Equal Pay
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5105, in the name of Carolyn Leckie, on funding equal pay.
The Scottish Socialist Party is proud to give its very limited time to debating this issue. I invite other parties in the chamber to set aside more time for it in the future because, unfortunately, it will be necessary given the state of emergency that is now approaching in local authorities.
First, I have an interest to declare. I am a member of Unison, and I make absolutely no apology for standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with Unison members and the other trade unionists who are involved in the disputes that are brewing. I have another interest to declare. I am holding in my hand my sister's personal statement from Glasgow City Council about changes to her salary and terms and conditions. She is set to lose £2,863.45—we must not forget the 45p—despite being a woman, when the changes were supposed to be about addressing unequal pay for women, and despite working with adults who have complex learning disabilities.
When the single status agreement was reached, equal pay had been a matter of law for almost three decades, but for all that time, women have had their labour stolen, and over their lifetimes, they have been short-changed by hundreds of thousands of pounds. That inequality persists, but the legislation allows only five years backdating if the woman is successful at an employment tribunal. Even that is a fraction of what women are actually due.
Local authorities across the country, including Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, Falkirk, Perth and Kinross and others have offered compensation for retrospective inequality that is also a fraction of that which women are due. It is despicable that low-paid women were effectively blackmailed by the threat of cuts in jobs and services into signing away their right to pursue employment tribunal claims by councils that took advantage of the fact that those women had never before seen lump sums of just a few hundred pounds. Those agreements and waivers are legally dubious and might well be challenged.
I do not know whether any of the political parties in the chamber would be brave enough to argue that equal pay should be achieved by levelling down the pay of men and other low-paid women workers, but failing to make funds available to bridge the gender pay gap is tantamount to arguing that. It might be appropriate to level pay down in some cases, for men in boardrooms and other positions of power such as chief executives, the odd Prime Minister and the odd First Minister perhaps, but women have not struggled for decades for men to be paid as little as they are. Women have struggled for decades to be paid at least as much as men; they deserve at least as much as men, and even that is modest given the lower average wage rates in Scotland across the genders.
Equal pay should be achieved by levelling up. That can be supported, as the Equal Opportunities Commission has advised, by job evaluation schemes that are genuinely free from gender bias, but local authorities are not using such job evaluation schemes, and there are inherent problems in the processes that some local authorities still use. The issue should have been sorted many years ago, but we now see the spectre of ballots for industrial action over pay cuts, reduced terms and conditions, and draconian 90-day notices being issued—in Falkirk, for example. Some councils have at least put their cards on the table, but many other councils have done absolutely nothing.
Many people and organisations are culpable. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities was keen, in its briefing, to ensure that MSPs who were previously councillors and council officials accept their responsibility. I wonder who COSLA was talking about. It definitely meant Charlie Gordon, I would think. Will other members who are willing to take responsibility put their hands up? Many people are to blame, but nobody is prepared to accept that blame.
I am pleased that Bruce Crawford seems prepared to accept some responsibility.
More important, those who are definitely not to blame—4,500 employees, or one in six of the workforce, of Glasgow City Council, for example—are being made to pay. Willie and Kate, who are visitor assistants in Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum are set to lose between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. Politicians, particularly in the Government, like to cash in on the kudos of the revamped Kelvingrove, but when it comes to taking action to avoid the hardship of the gallery's staff it is a different story. Those hardest hit in the culture and leisure services department are 90 per cent female. How can it be anything to do with equal pay if low-paid women are being robbed to offer meagre gains to other low-paid women?
It is not the fault of the home carers who are losing essential income from unsocial hours and weekend enhancements. It is not the fault of Karen, who works in social work, has a teenage son and is losing more than £3,000 from her salary, or of Jeanette, a senior library assistant, and her husband, who are losing £4,000 between them. Nor is it the fault of voluntary organisations such as the community health projects, which have had 60 per cent of their funding cut by Glasgow City Council, or of the many other services that face cuts in contracting out.
It is local and national Government that is culpable, yet Government and local government expect the workforce to pay again for their inaction, incompetence and failure to fund, and for the discrimination that those workers have suffered for decades.
My motion is simple. The Executive must back up the law and its stated policy, confirmed again in its amendment today, with resources. We need deeds, not words. Equal pay is supposed to be an Executive priority, but mainstreaming equality is not even referred to in the draft budget under the local government finance heading. My motion is not prescriptive about how much the figure should be or about what agreements will be acceptable to the unions, but I know that the Executive cannot wash its hands of the matter.
Workers and the public who rely on the services that are under attack will not be interested in the intricacies or nuances of the legal debate or in the history of the debacle, but they will hold elected representatives, local and national, to account. They are sick to death of arrogant politicians riding roughshod over their livelihoods, communities, services and concerns. The United States mid-term elections should be a warning to arrogant politicians everywhere. The cuts and ballots are happening now. COSLA says that it wants to talk to the Executive at the right time. If that is not now, when will the right time be? How much disruption will the Executive stand on the sidelines watching?
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Executive has a responsibility, which includes the allocation of appropriate funding to assist local authorities, in agreement with the trade unions, to achieve equal pay and maintain public services.
Carolyn Leckie is correct to say that the debate and the subject are important, and I am pleased to speak in the morning's debate to make clear the Executive's position on equal pay. We know that equal pay is a key issue on the road to achieving gender equality, and Scotland is making real progress in closing the gender pay gap. Using the international definition, Scotland has consistently performed better than the rest of the United Kingdom, and over the past eight years male and female earnings increased by more in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. The pay gap between men and women has narrowed by 7.2 per cent since 1998, compared with a 4 per cent reduction in the UK as a whole, and wages in Scotland are now the fourth highest in the UK.
