, there is a permanent and intense campaign to intimidate and threaten workers with blacklisting or plantation closure if they join the union. Trade unionists throughout Scotland are still working to help their fellow workers on the other side of the world.
That brings me to my final point, which relates to the political levy. I understand why the political levy was put in place and agree with the reasons for doing that, as it provided necessary support for the labour movement at the time. However, times have changed. I would like union funds to be used to support international solidarity for workers. As an example of how that can be done, I have examined what SASK, the Trade Union Solidarity Centre of Finland, is doing. It was founded by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions and its affiliated unions in 1986 and functions as part of the Finnish and international trade union movement to strengthen trade unions in every corner of the world. That is what we should be about: the international solidarity of those who have to work for a living.
SASK promotes social and economic equality in the developing countries in the Baltic region and in the new democracies close to Finland by supporting organisations that are not as strong as it is. I am particularly interested in a project that it is funding in Peru, which is designed to bring together the two unions that operate in the mining industry, in which there are many abuses of workers. SASK's projects are jointly planned and implemented by workers from the local organisations. SASK's activities are funded by member unions, the Government of Finland and the European Commission. A branch or an individual member of a trade union can support SASK's projects by regularly paying a percentage or by being a support member. I think that that model is something that trade union members across our country would think was a good idea and would be happy to support.
The Executive's motion talks about how we achieved a new politics in Scotland. I would like that new politics, which has engaged civic society, to move on. I think that allowing our unions freely to assist trade unions and their members across the world would be a good way for that to happen.
I note Rosie Kane's absence from the chamber and ask Colin Fox to pass on our condolences to her.
I will not rise to the bait of David Davidson's insults—I will leave that for another time—but I will say a few words about the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Tories. I would not want to disappoint them, so I assure them that we can have a good old-fashioned political row in here. I thank the Tories for showing their true colours. It was not my party that snubbed the CBI; it was David Davidson's leader, which shows a bit of inconsistency in the Tories' position.
The Tories claim that they are at pains to acknowledge the role of the unions but, as Karen Gillon pointed out, they could not bear to say that and that alone. I agree with Karen Gillon that their amendment would delete the key words from the motion. However, what pains them more is the fact that, although they have for some time thought that they are the only party that can bring prosperity to the nation and that no other party can deliver economic growth and manage trade union relations, we have proved that it is possible to bring about years of industrial peace and economic prosperity by working constructively with trade unions and by delivering a partnership that works in the best interests of the people whom we represent.
The minister will need to go and check her statistics. More working days have been lost since Tony Blair came to power than were lost in the days of Thatcherism.
I will take a leaf out of Kenny MacAskill's book and ask the member to look at Scottish history a bit more. I do not think that any Scots would wish us to go back to the days of the miners' strike—that is not how people want the Government to conduct industrial relations. The Labour Government in Westminster and the Scottish Executive have much more constructive relations with trade unions because we believe in partnership and in constructive approaches. We have seen a great illustration this afternoon of how the Tories would change that.
The key to our approach is recognition that we cannot resist all social and economic change and that we must instead attempt to shape that change and manage it in a progressive direction so that it works in the interests of the many, not the few. We have seen great evidence of that approach working in Scotland—I hope that it will continue as we meet the challenges of the future.
In work on the fresh talent initiative, the Scottish Trades Union Congress has given us support in ensuring that new Scots who come here are valued not just as workers but as citizens. There are students here today from Northumberland who have come to look at the work that we are doing to promote our new citizens and to ensure that they gain access to all that Scotland can offer.
I acknowledge Bill Butler's point about the trade unions' contribution to tackling racism in Scotland. The one Scotland, many cultures campaign is an extremely effective Executive policy. The significant contribution that it makes is recognised throughout Scotland and the trade unions have helped by taking it into the workplace.
I was particularly disappointed by what Bill Aitken said about consultation and the way in which we try to engage with broader civic society. Concentrating on one particular debate or partner does not mean that we diminish or disregard the roles of others. We have broad relationships with business—we do not snub business, as the Conservatives do—and with young people's organisations, the faith sector and the voluntary sector. We will continue to have those relationships, not just because we want to encourage people to participate in our democracy, valuable though that is, but because we want to go beyond consultation.
This will probably pain Bill Aitken, but I have to say that we get great recognition throughout the world for our innovative techniques in consultation and engagement. Trade unions will continue to be a key part of that agenda, not just as passive consultees, but as active partners. We do not want dialogue only with a few people at the top—we need access to a network of people who work in the front line of industry and services. That emphasis on listening to people who work in industry and services is key to our approach. Again, that approach is very different from the Conservatives' approach.
We also provide opportunities for people who have traditionally not been heard by Government. In going well beyond vested interests and the usual suspects, we want to hear from people who have different perspectives and we are very willing to do that. As Linda Fabiani said, we are trying to inaugurate the new politics so that we go beyond those who have traditionally been included.
This has been not a narrow debate but a wide-ranging debate that has acknowledged the role of the trade unions in their various guises and the contributions that they make to society. They work directly with the workforce, but they are often involved in changes that benefit many people in society. More broadly, they also contribute to economic prosperity and social change. Despite the voices of those who try to prevent it, we must maintain our constructive focus to ensure that Parliament, the Executive and we as a country meet the challenges of the future. Trade unions will be a vital part of that, not just because we have them as partners but because they bring a particular perspective and experience to Government. We cannot do business without the trade unions.
I am pleased that we took the opportunity to have this debate largely, to be honest, because it flushed out what the Tories are really like, but also to show the trade unions that they have, in the Executive, a partner that is committed to ensuring that they get proper recognition. We will take forward the agendas that meet their members' needs, but we will also listen to them as they offer valuable perspectives on the policies that we need to take Scotland forward.