Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, December 14, 2023

Official Report 1060KB pdf

---

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-11652, in the name of Neil Gray, on the application of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 in Scotland.

14:54  

Today, I seek the Parliament’s support for the Scottish Government’s continued opposition to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and any associated secondary legislation.

These are challenging times. In the aftermath of Brexit and Covid-19, and with the war in Ukraine and the cost crisis, topped off by the effects of Liz Truss’s and Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget last year, we now confront some of the most formidable economic conditions in living memory. These times call for us to share our vision of how we will face those challenges head on while providing clarity on how we will seek to build a better future.

This Government’s vision is of an economy that is fair, green and growing. It is of a country that provides a promising future for every worker, family and community, supported by a robust labour market. The Scottish Parliament is limited in what it can do, but we will continue to do all that we can to resist the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. Today’s debate, in which we hope to secure the Parliament’s support for our position, is a testament to that.

Trade unions stand as a cornerstone of Scottish democracy. They play a pivotal role in realising our fair work ambitions as we successfully transition to net zero. Those ambitions, in turn, form the bedrock of a wellbeing economy, providing workers with better job quality, pay, economic security and work-life balance, and providing employers with an available workforce with the right skills that are aligned to the needs of businesses and our economy.

The Scottish Trades Union Congress represents about 540,000 trade unionists and members of 39 affiliated trade unions and 20 trades union councils. It can speak for the interests of female workers, black workers, young workers and those who suffer discrimination not just in the workplace but as part of civil society. It can genuinely foster an inclusive society that has wellbeing at its heart and a strong economy—a goal that I believe most members of this Parliament share. Those voices are invaluable in the development of economic and social policies.

The First Minister and I recently held the latest biannual meeting with the STUC and its affiliates, at which the issue of minimum service levels was raised. Alongside the First Minister, I made a commitment to do everything in our power to resist the implementation of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023.

The cabinet secretary is quite right that at the heart of this is the role of trade unions in representing workers, but is there not a much more fundamental principle—that of the relationship between the worker and their work, and their right to withdraw their labour when all that they have to exchange is their labour itself?

Absolutely—I whole-heartedly agree. Daniel Johnson and I share that principle, which is why I hope that we can secure Labour’s support for the motion at decision time.

The introduction of the Trade Union Act 2016 represented a direct threat to workers’ rights. Not content with having the most anti-trade union laws in western Europe, the United Kingdom Government’s way of managing the recent spate of industrial disputes was to introduce the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022. Although the High Court has quashed the legislation permitting the use of agency workers to replace those who are taking part in strike action, the UK Government is consulting on the matter again. It is relentless in its efforts to curb or mitigate strike action.

While that goes on in the background, we are now faced with the implementation of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and the associated secondary legislation, which encroaches on devolved services. Not only is it unnecessary, unwanted and ineffective, but it seeks to undermine legitimate trade union activity and does not respect the Scottish Government’s fair work principles. Governments should be working with the public sector and trade unions to reach fair and reasonable settlements that respect the legitimate interests of workers, not seeking to curb their right to strike.

Despite the 2023 act, and although employment law remains reserved to the UK Parliament, we will continue to use the levers that are at our disposal to promote fairer work practices across the labour market in Scotland. Fair work is a model for innovation and success, and many employers in Scotland are working alongside trade unions to implement fair work practices. Fair work supports stronger productivity, economic growth and greater wellbeing. Earlier this week, I met trade unions to discuss fair work and to hear their views on how we are progressing in delivering our shared ambitions. Alongside supporting employers, our fair work action plan includes actions to support trade unions. We want to build an economy in which our businesses, industries and trade unions thrive and in which economic success works for all. There is clear evidence that unionised workplaces have more engaged staff, higher levels of staff training and a progressive approach to staff wellbeing.

We are committed to supporting strong trade unions in Scotland for the benefit of all workers and our economy. That is in contrast to recent Westminster Government labour market policies, which are moving in the opposite direction. There is inadequate enforcement of minimum employment standards, including the national minimum wage, and the Trade Union Act 2016 and, now, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 have been introduced.

My ministerial colleagues and I have written to UK ministers on several occasions to express our fervent opposition to the introduction of minimum service levels, as well as our concerns about the associated codes of practice. Most recently, on 4 December, my colleague Fiona Hyslop wrote to the minister of state at the Department for Transport in relation to the publication of the UK Government’s consultation response regarding the laying of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023. Despite Ms Hyslop’s letter, which clearly articulated our position, the regulations have been approved and are now in effect.

Nevertheless, we have consistently maintained the position that we should collaborate with transport operators and trade unions to achieve fair and reasonable settlements while respecting the legitimate interests of workers and transport organisations. Our approach is unlike that of the UK Government, which, since 2019, has not had a single day without either a strike on its railways or outstanding mandates for such a strike.

The UK Government’s introduction of the 2023 act not only ignores the devolution settlement but fails to recognise the authority of the Scottish Government in devolved areas. Through the reservation to UK ministers of the sole authority to set minimum service levels, those levels can be set so high that any strike will be rendered largely ineffectual—a point to which, I am sure, Daniel Johnson was referring in his intervention.

Moreover, the UK Government has established minimum service levels for passenger services that, in Scotland, cover rail, the Edinburgh trams and the Glasgow subway. Fortunately, the minimum service levels that have been set for ambulance services are limited to England. However, further regulations will be forthcoming, as the UK Government plans to extend minimum service levels to other sectors.

In November, the UK Government’s Department for Education launched a consultation on minimum service levels for education services in Great Britain, including schools, colleges and universities. The Scottish Government intends neither to provide a formal response to that consultation nor to assist with the development of any regulations that might arise from it, because to do so would only serve the harmful objectives of the 2023 act. I will be clear: the Scottish ministers have no intention of asking any employers within our influence to issue work notices. Instead, we will continue to encourage employers and trade unions in the Scottish education sectors to work together constructively to seek resolutions to industrial disputes.

The UK Government’s introduction of what is a wholly unwelcome act is unnecessarily inflammatory and will act against the interests of the public. We are not alone in opposing the legislation. As it progressed through the UK Parliament, the Welsh Government was utterly opposed. It called it

“a Bill that represents a nakedly political and opportunist attack on the rights and dignity of public services workers.”

On royal assent, it reiterated its opposition and continuing

“fundamental concerns about the impact of the Act on devolved public services”

in Wales.

The Trades Union Congress has reported the UK Government to the International Labour Organization over the act, and its congress recently backed a motion calling for the devolution of employment law to Scotland—a view that is shared by Scottish Labour, as confirmed by Anas Sarwar in early November. Although UK Labour has stated that, should it be successful at the next UK general election, it would repeal the 2023 act—which is welcome news—it does not share Scottish Labour’s view that employment powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is in stark contrast to our position, which is clear: securing the full range of employment powers will empower the Scottish Parliament to fully implement policies that will best meet Scotland’s distinct needs, shift the curve on poverty and deliver our shared ambition for a fairer, greener and more prosperous Scotland.