There have been many advances for women in the workplace since the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Despite those advances, however, we know that a pay gap still exists, and in the 21st century it is not acceptable that women are paid less, on average, than men for doing the same work or work of equal value. I am sure that that view is shared across the chamber.
Women are entitled to a fair deal and that is why we continue to invest in the close the gap campaign and to work in partnership with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Equal Opportunities Commission and Scottish Enterprise to realise the aims of that campaign. Together, we are raising awareness of the gender pay gap and the reasons for it, and we are encouraging employers and employees to take action to close it. In doing so, we will see benefits to all Scots, to Scotland's workplaces and to Scotland's economy.
I have a straightforward question. Will the minister explain why there is no reference to the equal pay situation in the draft budget for 2007-08?
The Executive publishes many documents on that subject, and the Minister for Communities champions those issues across the Executive, so our record on championing equal pay and addressing women's issues is second to none.
Our role in raising awareness and encouraging employers applies equally to local government. There are challenges that local authorities must overcome to fulfil their obligations under both the equal pay legislation and their own single status agreements. As the Executive has made clear a number of times, that is a matter for which local authorities are responsible. The Executive was, quite properly, not involved in the negotiations that led to the single status pay agreements in 1999. Those negotiations took place between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the trade unions. As councils often remind us, they are independent corporate bodies and are responsible for the conduct of their own affairs.
Will the minister give way on that point?
I would like to make a little more progress, if Mr Davidson does not mind.
It would be wrong for ministers to interfere in discussions between local authorities, their staff and the unions. Our approach to public sector reform is about devolution of responsibility and taking decision making closer to the people affected by those decisions. We do not have a centralising agenda and we have no desire to dictate to councils how they should run their affairs. They are responsible and accountable first and foremost to their electorate, but also to their own employees.
The Executive's position is quite clear. It is a matter for local authorities to resolve. Councillor Pat Watters, president of COSLA, agreed with our position in his recent letter to the Finance Committee.
The minister has talked exclusively about local government, but what are the Executive's plans for funding single status in the health service?
The national health service is clearly dealing with that, and the matter will be resolved.
How?
Those issues are being addressed through agreements in agenda for change. Agreement was reached a number of years ago and is now being implemented.
As I was saying, Councillor Pat Watters confirmed that it is the responsibility of local government to sort the matter out. He further noted that, as the national employers' organisation, COSLA is active in discussions with groups of councils to move them through the process, and is engaged in intensive discussions with the unions nationally. That position could not be clearer, and that approach is absolutely right. It is in everyone's interests to allow it to continue and I encourage councils and unions to do everything possible to resolve the issue without further delay.
Implementing agreements will, of course, have financial implications. We consider it essential that local authorities strike a balance between what is fair and equitable, not just for the staff concerned but also for council tax payers. The Executive provides significant levels of funding to local councils, as a result of which COSLA estimated, in its evidence to the Finance Committee in February this year, that of the £1 billion that local authorities held in their reserves, around 25 per cent, or £250 million, was not allocated for a particular purpose. In his evidence to the Finance Committee in February, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform suggested that local authorities look to their reserves to help meet the costs of their equal pay responsibilities. I believe that local authorities now accept that that is an appropriate course of action and are saying so. It is clearly in everyone's interest that the employers and the unions seek to resolve those matters, and I urge them to do so as quickly as possible. However, they must do so with no pressure, interference or intrusion from the Executive.
Although we cannot and will not get involved in specific negotiations between employers and employees, we will continue to support measures to close the equal pay gap and lead by example. We will continue to challenge the persistent inequalities between women and men's pay and will continue to support progress to narrow the pay gap—to benefit women and to benefit Scotland's economy.
I move amendment S2M-5105.4, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:
"recognises that closing the equal pay gap will benefit all Scots, Scotland's workplaces and Scotland's economy; agrees that it is the responsibility of local authorities as independent bodies to implement the single status pay agreement which they themselves negotiated, and encourages employers and unions to make every effort to reach an agreement that is fair and equitable and protects the staff concerned, council taxpayers and the services that local authorities deliver."
There was in the minister's comments an inherent contradiction in respect of the Government's attitude to local authorities. On the one hand the minister says that the Government is not to be involved at all in resolving the outstanding and long-running issue of how to handle the single status agreement and equal pay—which has gone on unresolved for far too long—because those are inherently local matters that are to be resolved by local authorities. However, time after time we come to the chamber to be told by ministers about direction of local authorities that is being set by the Executive, and about parcels of funding that are devolved to local authorities in a strictly ring-fenced fashion. The level of direction that ministers exert on local authorities contradicts the minister's comments about the wider issue of equal pay and single status.
Does not Mr Swinney agree that there has been a reduction in the use of ring fencing since this Executive came to power? Eighty-five per cent of moneys that are supplied to local government are unhypothecated; it is for local authorities to prioritise and decide how to spend that money.
We hear constantly about money being allocated to local authorities—outside the grant-aided expenditure formula and with strings attached—to be spent on particular purposes. The Government exerts influence in a variety of ways.
It is a waste of time to play the blame game on equal pay and single status. I see that Mr Brownlee is shaking his head—I am disappointed by his amendment, which plays the blame game. The blame game does not take us further forward. The process has gone on for far too long. Equal pay must be addressed, but it must be addressed hand in hand with the debate on single status. The issues must be resolved together, otherwise we will get into a vicious circle in which the problem will repeat itself.
I believe that local authorities, individuals and trade unions must co-operate in the process, but there is little evidence that that is happening. I am advised by local authorities that are at an advanced stage in the process that they get so far, but the trade unions—which have up to that point been perfectly co-operative—then refuse to sign off a deal because they are afraid, as the local authorities may be, that the deals will be turned over in legal actions.
