Good afternoon, everyone. The first item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion S4M-13442, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on protecting employee rights and access to justice.
I remind members that, for the purposes of the standing order rule on sub judice, no mention should be made of any live court cases during the debate.
Part of my role as the cabinet secretary with responsibility for fair work is to ensure that Scotland takes a progressive approach in the area of employment rights. That is something that we are absolutely committed to, but it is a difficult task, given that we do not have powers over employment law. Instead, we have to contend with a Conservative Government at Westminster that is pursuing a regressive, corrosive and oppressive approach to employee rights.
Today, I want to set out our opposition to the gradual erosion of employee rights that we saw under the previous UK Government, an erosion that looks set to accelerate in the coming years. I believe that the majority of members will have grave concerns about the direction of travel.
While the cabinet secretary is setting out her opposition in that respect—and I am sure that we will join her in that—will she also set out her vision of what the Scottish Government will do if employment rights are devolved further?
If the member will allow me to get more than about two sentences into my speech, he might hear things that he will be happy about. As I have said, I believe that the majority of members will have grave concerns about the direction of travel, and it is therefore helpful to discuss what can be done to address the issue and to protect the rights of workers in Scotland.
The Government’s central purpose is to grow Scotland’s economy, and Scotland’s economic strategy set out our belief that boosting economic growth and tackling inequality must go hand in hand if we are to succeed. Just last week, the Office for National Statistics economic review highlighted the continuing downward trend in the number of quality jobs, which contributes to weak productivity growth, and I agree entirely with the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress that that shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s plan is failing. The current growth is based on a low-pay economy that is unsustainable in the long term, and a United Kingdom Government that is committed to huge austerity and further cuts will only worsen the situation.
That is why we will continue to oppose spending reductions of the scale and speed that the UK Government has suggested; as has been shown by the impact of the cuts imposed after 2010, such reductions will slow economic recovery and make deficit reduction more difficult. It is also why we are committed to seeking greater powers for Scotland, first by ensuring that the Smith commission’s recommendations are met in full and then by making a clear case for additional responsibilities beyond those that the Smith commission identified. In particular, powers over business taxes, employment law, the minimum wage, health and safety and welfare would enable us to create good-quality jobs, grow the economy and lift people out of poverty.
One of the things that we are likely to get responsibility for through the Scotland Bill is employment tribunals, which are a perfect example of where decisions made in Westminster are failing workers in Scotland. With our new powers, we must maximise the opportunities to reintroduce fairness and justice for employees affected by bad employment. The previous UK Government pursued an employment review programme that resulted in the slow dismantling of employee rights that had been built up over many decades. For the majority of cases, the coalition increased the qualifying period for making a claim at a tribunal from one to two years in employment and, despite Scottish Government opposition, in July 2013 it introduced fees for making a claim at an employment tribunal. The fees for an employee to raise a claim ranged from £390 to £1,200, while the employer paid no fee.
Can the cabinet secretary clarify whether the Scottish Government has the power to alter or reduce the tribunal fees?
My understanding is that, at present, we do not. I will come on to issues that are connected with fees.
The introduction of employment tribunal fees, which, of course, is an entirely reserved matter, has had a dramatic impact in Scotland.
The number of single claims received in Scotland from January to June 2013 was 2,118, whereas the number for the same period in 2014, after the fees were introduced, was 880. That marks a reduction of almost 60 per cent in single claims. An area of particular concern is the drop in certain categories of case. For example, unlawful deduction of wages claims reduced by 71.5 per cent and sex discrimination cases declined by 83 per cent. That has been compounded by only 49 per cent of those successful at tribunal receiving payment in full from the employer.
There is a mounting body of evidence detailing the adverse effects of that discriminatory legislation, which is backed up by research by Citizens Advice Scotland and University of Strathclyde entitled “The Price of Justice”. There can be no doubt that it is an appalling state of affairs when protections in law that were long fought for are made meaningless as the vulnerable and those in most need are priced out of access to justice.
The potential transfer of powers in the Scotland Bill gives us an opportunity to consult on new and innovative ways to ensure that employees are supported through the system and they get the money that they are awarded. I will be looking to employers, employees and experts in that field to assess the impact of the fees and to look at new ways to improve fairness at work. We are committed to the principle of abolishing fees for employment tribunals, but we must be absolutely clear on how the transfer of powers and responsibilities would work before we commit to a timescale for that.
The importance of employment rights must not be understated. They serve not only to protect the opportunity and dignity of individual employees, but to strengthen our workforce, workplaces and economy as a whole. They are fundamental protections and liberties, and they enrich democracy across the country.
For employees, joining a trade union, seeking to protect their rights at work and, yes, in some circumstances withdrawing their labour are not only part of those rights but key to safeguarding them. However, the Conservative Government in Westminster is proposing to restrict further those rights, particularly the right to strike, with the introduction of the trade unions bill.
The bill aims to bring about highly regressive reforms, making it more difficult for employees to have their voice heard. We oppose the measures to restrict further the right to strike. Instead of helping unions to ballot more effectively on strike action through measures such as online voting, it will impose a 50 per cent turnout threshold on strike ballots. Far from increasing turnout and democratising the ballot system, the legislation will serve only to make it almost impossible for union members to withdraw their labour, and to suppress and inhibit the capabilities of organised labour.
Indeed, as Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary, Grahame Smith, rightly pointed out on 27 May, if the same rules were to apply to UK general elections, David Cameron would be unable to govern.
The measures will impose even greater restrictions on employees in essential public services such as health, education, fire and transport. Those are areas where the dedication and commitment of employees should be recognised and applauded. Instead, to sanction and restrict their trade union rights does the UK Government a great disservice.
Trade unions are key social partners that play an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, particularly in the workplace. The existence of the good employment practices that they promote are a key contributor to economic competitiveness and social justice.
Our memorandum of understanding with the STUC demonstrates our commitment to work inclusively and productively with all key social partners. We will work with them, alongside employers, to ensure that we continue to build sustainable and inclusive economic growth. An example of that is our establishment of the fair work convention, which brings together trade unions, the private sector and the wider public sector. It aims to encourage workforce policies that encourage innovation, higher productivity and better workforce engagement.
It is through positive action and such constructive relationships that we can create a fairer workplace instead of punitively, regressively and unproductively restricting the right of union members to take industrial action. Let us be clear: attacks on our workforce’s rights will be bad for individuals, our economy and democracy in this country.
Those are just two reasons why we believe that employment law should be devolved to Scotland: so that we can protect the rights of employees and so that we can continue to build sustainable economic growth. Over the past year, we have made great steps towards improving fairness, democracy, dialogue, productivity and innovation in our workplaces. There is, of course, more to be done to ensure that those in work are fairly rewarded.
Last week, the First Minister met key industry bodies as part of a living wage summit. The living wage is one of the policies that virtually everyone accepts as being desirable in principle. The agreement that the living wage is the right thing to do is already taking hold in Scotland. The number of Scotland-based living wage accredited employers has grown from 30 at this time last year to more than 200. Scotland now has approximately 13 per cent of the accredited employers in the UK. That is significantly more than our population share. In addition, 81 per cent of Scottish employees are paid at least the living wage compared with 78 per cent across the UK as a whole.
In addition to leading by example through our own living wage accreditation, the Scottish Government is trying to promote and share experiences of employers who now pay the living wage so that it is increasingly seen by both society and employers as the norm. With powers over the minimum wage, we could accelerate the progress in bringing everyone up to that level.
We will also focus our efforts on those who are seeking work. We already deliver a range of employability support services in Scotland. With the devolution of employability support services, I propose to build on the strengths of the employability delivery landscape in Scotland. That is an opportunity to develop our Scottish approach, which reflects our core aims of sustainable economic growth, inclusion, fair work and social justice, and to support those who are seeking work and those who are in work to have access to quality job opportunities.
A lot has been done, but there is still a lot to do, and the Government is determined to do it. The approach that we are taking is in line with a growing international consensus—supported by the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and many others—that prosperity and fairness are not in opposition to each other but reinforce each other. They are two sides of the same coin. Creating a more equal society will help us to become more competitive.
I will turn briefly to the amendments before I close. We will not accept either. There is a clear line in the sand between what the Conservative Government in Westminster intends and what we could ever agree to, so it will probably come as no surprise to hear that I will not accept Alex Johnstone’s amendment.
All I can say about the Labour amendment is that it is a missed opportunity to forge a joint approach between us. About a third of the demands do not even relate to the responsibilities in my portfolio. Perhaps if, instead of posturing, Labour had come forward with something constructive, I might have been able to accept its amendment, but that will not happen today. It is clear that the amendment that I have seen has a typo in it, as it is missing the line that talks about the devolution of employment law in particular to Scotland. That would be essential to satisfy most of the demands in the amendment.
To deliver what we need in the area of employment rights, we need greater powers for Scotland. We need powers to protect the rights of employees and to deliver more progressive employment legislation that supports innovation, productivity and justice in the workplace. Indeed, that has all been called for by the STUC.
I hope that colleagues in the chamber will be able to support the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament calls for the full and swift devolution of powers over employment law to ensure the protection and promotion of the rights and responsibilities of workers in Scotland; opposes the UK Government’s plans to further restrict the right to strike; encourages employers to pay the living wage; supports effective tackling of unacceptable employment practices, such as exploitative zero-hours contracts; further supports the work of the Fair Work Convention to produce a blueprint for fair work in Scotland that will help to deliver a better deal for workers, and agrees that this should be underpinned by the powers to deliver better employment services and fair access to employment tribunals in Scotland with the support of active and involved trade union representation in a fair, equitable and inclusive Scotland.
14:43
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate.
As our amendment states, Scottish Labour welcomes the wide-ranging debate that is taking place about the pros and cons of devolving employment law to Scotland and the impact that that may have on the lives of working people. We are keen to take part in those discussions, but we recognise that the issue is far from black and white. As we state in our amendment, a wide range of views is held in the trade union movement on that issue. We would be interested to take part in discussions in which those views are heard and listened to.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that we pledged in our workplace manifesto for this year’s general election that we would establish a Scottish hazards centre. Although we will be unable to deliver that pledge, I am delighted that the health and safety charity Scottish Hazards has launched a funding appeal to make that ambition a reality. The centre would provide support, advice and training on a wide range of health and safety issues.
The theme of this year’s international workers memorial day was
“removing exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace”.
The hazards centre would be a fitting way to honour that theme. It is an atrocious fact that, every year, more people are killed at work than in wars. An estimated 132 people a year die in Scotland in work-related incidents. That is why the appeal is supported by these benches and the STUC.
Is the member aware that, last week, a Romanian migrant worker was killed on a site in my region? A Scottish hazards centre is exactly the type of place that could get information out to people like that who are not represented by a trade union.
I agree. When I was drafting this part of my speech, my thoughts were with the man’s family. I presume that the thoughts of the entire chamber are with the family, too.
I hope that the Scottish Government also supports the funding appeal by Scottish Hazard and will pledge not only its vocal backing but much-needed financial backing.
Many pay disputes and other work-related disputes happen daily throughout Scotland. That is why the role of our trade unions is so crucial. However, the role of Government is also crucial in resolving many of those cases. The Scottish Government would like more powers to be devolved to this Parliament, but its record in disputes that deal with public sector contracts cannot be characterised as anything other than woeful. The porters of NHS Tayside are currently in a dispute regarding their pay. The matter was brought to the attention of the chamber by Jenny Marra when she asked the Scottish Government to encourage NHS Tayside to bring in the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to resolve the dispute. However, that request has so far been denied.
Similarly, there has been a long running dispute at the National Museums Scotland on the decision by museum management to remove weekend working allowances for its staff. The national museum has topped a poll as the most-visited tourist attraction in Scotland, yet management believes that it is okay to remove much-needed money from its workers and simply to say:
“Weekend payments are no longer common in the culture and tourism sector across the UK.”
Is that the type of justice that we want for our hard-working public sector staff? The Scottish Government has been posted missing in that dispute, so what would the new powers that it so desperately wants for this place do to help in that situation? The Government does not use the powers that it already has to resolve significant workplace problems. If we base the Government’s current plea on its record, I would say that it does not look favourable for the Government.