The Scottish Government is committed to realising our vision for Scotland to be a leading fair work nation by 2025. Fair work is the catalyst for success, wellbeing and prosperity for individuals, businesses, organisations and society as a whole. That is a marked divergence to Westminster’s labour market policies.

We are not alone in thinking that. In the words of Labour’s Baroness Bryan of Partick, during the passage of the legislation through the House of Lords,

“the Welsh and Scottish ... fair work arrangements do not prevent industrial disputes but allow constructive dialogue between government, employers and trade unions, so that when disputes occur there is greater good will to resolve them.”

She also stated that the bill presented

“a strong case for devolving employment law to Holyrood”

and that

“the Sewel convention has been abused”

repeatedly

“so that it is no longer meaningful.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 2023; Vol 828, c 1867.]

That is exactly the point: the act further encroaches on the devolved settlement and unnecessarily undermines trade union relations, which will force further industrial disputes elsewhere.

The UK is becoming a global outlier, according to the International Trade Union Confederation, having fallen from a rating of 3, which means that the ITUC considers that there are regular violations of workers’ rights, to a rating of 4, which means that it considers that there are systematic violations.

Our request of the Parliament today is to recognise and endorse our distinct approach to industrial relations and trade unions, which is—unlike that of the UK—based on partnership working.

I move,

That the Parliament considers the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 to be unnecessary, unwanted and ineffective; further considers that the legislation, and any associated secondary legislation that could be applied in Scotland, encroaches on the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament in matters relating to health, transport, fire and rescue and education; notes that its measures seek to undermine legitimate trade union activity and do not respect fair work principles; recognises that trade unions are key social and economic partners in Scotland in responding to the cost of living crisis, creating a wellbeing economy and working towards a just transition to net zero; agrees that a progressive approach to industrial relations and to trade unionism is at the heart of a fairer, more successful society, and makes clear, therefore, its opposition to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and to any associated secondary legislation that could be applied in Scotland.

I advise the chamber that there is a bit of time in hand for this afternoon’s debate.

I call Murdo Fraser to speak to and move amendment S6M-11652.1, for around eight minutes.

15:05  

I will start with two expressions of regret in relation to this afternoon’s debate. First, I am very sorry that I am not able to be in the chamber in person due to an injury. Secondly, although I am very happy to engage in this debate on the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, I regret the fact that the Scottish Government is devoting the afternoon, at this point, to discussing what is, in essence, a matter of reserved legislation.

There is a whole range of issues affecting the Scottish economy that fall under the remit of the cabinet secretary, which we could be discussing today. We could be looking at Scotland’s economic performance, or at the challenges in sectors such as hospitality at the moment, and their demand that the 75 per cent rates relief that the chancellor issued to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England and Wales be passed on to businesses in Scotland in the coming year—as, indeed, was not done in the present year. We could also be looking at what the Scottish Government is going to do in its budget on Tuesday to support economic growth in those sectors of the economy that are struggling.

In that respect, I was very interested to read in the newspapers that the cabinet secretary is fighting a battle within the Cabinet to oppose additional tax rises that would widen the income tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK still further. I certainly wish him well in his endeavours in that respect—although, if the latest reports are to be believed, it looks like he has lost that battle already, in humiliating fashion. If that is true, which we will find out on Tuesday, it will be deeply damaging to the economy and our prospects for growth, and it will send out a message about how unattractive Scotland is as a place for those looking to set up and grow businesses. That is not only my view but one that is universally held across business representative organisations in Scotland.

Regrettably, instead of those matters being the focus of the Scottish Government’s debate this afternoon, we have yet another set of grievances with the UK Government, this time in relation to the legislation on minimum service levels, which came into law on 20 July this year.

I have to take issue with the statement in the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary that claims that the legislation

“encroaches on the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament”.

In fact, the legislation impacts on reserved areas in so far as they apply to Scotland, including matters such as border security.

First of all, I wish Murdo Fraser well. Having seen him the morning that he injured himself, I can understand why he would be housebound. I wish him well for a recovery from what appeared to be a very sore injury.

Is Murdo Fraser not concerned about my concluding remarks about the International Trade Union Confederation downgrading the UK and what it has said about the UK Government’s position, which is clearly an outlier in relation to workers’ rights? Is he not concerned that cross-border rail is currently being impacted by the regulations, and that the act gives the right to all secretaries of state in the UK to come forward with secondary legislation that can impact on devolved competence?

I can give you the time back, Murdo Fraser.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his very kind words. I hope to be back in the chamber next week.

In relation to the point about the impact on devolved matters, I am afraid that the cabinet secretary is simply wrong in what he had to say. The issue of notices is a matter for the employing organisation or body. Although it is true that matters such as border security, the passport office and nuclear decommissioning come under the remit of the legislation, that would be a matter for UK ministers, which is the case under our current constitutional settlement. When it comes to devolved responsibilities, it is a matter for the Scottish Government to determine whether such notices are issued. It is not a matter for the UK Government to determine that. If the cabinet secretary does not understand that, he has not read the legislation or the explanatory notes, which make that absolutely clear. The cabinet secretary is trying to stir up in this debate grievance that is simply groundless and without any substance.

Let us look at the principles behind the bill.

In that case, how does Murdo Fraser explain the consultation that is currently under way on the education front, which includes schools, colleges and universities, or, indeed, the wider national health service consultation, which could also have an impact on this matter?

The cabinet secretary surely understands that the notices are a matter for the employer. In this case, the employer is the local authority or the Scottish Government, depending on which body he is talking about. The UK Government cannot issue the notices to apply in Scotland. That is not what the legislation currently says. This is just a matter of the cabinet secretary stirring up grievance.

I go back to the point that I was going to make about where the act fits in with wider employment law. I recognise that the ability to strike is an important part of industrial relations in the United Kingdom that is rightly protected by law. It follows from that that an element of disruption is inherent in any strike. That said, the public expect some level of essential protections to be put in place even when strikes are taking place.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am not going to take another intervention at this stage. I have taken two, and I need to make some progress.

The Government has to strike an appropriate balance between the ability to strike and protecting lives and livelihoods. Even before the legislation was put in place, we had protections relating to the armed services and the police, for example, to protect individuals from strikes. The legislation extends those categories to ensure protection of the public.

There is nothing unusual about that in the wider European context. Most countries in Europe have restrictions on strike action, including the provision of minimum service levels. It is true that the list of professions covered differs from country to country, but I commend to members the research done by the House of Commons library that looks, country by country, at the restrictions that are put in place. Some countries, such as Portugal and Greece, have explicit frameworks set out in statute for sectors in which minimum services must be provided. In other countries—Germany and the Netherlands, for example—there are no explicit statutory minimum service laws, but court rulings have allowed restrictions to be imposed in practice for certain services, where the right to strike is balanced against competing public interests. In France, there are elements of both statutory and non-statutory restrictions. It is only in very few European countries—Poland and Austria, for example—that there are no minimum service requirements in law at all. However, in Poland, there is still an extensive list of professions that are prohibited from striking altogether.