The process must be fair, it must have consent and it must have the confidence of the individuals who are involved. Once the single status judgments are arrived at, every effort must be made to support those who lose out in acquiring new skills and new abilities to ensure that in due course their salaries can be enhanced and that in the long term there is no loss of income, because for at least three, or perhaps four, years individuals will have their financial settlement protected.
That brings me to the role of the Scottish Executive. Given that the process has gone on for far too long, the Executive must get into the mix to try to accelerate the process of change. The financial envelope that the Executive makes available to local authorities has an essential part to play in resolving the issue. I agree with the minister that, on the issue of equal pay, local authorities are probably in a financial position to use reserves and other assets that they no longer require to settle equal pay claims. Single status, however, has a revenue implication. I disagree with Carolyn Leckie in that respect. It is not all about levelling down because, as far as I can see, in some of the deals that have been advanced the total salary bill is increasing. The Executive must address the revenue issue. I appeal to the minister to do so in the forthcoming financial settlement for 2007-08.
I will make a couple of remarks about the briefing that has been made available to members today from the president of COSLA. I do not think that I have seen a more pathetic document—and I have seen many pathetic documents in my time. It is laughable for the president of COSLA to come along to us and say that the issue is as relevant in 2006 as it has been since 1996, but then say that
"there is no quick fix".
That is an abdication of responsibility by COSLA. Many local authorities are working hard to try to resolve the problem, but they are not being well supported by COSLA. I encourage ministers to bang some heads together to make progress.
I move amendment S2M-5105.1, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:
"calls on the Scottish Executive to facilitate discussions between COSLA, local authorities and trade unions to deliver a fair and speedy resolution to the equal pay and single status issue and to ensure that the implications of such agreement are reflected in the 2007-08 local authority financial settlement."
I must apologise for disappointing Mr Swinney, although perhaps he had better get used to disappointment.
As Carolyn Leckie said, this important issue affects everyone in Scotland. The employees are directly affected, but it also affects council tax payers, who will worry that they will have to foot the bill for any tax rises, or suffer service cuts that may be required because of the failure to balance the books. The same applies to taxpayers and service users at national level, who would suffer the same effects if the bill were to be passed on to national Government.
COSLA has told us that the cost of implementing single status might exceed £560 million. I am told that a supermodel will not get out of bed for less than £10,000, which makes me wonder how large a sum would bring the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform from his office to the chamber today: £560 million seems to me to be a sum that he might properly be concerned about. What we know is that, as far as finance ministers go, Mr McCabe is certainly no supermodel.
The real issue, which Mr Swinney alluded to, is that unions and councils must share the blame.
On sharing the blame, can Derek Brownlee cast his mind back to local government reorganisation, which ushered in the period of the single status requirement? The Tories ushered in local government reform, but did not acknowledge in any financial settlements that it might have consequences. Do not the Tories share some responsibility for the mess that we are now in?
Local government reorganisation took place 11 years ago. There have not been many Conservative-led councils during that period and there has not been a Conservative Government since 1997. Councils must take some responsibility. Unions talk damningly about the record of Scotland's councils. They talk about a "£600 million travesty" and say that this is not a victimless crime. However, imagine what the unions would be saying if a private company had done this, rather than councils. They would have been screaming blue murder. Why have they not done so? Is it because they want to protect Labour councillors or is it because their own lawyers were not effective enough in representing their members, the result of which is that their members are having to go—horror of horrors—to employment lawyers outwith the union?
The unions also make the argument, which Bruce Crawford is perhaps suggesting he has sympathy with, that it is all the fault of the last Conservative Government. Unison's evidence to the Finance Committee inquiry seemed to suggest that the Conservatives should, back in 1993, have had the foresight to deal with the issue. However, Unison went on to say that employers and trade unions could not have foreseen the scale of the pay liability in 1999 and it blames the increase in the scale of the liability on actions of the United Kingdom Government in 2003.
If we believe Unison, Labour could not have known in 1999, but the Conservatives ought to have known in 1993. If that lazy-thinking drivel is the best that trade unions can come up with, who can blame their members for looking to others to represent them and defend them?
Mr Swinney referred to the briefing note that we received from Councillor Pat Watters yesterday. COSLA is right to say that it is for local government to deal with single status. Unlike the Burt commission, I believe in local accountability. However, COSLA asks us to believe that
"we have an end point in mind for the delivery of Single Status across the country"
but refuses to tell us what that end point might be. COSLA was, to put it mildly, not best pleased when the Finance Committee suggested in March that the matter should be resolved within 12 months.
Mr Watters is right to say that
"Single Status has not just suddenly emerged",
but I detect a bit of a veiled threat when he says that many MSPs were
"leading Councillors during the period of time that single status has been around".
He states:
"you failed to spot it or deal with it as well. Many of you are equally culpable".
At least COSLA is finally accepting culpability in the matter.
Our amendment asks the Government to put on trade unions and councils whatever pressure it can to reach an agreement. However, the Government also has a broader responsibility to taxpayers: it is not here to bail out councils and unions that are unable to make hard choices or to agree a cost-neutral way of implementing single status while expecting others to pick up the tab.
I move amendment S2M-5105.2, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:
"supports the principles of the Equal Pay Act 1970; condemns the failure of local authorities and trades unions to reach agreement on the implementation of single status; recognises the importance of protecting taxpayers at all levels from the consequences of this failure, and calls on the Scottish Executive to exert pressure on local authorities and trades unions to reach an agreement fair to employees and taxpayers."