The above examples show how vital it is that we have trade unions. I am a proud trade unionist and I know that many others in the chamber are, too. Our pride is shaped by the values of that important body of the labour movement. It is also shaped by the past, and I will talk about that in a moment. First, though, I want to say that the current Conservative Government’s proposals to restrict further the ability of trades unions and individual employees throughout the UK to access redress to legitimate industrial grievance with a continuation of attacks on fundamental employment rights, including the right to strike, are truly abhorrent and do not belong in a democratic society. Instead of legislation to limit the rights of trade unionists, we would have liked a concentrated effort to support and promote our trade unions and their vital role in industrial relations.
As our amendment sets out, we consider that higher turnouts in industrial ballots are as desirable as higher turnouts in any other democratic election. However, we reject entirely the UK Government’s suggested approach, which makes no attempt to support overdue reforms. One reform that we would support would be the introduction of online balloting, which we believe could attract more people to vote in strike ballots and therefore create the outcomes that the UK Government tells us it so desperately wants.
As I said earlier, the history of the trade unions has shaped many of us in the chamber, although maybe not all of us in positive ways. When I mentioned the strike by NHS Tayside porters, I failed to mention that a financial appeal has been launched to make sure that the porters do not lose too much of their income. Many people have contributed to that appeal, including dock workers in Liverpool. That is not surprising—it is what we have come to recognise as one of the finest characteristics of our movement—but it goes to show the collective responsibility that workers throughout the UK feel for those who find themselves in such disputes.
That is not new. We have seen it in many disputes throughout the years, especially the miners’ strike of 1984-85. That strike still stains the very fabric of industrial relations in our country. Despite the fact that 95 miners have received compensation for the way in which they were treated—or, should I say, mistreated—by the police at the time, no officer or indeed Government minister has ever been held to account for their actions. That is why Scottish Labour reiterates our call for a public inquiry, similar to the Hillsborough inquiry, to be set up. Let us be clear that the Scottish Government has the power to do that but, until now, it has lacked the will. We should remember that people were persecuted for simply taking up their democratic right to strike. We hope that those people get the access to justice that the Scottish Government so desperately wants for others.
Only last week, Neil Findlay held a members’ business debate to congratulate the Welsh Government on its efforts to address the matter of blacklisting and employment practices in relation to publicly funded projects. During that debate, many Labour members reiterated our call for a full and transparent inquiry into blacklisting and, today, we again call on the Scottish Government to initiate such an inquiry without delay. The issue of blacklisting has not gone away and is still a barrier to employment for many in our communities.
Does the member accept that, even if an inquiry was held, the Scottish Government has no powers to legislate to prevent such malpractices in future?
No, I do not believe that. I see that Mike MacKenzie is continuing on his theme from the debate last week. There are many things that the Scottish Government could do, but it is abdicating responsibility.
The Government previously said that it would wait for the Scottish Affairs Committee to report on the matter before deciding its course of action. Well, that committee has reported twice since then and still we await the Government’s response. Previously, the Government said that guidance that is linked to public procurement was the way to ensure that no company that is involved in blacklisting would be awarded a Government contract. However, the national health service Common Services Agency has awarded a £660 million contract to a consortium of contractors that were involved in the blacklisting scandal. The contract was awarded after the introduction of the Scottish Government’s policy note, so it is clear that the note is not worth the paper that it is written on.
The scandal first came to light in 2009, yet we are still waiting for the Government to grant access to justice for the workers and to establish an inquiry into the practices. I hope that the Government will now do so and will use its powers over public procurement to ensure that any business that is involved in the practice does not receive one penny from the public purse.
In relation to so-called umbrella companies, we call on the Scottish Government to use its contractual powers to stop the awarding of public contracts to companies that use the practice. We know that it is happening where public money has been spent—for example, at the Ineos site in Grangemouth—and it must be stopped. It cannot be right that workers are not paid the wage that was agreed, do not get holiday pay or can be dismissed from their duties without a moment’s notice. I encourage the Government to use all its existing powers to discourage the practice as soon as possible.
We also call on the Scottish Government to use the powers that it currently has with regard to the living wage. The Government has now voted against our proposals on that extremely important matter a total of five times. As we know, in 2014, 10 per cent of all those who were employed in Scotland earned £6.79 an hour or less and 20 per cent earned less than £7.85 an hour. We have to rectify that now. Therefore, we call on the Scottish Government to establish a unit within Government to actively promote the living wage. I hope that we can work on that together.
Finally, additional powers are already coming to Scotland regarding employment tribunals. We believe that that will give us the opportunity to withdraw the fees that are levied on people who wish to exercise their democratic right, but we also believe that it is an opportunity to reshape the future of the service. The introduction of fees has led to an 81 per cent decrease in the number of claim cases. The measure has had an impact on every section of society, but women have borne the brunt of it. As Jillian Merchant from Thompson’s Solicitors pointed out,
“All types of discrimination cases have fallen however sex discrimination cases have been worst affected with a reduction of 91%”.
Fees can be reduced in some circumstances, but many women lose out on that because the criteria for reduction are based on household income rather than individual income. Scotland can and should change the situation. We have an opportunity to do things differently, and I hope that the Government will take it.
As I said at the outset, we welcome the debate on where responsibility for employment legislation should be held. However, we do not believe that the Scottish Government has done nearly enough with the powers that it currently has and we urge it to commit to giving the workers who I have mentioned the access to justice that they require and deserve. The Government can and should do that now.
I move amendment S4M-13442.2, to leave out from “calls for” to end and insert:
“welcomes the wide-ranging debate that is taking place about the pros and cons of the devolution of employment rights and the potential impact on working people; understands that there are a number of views held by individual trades unions, the STUC, TUC and others on the issue; further notes that the UK Government has indicated its intention to further restrict the ability of trades unions and individual employees across the UK to access redress to legitimate industrial grievance with a continuation of attacks on fundamental employment rights, including the right to strike; considers that higher turnouts in industrial ballots are as desirable as higher turnouts in any other democratic election but rejects entirely the UK Government’s suggested approach, which makes no attempt to support overdue reforms such as the introduction of online balloting, which might achieve this aim, and rejects the thresholds proposed for ballots; notes that good industrial relations should be considered essential to a more productive economy and to more satisfying work in which employees are properly rewarded for their labour through the extension of collective bargaining, for example in sectors such as independent social care or contract cleaning, and stronger action on the living wage with the creation of a unit in the Scottish Government to actively promote the payment of the living wage, including via public procurement; further notes calls for the devolution of other workplace protections, including the power to abolish the employment tribunal fees regime, and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver genuine improved access to justice by committing to a Scottish inquiry into the blacklisting of construction workers and the awarding of public contracts to contractors that are alleged to have been complicit in such practices, a review of the convictions of miners arrested during the 1984-85 strike, the creation of a Scottish hazards centre, an improved fatal accident inquiry process, a review of culpable homicide legislation and action to use fully the powers of the Scottish Government to address bogus self-employment and its abuses by agencies.”
14:54
When I think back to the 1970s, I think of the hairstyles and the fashions, and I think that it was the decade that common sense forgot. The things that makes me think that most was the industrial relations that we experienced during that decade. Many will remember the strikes and how great industries were brought to their knees. Few will remember that that happened 10 years before the days of high unemployment and before the days of Margaret Thatcher. In fact, it could well be said that it preceded them because it caused them.
Such industrial relations made the country an economic failure. It was with that in mind that great effort has been put into ensuring that employment rights and access to justice in the workplace are carried out in a way that does not destroy public service or undermine the means of production in this country.
The Conservatives have an exceptionally good record. Our party has sought to liberalise the workplace and to make the opportunities available for people to get back to work. Those who do not recognise that fail to do so simply because they see the world through a particular rose colour of spectacles.
As we address the issues during the debate, it is important to recognise that the policies that are in place resulted in 2 million new private sector jobs being created during the last UK Parliament, and that employment in Scotland has increased by 42,000 in the past year alone. High employment rates in the UK and Scotland exist largely because of the UK Government’s fiscal discipline and the robust economic plan that it has stuck to for five years.
We support the conclusions of the Smith commission that employment law should remain reserved to the UK Parliament within a UK framework. Of course, the Smith commission recommended that the underlying reserved rights and duties of tribunals should continue to be reserved, while the management and operation of reserved tribunals can be devolved. We need to ensure that that is taken forward and made to work for the benefit of all.
We agree that, while good relations between employers and employees are good for the workforce, they are also extremely good for the economy. The rights of trade unionists are important, but they require to be balanced with the rights of hard-working taxpayers who, in the past, have often had to pick up the bill and carry the can.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Indeed. Let’s go for it.
Is the member suggesting that the definition of “hard-working taxpayers” excludes trade unionists? Is that what he is really saying to the people of Scotland today?
No, not at all. The minister must realise that we are entirely inclusive in our approach. We are not exclusive and divisive in the way that other parties choose to be.
We further agree that businesses should pay a living wage when they can afford to do so. The idea that we should pay a living wage wherever possible finds support in this corner of the chamber. However, if we look at the economy as a whole, we must realise that many small businesses that are very small employers find it extremely hard to achieve that and it is important that we should not bully or cajole businesses into paying the living wage before they are ready, in a way that will damage their business. As I have said in the chamber many times, immigrants to this country who have family businesses are examples of that; such businesses can be significantly damaged. I welcome the UK Government’s legislation to ban exclusivity clauses in zero-hour contracts to ensure that workers throughout the UK have a fairer deal and greater flexibility in choosing a work pattern that is suited to their individual needs.
Without going into great depth, I want everyone to note that we also have concerns about blacklisting. Although we have not taken a lead on the subject, we are still interested in finding a solution that satisfies the demands of all.
The important thing to remember is that Scotland is best served by finding a UK-wide way of legislating and going forward with employment rights and access to justice. If we choose to go a different way and we are significantly different, we might find ourselves in a situation in which workers south of the border are exploited while workers north of the border are left without jobs.
Will the member give way?
No, I am in my last minute.
It is important that we are not part of a race to the bottom. Only two days ago in the chamber, we heard Government ministers and Scottish National Party back benchers argue the case that we should have European-wide standardisation when it comes to workers’ rights. It is wholly inconsistent to ask for EU-wide standardisation and not understand the benefits of UK-wide standardisation.
Peddling the myth of Scottish moral superiority as an excuse for simply driving a wedge into the UK’s single workplace is wholly unacceptable. It is the inevitable outcome of socialist failure—the economically illiterate and the morally bankrupt repeddling the myths of the past. Let us grasp the opportunity afforded us by the Conservative Government to take forward the rights of workers, the most important of which is the right to full employment. Are we the only party in Scotland to support that right?
I move amendment S4M-13442.3, to leave out from “calls for” to end and insert:
“recognises that more than two million new private sector jobs were created over the course of the last UK Parliament and that the employment rate in Scotland has increased by 42,000 over the past year alone; attributes high employment rates across the UK and Scotland to the UK Government’s fiscal discipline and robust economic plan over the last five years; supports the conclusion of the all-party Smith Commission that employment law should remain reserved to the UK Parliament within a UK-wide framework; further supports the Smith Commission recommendation that, while the underlying reserved rights and duties of tribunals will continue to be reserved, the management and operation of reserved tribunals will be devolved; agrees that, while good relations between employers and employees are good for the workforce and good for the economy, the rights of trade unions require to be balanced with the rights of hardworking taxpayers; further agrees that businesses should pay the living wage when it is affordable for them to do so, and welcomes that the UK Government has legislated to ban exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, ensuring that workers throughout the UK get a fairer deal and greater flexibility in choosing a work pattern suited to their individual needs.”
15:01
The signs for a consensual debate are not particularly favourable, given that the two selected amendments and the Liberal amendment that was not selected would simply delete the whole of the Government’s motion. Let me redress that apparent breakdown of consensus by saying that, personally—I have no idea what the Government’s view is—I welcome the first four clauses of the Labour amendment, which reflect multiple views and call for legalisation of online ballots for trade unions. Unless I am missing something, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for.
At the core of my take on the debate is the Tories’ egregious attitude to democratic mandate. I am talking about a party that continues to support the undemocratic, anti-democratic and undismissable House of Lords—which constitutes the majority of the UK’s legislators—and of a party that, on a mandate of 37 per cent of the electorate who voted a few weeks ago, wants to impose a substantially higher requirement on trade unionists. Note that I say “trade unionists” and not “trade unions”. That is deliberate, because what the Tories are really about is weakening the position of individuals in our society. In particular, they want to weaken people whose relative lack of power means that they choose to work collectively to nudge the balance just a little in their favour—through membership of trade unions, for example.