Across Europe, the breadth and extent of minimum service levels vary considerably. Finland and Croatia draw restrictions narrowly around the protection of lives, public safety and/or property that would otherwise be in danger. Other countries state that the competing requirement is a broader public interest test, while they need to provide services essential to the community, which can include healthcare, emergency services, education, transport, energy and telecommunications. Different European countries take different approaches to how those laws will work in practice. In Romania and Greece, for example, a flat rate of one third of regular service is set across all restricted services, but most countries determine the actual maintenance service levels on a case-by-case basis.

The legislation simply brings the United Kingdom into line with the norm across most European countries. Given that the Scottish Government’s stated intent is to align itself with the rest of the European Union, I am somewhat surprised that it is resisting the legislation, which simply brings the UK into line with the practice in most European countries.

As I have said before, even if the Scottish Government objects to the legislation, it does not have to implement those minimum service levels. It will be for the Scottish ministers to determine whether will do so in relation to devolved areas. As we have heard, the Scottish Government has no intention of doing so.

What we have here is the proverbial storm in a teacup. Whatever one’s view on the need for minimum service levels and whether they are appropriate, they will apply in Scotland only if the Scottish ministers decide to implement them. Therefore, this whole debate is just about posturing and constitutional grievance from the Scottish National Party, which is once again trying to stir up a fight with Westminster, when there are far more important things that it could be spending its time on.

I am very pleased to move the amendment in my name. I move amendment S6M-11652.1, to leave out from second “the” to end and insert:

“that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 strikes an appropriate balance between the ability to strike and the protection of lives and livelihoods; notes that most European countries have provisions in place for minimum service levels during certain public service strikes; recognises that public service employees have a right to strike, and that an element of disruption is inherent to any strike, but believes that the wider public expect a minimum level of service during industrial action; notes that the legislation currently only applies in Scotland to the reserved areas of border security, HM Passport Office and nuclear decommissioning, and does not impact on devolved responsibilities in health, transport, fire and rescue and education, considering that the Scottish Government has stated that it will not mandate minimum service levels under the legislation during a potential strike, and calls on the Scottish Government to use the powers that it has been given under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 to ensure that people in Scotland have the same protections for devolved public services in the event of a strike that those elsewhere in the UK benefit from.”

Thank you, Mr Fraser. I, too, wish you a speedy recovery.

I call Daniel Johnson to speak to and move amendment S6M-11652.2, for around six minutes.

15:15  

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests and my declarations regarding trade union membership.

It was somewhat striking that Murdo Fraser took fully a quarter of the speech that he has just made before he even attempted to defend his own Government’s policy. He spent two whole minutes essentially seeking to deflect and, indeed, to apologise. What does it say about a party of government that, rather than seeking to use its legislative capacity, it seeks to use the time and powers that are available to it not to look at the situation in the country, to look at solutions and to look at how it can seek to serve the people but to seek to trap the party of opposition and to attack it? Indeed, what does it say about the party of opposition that the incumbent party seeks to attack it because it has the vision and the willingness to govern ?

That is what this piece of legislation has been about and it is somewhat ironic that Murdo Fraser talks about it being a storm in a teacup.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will in a moment.

Fundamentally, the Conservative Party has been seeking to wind back the clock and invoke memories of Longbridge and industrial dispute. It is yet another chapter in the culture wars, because the Conservative Party is simply out of ideas and, I would wager, out of time.

Does Daniel Johnson recognise the fact that he and I are both in opposition at the moment?

It will be interesting to see what 2024 brings.

What I have to say about the legislation is threefold: it is wrong in effect, it is wrong in its analysis and, most fundamentally, it is wrong in principle.

Much of Murdo Fraser’s assertion was that we need it to bring us into line with Europe. He cited the House of Commons library briefing, but what he omitted was that that self-same briefing points out that minimum service levels do not work in the countries where they exist. Countries such as Spain and France lose far more days to strike than the United Kingdom does. Minimum service levels have ended up in the courts, gummed up and, frankly, getting in the way of industrial relations, not resolving them.

You do not even need to take my word for it; you have only to listen to the Government. The Government’s impact assessment stated that minimum service legislation could increase the number of strikes and disruption in the transport sector. Even the architect of the law, Andrew Gilligan from number 10, said that the plans may

“promote more industrial action than they mitigate”

and will not ensure smooth services. Those are not my words—they are Andrew Gilligan’s. Finally, the transport secretary stated, in December last year, that minimum service levels for rail were “not a solution” and that the way to get better service was to “resolve the disputes”. Amen to that! If only the Conservatives in the chamber today would listen to their own people.

However, the Conservatives are also wrong in analysis, because the contention is that we need the legislation for safety. That is simply nonsense. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes it illegal to strike when that endangers human life and limb. That is a Conservative law. You would think that they would know their own legislation. They also make a fundamental mistake in assuming that workers want to strike. They do not, especially not workers who work in healthcare, which is why we saw ambulance workers regularly breaking picket lines in order to do their duty. People who work in our public services want to serve the public. They want to help people and cure people. That is the analysis.

The Conservatives need to understand that the level of strikes that we are seeing is not because people want to strike but because of the frustration and despair that they feel after 13 years of Conservative government and the sorry state of our public services, as a result.

Most importantly, the Conservatives are wrong as a matter of principle.

The member seems keen to argue about the UK situation and UK legislation, notwithstanding that we are in the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. As he is so keen to do that, can we take it that he will be standing for election at Westminster next year?

South Edinburgh is well served by Mr Ian Murray, and I would not want to get in his way as he seeks to fight the next election.

Let me be clear: the legislation is wrong in principle. The right to strike is fundamental for the reasons that I have set out. Even the Conservatives used to believe that. The right to strike is set out in the European convention on human rights—a treaty that was championed by Churchill and, up until now, has been championed by the Conservative Party. The debate fundamentally rests on this point: when you are a worker, all that you have in a capitalist society is your labour as a means of exchange. If you remove the right to strike, you essentially force people to work. That is a form of indenturement, which is to be condemned. That is why the legislation is a matter of concern for the United Nations Independent Labour Organization, and why it is so controversial.

In closing, I think that it should be noted that the Scottish Government has the power simply to ignore the legislation. It does not need to serve these notices. Many of the powers and capacities rest with the Scottish Government. I gently say to the Government that, although I am absolutely clear that the legislation must be condemned, fair work requires a degree of introspection and self-analysis, too. The Government’s analysis on fair work says that there is much work to be done. I would prefer to see a debate about fair work and how we can take that forward, rather than one that simply attacks others. Let us be clear: within the first 100 days of a Labour Government, we will bring forward a new deal for workers, which will strike the legislation down. If you believe that that is right, you need to vote Labour. I seek all members’ support for our amendment, which would deliver exactly what the Government seems to be calling for.