I doubt that anyone in the Scottish Parliament would not subscribe to the principle of equal pay, and I am sure that many of us fervently wish for public services to be maintained. However, the situation is far more complex than the motion or Carolyn Leckie's speech suggest. As others have said, the Finance Committee came up against some of the complications during its inquiry into the financial implications of the local authority single status agreement, the report of which was published in March this year.
The Finance Committee did not conclude that the Scottish Executive should commit either to funding the single status agreement or to funding backdated equal pay claims. The two issues are not the same but they are strongly interconnected: until single status is resolved between local authorities and trade unions, the possibility of additional equal pay claims will remain. It worries me that some local authorities have made their equal pay offers without having solved the single status problem, because a further round of equal pay claims could be coming up.
The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970 and the single status agreement was signed in 1999, when it was intended that it should be implemented in 2002. It is no consolation to say that we should not be where we are. As others have said, the payment of bonuses to some employees—usually men—but not to others—usually women—was acknowledged as an equalities issue about 10 years ago.
Some of us in the chamber today, me included, were councillors at that time. Casting our minds back, we can remember that not only did we have local government reorganisation, we had exceedingly difficult local government settlements under Mr Michael Forsyth. I am sure that Des McNulty can recall that those of us who were in Strathclyde Regional Council had to set a council tax increase of somewhere between 20 per cent and 25 per cent in 1995, so that we could deal with problems. I suspect that such things were behind the fact that some councils did not solve other problems even though those problems had been acknowledged.
I was a little surprised by some of Mr Brownlee's comments about independent solicitors. The intervention of independent solicitors who imply to employees on low pay that they will somehow be able to obtain a wonderful and enormous settlement by going down the independent route has done a great deal of damage. Councils are threatened with being taken to tribunals, and trade unions might be sued. That is making it extremely difficult for both partners to come together to work out appropriate settlements.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry; I have only just over a minute left.
It is easy to say that the Scottish Executive should simply reach into its magic wallet and pull out the cash to settle the problem. We do not know how much money would be involved in meeting the costs of equal pay and single status. COSLA estimates that the cost of equal pay compensation could range from £310 million to £560 million, and Unison thinks that the figure might be even higher.
The equal pay issue cannot be compared directly with the agenda for change, which is an Executive-driven policy that has been carried out by health boards that are appointed. The equal pay issue predates even the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, and local authorities are democratically elected bodies with revenue-raising powers. The two issues are therefore not identical.
However, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform has told the Finance Committee that he will be drawing down something like £750 million from central unallocated provision. If COSLA presents a good case regarding the pressures that local authorities face, I am sure that it will be considered in next year's round of settlements.
I support John Swinney's amendment. In this debate, there is a general lesson for legislators. It is 36 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 and, as Bruce Crawford pointed out, it is 13 or 14 years since the act that led to local government reorganisation. Those two acts provide the legislative framework for single status and equal pay.
There is an onus on legislators—at Westminster or Holyrood—not only to consider the implications of legislation before they pass it but, once it is passed, to ensure that it is implemented fairly and justly. To implement legislation fairly and justly, proper resources must be made available. However, in recent years local government has been squeezed on a number of issues—not because it is not receiving more money but because the number of statutory duties that are placed on local authorities has grown exponentially while their budgets have grown arithmetically.
As John Swinney pointed out, we in Parliament have a role to play in banging heads together to find a solution to this problem, not only in one or two local authorities but the length and breadth of Scotland.
I wish the Finance Committee well in the awards ceremony next week, but in its "Report on the Financial Implications of the Local Authority Single Status Agreement", the committee recommended
"that councils examine ways in which reserves can be topped up"
and that
"there should be clear rules and guidance given to councils to prevent—a short term fix—the sale of assets simply being used to fund back-pay—leading to longer term problems."
The committee also recommended that
"the Executive enter into discussions with COSLA or with individual councils to identify whether funding can be made available and whether efficiencies and modernisation can be achieved to provide value for that money, taking into account the requirement to ensure that staff are paid on an equitable basis."
John Swinney's amendment basically reflects the recommendations that were made by the Finance Committee, so I hope that we will have the full support of every member of the Finance Committee when we come to the vote at 5 o'clock.
I want to make two further points. The first concerns the briefing that was provided by Unison Scotland, which says:
"Falkirk Council has issued notices of dismissal and re-engagement to staff."
Falkirk Council has done its utmost to ensure that a fair and just settlement is achieved, so to summarise the council's actions in that miserly wording is absolutely appalling and it severely damages the credibility of Unison's leadership in Scotland.
Secondly, we cannot ignore the fact that, as well as facing a substantial bill for single status and equal pay in the local government sector, we are also facing a substantial bill in relation to the health service. I hope that ministers will accept that fact, and that they will provide us with estimates of the costs and tell us how they will fund the implementation of the Executive's policy for the NHS.
During my time on the Finance Committee, I have at times found the way in which public finances are managed quite extraordinary. Single status has been one of the most extraordinary examples, and Pat Watters's briefing for MSPs on single status is perhaps the most extraordinary briefing that I have seen in my limited career as a parliamentarian. Derek Brownlee quoted from it, but it is worth quoting some more:
"We all know that Single Status has not just suddenly emerged. Many of you were leading Councillors during the period of time that Single Status has been around and you failed to spot it or deal with it as well. Many of you are equally culpable in this.
That is not to absolve ourselves of responsibilities or to say that you were bad politicians it is simply to highlight the complexities of the situation and that it is the easy option to snipe from the sidelines that local government at the moment has failed to deal with this for ten years."
Extraordinary. I do not want to get into playing the blame game of going back to the 1970s and saying whose fault it was, who was around at the time, and who did or did not do what. However, what I find extraordinary in the briefing from Pat Watters is that this debate and the Finance Committee's inquiry are described as sniping "from the sidelines".