I have long heard the Tories say that they are champions of individualism, but their current plans give the lie to that and reinforce my long-held view that the Tories are the party of big businesses, to which they are in thrall. They are no more the champions of individual citizens—from whom they also wish to remove the human rights that were championed by previous generations of their party, including Winston Churchill—than Napoleon was an intimate friend of Wellington’s 150 years ago.
For many of us, a substantial part of our constituency work is about care and, in recent times, about carers. As our population ages and more people live with multiple concurrent disabilities, conditions and ailments, that is not surprising. However, the Tory motion refers to the creation of 2 million private sector jobs, but they are not necessarily new jobs. Many of those jobs have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector; they do not represent 2 million new jobs.
Moving jobs that prioritise public benefit to the private sector means they are now in companies that prioritise their owners’ business interests. That situation has rarely improved the conditions of individuals who have been affected by such moves. In particular, for carers, the commercialisation of carer services has created jobs in which the relationship between employed and employer is wholly out of balance.
In Aberdeenshire, we might be comparatively lucky—I understand that 11 of 13 companies that provide carer services are living wage employers—but there are other difficulties. In particular, not paying staff as they travel between care appointments is commonplace throughout Scotland.
The statutory obligation rests with local authorities. They have responsibility for care and are outsourcing it to the private sector and so are, by default, condoning the practices that Stewart Stevenson describes.
Now that my SNP colleagues have taken over the running of Aberdeenshire Council from the Tories, I certainly intend to seek to persuade them that there might be a different way forward, but they will be locked into existing contracts, so there are difficulties. However, John Finnie is right that there are opportunities.
Aberdeenshire is the most rural area in mainland Scotland—more of the population live in a rural setting there than is the case elsewhere—so carers spend a bigger proportion of the day travelling from appointment to appointment. Not being paid for that is a particular issue for them. There are many reasons why we need new powers over those matters: that is but one and I am sure that others will emerge in the debate. I suspect that a majority of members could make common cause on how we might exercise such powers, even if we were not unanimous—I suspect that the Tories would think otherwise.
Fair work is an awful lot easier to support if we have the powers to do so. Making it more expensive—impossibly expensive—for people who are on low wages to access the legal system in order to enforce their employee rights is simply part of an unambiguously clear Tory agenda to remove the legal system’s protection from the people who most need it. The debate is about protecting employee rights. There have been various references to trade unions and to borders. I cannot help but note that the Labour leadership contenders went to Dublin to speak to trade unionists because we have a trade union that works across borders. Borders are barriers against effective delivery of policy only if we choose to make them so. Collaboration is the way forward.
I hope that we can build some consensus, and I hope that by pointing to the first half of the Labour motion, I have done so. Perhaps, at some future date, I will say that it is time that we helped low-level bank employees who have been damaged by the irresponsible actions of a tiny number of highly paid senior bankers.
15:17
Fairness in the workplace and making life better for working people and their families are the issues that drove my interest in politics and brought me into the labour movement. As a teenager, I watched as—in my community and throughout the UK—proud men and women lost their jobs as the Government and corporations discarded loyal workers, often without a thought for the consequences. Industrial closures—British Leyland and Motorola in Bathgate, Polkemmet and Levi’s in Whitburn, Continental Tyres in Newbridge and, more recently, Halls of Broxburn, to name but a few—have had a profound and lasting impact in many of the towns in my region, and have had a life-changing impact on the people who lost their livelihoods.
The reality is that the sons and daughters of Thatcher who sit on the Conservative seats and who worship the neo-liberal creed care not a jot for the plight of people and communities. That is not their priority. Thatcher said that
“there is no such thing as society”—
that there are only individuals. People who held to a collective view were singled out and, rather than being considered to be a force for good that stood up against exploitation, trade unions became the enemy within. Every Tory Government since has introduced offensive legislation that has further restricted trade unions and their ability to organise. The Tories do not want anyone to defend working people—they want to continue the attack on living standards and public services while introducing legislation to restrict the ability of working people to stand up for themselves.
Will Neil Findlay give way?
Will Neil Findlay give way?
I will give way to Mr Finnie.
Will Mr Findlay outline the steps that were taken in the 13 years of a Labour Government to reverse Thatcher’s erosion of workers’ rights?
Huge changes were brought in during that time. We brought in a national minimum wage, we reversed the restrictions at GCHQ and we gave people the right to join a trade union. [Interruption.]
Can we have a bit of calm, please?
Many trade union reforms were brought in during that time. Mr Finnie has a selective memory. If he is asking whether we went far enough, I will say that of course we did not go far enough: I will always argue that. The difference between me and some other people in the chamber is that they never disagree with their own party on anything, because they are just a shower of sheep who follow wherever they are told to follow.
It is for those reasons that I have, since entering Parliament, championed issues and campaigned against injustices that impact on the lives of working people. I am pleased that we are debating devolution of employment rights. It does no justice to the importance of the debate just to say that we want powers for the sake of it, or to allow employment rights to become just another pawn in the game of constitutional wrangling. The Government has to set out why powers should be devolved.
Will Neil Findlay give way?
I will not, at the moment.
The Government has to set out why powers should be devolved and what it will do with them. I am convinced—I have been for some time—of the case for devolving employment law. I set out the reasons why publicly during the Labour leadership election, but only after a great deal of thought and consideration.
Will Neil Findlay take an intervention on that point?
I will not, at the moment.
As we see with our colleges, our legal system, social care and the rest, devolving power does not necessarily mean better decision making.
Will Neil Findlay take an intervention?
No, thank you.
There are different opinions on those issues in my party and across the labour movement, and it is incumbent on us to debate them through.
What can we do using the powers that we have now and any powers that may be devolved? There is no point in our having power if we do not do anything with it. In life we can find excuses for not doing things that we do not want to do. When I was teaching in school, I heard every excuse under the sun for pupils not doing their homework—the dog and the school bus usually featured prominently among them. I have exhausted my catalogue of excuses for not going on a diet, for not taking more exercise and for not giving up drinking the odd beer or two. We can all trot out and repeat excuses, but on each occasion the credibility of that excuse becomes less convincing. So it is with the Scottish Government on many of the employment issues that it appears to champion.
Let me be positive and suggest some steps that the Scottish Government could take to show its intent. It could settle the 18-month-long dispute with members of the Public and Commercial Services Union at National Museums Scotland. It could sort out the dispute with the Unite-member porters at Ninewells hospital. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning could end the attack on our colleges, and stop blaming teachers and instead actually support them, which the teaching unions would appreciate.
Along with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—USDAW—the Government could support a bill to protect shop workers from violence. It could use the weight of Government to hold companies to account over blacklisting. It could help the construction industry to self-cleanse, which the GMB and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—UCATT—would support. It could set up a living wage unit, as has been mentioned in the debate, not just to get companies to be accredited but to get more and more companies to pay it, which the STUC would support. It could use the fair work convention to bring in companies such as Amazon—which, we must remember, has received £10 million of selective assistance—and tackle them about their poor employment practices and anti-union stance.
The Government could do something about the 30 years of injustice against Scottish miners, which the National Union of Mineworkers would support. It could introduce free bus travel for apprentices, who are some of the lowest-paid workers in the country. It could explain how it intends to increase public sector pay and to influence private sector pay. It could help to finance a Scottish hazards centre, and it could introduce corporate homicide legislation.
At the general election, I was involved in setting out Labour’s workplace manifesto, with a positive vision for justice and fairness in the workplace. I hope that many of the policies that we put forward will be supported by the Scottish Government. It is time for less talk and more action with the powers that we have now, before we get any more.
15:14
Presiding Officer,
“Less talk and more action”.
That is rich, coming from Neil Findlay.
Because of my long history of involvement in and support for the trade union movement, I am extremely aware of the primary importance of decent working practices. We are, of course, talking about the payment of a living wage, holiday pay, the length of the working week and women’s equal rights at work, as well as about exploitative abuse of zero-hours contracts, harassment at work and blacklisting.
Citizens Advice Scotland says that employment problems are among the most common issues that its clients face, as I saw a few weeks ago when I spent some time at the Hamilton Citizens Advice Bureau. I commend the staff there on the amazing work that they do.
However, the fees that are now charged for bringing a claim to an employment tribunal mean that many people who have cases are unable to fight them. The charges range from £390 to £1,200 just to fill in the form and hear the case. Those fees need to be removed to allow access to justice. The trade unions have been good at helping people to find the money to bring such cases to tribunal, but they should not need to carry the burden, any more than the victims should.
We heard some figures from the cabinet secretary earlier. However, in the October to December period in 2012, there were 474 unfair dismissal cases, but in the same three-month period in 2014, there were only 27. In that period in 2012, there were 186 sex-discrimination cases, but only 27 in the same period in 2014, which is a reduction of 85 per cent. That is not justice in anyone’s eyes.
Some tribunal cases are eligible for fee remission, but the criteria and flux in a client’s financial situation make determining eligibility highly complex. Even when an award is made by a tribunal, it is often not paid. The system in Scotland should be strengthened to address that, but because of the overlap with reserved matters, we currently lack the powers to enforce payment. When it comes to action on the part of Neil Findlay and his colleagues, I would like hear a single Scottish Labour member, or Labour’s single Scottish member in Westminster, call for the devolution of employment law. That is the type of action that I want.
Last year, the Scottish Government legislated to make Scotland’s devolved tribunals simpler and more flexible, but we are unable to go far enough to tackle the underlying problems. Only fully devolved powers over employment law will allow us to sort out the mess.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer, I have a point of information for Christina McKelvie.
You are weakening your case.
If Christina McKelvie reflects on the speech that I just made, she will recall that I said that I was convinced of the need for that call for devolution of employment rights. I just want to put the record straight, Presiding Officer.
As you know, Mr Findlay, that is not a point of order. You have, nevertheless, made your point.
We want to make work fair, and we want it to pay fair wages. Contrary to the Conservatives’ view, we do not believe that employers need to exploit people in order to make a profit. On the contrary—better-paid decent employment leads to a stronger economy for us all.
As the cabinet secretary said, we want to ensure that at least 500 organisations sign up to the living wage accreditation scheme—I am an employer who has done so. Zero-hours contracts are easy to misuse and many of my constituents have suffered from the devastating impact of not knowing whether any work is going to be available at the start of the week, never mind at the end of the week. The UK Government needs to strengthen the law to give protection from unfair dismissal, to give full parental leave and pay rights for zero-hours workers, and to give them the statutory right to request a contract that guarantees hours.
Although those legal reinforcements are essential, they are only part of the story; there is also a critical human justice dimension. Is it acceptable that someone can be dismissed because they have been off sick or tried to take a holiday? Is it appropriate that people are told with a text message that they no longer have a job? I do not think so. The numerous examples of malpractice that CAS reports include people not being paid at all and employers who have failed to pay employee income tax and national insurance contributions, thereby leaving the employee to pick up the bill.
CAS has seen many examples of people being paid below the national minimum wage, never mind the living wage, and of people being denied sick pay when they are seriously ill. Employees have been told that they cannot take paid holiday leave, women have been dismissed because they are pregnant and there is a highly alarming rate of racist and sexist bullying at work. Migrant workers are especially exploited and made to work excessive hours. Although the Smith commission recommended that
“All powers over the management and operation of all reserved tribunals … will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament”,
the current Scotland Bill falls well short of that. It would allow Westminster to make changes without any requirement to consult the Scottish Government. That is not the respect agenda that we were promised.
The whole employment system is heavily biased in favour of the employer, which leaves workers struggling to get even the most basic rights. Employment tribunals are not just expensive: even when they make an award, enforcing the payment adds more costs and may in any event not be successful. Only 41 per cent of successful claimants actually manage to get the award, which is absolutely unacceptable.
Westminster is determined to move backwards. The Scottish Government has categorically rejected the Tories’ move to restrict the right to strike, which is rapidly becoming the only option that is left to badly treated employees. The trade unions are our key partners, and the STUC has signed a memorandum of understanding with the First Minister that commits to fighting austerity, to fighting £12 billion in welfare cuts and to fighting further erosion of trade union and employment rights.