I move amendment S6M-11652.2, to insert at end

“; believes that the Act is an attack on the rights of public sector workers, and supports the Labour’s Party’s New Deal for Working People, which includes commitments to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 within the first 100 days of the next UK Labour administration, to outlaw zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire practices, to deliver a genuine living wage, and to ensure day one rights to sick pay, parental leave and protection from unfair dismissal, and which has been described by the Trades Union Congress as the biggest expansion of workers’ rights in decades.”

I sound a cautionary note about electioneering in the chamber. We have probably stayed just about the right side of that line, but it is worth a reminder.

15:21  

The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the application of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, and my Westminster colleagues made their opposition clear during the bill process in the House of Commons. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment that, had it passed, would have resulted in the house declining to give the bill a second reading.

Our reasons for opposing the legislation are many. It is simply another attempt by the Conservatives to distract from their appalling mismanagement of the economy and from their failure to avert strikes in the first place.

The legislation will simply not work. Minimum service levels will not avert on-going crises in public services or help to solve staff shortages in the NHS. Its scope is far too wide and goes well beyond critical services. Not only will it not work, but the UK Government’s legislation does not contain any detail about what minimum services will be, while it hands extraordinary powers to UK Government ministers to change current legislation without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.

The legislation does nothing to resolve industrial disputes. Instead, it will only increase the disruption caused by future industrial action. The best way to avoid disruption during strikes is to prevent them in the first place, which means the Government getting round the table with staff and employers to find a solution.

As my Westminster colleague, Christine Jardine MP, said,

“the cause of these strikes is the deterioration in our public services”

that the Government has presided over. She went on to say that the act does not

“undo that deterioration, and it will not help our public sectors.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 January 2023; Vol 726, c 106]

She also said that the act is an attempt to use the workers and the state of public services as

“a political football to distract from the mismanagement of public services that has led us to this point.”

She argued that

“Those poor levels of service have not arisen through anyone’s will to have low services”

and that, rather, they are as a result of a

“lack of resources and investment in our public services, which ... staff have struggled to improve on and work through”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 30 January 2023; Vol 727, c 107]

I do not need six minutes for my speech, Presiding Officer, because I will conclude by saying that, rather than impose minimum levels of service in a strike situation to make a political point, the UK Government should invest in public services to improve levels of service all the time.

We move to the open debate.

15:24  

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests, as I am a member of the trade union Unison and I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Because of the Westminster cost of living crisis, which means that many people’s wages are not keeping pace with increases to their cost of living, and given that that is coupled with years of Tory austerity, people across the UK have been striking in record numbers. Workers in almost every sector have come together to demand better pay and conditions.

Just as the right to work is a fundamental human right, exercising the right to strike is a fundamental liberty that is available to most workers. However, a change in the law by the Westminster Tory Government threatens that liberty for workers in some of our most vital public services.

Under plans that have been announced so far, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 will impact on workers in rail services, ambulance services and border security by stipulating minimum service levels in those sectors. The UK Government has also been consulting on the introduction of regulations on minimum service levels for hospital-based health services in England, Scotland and Wales during strike action. Notwithstanding the impact on workers, the 2023 act ignores the devolution settlement and fails to recognise the Scottish Government’s authority in devolved areas.

The act is just the latest Tory attack on workers’ rights. As I started my working life, I had my first experience of exercising my right to withdraw my labour in 1984, when Thatcher’s Government removed trade union rights at GCHQ. Union members were told to resign their membership or be sacked. I was proud then, as I remain now, of the tenacity of the workers who were involved and their families and of the solidarity of the whole trade union movement.

That was not Thatcher’s only foray into reducing the powers of trade unionism in the UK. Her Government restricted the right to picket, prevented unions from bringing out their members in support of other unions and introduced ballots for strike action. In 2016, the then Tory Government enacted higher thresholds for success on ballots and extended the notice that was required for industrial action.

Now we face yet another crackdown on workers’ protections through the 2023 act. The Scottish Government will—rightly—do everything that it can to oppose this appalling piece of anti-worker and anti-trade union legislation, which will undermine, not enhance, industrial relations. Instead of demonising workers and continually limiting their ability to take industrial action, the UK Government should give those in the public sector fair wage rises and proper terms and conditions, while providing additional funding across the devolved nations to support fair pay awards.

As we have heard again today, Labour has said that it will repeal the legislation in its first 100 days of government, which I would welcome. However, Sir Keir Starmer has U-turned on previously announced policies almost every other week, so members must forgive me for not trusting what Labour says. As Labour continues to move to the right in order to appeal to Tory voters, who knows what other progressive proposals will end up on the Labour scrapheap?

Labour does not have the best record. Other than overturning the ban on trade union activity in GCHQ, which I mentioned, Labour Governments have kept most of the restrictions on union activity that successive Tory Governments have imposed.

If Clare Haughey supports the new deal for working people, which the STUC and the TUC back, will she vote for it by supporting Labour’s amendment?

We have been accused of grievance politics by the Tory party. I am aggrieved; I do not trust what I hear from the Labour Party and I do not trust it to enact what it says it will do. Because Labour’s Westminster party leader has made so many flip-flops, I will be supporting what the Scottish Government does and not what the Labour Party proposes.

The Labour Party hardly has a record for its members in the Scottish Parliament to trumpet. In any event, the Tories could simply re-enact the legislation the next time that they get into government. It is clear from Labour’s refusal to back calls from the Scottish Government and the STUC for employment law to be devolved that it would rather leave Scotland at the mercy of Tory attacks on workers’ rights than give our national Parliament such powers.

Will the member give way?

The only way for Scotland to get rid of—for good—Tory Governments that we do not vote for and, by extension, anti-worker and anti-trade union policies is for Scotland to become an independent country and have control of her own laws.

The trade union movement has a proud history of protecting workers’ rights, which was born of the desire to combat exploitation and to ensure a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Trade unions have been at the heart of social and economic change. I have been a proud trade union member all my working life, and prior to being elected as an MSP, I was a divisional convener for Unison for many years. I have represented national health service staff on numerous issues, from grievances, bullying and harassment claims to appeals against dismissal.

As the only nation in the UK to have averted NHS strikes, Scotland has shown that a better and more constructive way is possible, and that is not an accident. It is testament to the fact that this SNP Government has worked constructively to produce acceptable offers that befit the vital work that our NHS staff do, while the Tories have done nothing but level outrageous attacks at our NHS staff and unions.

On the minimum service levels legislation, the Royal College of Nursing has said that this provocative move

“makes future strike action by nurses more likely, not less likely.”