This is a huge problem for local government. When we began our work on the Finance Committee inquiry, I was amazed to learn how big a crisis local government across Scotland faces. Also in the COSLA briefing we hear that
"Parliament can be assured that we have an end point in mind for the delivery of Single Status across the country and we are actively managing the process of moving all councils towards an end point."
As a member of the Finance Committee, and having listened to the evidence from COSLA, I am not assured that it has any "end point in mind" because the COSLA witnesses did not tell us what it was. I cannot be assured that COSLA is "actively managing the process" because, as the Unison briefing lays out, only three local authorities in Scotland have reached any kind of conclusion.
Meanwhile, at the City of Edinburgh Council, which is the largest council in my region, it is rumoured that the council is facing a £30 million hole in dealing with is retrospective single status claims, let alone the on-going revenue costs of implementation. Like other councils, although the City of Edinburgh Council has known about the issue for years, its response has been to hope that it will go away or that a big boy will come along with a big pile of money and sort it all out. The council's current response is to talk about cutting overtime and unsocial hours rates and about converting public holidays to annual leave for low-paid residential care staff. Again, low-paid workers are being clobbered for something that is not of their making.
If we look at the unions, we see the way in which they signed up to the bonus schemes in the 1980s and 1990s—schemes that gave more money to workers in predominantly male areas of employment, such as gardening and cleansing, but not to workers in the predominantly female areas, such as residential care and clerical work.
We can look to the unions, authorities or central Government, but the most important thing for the Parliament to do is not to do as COSLA asks. Parliament cannot take no responsibility for the issue—it has to act as if it wants to protect low-paid workers and because it is the entity that supplies 75 to 80 per cent of local authority revenue. Parliament cannot let COSLA just get on with this; we cannot trust it to do that. Parliament must act.
I agree with Mark Ballard that the single status agreement is among the most important issues that the Finance Committee has considered in the number of years that I have served on it. In many ways, the committee report is a model of clarity: it sums up what happened and points us in the direction that we have to go in to resolve the matter.
The sums of public money that are tied up in resolving the issue are substantial. It is likely that a series of consequences for the management of council services will ensue from the way the matter is settled. The consequences are profoundly important to parliamentarians because of their profound importance to the people whom we represent throughout Scotland.
I will add some historical perspective to the debate. Both Alex Neil and Bruce Crawford were perhaps a wee bit wrong to say that the germ of the single status agreement was in part in local government reorganisation. I can see no legislative reason why the way in which that was done could have led to single status. In my view, the issue arose as result of the fashionable idea of different employer flexibility and the move away from national agreements, both of which arose in the mid to late 1990s.
One of the problems with the single status agreement is that it was based on the idea that different local authorities would deliver, within the context of a framework agreement, detailed local agreements that would allow for job flexibility. That was a significant departure for local government—the matter has to be seen in that context. As it turns out, local government did not think it through then and has not managed properly to implement it since.
If members read the Finance Committee report, they will see that Alex McLuckie from the GMB said that
"the single status agreement was borne out of councils' desire to do their own thing, to move away from national agreements and to have local flexibility to deal with what they described as a local marketplace. There was a feeling that the Ayrshire councils, for example, might have a different marketplace from Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 31 January 2006; c 3364.]
There may be different kinds of local marketplace, but the reality is that, in the main, people in different local authorities do the same kind of jobs. It was difficult for councils, as it was for the trade unions, to progress 32 job-evaluation schemes across Scotland. The complexity in working towards settlement was not properly thought through or anticipated.
One minute.
Essentially, between 1999 and 2004 we had gridlock: nothing much went on in negotiating terms. Councils had not properly thought through the scheme and so found it difficult to move in the direction they wanted to go. The trade unions found it difficult to enter job-evaluation schemes: basically, they had not explained properly to their members that, in reaching a single status agreement and implementing equal pay, some people would lose while others would gain, which is the reality of the single status agreement. That should have been acknowledged in 1999, but everybody ran away from it.
Six years on, the situation is that local government workers who were underpaid are making substantial financial claims for unpaid wages. Councils that are faced with legal threats are trying to resolve the claims, but too many councils have either not begun or have not adequately progressed the kind of job evaluations that are needed to properly implement single status.
We are in an emergency situation; one that councils and trade unions have to resolve—
The member must close.
As other members have said, the Executive and Parliament must watch carefully what is happening and ensure that the matter is properly resolved.
The gender equality duty comes into force in April next year—it requires public authorities to promote gender equality and to eliminate sex discrimination. As we have heard in the debate, despite the fact that local authorities have since 1999 also had to implement the single status agreement, many issues are outstanding. Given that the local government finance settlement includes provision for salaries that are paid by local authorities, it must be up to our local councillors to determine how to spend their council's funds in line with local needs and priorities.
I do not need to remind colleagues that, since the first local government settlement back in 1999, Parliament has been responsible for cumulative increases of some 56 per cent in funding for local authorities—[Interruption.] I said that I do not need to remind colleagues of that.
I will come to John Swinney in a minute.
As I said, the figure for the past seven years is 56 per cent. By any measure, the sum is substantial. Given, as we heard from the minister, that more than 85 per cent of that money is not ringfenced, the settlement should have allowed our local authorities to determine for themselves how best to spend their money in order that they could comply—like any other employer—with all aspects of employment legislation.
I will let John Swinney in—give me 30 seconds.
Many of our councils are seeking agreement with their staff on compensation payments for past discrimination and are seeking to do so before the agreement of new pay and grading systems. The thrust of the Government's policy is to devolve greater power and responsibility to our local authorities, which brings me to the amendment in Mr Swinney's name.