I call on all my colleagues across the chamber to press the UK Government to devolve employment law to the Scottish Parliament and to allow us to get on with building the fairer society for which we all strive.
15:20
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. In work, the application of employment law and the protection and promotion of workers’ rights and responsibilities are of paramount import. In that context, the right to strike is not only necessary but fundamental in a society that encourages people to sell their labour for a salary or wage.
If Alex Johnstone needs evidence of the need for the “wide-ranging debate” that Labour’s amendment outlines, he needs only to examine the impact of zero-hours contracts on his constituents. Such contracts enable some employers to demand that people turn up at prescribed times, at their own cost, only to be sent home if work is not available to them. The cost of that attendance is borne by employees.
Alex Johnstone should look at part-time working, which for some employees takes place not by agreement but under a take it or leave it arrangement with the employer. Such arrangements allow employers to pick and choose workers as they wish and to discard workers when that suits them.
Alex Johnstone should also look at the so-called minimum wage. In its time the introduction of the minimum wage was an entirely virtuous attempt to drive up the costs of labour, but the minimum wage—and even the living wage—does not allow families to earn enough to not only exist but play a part in our economy and our society.
We have the blacklisting that other members have spoken about, and pre-pack administration, which has affected many companies in Scotland in the past year. I have direct experience of pre-pack administration. I was invited to hold a meeting in Kilmarnock with workers who had suffered the outcomes of such administration. Two hundred workers in a fashion chain were given 15 minutes’ notice that they would no longer be employed. They discovered that, although some of them were on full-time contracts, some were on part-time contracts and some were employed on zero-hours contracts through agencies, none of them was given rights by the employer. They were to leave the premises with no redundancy payments, and the view was that it would be left to lawyers to pursue payments from Government agencies on their behalf.
If that is a modern employment relationship, it is the kind that I want nothing to do with and it is the kind of relationship that this Parliament and the UK Parliament should ensure no longer exists. In the light of that experience, the Scottish Government’s call for the full and swift devolution of employment law powers seems to reject the complexity of what we are dealing with.
Graeme Pearson mentioned the complexity of having two different areas, which is exactly what the Tory party mentioned. Does he agree with the call from the Scottish Trades Union Congress for full powers to be brought to Scotland? Is he against what it said?
In my 38 years working in the public sector, my conditions and the service that applied to me were maintained thanks to collective bargaining across the whole United Kingdom to ensure that public sector workers, no matter whether in Aberdeen or London, were paid the value of their labour.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I do not have time.
From a union viewpoint, having two approaches in this island smashes the power of the unified worker and enables employers to divide and overcome. From an employer’s viewpoint, it allows businesses to choose the location that provides them with the most conducive circumstances in which to employ people and take advantage of any shortcomings on either side of the divide. From an employee’s viewpoint, the nation’s workers are set against each other. That allows workers on one side of the divide to try to take advantage of those who are less able to defend their situation, and it creates an opportunity for employers to move their businesses about these islands in a way that is good for profit but not for the prospect of living wages for the future.
As was acknowledged earlier, now is a good opportunity for a truly wide-ranging debate on all the circumstances that we are considering. No member of this Parliament should take pride in the fact that we maintain merely a living wage. We need to drive up the value of our workers in Scotland, not only for their integrity and self-respect but to ensure that Scotland is a place to live where we can all hold our heads high, pay our way and contribute.
15:27
Over the past 30 years trade union membership has halved, partly as a result of legislation that the Conservative Government introduced in the 1980s, which gradually reduced the autonomy of trade unions and the legality of industrial action. The Labour Government of Blair and Brown made no attempt to overturn much of that legislation.
As a result, after the past five years of a Westminster Tory-Lib Dem coalition Government, many people have insecure employment, are underemployed or are low waged. Zero-hours contracts are on the rise, with the Office for National Statistics highlighting that in the UK the number of employees with no guaranteed hours rose by 26 per cent between 2013 and 2014, from 1.4 million to 1.8 million. A large proportion of people have a zero-hours contract for their main job, and thousands have held zero-hours contract posts for 10 years, with no access to employee benefits other than those that are guaranteed by law, such as holiday pay.
As the Resolution Foundation discovered, some employers use zero-hours contracts as a management tool that disempowers the employee. Employees who cannot work additional hours because of childcare or who refuse to do additional hours at the end of a week’s work find that they are zeroed down,
“which is effectively where they’re pushed to very few or no hours in the medium or long term.”
There are also the underemployed. TUC analysis that was published in September last year identified that underemployment at the current level of 3.4 million
“is over a million higher than it was before the recession.”
Eurostat data shows that the rate of underemployment in the UK in 2014 was worse than that in the rest of the other 27 EU countries, other than the five countries with high unemployment levels. That underemployment means that many people have incomes that are lower than they would like, because their employer is unable or unwilling to offer them a longer working week. Living standards are lower than people would want, and many of those workers will claim in-work benefits because of their low earnings.
The Eurostat analysis across Europe highlights that annual net earnings in Germany grew by 16 per cent between 2007 and 2014, while those in France increased by 13 per cent over the same period. In comparison, UK annual net earnings fell by 2.5 per cent. Low-paid workers will not be able to fall back on support from welfare payments, as the newly elected Tory Government highlighted in the Queen’s speech that new legislation will
“freeze the main rates of the majority of working age benefits, tax credits and child benefit for 2 years from 2016 to 2017.”
The GMB union warned last month that 3.2 million in-work families who currently receive child tax credits and working tax credits face a cut in their weekly income. Since 2009, the minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation and the 1.1 million workers who receive it have seen their standard of living fall.
The Resolution Foundation has estimated that, even if the minimum wage increases to £7.12 by 2017, it will still be worth less in real terms than it was worth in 2004. The foundation identified that if the minimum wage was increased to the living wage, the Government would save money; it estimates that, if the 1.1 million workers on the minimum wage and the 3.6 million workers who are paid below the living wage received that level of increase, a saving of £2.2 billion a year could be made as a result of higher tax and national insurance receipts and lower spending on tax credits and benefits.
The standard of living of many workers is falling and they feel that they have no influence to change the situation. Unions no longer have the same power through collective bargaining, and legislation has reduced their ability to react to situations quickly. The pendulum has swung too far in the employers’ favour. As lawyer Edward Cooper stated at the time of the changes to employment tribunal fees,
“An underlying assumption in these proposals is that employers behave reasonably. We see day in and day out that employers do not always act reasonably, especially when there is money to be saved.”
Rather than address low pay and conditions with employers and discuss the way forward with trade unions, the new Conservative Government has decided to undermine further the remaining influence that trade unions have. The proposed trade unions bill would introduce a 50 per cent voting threshold for union ballot turnouts and, for those in public services, the bill would propose that 40 per cent of those who are entitled to vote must vote in favour of industrial action in order for it to take place. However, the Tories were elected last month on only 37 per cent of the vote, or 24 per cent of the eligible vote. I take it that it is one rule for one side and another rule for the other.
It has to be recognised that trade unions are the collective voice that allows employees to challenge management decisions and that they bring a measure of balance to the employment relationship. Unions are best placed to represent workers and ensure that they are not exploited, and unions can defend the weak, vulnerable and disadvantaged. Rather than undermine further the role of trade unions, the Westminster Government should ensure that there is a balance between the rights of employers and those of workers’ representatives. If the Government is not prepared to do that, it should devolve responsibility for employment law to this place so that we can address the issues.
15:33
Employment rights are fundamental to a well-functioning economy. The aim should be a fair, simple and transparent system where workers know their rights and protections under the law and where businesses are equally clear about those rights and their responsibilities. Too many employees and employers are simply unaware of their rights and responsibilities, and that situation must be addressed. However, I do not think that constitutional change would improve matters.
In the UK-wide market, there is no sense in having one set of rules and regulations for companies south of the border and another for those operating in Scotland. Such differences would create unnecessary complications not only for companies that operate in both countries but for the numerous individuals who work across the UK.
Our economy is increasingly global; just this week we debated the importance of the European Union. I therefore fail to see the sense in putting up needless boundaries.
I am interested to hear Jim Hume talking about the global economy. International companies seem to manage perfectly well in working across numerous countries. Why should it be a problem for companies to work across the UK with different conditions in the rest of the UK from those in Scotland?
I think that Mike MacKenzie will find that it is more common for people to work across the UK than to work globally. As I said—[Interruption.] Perhaps the member would like to listen.
Parties had the opportunity to discuss such matters during the Smith commission process, and all parties agreed that employment law should remain reserved to the UK Parliament within a UK-wide framework. We believe that that agreement is the most sensible—and still a sustainable—position.
As our economy and workforce grow, it is important not only to embrace the opportunities that that brings but to acknowledge some of the challenges. Low pay is certainly one of those challenges, which is why we as Liberal Democrats, as part of the previous UK Administration, followed the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission and increased the national minimum wage, and it is why we support the living wage being paid.
That challenge is also why we acted to end exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Such contracts can suit some workers—students, for example—but they should not be widely used and they should not be used to the detriment of individual workers.
In government, we forced the Conservative Party to make a U-turn when it wanted to undermine workers’ rights by introducing moves to give companies sweeping powers to dismiss underperforming employees. We started a wide-ranging employment review because, as the former Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said,
“now the economy is firmly on the road to recovery, it is important that the fruits of the recovery are shared by all ... Confident, secure employees spend money, which is ultimately good for UK plc.”
We also worked to bring in more rights for employees and we updated employment rights to fit with the realities of modern life by introducing things such as shared parental leave and a right to ask to work flexibly.
Neither the benefits of recent reforms nor the challenges that working people and employers face are exclusive to Scotland. They span the UK, and we believe that they are best addressed UK-wide.
With that in mind, we welcome the fair work convention that was announced in April. Its task is to learn from national and international research and from cutting-edge practice in employment relations. I am sure that its input will be valuable, and I look forward to hearing more about its work.
A crucial part of the convention’s remit is to look at gender equality in Scotland. I very much welcome the work that the coalition did to highlight and close the gender pay gap, but more must be done, not just on pay but on equality of opportunity in our workplaces. I am glad that the First Minister took up that point with the IMF today on her trip to the United States.
Just this week, we heard that a Nobel laureate, Sir Tim Hunt, made inexcusable comments about women working in the scientific community. His views are a reminder that equality is still an aspiration and not something that we can take for granted.
We know that we must get more women into the workforce, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics areas, in order to meet our economy’s future demands. I hope that the convention will look in particular at STEM and at what more can be done to support women, and other underrepresented groups, into the field. Such work is crucial if we are to reach our potential not only as individuals but as a society and a country.
Clarity about employment rights not only protects workers but ensures that businesses are clear on their responsibilities and on the rights that their staff have. Although it is right that we work to further improve the situation, we should do so with our neighbours in the United Kingdom. As I said, our challenges are not unique, and the interests of both employees and employers are best served by a collective approach that reflects the diverse nature of businesses that operate in the UK.
15:39
I will address the Labour amendment and pretty well ignore the Tory amendment, though I found Alex Johnstone’s speech bizarrely entertaining, so I must be needing a rest.
Of course I agree with the sentiments in the Labour amendment opposing regressive and punitive restrictions on the rights of the workforce, through trade unions, to withdraw their labour, which is a basic human right. I support online balloting, the living wage, the creation of a unit to promote the living wage and so on. In fact, the Scottish Government established the fair work—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am just 37 seconds into my speech, but yes.
It is now 40 seconds. If the member supports the Scottish living wage, why has she not been accredited as a Scottish living wage employer, as many MSPs have been?
I have always paid the living wage. I am very thrawn and when a newspaper tries to bully me into doing something that I do willingly, I will not comply. Be aware that I pay the living wage, I always have done and I always will. I am accrediting myself.
Will the member take an intervention?
You never took an intervention from me, naughty person, so sit down.
The Government established a fair work convention to give independent advice—
Ms Grahame, can you stop for a minute? I will decide who is naughty and who is not. It is not for you to decide.
Please continue.
I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer. I was carried away by the moment.
The Government has acted by funding the Poverty Alliance to promote living wage accreditation—the alliance has received an additional £200,000.