Roz Foyer, the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, said:

“There’s a real, real slap in the face for workers who were on the frontline during the pandemic, who put themselves and their families at risk to give us key essential public services. These workers are now being told that they may be sacked for taking lawful industrial action.”

The chair of the British Medical Association council said:

“Even before the recent Strikes Bill, the UK has some of the tightest restrictions on trade union activity in Europe, and now with threats that could see individuals sacked if they do not comply with these new laws it feels like another kick in the teeth to our profession”.

Those damning statements have been ignored by Westminster, and I echo and support those words.

Scottish workers deserve to see the back of Westminster’s anti-workers agenda once and for all. We in the SNP are clear that a progressive approach to industrial relations that is built on greater, not fewer, protections for workers is at the heart of a fairer society.

15:31  

I was a little surprised to see that we would be debating in the chamber today UK legislation that was proposed, amended and passed by the UK Parliament. It seemed odd that, rather than debate the shocking programme for international student assessment figures that came out last week, which show the decline of education after 16 years of SNP Government, which it left the Scottish Conservatives to do in our business time, or perhaps the housing crisis in Scotland that has arisen due to SNP failures, which it left Labour to debate in its business time a few weeks ago, the SNP Government decided to debate UK legislation, the provisions of which are reserved and almost entirely apply outside Scotland, save in relation to border security, Network Rail and nuclear decommissioning.

However, to ensure that I was fully familiar with what had happened in the UK Parliament, I got my hands on various documents, including the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. I noticed that it amends the 1992 act in such a way as to recognise that the ability to strike is a vital part of industrial relations in the UK—it is rightly protected by law—while seeking to maintain a balance with protecting the safety of the public and maintaining essential services.

To bust the myth about the act being entirely reserved, the transport minimum service level applies to Network Rail, all train operators, Edinburgh trams and the Glasgow subway. There are no live disputes at the moment, but Network Rail’s current pay deal expires at the end of 2023, and the Caledonian sleeper pay deal expires on 31 March. There is no way that the Opposition can argue that the legislation does not and will not impact on Scotland.

Liam Kerr, I can give you the time back.

The Opposition is suggesting, actually, that this is the fundamental question: why are we having this debate when the legislation specifically does not apply to Scotland? I have the explanatory notes here, which say in paragraph 9 of page 3—the member can look this up; I will pass the notes over to her if she wishes—that the matters to which the act’s provisions relate

“are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament ... If there are amendments relating to matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament ... the consent of the relevant devolved legislature(s) will be sought”.

Will the member take an intervention?

Give me two seconds.

In fact, to make that apply—I think that the minister may want to reconsider her intervention—to any of the six services that are set out in the new section 234B(4), the act specifically creates a power, which it then gives to the Scottish Government to either bring in or not. We know from the many reports today—and from the cabinet secretary’s comments—that the Scottish Government has explicitly stated that it does not wish to use that power. That is its prerogative; however, it is odd to see the Scottish Government rail against being given new powers and yet somehow argue that that offends devolution.

The second issue that many people will have concerns about is the SNP’s apparently contradictory position when it comes to Europe. Since the UK left the European Union, the Scottish Government has made it clear that it disagrees with the UK Government on many things and prefers to align with the laws of the European Union. In that way, it believes that a Scotland divorced from the UK could become part of the European Union—

Will the member take an intervention?

I will just make my point. I have my hands on the House of Commons library’s research briefing, which details how European Union countries deal with minimum service laws. It is clear that, although, like the UK, most countries recognise the fundamental right to strike, most European countries go further on minimum service levels than the UK has done with the 2023 act. It is far from the global outlier that the minister suggests it is.

Does Liam Kerr not recognise that he is misrepresenting what alignment means? Alignment means aligning with European directives, not with European practices per se. Will he reflect that that is not what alignment means in the formal sense?

I am quoting directly from the House of Commons library briefing and from the act. It is interesting to see there that Daniel Johnson does not want to compete for Westminster; he appears to want to join the SNP and make its points for it. Although the UK act covers only the six categories that are set out in section 234B(4), other countries commonly include the armed forces, the police, judges, public prosecutors and certain categories of civil servants.

The House of Commons library document also shows us that, where minimum service levels exist, their breadth and extent vary. In Italy, there are regulations during strikes in several public services that are far more extensive. In Latvia, the Strike Law 1998 details further sectors and is far more extensive than the 2023 act.

I entirely understand the Labour Party’s position against the 2023 act. It seems to me that it is born of a consistent philosophical positioning around trade unions and its views on the role of strikes and the necessity, in the Labour Party’s eyes, of compromising the public to achieve its ends. I might not agree with it, but I respect that it is a legitimate ideological debate. The Labour Party has made it clear that, should it form the next UK Government, it will repeal the act.

However, what I find puzzling—indeed, faintly ridiculous—is the SNP’s vitriol and fury, given that this is surely a matter for its MPs and given the apparent serious contradictions in its positions on the devolution settlement and on Europe. Some might very well conclude that this debate is less about the right to strike and more about distracting from the very serious problems that afflict Scotland under the SNP, which are entirely within this Parliament’s purview. Therefore, the only sensible thing to do is to support the amendment in Murdo Fraser’s name.

15:38  

The right to strike is central to a modern and free society that approaches industrial relations in a progressive and inclusive manner, with co-operation and compromise seen as essential strengths rather than weaknesses. Unfortunately, that has been eroded under successive UK Governments. In 1997—this is shocking—as part of his election campaign, when courting a right-wing vote, Tony Blair proudly announced that

“changes that we do propose would leave British law the most restrictive on trade unions in the Western world.”

He duly delivered on that pledge with restrictive measures that included the imposition of an arbitrary 40 per cent threshold for yes votes in workplace ballots on union representation—the same requirement that had wrecked Scottish devolution 20 years previously and that would have done the same to Welsh devolution and the London mayor. That is certainly not something that Labour members should be proud of—indeed, most Labour supporters whom I know are not proud of it.

History has a habit of repeating itself, however. With a list of abandoned promises, Sir Keir Starmer does not inspire any real hope, and his party here will be told what to do, no matter what is passed here. Regarding the proposed commitments that are outlined in the Labour motion, Sir Keir only recently lavished praise on Margaret Thatcher, who vowed to crush the unions, and so much misery and hardship followed for so many.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is, in context, another example of the UK Government’s lurch to the right and its increasingly unhinged approach to governance. The party that until recently prided itself on being the party of law and order has shown, through its flouting of international law, its unlawful, failed Rwanda plan—it is failed, as it has no happened and it is no gonnae happen—and its attempts to introduce new law to circumvent international human rights that it is increasingly unfit to govern.

The anti-strike laws were flagged by the UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights as potentially being unlawful, with others going as far as to suggest that the law would amount to forced labour. The new law could let employers issue a “work notice” that will

“identify the persons required to work”.