From the Executive parties' point of view, it is interesting to see the SNP arguing yet again in its amendment for more money. It says that
"a fair and speedy resolution to the equal pay and single status issue"
should be
"reflected in the 2007-08 local authority financial settlement."
Is that the same John Swinney who, we are told, is holding his SNP colleagues on a tight financial rein? I ask John Swinney to be clear: is he or is he not asking for more money from the Scottish Executive? I am happy to give way.
I am glad that, after that long preamble, Mr Rumbles managed eventually to get around to giving way.
I support what the members of the Finance Committee—of which Mr Andrew Arbuckle is a member—supported unanimously, which is that the 2007-08 financial settlement must reflect the needs of the local authorities. While I am on my feet—
Quickly.
Does Mr Rumbles disagree with his Liberal Democrat colleagues in Aberdeenshire Council who are demanding—
Oh, come on.
Mike Rumbles's colleagues are demanding more money for the local authority financial settlement 2007-08. Is that just a one-off—
I am sorry, Mr Rumbles, but I cannot compensate for the time that Mr Swinney took up.
Mr Swinney took up a great deal of time in that intervention. He is the finance spokesman for the Scottish National Party and I asked him a specific question: is he or is he not asking for more money from the Scottish Executive? He did not really answer the question, so I take it that he is asking for more money—
Are you against more money for—
Order.
John Swinney knows that all public representatives, whether in the Scottish Executive or in local government, must operate within the budgets that they are allocated. As Mark Ballard said, no one will come along with a big pot of money to bail anyone out. COSLA says that councils' unallocated reserves contain about £250 million. I urge our local authorities to continue to take charge of their affairs—as they want to do—and to continue to make every effort to reach agreements that are fair to their employees and local council tax payers.
We go to closing speeches.
I have had the pleasure of serving on the parliamentary committee that has responsibility for local government on and off for seven years. At the start of the first session of the Parliament, I was involved in the discussions between the Local Government Committee and COSLA that established the good relationship that still exists. COSLA was keen to ensure that the Parliament respected local government in Scotland and that there would be no undue intervention by the Scottish Executive, the Parliament or its committees in the operation of the democratic mandate that the electorate gives to local authorities.
In his briefing to members, Pat Watters reiterated the position. He said:
"the responsibility for delivering on the vitally important issue that is Single Status stops with local government and it is something that can only be negotiated at the local level."
He is entitled to ensure that the Parliament, although it takes an interest in the matter, does nothing to impose its will on issues that are for local authorities to address. That is why it is right that the Parliament stays out of the negotiating process, which involves local government and its employees, despite the posturing of the Scottish Socialist Party on issues such as the nursery nurses' dispute and the fire services dispute. The Parliament must know and understand its place in relation to local government. Mark Ballard was wrong: we must not interfere with the action that democratically elected local representatives take in carrying out their duties.
Delivery on equal pay legislation is vital. The legislation is based on the fundamental principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. MSPs have a responsibility to ensure that we meet our obligations under the legislation, but we should stay out of local government pay matters and local government's negotiations with its workforce.
Why is the SSP yet again asking us to undermine the role of local authorities? The SSP talks a good game about local decision making, but makes contradictory arguments in the debate.
The member should read the motion. It calls on the Parliament "to assist local authorities" to reach agreement with the trade unions and to indicate a willingness to provide funding.
That is what the motion says, but in her speech Carolyn Leckie asked the Executive to intervene and pay the bill. She is taking up contradictory positions. She suggests that local government and its staff representatives should sit down, think of a number, double it and then ask the Scottish Executive to pay the bill. She suggests that local authorities run up a bill without being responsible for paying it. That is a bit like going to Disneyland on holiday and expecting to pay for it with the neighbour's Visa card.
Members of the SSP have the luxury of never having to tell us how they would pay for things—[Interruption.]
Order.
The SSP exhibits nothing more than self-indulgence and recklessness with the principles of local democracy and sound economic sense. It is nothing short of deceitful of the SSP to use the debate to try to draw the Scottish Executive into a problem over which it has no authority. I assure SSP members that local government and sensible trade unions are not buying into their posturing. Those people know that the debate will solve nothing—frankly, they do not want it to solve anything.
Progress on the implementation of the single status agreement has been slow. We can note that and we can encourage further progress, but ultimately we must ask whether we believe in the right of local authorities to determine their own affairs or whether we want the Executive to ride in like the cavalry in the movies. As I recall, in the movies no one emerged victorious, but plenty of blood was spilled. Perhaps that is what SSP members want. We should not be foolish enough to let them have it.
We stand four-square with our colleague down south, David Cameron, who called equal pay
"a principle of fundamental importance"
and said that it is
"a scandal that … women are still paid less than men."
That is what the law says, too. We must acknowledge that.
The debate has been interesting. Carolyn Leckie opened it by saying that the Executive must back the law. Like Michael McMahon, I took that to mean that she wants the taxpayer to bail out local government for its poor management and preparation.
George Lyon talked sensibly—for once. The Executive is right not to get involved and we support ministers in that regard. As Michael McMahon, Mike Rumbles and the minister said, local government should run itself in a responsible and accountable way and should not be micromanaged from the centre. However, the Executive tinkers with local government a wee bit too much.
Will the member give way?
No, I am too short of time.
John Swinney asked the Executive to get involved. In his response to Mike Rumbles, he said that he was not asking for more money. However, if he wants the issue to be resolved in the 2007-08 local authority financial settlement, he is asking for more money.