Under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, ministers can issue statutory guidance on a range of issues, including the principle that blacklisters are excluded from public works contracts unless they have taken appropriate remedial measures.
The Government is also working on improving the fatal accident inquiry system for accidents in the workplace, not least to ensure that relatives of the deceased are more informed and that delays in the system are tackled. The issue is currently under scrutiny by the Justice Committee.
However, the issue for me is why the Labour Party amendment deletes the SNP motion from “calls for”. That means that it would remove the call for
“the full and swift devolution of powers over employment law to ensure the protection and promotion of the rights and responsibilities of workers in Scotland”,
and the call to oppose
“the UK Government’s plans to further restrict the right to strike”.
In comparison, the words in Labour’s amendment are wishy-washy. Its amendment merely
“welcomes the wide-ranging debate that is taking place”
and
“notes that the UK Government has indicated its intention to further restrict the ability of trades unions and individual employees”
to strike. The amendment does not have any weight in it whatsoever. It is limp wristed and there is no punch to it, which is pretty well where the Labour Party is today.
It is essential that employment law is fully devolved. How else can this Parliament redress existing inequalities? Our inability to tackle health and safety—to address an issue that Neil Findlay raised in his speech—has a substantial impact on FAIs. How do we tackle zero-hours contracts without devolution of employment law? How do we tackle inequalities in tribunals without devolution of employment law?
While Labour has apparently gone soft with the Tories in its amendment, the SNP and the STUC are hand in glove on the issue. It is common sense that, if we want to tackle these injustices, we have to have the powers to do so. Labour, of course, is in a bind. It simply cannot go further because it is thirled to UK HQ Labour in the south of England, which is playing to a different constituency.
Alex Rowley has it right and Johann Lamont had it right: the only salvation for Labour in Scotland is to detach itself from UK Labour. It could become again the socialist force that it once was—it could lead the way and show the rest of the UK what ought to be happening with employees’ rights. It will not do that, of course. Labour will stay in bed with the Tories. Labour would prefer to have the Tories down south obliterating employment rights in Scotland rather than have those rights come here. It is adding another page to one of the longest suicide notes of any political party in history.
I say this to Neil Findlay: I am no sheep—are you? Let us see whether you will vote against the Labour amendment—
Speak through the chair, please.
Let us see whether the member will vote against the Labour amendment, which deletes the commitment to the devolution of employment law. The Official Report of decision time will speak much more loudly than his rhetoric in the chamber. We will see who is sheepish then.
15:44
On the Labour side of the chamber, we always welcome the chance to debate rights at work and access to justice. That is evident not only in the campaigns that we bring to the Parliament and to the chamber along with our colleagues in the trade union and labour movement but in the proposals that we have brought to the chamber to change the laws of Scotland to benefit working people. Those proposed changes to the law are in our amendment.
I would not expect any member to vote against an amendment that talks about changing laws on culpable homicide, blacklisting and fatal accident inquiries as well as laws to improve the rights of working people in Scotland. It is in those areas that we wish to challenge ministers—rightly, in my view—to do more.
It is, of course, right to consider where the power to legislate on these matters in the broader context best lies, and it is right to do that now as the Scotland Bill is being debated. Our minds are also focused on these issues because of the Tory Government’s further threats to erode workers’ rights. Unfortunately, as we have heard in the debate, some things never change. The UK Government’s plans to restrict the right to strike will only damage employee relations and working environments in this country.
Moreover, the UK Government’s previous actions in slashing health and safety budgets and restricting access to tribunals have already been detrimental to workers’ rights—although I point out that, on access to justice, the Scottish Government’s own record is lacking, too. Ministers here can do much more to improve access to justice for workers in Scotland. For me, the key issue in the debate is that although we can consider what powers over employment law might be devolved, that must not, as Mr Findlay has made clear, be an excuse for Scottish ministers not to use their current powers to improve workers’ rights.
Neil Findlay has spoken passionately and eloquently of the need for a full public inquiry into blacklisting and for ministers to stand by their pledge to ensure that companies that are involved in blacklisting or which have not made full reparation for their involvement do not win public sector contracts. It is time for ministers to stand by their pledges on that issue.
My colleague Patricia Ferguson has brought forward desperately needed proposals to reform the fatal accident inquiry system, and I ask ministers to work with her to improve the law in Scotland as she has proposed. That issue is of great importance in my own North East Scotland region, given that the families of the 16 people who lost their lives in the 2009 Super Puma helicopter crash had to wait five years for a fatal accident inquiry to take place. We had five years in which the families were asking questions and five years in which lessons about how to make those aircraft safer were not learned. That is simply not acceptable, and it is vital that reforms are made to ensure that the families of the Sumburgh Super Puma crash in 2013 do not have to wait five years, too, for the answers that they are seeking.
I have proposed a change to the law of culpable homicide to make that area of Scots law fit for purpose in today’s Scotland. That change would ensure that where someone lost their life because of their employer’s recklessness or negligence, the employer in question could be held properly accountable in the courts. They would not merely receive a fine but face a custodial sentence, as applies in other cases of culpable homicide.
That proposal was first made by Karen Gillon after the death of the Findlay family in a gas explosion for which the company, Transco, faced a charge of culpable homicide. The court found that Scots law in its current form did not allow the company to be convicted of the charge. Since then, from the lives lost on the Flying Phantom tug to the helicopter crashes in the North Sea to which I have referred, there have been further fatalities in which it has been found that employers have breached health and safety law. In such cases, the Crown should, where appropriate, have the opportunity to pursue a charge of culpable homicide. That reform of the law is necessary not only to ensure that Scots criminal law can deliver justice in those cases but to give a greater impetus to employers to have regard to their workers’ welfare. As Unite’s Scottish secretary, Pat Rafferty, has said:
“In 2012/13 22 people died at work in Scotland and the five year average is around 20 fatalities a year—that’s completely unacceptable when we have the power to do something about it.”
I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice for meeting me, Unite and other promoters of the proposed legislation to discuss the issues involved, and I hope that we can continue to work with Scottish ministers to deliver what is a much-needed reform of our law.
I am also taking forward a bill proposal to protect workers’ rights to damages, which were eroded by the previous UK Government. I believe that those changes leave us in breach of European law and that Scottish ministers therefore have a duty to rectify them.
The challenge to this Parliament is to contribute, in and beyond this chamber and in the context of the Scotland Bill, to the debate on how we improve employment law, but the challenge to ministers remains to listen to the calls from trade unions and campaigners today and take the action that they can take now to improve the rights of workers and their access to justice in Scotland.
I advise the chamber that we have a little bit of time in hand. If members want to take interventions, they will be recompensed.
15:50
What I find depressing about the debate, which is essentially about the balance between the rights of workers and those of the bosses and business owners, is that we have been here before many times over many years.
I remember the same debates taking place when I first began to become politically aware as a young teenager. At times—and I concede that they were under Labour Governments—we seemed to make progress, but we would regress under the Tories; then we would again make progress and again regress. However, for the past 30 years, we have been regressing under both Labour and Tory Governments. In the 21st century, it is dismal to be fighting the same old battles over and over again. I feel as though I am a member of generation groundhog. In the meantime, other countries—our economic competitors—have made progress, with a more modern approach to labour relations.
It will come as no surprise to members that I support fully the Government’s motion, as well as the STUC’s proposals that we should have full devolution of powers over the minimum wage, trade union and employment law, health and safety law, and much more besides. Likewise, I am keen to see the completion of the fair work convention’s work. There are many good lessons from elsewhere for it to draw on.
It was the great economist John Kenneth Galbraith who first described the theory of countervailing power. He brought that wisdom to bear during the rebuilding of the German economy after the war, in which he was instrumental and influential. Getting the correct practical and pragmatic balance between business, workers, consumers and citizens and the role that government ought to play enabled the German economy to become the powerhouse of Europe. Getting that balance right has enabled an economy that has significantly higher productivity than we have.
Getting that balance right has also enabled a far more egalitarian society in which, today, a bricklayer may live next door to a surgeon. He or she may not earn as much as a surgeon, but they are a respected member of the community, going to work smartly dressed and changing into overalls at work. However, in the UK, we are still afflicted by a hierarchical class structure, where bosses are perceived to belong to a higher echelon than the workers, where white collar is better than blue collar, and where women are still considered to be second-class members of the workforce. In addition to all the other malign effects of the class structure, it is not economically efficient.
The First Minister is in the United States. Perhaps surprisingly, there are lessons to learn from there, too. I first became aware of that when I compared the US construction press that I read with our own. Ours is exclusively filled with the views of company directors and finance officers. The US press has some of that, but it also contains the news and views of individual workers and the owners of small—sometimes very small—businesses.
US society is in some ways, but by no means in all ways, more egalitarian than ours. It is not so in love with a collar and tie that it always puts those who wear them at the top of the hierarchy of importance.
There are lessons, too, from Scottish history. We used to have a ladder of opportunity that meant that some people worked their way all the way up from the shop floor to the boardroom, and the boardroom decisions were greatly enhanced by the wisdom and experience of those folk. That was a celebrated part of our culture, but economic and social mobility is now declining rather than improving. That has been the case for many years.
What I find sad about the Opposition amendments is their poverty of ambition and lack of aspiration for Scotland. The two parties seem to be content, complacent and unconcerned about our lack of progress. They are so in love with an obviously failing union that that trumps all other concerns. Their members were elected to serve their constituents—the people of Scotland—but nobody can ride two horses at once, unite those two loyalties or serve two masters. When those parties awaken to those basic facts, the people of Scotland may well find that they can once again support them, but I suspect that that day may not come very soon.
15:56
This is a truly important debate, because employee rights are vital to protecting people in the workplace. They can protect us when things go wrong, when companies get into difficulties or in the face of unscrupulous employers, and they have been hard won by labour and trade union campaigners over decades.
Workers’ rights are human rights. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
“Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.”
That article goes on to cover equal pay for equal work, the right to just remuneration and social protection “worthy of human dignity” and the right to join trade unions. Those rights are also embedded in the European charter of fundamental rights and, in part, in the UK Human Rights Act 1998.
Strong employee rights are vital, but they face a barrage of attacks from the UK Government. We have heard from other MSPs about the Conservative plan for a 40 per cent threshold for strike ballots in health, transport, fire services and schools. As the minister and other colleagues have noted, the UK Tory Government, with 37 per cent of the vote, did not quite make the grade, but it still proposes abolition of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Employee rights are also under attack from the UK Government’s support of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership—the so-called free trade agreement that is really a corporate power grab that endangers workers’ rights. TTIP proposals will give corporations influence over laws and regulatory convergence risks lowering health and safety protections. That is an affront to democracy, and TTIP should be scrapped.
Governments have to be free to make changes that will improve the lives of their citizens. Raising the minimum wage to the living wage is exactly the sort of policy that the Greens will continue to fight for. In the general election campaign, we argued that, by 2020, the minimum wage should be £10 to ensure that nobody in work is faced with poverty. We also support the introduction of wage ratios.
The rise of zero-hours contracts, which have been much discussed in the debate, is another example of where workers’ rights are being eroded. They will work for a few people, but most exploit people who desperately need work. I support calls from the STUC for full employment protections for all workers, regardless of their employment status.
The Scottish Green Party supported the devolution of employment law during the Smith process and was disappointed that progress was not made. That support was not motivated just by the desire to see workers protected; it also makes sense. In its submission to the Smith commission, the STUC said:
“it is easier to imagine coherent policies on economic development, tackling inequality through public service provision, welfare and active labour market intervention if the Scottish Parliament is empowered to tackle discrimination, poor employment practice, insecure employment, low minimum wages and to create healthier workplaces and promote collective bargaining.”
Employment protections are fully devolved to Northern Ireland, so it can be done while maintaining a single labour market. Employment services and fair access to employment tribunals are referred to in the Government motion. Devolution there is warmly welcome.
Since the introduction of tribunal fees, there has been an 81 per cent drop in applications to the employment tribunal. That is a serious access-to-justice issue for workers. Citizens Advice Scotland, in its briefing for today, sets out its advisers’ experience. They found that
“fees negatively alter the power balance between workers and employers”
and that the decision whether to take a claim to the tribunal is no longer based on merit but is based on personal finances—can the person afford justice or not? With the fees that we have discussed this afternoon, that is no surprise. Often, those who most need to challenge employment practices are being priced out of doing so.