If workers fail to comply, they can be fired, even during a good-faith trade dispute to prevent pay cuts, and the union can be sued into bankruptcy. This is the first time since 1906 that that could happen.

The right to fair pay and collective action are inalienable rights, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that followed the second world war and that was further cemented in the International Bill of Human Rights in 1966. Those instruments were enacted to ensure that workers faced with authoritarian employers and Governments could always do one thing: they could just say, “No. If you don’t pay us properly, we won’t work.” That is an important point as, historically, strikes helped to bring down the iron curtain, they forced the British empire to abandon India and they finished apartheid in South Africa. The right to strike is essential to a functioning democracy, and any backsliding on that opens the doors to authoritarian and repressive policies and regimes. What we have seen recently under the UK Government is a slide towards a more authoritarian and repressive set of policies, with a blatant disregard to international law, the voice of the people and basic decency for those fleeing persecution. The shocking news of the recent death on the Bibby Stockholm barge reminds us all of the tragic consequences of the direction of those policies.

In contrast, the Scottish Government has called for a progressive approach to relations with trade unions and has been crystal clear that it will not co-operate in establishing any minimum service order here in Scotland. We have committed to putting workers’ rights at the heart of our economic programme, through the fair work programme. The next few years will be critical to ensuring that we make the progress that is needed to achieve the vision for Scotland to be a leading fair work nation by 2025, meeting the changing needs of our economy and workforce. That is despite the considerable challenges faced because of EU exit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the on-going impacts of the war in Ukraine and the current cost of living crisis.

Let us be clear: if we want a Government that will stand up for workers’ rights, build a fair society and treat those fleeing persecution with compassion and dignity, the choice is the SNP Government, as opposed to the indifferent, heartless pseudo and real right-wing alternatives offered by Westminster.

15:43  

I, too, refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of the trade unions GMB and Unite, and to the voluntary section of my entry, which lists my memberships of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Public and Commercial Services Union and the Communication Workers Union and of parliamentary groups, and which notes that I chair the Scottish Labour trade union group.

Those declarations keep me on the right side of the Parliament’s rules, but I am very proud to be a trade unionist, like my colleagues on the Labour benches. I first joined a trade union as a graduate worker, more than 20 years ago, several years before I joined the Labour Party. The importance of being in a trade union was drilled into me through my family background and my community experience. I say to colleagues on the Tory benches that, while being in a trade union might be viewed as ideological, trade unions are good for the economy, and smart employers and smart politicians understand that.

More than two decades on from when my working life began, I am in despair at the state of workers’ rights in Britain, as they are more precarious now than at any time that I remember. What kind of future will my 17-year-old daughter and her friend group have? They already know what it is like to be on a zero-hours contract. They know that working hard and being in work is not a protective measure against poverty and that a college or university qualification does not guarantee them fair work.

Like other members who have spoken today, I am appalled that we are having this debate, not because it is a waste of time or because there are other things that we should be talking about, but because our constituents are worried. We are days away from Christmas, and Liam Kerr and I have just been singing Christmas carols together—he had my festive Christmas glasses on, and I have my reindeer dress on. For a lot of people right now, however, there is not a lot to be cheerful about. Many people want to see the Tories at Westminster getting sacked this Christmas.

I would like to see the Conservatives in this place stand up to their colleagues. It is not always easy to do that in a political party, but they should not just be apologists. We have seen the Tories in the Scottish Parliament stand up to their colleagues at Westminster before—maybe it is time for them to do it again.

The Prime Minister may well be one of the richest men in Britain today, but his rotten Government is morally bankrupt. The Tories at Westminster are out of control because they know that they are on borrowed time. We are seeing, not just with the Tories’ UK Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 but in many other actions, a full-frontal assault on workers’ rights. I am relieved, therefore, that the Scottish Government will not enforce the 2023 act, which attacks the dignity and rights of public sector workers.

I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary state today that fair work ambitions are the bedrock of the Scottish Government’s vision for the wellbeing economy. I support that, but we all need to work harder in Parliament to ensure that the actions that we take match that ambition. That means funding our public services properly, using public procurement powers to improve workers’ terms and conditions, tackling the growing disability pay gap in Scotland, and tackling the rise of zero-hours contracts.

I know that Clare Haughey ran out of time to take my intervention, and she has left her seat just now, but we did not hear a peep from her when the SNP was caught using zero-hours contracts in her Rutherglen constituency during a recent by-election.

Will the member give way on that point?

Perhaps she raised that point with the SNP leadership. I see that the party’s depute leader, Keith Brown, wants to intervene. I am happy to hear from Mr Brown.

I thank Monica Lennon for taking an intervention. Similarly, can she explain why the Labour Party was reportedly using fire-and-rehire practices two years ago for its own staff and why North Lanarkshire Council proposed such changes, which affected many women? Unison had to threaten strike action in that case to ensure that the council avoided those fire-and-rehire tactics for which the member condemns the Conservatives.

I can give you the time back, Ms Lennon.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am not aware of all the examples that Mr Brown has given, but I am not shy in speaking out about my own party when we do not get things right. Today’s debate is not about keeping score, but I am clear that the rise of fire-and-rehire practices across the country is unacceptable, and I have written to the cabinet secretary about that. Historically, Labour and the trade unions fell short when it came to tackling issues around the gender pay gap.

I seek a point of consensus, because on that issue and on opposition to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 there is consensus between the Scottish Labour Party and the SNP.

Monica Lennon previously made the point about using public procurement. Does she accept that progress has been made just this year on further enhancing the fair work first principles, to ensure that fair work conditionality is applied to public sector grants? That includes ensuring that the real living wage is paid and that worker voices are applied to those grant-making tasks.

Again, Ms Lennon, I can give you the time back.

I thank the cabinet secretary, and I accept where progress has been made, but we must do more to strengthen fair work conditionality and address in-work poverty. I know that many trade union colleagues are looking for the implementation of Fair Work Convention recommendations and fair work action plan commitments on collective bargaining.

I recently chaired the Scottish Labour trade union group meeting. We had a room full of trade unionists and the agenda had about 25 items on it, most of which were about issues in Scotland. I am being robust about the Tory Government, but we, too, need to do better. That means that local government and other public sector employers need to do better, too.

We have heard a lot of references to the House of Commons library, and I am sure that there is important reading material there. I am concerned that the Tory amendment—I see that Liam Kerr is waving at me—is really trying to provide cover for the UK Government. However, let us not be apologists. The UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has called out the bill, stating in no uncertain terms that the UK Government

“has not adequately made the case that this Bill meets the UK’s human rights obligations”.

I wish Murdo Fraser well in recovering from his injury, but a lot of cherry-picking is going on to make out that Tory Britain is a leader when it comes to workers’ rights when we know that that is absolutely not the case.

I have taken a couple of interventions, so time is now short. I know that, previously, there was time in hand.