Single status is a revenue issue, and is a matter for the future, but we are worried about the current problem. We are talking about £500 million or £600 million. Over 11 years and across 32 councils, that averages out at not much more than £1 million a year per council. Councils in Scotland, most of which are run by the Labour Party, which was keen on equal pay legislation, have been poorly prepared. Councillors have a responsibility, but when they are no longer in the council chamber—Charlie Gordon and I are in that position—the new management must deal with the issues, as happens when someone retires from a company and someone else takes their job.
Alex Neil was right to mention the additional duties and pressures that have been placed on local government. However, it is a primary responsibility of all councils to manage their watch properly before handing over the books to the new authority after an election. That is an issue in this debate.
Des McNulty was right to say that local agreements are not national agreements and that local authorities want local flexibility. There was gridlock between 1999 and 2004, when no action was taken. The unions are equally culpable, because they have not managed their members' affairs well. I even agreed with Mike Rumbles up to a point, which is unusual. Poor management over the past 11 years has resulted in a huge and expensive logjam. We cannot ask taxpayers again to bail out local authorities as a result of poor management at local government level. There needs to be more responsibility and accountability in local government, but the single transferable vote will dilute that. The public need to know what individual councillors have done on their behalf.
If the equal pay issue is not resolved soon, local services will suffer, and the most vulnerable people in society will suffer most. If the unions considered the matter from that perspective and the councils were better at working together, I am sure that a solution could be found. However, there will be no quick fix and instant payment; the issue will have to be settled over time.
The Conservatives think that it is for local government to act responsibly to sort out the matter with the unions. The Government should not interfere.
I support the amendment in John Swinney's name.
I am disappointed that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, Tom McCabe, is not in the chamber. A number of back benchers from his party described the situation as an emergency, and in such circumstances we would expect the minister to address the issue.
We are here.
The Liberals are here, as they were when we discussed the Howat report last week. Once again, they have been prepared to be the fall guys in a difficult situation.
David Davidson's performance was remarkable. Of the 36 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed, 22 were Tory years, but the Tories did nothing about the situation. He talked about the need for a local authority to hand over proper management to the incoming authority, but the Tories did not manage to do that when they handed over power to the incoming Labour Government. The Tories can take no credit—in any shape or form—from the current situation.
What an impossible situation to be in—trying to negotiate a settlement 36 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 and after the single status situation arose. Councils and unions are desperate for a settlement, but both are unable to close deals. Councils are unable to close deals because they are cash limited, and unions are concerned about the legal implications and are being instructed by the national bodies not to come to firm conclusions on a local basis. What a cul-de-sac to be stuck in.
Mark Ballard said that there was no point in looking at the history and blaming people. It is time to take responsibility and sort the mess out now, for the long-term.
Will the member take an intervention?
It will have to be quick, because I have a lot to say.
I ask Bruce Crawford the same question that I asked John Swinney: is the SNP asking the Scottish Executive for more money for local authorities to deal with the issue?
John Swinney's answer dealt with that question adequately. The Finance Committee drew up a report. John Swinney is in exactly the same situation as Andrew Arbuckle.
George Lyon's amendment made me despondent and I found Derek Brownlee's amendment to be full of despair. No one is taking responsibility in this situation. What would be wrong with the Scottish Executive not interfering in local government and not instructing or directing councils but setting up a task force involving legal experts in the employment field and former chief officers to discuss good practice, which others have failed to do? That would not be interfering; it would be helping to facilitate. I do not dispute that we should let local authorities get on with their job, but the Scottish Executive has a job to do in helping to improve the situation. Nothing has been done in that regard.
I have every sympathy, not with the Scottish Executive, COSLA or the council chief officers, but with the staff. We have a duty to sort out the situation for them. I say to Carolyn Leckie that it is not about shouting from the rooftops and trying to lay the blame on everybody else, but about finding a pragmatic and sensible way forward through which we can find a long-term, sustainable solution. That should be the job of the Parliament. Everyone who has been involved in the process has to take responsibility, so that we can move on from this situation. Otherwise, we will be left with years and years of dispute in local government, which will not be resolved, we will continue to blame each other and the trenches will get deeper. The only people who will suffer are local government staff. It is time to find a pragmatic way forward and to use common sense, but it is also time for the Scottish Executive to facilitate a lot more discussion at the front end.
There is consensus throughout the chamber about the utter frustration that we all feel that it has taken local authorities so long to try to agree settlements and to meet their obligations to their employees. Initially, it was promised that there would be a settlement by 1 April 2004, but that date has long passed. One council settled long before the deadline, so it cannot be argued that it was not possible to settle before the deadline. We are now in 2006 and other councils have still to finally sign off agreements.
John Swinney was correct to say that we all want to see a fair settlement for the individuals concerned and for council tax payers. There is agreement throughout the chamber on that.
Does the Howat report include any provision for single status and equal pay in either local government or the health service beyond the next financial year?
As Alex Neil well knows, the Howat report looked to the 2007 spending review, not detailed stuff such as this.
Mr Swinney's other important point was that engaging in the blame game is totally frustrating. We do not want to hear about blame; we want to see a fair deal that settles the matter and provides clarity for individuals who are employed by the councils, for council tax payers and for those who use council services.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I want to make some progress, because I do not have a lot of time.
On Mr Brownlee's speech, to be fair, the blame game did not command much support throughout the chamber, because the answer to the problem is not to get involved in the blame game but for settlements to be reached and progress to be made.
When Mr McCabe gave evidence to the Finance Committee, he referred to the advice that councils had received and suggested that the Executive was going to introduce legislation to enhance the accountability of local government officials. Where has that legislation got to?
Clearly, that was said in the context of public sector reform, the discussion on which is on-going. Mr Brownlee is quite entitled to contribute to it any time he wishes.