I support the Law Society’s view, which we heard in committee, that any limitations to tribunal devolution should be restricted to those that are objectively necessary.
The Scottish Parliament information centre has produced a comparison of the Smith agreement and the Scotland Bill. It has marked the devolution proposals on employment programmes in red because they did not address any of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s concerns. That has to change and I hope that it will.
I, too, support calls for a weekend allowance for all staff in National Museums Scotland. Like others, I look forward to the establishment of a much-needed Scottish hazards centre that will actively campaign for safer and healthier workplaces and more effective enforcement by the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities.
Graeme Pearson spoke of his concern about the varying practices by trade unions in different parts of these islands. While he questioned the need for two different approaches, if the one approach that we have is regressive and truly woeful, I support having two different approaches.
Alex Johnstone spoke of “socialist failure”. Last night, I was watching the late news—it was on one of the major channels but I cannot remember which one—and I saw a dinner of bankers who were described as “the elite”. Is it not the case that, if the losses that they incurred had not been socialised, failure might have been truly catastrophic?
I suggest that this Parliament do all that it can to enhance, protect and promote employees’ rights.
16:02
I thank Mike MacKenzie for his excellent contribution. I thank Alison Johnstone, too. She raised the issue of the devolution of employment law to Northern Ireland. We should remember that in a debate about employment law.
I start off with what the Scottish Government is doing at the moment. It is doing lots, of course, but I do not have time to go into all of it. One of the most helpful things is the partnership working that the Scottish Government has entered into, not just with trade unions but with businesses and the third sector. The Government promotes fair work and the living wage and, as Mike MacKenzie mentioned, it has established the fair work convention. The fair work convention is wonderful and should be welcomed by everyone. It will provide independent advice to the Scottish Government on industrial relations in order to reduce inequality and promote equality and diversity, and it will develop a fair employment and workplace framework for Scotland.
I make that positive comment early on because I want to go on talk about issues that have been raised by the Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. I welcome the debate. In the present climate of Westminster-imposed austerity, zero-hours contracts and attacks on workers’ rights, it is important that we debate employee rights so that workers in Scotland and the rest of the UK can see that the Scottish Parliament takes the issue very seriously.
As a former shop steward, I, like many others, am deeply concerned about the retrograde impact on workers’ rights. Many people fought for those rights, including people in trade unions and people who belonged to a number of political parties.
When I was a shop steward, I was a member of the SNP—I have never been a member of any other party—but I took my responsibilities very much to heart and represented my workers, no matter what political party they supported. It pains me deeply to see what the Westminster Government is going to visit upon people throughout the UK, including in Scotland, as a result of its retrograde step.
I thought about what I could say about the Labour and Tory amendments and the speeches from their members. Annabelle Ewing got in before me with regard to the point in the Tory amendment about
“the rights of hardworking taxpayers”,
as I was going to make an intervention on that point, too. Annabelle Ewing was absolutely right to ask the Tory party whether it thinks that trade unionists are not also hard-working taxpayers. I was shocked by that part of the Tory amendment, so I thank her for raising it.
Alex Johnstone’s amendment goes on to say:
“employment law should remain reserved”
to Westminster. Strangely, just after that, that is exactly what the Labour Party said, and the sole Lib Dem speaker said it, too. Basically, that makes me think that better together is alive and kicking on the other benches in the Parliament. When we think of the general election, it is really rather sad that those parties still have not got over better together, which they prefer to putting forward their constituents’ and their country’s interests.
I often wonder why those parties do not want to devolve these important laws to the Scottish Parliament to protect our workers, as the STUC and others have asked for, particularly given that, as Alison Johnstone mentioned, employment law is devolved to Northern Ireland. As the SNP Government and the STUC say, if employment law is devolved, we will protect and promote the rights of workers in Scotland. I do not understand the approach, particularly from Labour members.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—the member would not take one from me. Sorry.
I do not understand why those parties, particularly the Labour Party, do not want to protect workers in Scotland. Alison Johnstone summed up the issue. It is a retrograde and negative step. Why will the Labour Party not support a positive step forward?
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I will not take an intervention.
Surely Scotland can lead the way with a positive step. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Labour Party in particular does not see the positive impact on not just Scotland but the rest of the UK. If the Labour Party had listened to the people, it might have been in power in Westminster. Rather than letting the Tories in, perhaps the Labour Party should have listened to the people.
Will Ms White give way?
No, I will not take an intervention.
It pains me, and lots of other people, that the Labour Party pretends to be the party of the working people but will not even support employment law being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. As I said, we could lead the way on employment law. Surely it is better to have a positive aspect than a negative one. I ask Labour members to think carefully about that.
We have heard about the record of the Tories, but I have to pick up on Mike MacKenzie’s point about the Blair years, when we had the clause 4 issue. What happened to workers’ rights under the Labour Party?
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No, I will not take an intervention.
The Labour Party should not come here with its piousness and pretend to stick up for the working people. The working people have spoken. The Labour Party had a chance to be elected as a Government in Westminster, but it would not listen to the people and it let the Tories in.
Ms White, could you draw to a close? The extra time that I have is to reimburse for interventions.
Thank you—I have drawn to a close.
Thank you. Once again, I make the point that I can reimburse for interventions.
16:09
Like other members, I welcome the opportunity to debate workers’ rights. I understand why the Government wants to seek, and doubtless will get, parliamentary support for
“full and swift devolution of powers over employment law”,
given the discussions at Westminster on the Scotland Bill. However, as the Labour amendment acknowledges, there are differences of opinion regarding which parts of employment legislation should be devolved and which parts should be reserved. There are differences between individual trade unions, between the TUC and the STUC and between individual members of trade unions; indeed, there are differences between individual members of the Labour Party. We have heard some of those discussions today. If the cabinet secretary had really wanted to have a consensual debate, she would not have talked about the full devolution of powers. She knew that that would not attract full support from the Labour Party.
The Labour Party aspired to a very different result at the general election last month. We hoped that, across the UK, we could bring the minimum wage up to the living wage, that we could ban exploitative zero-hours contracts in all the constituent nations, and that no firm anywhere would be able to exploit agency workers to undercut the wages of its permanent staff. We looked forward to being able to reward businesses who signed up to the living wage with tax rebates in the first year of government. We were determined to abolish the employment tribunal fees system along with a package of wider reforms that would give employees proper access to justice and quicker resolution of cases that we know can drag out for years.
Instead, as we know, we have a Tory Government, which has the nerve to describe itself as the party that represents working people but which proposes an out-and-out assault on the ability of working people to protect their rights by applying the ultimate sanction of withdrawing their labour.
Having won the general election with little more than one third of the votes that were cast, the Conservative Government proposes to insist that trade unions must receive the votes of at least 50 per cent of their membership before they can call a strike. Even the SNP did not achieve the support of 50 per cent of the Scottish electorate.
As the STUC has pointed out, the proposals will make it extremely difficult for a trade union to organise a legal strike. The benefits will accrue to bad employers who use exploitative zero-hours contracts under which workers do not know from one day to another whether they will have paid employment or how much; who grudgingly pay the minimum wage but not more; and who bring in agency staff to undercut the wages of their regular employees. Such employers will benefit from the enormous barriers that the UK Government is erecting through this anti-trade union legislation. Working people will not benefit.
Our amendment recognises the dilemma that faces many of us who support devolution but are deeply concerned about the direction of travel of the current UK Government with regard to workers’ rights and fair employment. On the one hand, I do not want workers anywhere in the UK to be subject to worsening employment conditions, or to be denied the right to take legitimate industrial action. I strongly believe in solidarity.
Some matters should clearly be devolved. We should be pressing, for example, for the devolution of employment tribunals. We have reformed our tribunals system and it would make sense for employment tribunals to be fully integrated into the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service. That would, of course, enable this Parliament to scrap the unfair fees system.
On the other hand, things have changed since the Smith agreement was made. It was not David Cameron who was locked out of Downing Street; it was the rest of us. I am sure that we all have different views about why that happened, but none of that changes the result. In the changed circumstances, maybe there is a case for the consideration of greater devolution of employment law and the opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of better and fairer law by example.
That debate and the recognition that we ought perhaps to go further than was originally argued should not, however, obscure the fact that we can do better with the powers that we have now. There are injustices that we can tackle now, even as we argue for further devolved powers.
Siobhan McMahon and Neil Findlay spoke about the porters in Ninewells and the Royal Victoria hospital in Dundee who, since March, have been taking industrial action over their pay grade. They have been graded as band 1 while other porters working at other hospitals in the same health board have been graded at band 2. They have offered to go to ACAS and other forms of arbitration, but NHS Tayside has refused, and has brought in volunteers—possibly a different name for blacklegs—and agency workers to cover their action. This is happening in the Scottish national health service, which is totally devolved to this Parliament.
There is no reason for us to hide behind the powers that we do not have. We could be looking at those issues here. Neil Findlay mentioned the National Museums Scotland strike, which is happening within this Government’s responsibilities. We could instigate a thorough inquiry into blacklisting in Scotland, and we could call to account the construction firms that denied employment to workers for highlighting health and safety issues or for joining a trade union. Those employers should not be eligible for public sector contracts.
We know that that will not happen in England, but we can set the example here, through the powers that we already have. We could promote health and safety in Scotland, even without the devolution of legislative power, through the creation of a Scottish hazard centre to reduce work-related illness, injury and death, through the provision of information, support and training. That would be of particular assistance to workers who do not benefit from being in a trade union. The centre would also promote the benefit of trade union membership.
We could bring forward legislation, such as that proposed by my colleague Hugh Henry, on the protection of shop workers. There are many things that we could do. We could investigate the historic injustices imposed on striking miners during the strike 30 years ago and ensure that those who commanded the police officers are held to account, not just the police officers themselves. Let us not hide behind the powers that we do not have.
While we are correctly debating the arguments for further devolution, let us also make use of our current powers. That is the lesson that we need to take. Let us have the debate. I am interested in hearing what people have to say and I am interested in hearing from all sides what further powers should come here, but let us not use that as an excuse for inaction on things over which we already have power.
Mr Lyle, can I clarify whether you still wish to speak? Your request-to-speak button seems to have been switched off.
16:16
I apologise Presiding Officer, I had not noticed that.
I begin by complimenting Stewart Stevenson MSP on his historic 600th speech in the chamber.
The protection and promotion of the rights and responsibilities of workers in Scotland should be a priority for everyone in the Parliament, which is why the Scottish Government and the STUC share the view that, as a priority, the UK Government should agree to full devolution of powers over the minimum wage, trade union and employment law, health and safety law and equalities legislation, as well as further devolution of powers over social security. I am sure that we all want to see the Scottish Parliament have as many powers as we need to enable the Scottish Government to work effectively in partnership with trade unions, the third sector and business in order to boost economic growth, increase investment and support employment to deliver better jobs.
While we are on the topic of trade unions, let me say clearly that that I and all SNP members will oppose any Tory plans to restrict the right to strike, and will support the trade unions’ proposals to modernise how strike ballots are undertaken. Trade unions are key social partners that play an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, especially in the workplace.
Good employment practices are key to economic competitiveness and, ultimately, to social justice. In recognition of that, the First Minister and the STUC have signed a new memorandum of understanding that recognises their shared priorities, including further devolution and opposition to continued austerity. To that end, the First Minister held her first bi-annual meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 13 May 2015. The STUC, the First Minister and all SNP members share serious concerns about the impact on the people of Scotland of the UK Government’s commitment to continued austerity, of the additional £12 billion of cuts to social security spending and of further erosion of trade union and employment rights.
We should, through the actions that I have mentioned, seek to present an alternative and a voice that defends the rights of trade unions and employees across Scotland. Unlike the Conservative UK Government, the SNP Government has led by example and has, since 2011-12, paid all staff who are covered by the Scottish Government pay policy a living wage—including our hard-working national health service staff. The Scottish living wage has increased, which has benefited people who are covered by the Scottish Government’s pay policy. That amounts to an increase of around £390 per year.
Another essential aspect of employment and access to justice is the minimum wage, so we back a minimum wage of £8.70 by 2020. We will support measures to extend the living wage across the United Kingdom. We also back an increase in the minimum wage for under-21s and call for the removal of the apprentice rate in order that we pay apprentices a fair wage. We will call on and vote for the UK Government to pay all its employees the living wage, just as the SNP Government has done.