With the cost of living crisis, this is a tough time in the country for workers. Christmas is not going to be a peaceful and joyful time for many of our constituents, but union-busting Governments will not win. As the Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary Roz Foyer has said, workers will not be turned into slaves. Trade unions are the last line of defence for workers and communities, which is why we stand by them. The message from the Parliament today needs to be that we have to get the Tories out of Downing Street as soon as possible. That is vital for workers and the economy, and it is in the national interest.

15:51  

To return to a couple of the strongest themes of the debate, I note that the Conservative approach is to say that the bill does not really affect Scotland, so why are we even discussing it? The reason, which Monica Lennon put her finger on when she talked about the underfunding of public services, is that, if there is a piece of legislation that will enable the suppression of wages in the rest of the UK, that will have a direct consequence in Scotland, and it will increase the pace at which the Tories run down our public services in this country. That is why it is extremely relevant.

How on earth can Keith Brown say that the bill will suppress wage rises in the rest of the UK? That is absolute nonsense, fundamentally.

I imagine that Brian Whittle must be the only person in the chamber who cannot see the link between restricting trade unions’ ability to strike and the suppression of wages. However, perhaps if he goes away and researches a bit, he will work it out.

There has been a great deal of talk over many years about legislation on trade unions in the UK, which has, more often than not, been caused by the UK Government of the day introducing legislation, or failing to repeal legislation, that actively seeks to curtail the effectiveness of trade unions. That is the case with this bill. I speak as somebody who was a trade union member for many years, as well as a branch officer and shop steward, and who went on strike during the Thatcher years—against a Labour employer, I should say—in 1989.

I do not necessarily want to look for points of difference between us and the Labour Party, but it is important to explain why Clare Haughey is not filled with trust in the Labour Party. As I said, it was the Labour Party that we had to campaign against and strike against in 1989. It was the Labour Party that initially made huge commitments in the 1990s to repeal very far-reaching Tory legislation but, in many cases, failed to do so, which has led to that loss of support. Many of us have dealt with Labour employers over the years.

I remember being threatened with legal action by an ex-member of this chamber for my trade union activities, and I remember my trade union, Unison, encouraging Labour members to spy on SNP councillors and clype back—[Interruption.] I am not sure what is bothering Brian Whittle. I do not know whether he knows which debate he is attending. There is a long history of distrust and some merit in trying to overcome that distrust.

Michael Marra asked earlier whether the SNP should support Labour’s stated intention. I was asked repeatedly in 2014-15 not to proceed with the biggest contract that the Scottish Government lets, which is the ScotRail contract, because Labour would be on in a second and would sort it all out, so we did not have to do it. That was eight years ago and we still do not have a Labour Government. Given Keir Starmer’s track record, nobody believes that Labour will stay true to what it is saying now.

All of that means that our trade unions are in a difficult situation, and they have been for some years. If we look at the actions of the Scottish Government, that is the way to deal with trade unions. We should get into a discussion and, where possible, compromise. Crucially, we should recognise the role of trade unions and how they can help in providing public services.

The Labour amendment adds to the Government motion. That is constructive and shows that there is a lot of agreement. The amendment simply asks for support for Labour’s new deal for working people. A message from this Parliament would reinforce what we want colleagues down the road to do. Is there a problem? Will the member vote against the Labour amendment tonight?

I can give you the time back, Mr Brown.

I have just explained a number of times why there is very little trust in what the Labour Party says it intends to do.

I should also say that strong trade unions are probably needed more now than they have been for many years. It is pretty obvious to any working person in Scotland or the UK just how much poorer their pay and conditions are now compared with just a few years ago. We know that wages have been largely stagnant in the UK for the past 15 years, while the cost of living has soared beyond all belief. According to the Resolution Foundation, an independent think tank that focuses on the living standards of low to middle-income workers in the UK, the average UK household is now £11,000 worse off in real terms than it was in 2008.

According to the Resolution Foundation, when we look at comparable countries such as France and Germany, we see that the typical French household is 11 per cent richer, and the typical German household 27 per cent richer, than the typical family in the UK. On that, I am happy to apportion the blame where it deserves to be, which is, of course, the 14 years of failed austerity that we have had from the Conservative Party. However, most European countries, including France and Germany, have a far better and more collegiate approach to trade unions than the UK does. That is reflected in the worsening living standards in the UK. The Tories are responsible for the biggest fall in living standards in living memory. That is an appalling record for them to preside over.

Why does the UK Government focus on the continual strengthening of anti-trade union legislation? Why does it always focus on taking away people’s rights, whether they are trans people, refugees or, in this case, trade union workers? Why is it always pandering to its base—I mean base in both senses of the word—by trying to attack people and by indulging in culture wars? The latest proposal, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, is just the latest in a line of anti-trade union legislation, introduced because the UK Government thinks that it appeals to its base supporters.

I remind the chamber that Scotland has not voted for the Conservative Party or any of its earlier iterations since 1955. In this coming election, which has been mentioned already, Scotland will have fewer representatives at Westminster than it does now—down to 57 from 59—whereas England will have 10 more. That means that, as a country, we will be even less able to stop legislation such as the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. The Labour Party has to wrestle with itself. Daniel Johnson said that we should indulge in some self-analysis and reflection. If Labour were to get in next year, and if it were to repeal the act—two big ifs—what would prevent the same base, the Tory party, from getting in once again, two or three years after that? It would be the usual ding-dong of UK politics and workers in Scotland having to pay the price for being part of the union. That is what we are trying to avoid here. It would be just about the last nail in the coffin with respect to the UK’s conduct of our affairs.

Keir Starmer’s statements about his admiration for Margaret Thatcher worry me, given that this Parliament passed the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022. At that point, various commitments were made by the Labour Party, including that, if it ever formed a Government, it would go further and provide that pardon throughout the UK and that it would also consider compensation for those miners, given that the UK Government took more than £4 billion from miners’ pension funds. I doubt whether Keir Starmer would even consider increasing protections for miners or compensating them.

That is why it is important that we support the motion. In the absence of the powers necessary to change the law, our opposition as a Parliament to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 has to be absolutely clear. We can show what we would do differently if the powers over employment law were held in this chamber. For that reason, I support the motion in the name of Neil Gray.

As I indicated, there is a bit of time in hand. If somebody wants to make an intervention, I encourage them to do so rather than shout it from a sedentary position.

15:59  

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of Unite the union and a consultative member of the Aberdeen Trades Union Council.