Alex Neil talked about additional duties, but he has to recognise that substantial additional resources have been made available since 1999. There has been a record increase in funding to local government. Everyone agrees that it was the duty of local government to make provision over that period to meet its obligations. The settlements should have been an item on authorities' budgets, to which money was allocated to meet their obligations. The Finance Committee acknowledged that in its report.
Mark Ballard was clearly concerned about the COSLA briefing, as were members throughout the chamber, which leaves us wondering exactly what COSLA means by some of its comments. That is not helpful to our finding a solution and moving the agenda on.
Michael McMahon recognised that responsibility lies clearly with local government.
The Executive has provided significant levels of funding for local government. The local government settlement this year will be £8.3 billion, and by the end of the spending review period that will have increased by more than £3 billion compared with 1999-2000. Local government should have made provision within that to address single status agreements.
In its evidence to the Finance Committee, COSLA estimated that, of the £1 billion that it held in reserve, around 25 per cent—or £250 million—was not allocated for a particular purpose. Local authorities need to look to their reserves to help meet the costs of equal pay responsibilities, especially the back-pay element, although I recognise that there are on-going commitments. I understand that many councils are making financial provision for that in their budgets and I welcome Mr Swinney's comment that that is an appropriate way forward in relation to councils meeting their back-pay obligations.
I urge councils and the unions to seek to resolve these matters as soon as possible. Closing the equal pay gap will benefit not only women but all Scots, Scotland's workforce and Scotland's economy. I am sure that everyone will support me in urging local government and the employees to get round the table and settle the matter as soon as possible.
I will start by responding to the minister. It is a shame that, given Tom McCabe's past involvement in this issue in local government and his current involvement as Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, he did not see fit to attend the debate. If I had managed to intervene on Mr Lyon, I would have asked him to clarify the Executive's position.
I was a wee bit disturbed by Michael McMahon's contribution, because it did not reflect the written answers to questions that I have asked on the matter, in which the Executive has indicated a willingness to meet COSLA to discuss equal pay and indicated that it has had such meetings in the past. COSLA indicates in its intemperate briefing that, as far as it is concerned, the Executive has agreed to meet it at some time and to consider some sort of financial settlement. What is the situation? Is the Executive prepared to help, including by dipping into the purse?
I thought that I made the situation clear in my opening speech. There are discussions with COSLA—there are always discussions with COSLA—in which these matters come up.
I made clear that it is not our role to interfere and engage in the negotiation process. That is a matter for COSLA and the relevant unions and representatives of the employees.
Quickly, please.
That is their role. It is our role to engage with COSLA on a wide range of issues, which we do daily. Of course, in those discussions, the equal pay issue is—
Mr Lyon, you are making a speech now.
The point is that solving the problem will take money. The word "pragmatism" has been used in the chamber today. The bulk of local authority money comes from the Executive, which gets its money from a block grant from the Treasury. There will need to be a willingness on the part of the Executive to release some of that money if we are to solve this problem. That will have to happen, or there will not be a solution. It is quite simple.
George Lyon talked about local authority reserves. It is right to say that the local authorities should have to dip into their purse without detriment to staff or services. What about the Executive's reserves and Westminster's reserves? Are people prepared to dip into them? If they are not, all of the platitudes about bridging the gender pay gap will mean nothing. People are using words such as "challenge" but are refusing to put up the money. That is the nub of our motion.
I agree with much of what John Swinney said, but I want to add something to what he said about the levelling down of the overall salary packages. It is true that there will be an increase in the overall salary packages, but it will not match the retrospective amount of money that women, in particular, are due because they have been underpaid for 10, 20 or 30 years. Even the legislation does not allow backdating to apply that far. Further, the increase will not equal what women would get if an employment tribunal said that the award should be backdated five years. Having said that, the pay of a lot of employees is being levelled down, as I said when I opened the debate, which is unacceptable. Those workers should not be made to pay for the inaction of local government and Governments during the 36 years of the Equal Pay Act 1970. That would not be fair or acceptable.
Derek Brownlee's speech was highly amusing. He had a go at the unions for not adequately representing their members and asked who could blame trade union members for going down the no-win, no-fee route of the lawyers. Has Derek Brownlee thought that through? If the unions successfully represented all of the women at employment tribunals—and it is likely that they would succeed—the women would be entitled to five years' backdated pay, and so would get more money than is on offer from any of the local authorities at the moment, the bill for which would be something like £600 million to £700 million. Those women deserve that, but would the Tories be prepared to put up the money? On the one hand, they support the likes of Stefan Cross and join him in condemning the unions but, on the other hand, they say that taxpayers should not have to fund the settlement. What is the Tories' position? I confess that I am completely confused.
Elaine Murray said that this is not a simple issue. When we consider the complexities of job evaluation schemes and the issues of legality and so on, it is not simple, but if we consider what it will take to solve the problem, it is simple. It will take a willingness on the part of the Executive to assist and to adjust its budgets to take account of the settlements that local government will have to make. If that does not happen, the Executive will have to take responsibility for the industrial action, strikes and the cuts in pay and services that have already started. When is it going to be appropriate for the Executive to intervene to stop that happening? The way to intervene is to help and put up the money. It is quite simple.
Alex Neil made a lot of comments that I agree with, but he condemned some of the attacks on Falkirk Council. On that point, I disagree with him. It is a fact that Falkirk Council has issued 90-day notices to make workers redundant and then re-engage them, in many circumstances, with inferior terms and conditions. That is unacceptable. I have to say that Alex Neil is not slow to condemn North Lanarkshire Council in the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser when he gets a chance.
Des McNulty made the most reasoned speech from the Labour benches on this issue. He is correct to say that it is the single most important issue facing Scotland. If this Parliament cannot grapple with the most important issue that faces us and indicate a willingness to help, what is this Parliament for?