My view is that the minimum wage should be increased well before 2020. The better we pay people, the more disposable income they have to spend, which contributes to our economy and would reduce some families’ dependence on benefits. I wonder why the Tories do not realise that. We should all strive for a fair wage for a fair day’s work and we should work to make that happen.
The SNP Government is committed to working in partnership with trade unions to promote fair work and the living wage, and has established the fair work convention to take that forward, as the First Minister announced on 15 October 2014. The convention aims to draw on and to promote best practice, while making it easier to work effectively with partners across the business community, the third sector and trade unions. It will provide independent advice to the Scottish Government on matters that relate to innovation, productivity, workplaces, industrial relations, fair work and the living wage in Scotland, in order to support our objectives of reducing inequality and promoting diversity and equality. That demonstrates the SNP Government’s commitment to delivering change and to working in partnership with trade unions.
Our SNP MPs will support action to make work fair, including ending unfair and exploitative zero-hours contracts. We lead by example, as the Scottish Government does not directly employ people on zero-hours contracts and has published practical guidance for public purchasers on how they can promote fair employment practices. That is in stark contrast to the Labour Party—this will wind up Labour members—which does not act on its words. We need look only at Glasgow City Council to see examples of that.
Richard Lyle is right: there are councils of all persuasions employing people on zero-hours contracts, just as thousands of workers are employed on them in the NHS, which is the direct responsibility of the Scottish Government. I plead with Richard Lyle not to take a holier-than-thou attitude about anyone, because the problem is endemic in our work system. That is the issue with which we have to get to grips.
We have to ensure that people get a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. I have always tried to ensure that anyone who worked for or under me had that.
So strong is the SNP’s commitment to ensuring protection of employees’ rights and access to justice that the SNP’s trade union group alone has more members than the Scottish Labour Party has—it has increased to more than 15,000 members. That goes hand in hand with the huge growth of the SNP, as more and more Scots realise that we are the party of working people in Scotland and that the Labour Party no longer represents them. Those voices, along with the well over 100,000 SNP members, will campaign and work tirelessly with Scotland’s 56 new SNP MPs to deliver the powers that have been promised to Scotland. I look forward to the powers over employment law coming to the Scottish Parliament so that we can deliver for Scotland’s workers.
The last open debate speaker is John Finnie. I can give you some extra time if you care to take interventions, Mr Finnie.
16:23
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.
Last Friday, I had the great pleasure of addressing the Public and Commercial Services Union annual general meeting in Glasgow. They were a fine bunch of people. There was an extra pleasure in being asked to present an award to Louise MacBean, who works for Bòrd na Gàidhlig at Great Glen house in Inverness. She was given an award, as a young trade unionist, for the level of recruitment that she had achieved—a percentage of Great Glen house staff in the 70s. I had the good fortune at the end of that meeting to have a talk with Louise—a wee bit in Gaelic and a wee bit in English—and it transpired that the figure was wrong: she has actually recruited up to 90 per cent of the staff at Great Glen house.
To pick up on the points that Gordon MacDonald made, the significance of what Louise MacBean has done is in the collaborative workforce that it will bring about, which will bring about good relations. People being engaged in trade unionism does not suggest fractious workplaces, but quite the reverse; problems can be solved.
A number of members mentioned National Museums Scotland staff. They are PCS members, and PCS has been representing them very ably. I hope that there is a resolution to that situation, and I urge the Scottish Government to redouble its efforts in intervening.
People have also mentioned the porters in Dundee. I am inherently suspicious of any employer that is unwilling to engage with ACAS: employees are not allowed access to a tribunal without having exhausted all internal mechanisms.
It is important that we are in no way complacent. Our basis for discussing and welcoming trade union rights is the foundation that was set out by my colleague Alison Johnstone. She spoke about the relationship between various human rights, which should be the basis of our approach to everything in our policy making.
I support the Scottish Government motion; I support the devolution of powers, and not just employment powers, but a wide range of powers. Why? It is because I think that we can do things better.
I like the wording of the motion; I like the word “protection”. What is that protection? It is the protection of hard-fought-for rights. A lot of people—many brave individuals—put a great deal of effort into winning those rights. I also like the word “promotion”. Not many people seem to be keen to promote workers’ rights, but that is a very positive word to associate with this subject. I hope that the devolution of employment rights does not just bring about protection; I want enhancement of those rights. There is an opportunity to improve workers’ terms and conditions, so the on-going debates on that are important.
The minimum threshold for strikes has been covered by many members already—as, of course, is the case for a number of issues at this stage of the debate. There seems to be some rank hypocrisy on the part of the UK Prime Minister—there is nothing new about that, of course. I am drawn to the words of Grahame Smith, who is the general secretary of the STUC, who says that the proposals would
“effectively ban the right to take industrial action in the UK”.
What a retrograde step that would be. He goes on to describe
“some of the weakest legal protections in the developed world”
for workers. That is a damning indictment of where we have got to.
I ask whose interests are served by the proposals. It is certainly not those of the people of Scotland, nor is it those of workers in general.
I believe that trade unions and staff associations play a positive role in the workplace in a preventative way, rather than as a cure. Good working relationships are good for business and for productivity. Matters reach employment tribunals because there has been a failure to operate systems. The role of ACAS is very important.
The word “disincentive” has been used in relation to the changes that have taken place to employment tribunals. Who in their right mind is going to spend a sum of money—a fee—in an attempt to recoup half that sum of money in holiday pay, for instance? It is ridiculous.
If we had been debating a different subject, and I had seen that there had been an 85 per cent drop in sex discrimination cases, a 50 per cent drop in race-related cases and a 47 per cent drop in disability-related cases, that would be a cause for rejoicing but, as has been said, the reduction is because people are having to weigh up whether their moral and legal position is worth the expenditure. Clearly, it is in the interests of people who use bad work practices that those fees continue.
The term “access to justice” is frequently bandied about in the chamber, not just in this debate, but in relation to many other matters. It is clear that workers are not gaining access to justice as a result of the changes.
Citizens advice bureaux have been mentioned. Their staff are the people who will pick up many of these issues, as we all do.
Alex Johnstone mentioned EU-wide benefits. The UK Government is supportive of TTIP. My colleague Alison Johnstone referred to that. That will be a race to the bottom, not simply for workers’ rights, but also in terms of environmental rights and free trade. That seems to be the rationale that is used to lend support to that agreement. As I say, it will be a race to the bottom, as we have seen from experiences elsewhere. We watch that situation with alarm.
The motto “Unity is strength” is often used by trade unions. Of course, there is also unity among the multinational corporations and those who subscribe to the neo-liberal agenda. Stewart Stevenson touched on that when he spoke about a human rights approach involving carers, who are a very important part of our community.
The Westminster Prime Minister has referred to
“the health and safety monster”,
which he wants to slay. The tactic of ridicule and misrepresentation is terribly important.
A number of members talked about workplace deaths. The 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster was commemorated in many ways: the most shameful way in which it was commemorated was through the change to the offshore regime that was made by the UK Government. That was a green light for dangerous workplace activities. Of course, those activities impact not only on the workforce, but on the wider community. Opportunities for the Health and Safety Executive to be proactive have been removed, so I am sure that devolution of those powers would help greatly, because of differing priorities. Politics is about priorities, and we would make ensuring that our workers and workplaces are safe one of our priorities.
I commend colleagues who have talked about blacklisting. It is a pernicious practice that exists throughout the United Kingdom. The issue of the umbrella companies is a sad indictment.
On corporate manslaughter, people have talked about the Government’s bill and Patricia Ferguson’s member’s bill that deals with industrial accidents, both of which are getting a lot of scrutiny at the moment.
It is important that we in Scotland are not complacent about the workplace. There are issues of underrepresentation according to gender, race and disability in relation to modern apprenticeships.
I welcome the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the STUC, although I wonder whether biannual meetings are sufficient. A rights-based approach must be taken. The fair work convention will go some way towards delivering that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
16:31
This has been a useful debate which, as the cabinet secretary sagely observed, has predictably contrasted two approaches—her party’s and mine—with some flourishes from the Labour Party.
To me, the two priorities for any Government in relation to employment are to create the economic conditions that are necessary to underpin and support increasing employment and to support responsible practices and positive relationships in the workplace. That, in turn, places obligations on employers and employees to ensure that the workplace is a place of mutual respect. Where such good relations exist, there will be a benefit to the workforce and to the country.
Over two centuries, we have moved from a situation in which workers needed protection and did not have it to a situation in the latter part of the last century in which incessant industrial action brought businesses to their knees and paralysed the economy and was used to try to interfere with the role of democratic Governments. Neither extreme is justifiable or sustainable, and reforms were enacted to attempt to rebalance rights and responsibilities.
Today, however, I heard echoes of practices that have been abandoned by most modern competitive economies. Among the rhetoric and the passionate political debate, all of which is admirable and necessary, I hope that members will pause to reflect on what is working elsewhere and what it might be unwise to contemplate having in Scotland or the UK.
It is a fact that businesses do not have to operate in the UK or Scotland, and we need an industrial relations framework that balances the rights of trade unions and hard-working taxpayers. That is inclusive. Hard-working taxpayers are people who might find themselves obstructed in trying to get to work because of industrial action for which, as I will mention in a moment, there may not be a democratic mandate from within the trade union.
Will the member give way?
I am just finishing a point.
If those practices are permitted, they will present an unattractive environment to business and will impair the creation of jobs. That is not just an observation that I make as a politician; it is fact. In a highly competitive global economy, businesses are mobile. If that balance and that test of reasonableness are not in evidence, businesses will not be encouraged to stay.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
Given that strikes are possible in a situation in which, in one case, 16 per cent of the trade union membership voted, and only 11 per cent of the total membership wanted to strike, it is difficult to argue against some form of change. Introducing a threshold for strike decisions in key public services and a 50 per cent turnout threshold to ensure that there is a real mandate is necessary.
Will the member take an intervention?
Give me a moment, please.
It means that there will be less disruption from strikes for which union leaders have not even persuaded a majority of their own members to vote.
I am happy to give way—I think that Stewart Stevenson was first.
I want to pick up on the democratic mandate point. In my speech I referred to the European convention on human rights, which the UK signed up to in the 1950s. That is an international treaty. Should leaving that be decided on the same basis as what is proposed for trade union ballots, or should some other number prevail? Is it just trade unions that are being singled out for a very special mandate, wholly at odds with any other mandate that there is?
I expected an intervention, not a treatise on international law. Stewart Stevenson is not quite on point with what I am trying to argue for. Contrary to what may have been represented in the chamber, my party does not propose to abolish human rights and has no intention of doing so. It simply wants to recodify the very strong basis of our human rights, to which we are already bound under international law but which is in need of reform.
Will the member give way?
No. Neil Findlay’s colleague was first.
I apologise to Neil Findlay, but I thank Annabel Goldie.
If we accepted the arguments that Annabel Goldie makes about business moving around, it would create a race to the bottom around the world.
On trade union ballots, we would all want to see more people engage in any form of ballots. Why does the UK Government not introduce measures that would make it easier for people to participate in industrial democracy, such as online voting, rather than putting further barriers in the way of industrial democracy?
It may surprise Drew Smith to hear that I am not totally unsympathetic to the point that he makes. However, there are two separate issues: what the legal framework for industrial action should be, and what may be very welcome, legitimate and innovative practices for unions to pursue to facilitate their members’ participation in ballots.
Will the member give way?
No, thanks; I have been generous.
There was no compelling case made to the Smith commission in support of the devolution of employment law and it was not part of the all-party Smith commission agreement. If my recollection is correct, many troubling observations were made about what the effects of the devolution of employment and the creation of different employment regimes could mean for the stability of both business and the employment base in Scotland, so it will not surprise the cabinet secretary that my party does not support her view on those things.
The cabinet secretary’s motion hardly reads like a charter for business strength and job creation. It restricts itself to the rights of employees and the obligations of employers—a theme echoed by many contributors to the debate. Having been an employer myself, and having been responsible for staff issues, I know that it is mutual respect and regular dialogue in the workplace that creates the most stable platform for good relations, a partnership between employer and employee. Let me make clear that I think that trade unions have a very important role to play in that function, which extends beyond industrial relations. Trade unions can be an invaluable source of advice and information about training or how to improve practices in the workplace, which is all to be welcomed.
Very few members alluded to some interesting models of employee engagement that already exist, such as staff or work councils, co-operatives, workers trusts, employee ownership trusts and the recently constructed employee shareholders model, in which employees are encouraged to have a financial interest in the business. I am a very strong advocate of all that, as it makes for a strong business entity.
Many positive initiatives are taking place and I wish the fair work convention well in its endeavours to build on all that. It has an opportunity to think outside the box. However, I have one word of caution: the convention should remember that business operates against a razor edge of global competition, and we must leave businesses free to make essential commercial decisions. I support the amendment in my colleague’s name.
16:39
Richard Lyle—probably rightly—made a point about why so many working people, not just in Scotland but across the UK, have turned their backs on the Labour Party and decided to vote for other parties. That was an entirely reasonable point, and it points to a failure of the Labour Party that those of us who are its members need to reflect on. He pointed out—again, rightly—that many working people in Scotland now support the SNP because they think that what it has to say on many issues chimes with how they feel.
We have been talking about the history, pedigree and DNA of political parties. Yes, it is right to chastise the Labour Party, because in many respects over the years we have perhaps neglected some of the people for whom we should have worked and moved away from our roots and what was in our DNA, history, tradition and heritage.
Perhaps we should also reflect on the history, DNA, heritage and pedigree of the SNP. The SNP has not always been a party that stands up for workers’ rights and the interests of ordinary working people. That was not what drove Gordon Wilson, William Wolfe and Arthur Donaldson. They had a different tradition, a different outlook in life and different aims. At the moment, it so happens that much of what the SNP is saying coincides with what many ordinary working people are saying, but that is not the be-all and end-all for the SNP. We know that its ultimate aim is securing not the rights of working people but independence, and that is a fair enough point to make.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thanks.
Elaine Murray’s speech was probably the best of the afternoon. She posed a number of challenges, raised a number of issues and put the matter in the correct context. The debate on whether we devolve employment law or gain more powers must be seen from the perspective of what will improve the lot of ordinary men, women and children in Scotland. It is not about having power for power’s sake. If we can demonstrate the need for additional powers on some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon, that is worthy of detailed consideration.
As many speakers have pointed out, starting with the cabinet secretary and throughout the debate, what is happening with employment tribunals is a disgrace. A function and a facility that was established to help ordinary people to exercise their rights has been turned into an impenetrable barrier for those people. Someone—I do not remember who—used what I thought was a very apposite phrase that summed up the situation effectively. They said that people could not afford to exercise the rights that they have been granted and that we should look at that carefully.
Elaine Murray and others mentioned the right to strike. It is a democratic absurdity that a Government that will affect the lives of each and every one of us can be elected on the basis of support from a third, or less, of the total electorate, yet it seems to want to demand that any action by a trade union is voted for by 50 per cent of its members. There are inconsistencies, contradictions and, frankly, hypocrisy in that position. However, we know that the proposal is there for a reason and a purpose and is not there by accident.
Annabel Goldie referred to the issue of a democratic mandate. Can Mr Henry help me in establishing what democratic mandate Baroness Goldie of Bishopton has for sitting in a legislature?
I think that Annabel Goldie has the same right to sit here as Neil Findlay does, so I do not think that we should go down that route.
Issues such as the right to strike need to be addressed. Siobhan McMahon and others spoke about a hazard centre and other aspects of life where people need the support of legislatures, whether here, at Westminster or in Europe.
A number of speakers pointed to the difference between demanding more powers for the sake of them and turning our backs on the use of powers that we already have. Mike MacKenzie talked about aspiration and poverty of ambition, but there is poverty of ambition and a lack of aspiration in refusing to use the powers that we have to do something about the blacklisting inquiry that Neil Findlay has been campaigning for, and there is poverty of ambition and a lack of aspiration when I propose legislation on behalf of many trade unionists to protect those who are assaulted in the workplace but the Scottish Government decides not to act on that.
There is also poverty of ambition and a lack of aspiration when it comes to using the powers that we have in purchasing to insist that contractors pay the living wage. My local council is Renfrewshire Council, which uses its funds to insist that those who contract with the council pay the living wage. The Scottish Government could act similarly now.
There is poverty of ambition when it comes to dealing with some of the issues that Richard Baker has been addressing. There is poverty of ambition when it comes to using our powers to have an inquiry into the criminal convictions of miners who took strike action all those years ago in 1984. There are things that we could and should be doing, and we should therefore not sneer at others about their poverty of ambition when we often display that same poverty of ambition here.
Poverty of ambition is evident in an immediate practical issue such as the situation of the porters in NHS Tayside.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Do not tell me that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport, who represents a Dundee constituency, will not be listened to by the chief executive of NHS Tayside and by its senior managers. She has power and influence, but there is poverty of ambition about doing anything to help those porters who are taking strike action and are not being allowed even to go to ACAS.
Elaine Murray asked how appropriate the powers are and what we could do with them. I do not agree with much of what Alex Johnstone says, but I agree with him about avoiding a race to the bottom. In demanding powers, we need to be careful about taking decisions with those powers that could have unintended consequences. For example, if we had the power to legislate on things such as the living wage and the minimum wage, would we be encouraging some ruthless lower-wage employers to move their businesses from Scotland to England if there were fewer employment rights and less legal protection there for the workers?
Mr Henry, you must draw to a close.
I will finish on my next point, Presiding Officer.
We need to avoid such unintended consequences, which is why we need a debate with not only the STUC but the TUC and trade unions across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom to ensure that whatever we do is done in the best interests of working people, wherever they are.
16:49
The debate has been important because it has focused on key issues such as fairness, dignity and equality for those who are seeking work and those who are in work.
As members have mentioned, the most recent research has found growing evidence that inequality is harmful for long-term economic growth. The latest publication by the OECD, “In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All”, presents evidence on the malign economic consequences of inequality. We should recognise, of course, that income inequality is not just a UK problem. However, the report highlights that the problem of inequality is, regrettably, worse in the UK than in most other OECD member states.
The report recommends pursuing policies that are both growth friendly and equality friendly, including the establishment of good working practices, employment promotion and the creation of good-quality jobs. It is, therefore, a scandal indeed that the UK Government plans to introduce measures that will only make the situation worse. Grahame Smith, the general secretary of the STUC, has said:
“The attack on employment and trade union rights will further undermine workplace democracy and leave Scottish workers with some of the weakest legal protections in the developed world.”
I agree with him. In this debate, we need to call on the UK Government to address the issues that have been raised and, rather than attacking the rights of workers—
Will the minister take an intervention?
In a second.
We call on the UK Government to devolve powers over employment law and over wages and health and safety to allow this Parliament to improve the rights of and protections for workers. We also call on the UK Government to listen to the people of Scotland, who have made it quite clear that it is not to be business as usual at Westminster following the general election.
Given that almost as few as one in four of Britain’s workers is now a member of a trade union, is the minister correct to conflate trade union membership with workers’ rights and to imply that the two are interchangeable?
I wonder whether the level of trade union membership in Scotland nonetheless still exceeds the membership of the Conservative Party in Scotland. Alex Johnstone may wish to reflect on that in presenting his thesis.
A number of important themes have emerged from the debate, but before I get to the nitty-gritty, I will try to respond, as far as I can in the time available, to the various points that have been raised. Members can always write to me afterwards if I do not get round to them.
In response to Hugh Henry, who never fails to disappoint in his winding-up speeches, I say that the SNP recognises that at its heart politics is about people and about dignity. Perhaps—just perhaps—that is why the people of Scotland put their trust in the SNP as a majority Government in 2011, and why they voted for 56 SNP Westminster MPs out of 59. Perhaps, too, it is why the recent TNS poll put support for the SNP at 60 per cent.
I do not deny that. I accepted the fact that the Labour Party has largely failed ordinary working people in this country and that what the SNP was saying to them chimed more with their aspirations. I did not say anything different.
Well, yes—except that we heard from Mr Henry a wee detour in which he criticised particular individuals. However, I will move on, Presiding Officer, as we have important issues to address and I want to respond to points that members have raised.
A number of members spoke about the UK Government’s imposition of fees for employment tribunals and the negative impact that that has had on access to justice for workers. As the minister with responsibility for women’s employment, I am particularly concerned that the most significant drop in claims has been in those that concern sex discrimination. As Christina McKelvie said, the drop in the recorded number of such claims since the introduction of fees is in the region of 83 to 84 per cent. That is a shocking statistic, and it shows that the imposition of tribunal fees has obviously had a disproportionate effect on women at work.
With the devolution of employment tribunals to Scotland, we will be able to engage with our stakeholders and the public to explore innovative ways to improve access to employment tribunals and ensure that awards that are made at an employment tribunal are enforced. That is another important point that many speakers made; indeed, we heard that only 49 per cent of those with successful claims get their award, which is just not on.
We could progress many issues if we had the power to deal with employment tribunals. At the moment, achieving justice through the tribunal system has become something of a lottery, which is simply not acceptable.
There is a lack of clarity in what the UK Government is proposing and we need to urgently determine exactly what is being devolved—
I would be grateful if the chatter from members could cease so that we can hear the minister.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
We need clarity as to what exactly is being devolved in terms of fees, procedural rules and so on.
Another important issue that was raised is the trade union bill. Many members spoke out quite forcibly about the unfairness at the very heart of that bill; indeed, they quite rightly compared the mandate and thresholds issue with the position of the UK Conservative Government—
Just a moment, minister. Could members entering the chamber show the minister some courtesy, please?
Of course, as Gordon MacDonald said, the votes secured by the Conservative Government in the UK election represent 24 per cent of the electoral roll, so the Conservatives would have a hard job to get up to the 50 per cent that they see as necessary for trade unions.
Other important issues that were raised include key points about the denuding of workers’ rights in the form of blacklisting, umbrella contracts and the failure to pay the living wage. Many speakers have suggested that somehow, absent employment law powers, we can wave a magic wand and do something. They have suggested that somehow employment law powers are not really that important—that they sit to one side of the debate—whereas such powers are part and parcel of the debate and are fundamental to what we can do.
We are in the business of wanting to make the lives of workers better. I do not know what Labour is in the business of wanting to do these days. Labour members talked about complexity, about maybe not needing all those powers and about companies leaving Scotland if we had proper rights for workers—I find it very strange indeed to hear such comments from the Labour Party.
We also talked about the blacklisting inquiry. I think that in a recent debate, Mr Findlay had the opportunity to make several points to the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities and I think that a meeting was offered. I see that Mr Findlay is not listening. I do not know whether that meeting has been arranged.
Order, please. Could all members please pay attention to the minister’s closing remarks?
Many speakers made important points about zero-hours contracts. Again, if we had employment law powers, we could do something tangible about that issue. That is what the people of Scotland want us to do.
In conclusion, Presiding Officer, because I am not quite sure how much time I have—
You have a minute.
I am told by the cabinet secretary that I have a minute. [Interruption.]
Order.
This has been an important debate. It has not exactly been cuddly—if I may use a word that is unknown in the chamber—but nonetheless it has been important for members to hear the arguments in favour of what devolving powers over employment law would mean. That is what we on the SNP side of the chamber want to happen because that is how we can improve the lives of workers in this country.
We have heard of many successes where we have been able to use the levers of power that we currently have. For example, we have secured more than 200 living wage accredited employers.
In response to Annabel Goldie, I say that of course we have pursued the business pledge—that is a mission that is shared between the Government and business in Scotland to promote a fair work agenda. Such an agenda is good for workers’ rights but it is also good for business and good for the economy. I can report that, today, Microsoft became the latest company to sign up to the Scottish business pledge.
That just shows that if we have the will, we can make progress, but in order to make the crucial difference that we want to make in the employment landscape in Scotland, we must have the necessary powers.
Finally, like the STUC, we want our Parliament to have the powers to protect and promote the rights of workers. It really says it all about the state of the Labour Party in Scotland today that, at the end of the day, it is content for the Tories at Westminster rather than this democratically elected Parliament in Scotland to have powers over employment rights. Shame on it.
That concludes the debate on protecting employee rights and access to justice.
Previous
Home-StartNext
Decision Time