Our public services across health, transport, fire and rescue, education and so much more are the lifeblood of our communities and the bedrock of our society. We all rely on them every day, whether we acknowledge them or not. Those services do not appear by magic, and they are not staffed and supported by fairies or elves. Those vital public services exist only because of the hundreds of thousands of people across Scotland who dedicate their lives to the service of their and our communities. Our nurses, firefighters, bus drivers, train conductors, teaching assistants—indeed, all who work in our life-sustaining public services—deserve our admiration and thanks. More than that, they deserve each and every one of us who has been elected to represent them to fight for their rights and conditions.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and associated statutory instruments drive not a cart and horses but a freight train through that. Lawyers, trade union activists, academics—indeed, people from across civic society—are clear that the legislation undermines the fundamental rights of workers, most notably their right to withdraw their labour, as Daniel Johnson and others have highlighted this afternoon. It disrupts the often delicate conditions in industrial relations, runs contrary to the principles of fair work, and adversely affects the workers, their wider communities and our broad commitment to social justice.

Scottish Greens are clear that workers’ rights and their empowerment are fundamental to social justice. By mandating minimum service levels during strikes, the legislation restricts the ability of workers to voice their concerns effectively and to negotiate better working conditions. It effectively discourages alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that prioritise dialogue and negotiation over legal restrictions. It sets up a much more adversarial and much less collaborative approach to collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is a cornerstone of modern labour relations. Any law that limits the right to strike or other dispute resolution options diminishes the bargaining power of workers. That can lead to even more unequal power dynamics between employers and employees than already exist. Favouring the interests of the powerful over those who work for them will only perpetuate inequalities. Indeed, I believe that strong workers’ rights are essential for building a fair and just society.

Rather than ensuring the continuity of essential services and safeguarding the interests of the public, the legislation that we debate today has the potential to destroy constructive and productive relationships between workers and their bosses. If we remember that public sector workers are also members of the public, it undermines trust in Government and legislators. The burden of employment and maintaining services should not fall so heavily on the backs of workers. Workers should not have to shoulder the responsibility for upholding the public good, often at the expense of their own wellbeing and job satisfaction.

The act’s negative impact extends beyond the workplace and reaches into communities. By suppressing the collective voice of workers, the legislation weakens the ability of communities to advocate for fair labour practices and inclusive economic policies. Healthy communities thrive on the equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. Any legislation that weakens the position of workers undermines the social fabric that binds communities together. The act could negatively affect local communities and their needs, undermining the principle that decisions that affect communities should be made collectively.

Many, including the STUC, believe that the legislation contradicts the very essence of democratic principles. Democracy thrives on the participation and representation of all citizens, including workers, in decision-making processes. Limiting the ability of workers to voice their concerns through strikes diminishes their participation in shaping the policies that directly affect their lives.

The legislation clearly comes into conflict with the principles of social justice, solidarity and equality. Social justice seeks to create a society in which all individuals enjoy fair and equal opportunities, and workers’ rights are fundamental to that pursuit. By restricting the right to strike, the act perpetuates inequalities and hampers the progress towards that more just and equitable society. I was therefore pleased to hear the cabinet secretary say last month that he did not believe that such legislation had any place in a forward-looking country that seeks to build a fairer and more equal society.

I agree with much of the wording of the Labour amendment. Not only are Scottish Greens clear that fair work principles are intrinsic to our vision for a compassionate and caring economy; we also vehemently oppose the use of zero-hour contracts, fire-and-rehire practices and the other appalling actions that are mentioned in the amendment.

However, I share some of Clare Haughey’s distrust of the Labour Party at Westminster. After all, under Blair and Brown, it had 13 years to undo all Thatcher’s anti-trade union laws, and the party could have ensured that we would now be improving workers’ rights in Scotland had it not vetoed the devolution of employment law during the work of the Smith commission.

Will the member take an intervention?

I was just about to conclude, but I will take Michael Marra’s intervention.

It should be a brief intervention, please.

I appreciate the member giving way. Given the member’s own mistrust of the Labour Party, does she not think that it would be best to vote for the amendment and put that extra pressure on the Labour Party to ensure that we deliver it? If she agrees with our set of reasons, surely she should vote for it.

We have the gist of your intervention, Mr Marra.

For a long time it has been clear that whoever governs Westminster has not needed Scotland’s support. I would rather focus our efforts on what we can deliver here in Scotland.

The debate matters to us here in Scotland, because workers’ rights should always matter to us. I express my solidarity with workers elsewhere in the UK who will be negatively affected by the legislation. We should stand up against any laws that undermine the principles of democratic participation and fair labour practices. Those must be central to any socially just society.

16:06  

I am delighted to speak in the debate. It is important to recognise what the legislation is: primarily, it is an attack on workers’ rights. Clare Haughey laid out very well the history of Tory Government attacks on trade union rights over many decades.

The legislation seeks to undermine legitimate trade union activity. It also does not respect the fair work principles that are so central to the Scottish Government’s approach to building a fairer and more successful economy. It is also an attack on devolution, as it impacts devolved areas, as has been highlighted by Government front-bench members and others. I commend the Scottish Government’s position on not co-operating with the establishment of any minimum service orders that might come to pass as a consequence of the legislation.

It is important to recognise where we are. As front-bench members have made clear, the UK has a record of having a higher prevalence of lower pay, longer working hours, lower statutory sick pay and many other negative indicators compared with those in other independent European countries. I believe that that has led to our having a lower-growth and lower-productivity economy. As has been highlighted, Scotland has been missing out on EU workers’ rights enhancements due to the Tory party’s hard Brexit.

Meanwhile, we have an approach that seeks to avoid public sector strikes and that works constructively with trade unions. Trade unions are a key part of the democratic fabric of Scottish society, and have been for a very long time. It is important that we build on that as partners, taking forward the critically important fair work agenda. Like the Government, I recognise that we enshrine or include trade union representatives in our work with various sectors through the industry leadership group—indeed, I was delighted to be part of the process when I was a minister. That partnership has been recognised by Keith Brown and other members during the debate.

I am pleased that other members have highlighted that trade unions’ importance lies not only in the domestic setting but internationally. Bill Kidd highlighted critical examples of why trade unions are an essential part of the democratic fabric of our society. It is also important to recognise the significant role that public sector workers and others in key sectors of our economy play in supporting all of us, particularly at this time of year, and in turn the role of trade unions in supporting the work that they do, as Maggie Chapman, Monica Lennon and others have highlighted.

It is important to recognise the attack that the act brings to bear on those rights. It is also important to recognise where we want to get to. The Scottish Government has been clear that we want to build an economy that is based on high wages, leading to high productivity and high innovation, and an economy that is strong in the industries of the future. We are absolutely focused on working with trade unions and workers across all sectors—in the public sector and private industry—to build that economy. The link with treating workers well, having high wages and enshrining good conditions and rights in the economy and in legislation is a critical element that must be recognised if we are to build a high-productivity economy. Again, however, the act seeks to attack that and will be to the detriment of that.

What needs to happen next? The Scottish Government’s approach in resisting the act is absolutely to be welcomed and supported. It is critical that we work to secure the devolution of employment law to this Parliament. We have debated that in the chamber on many occasions. In that area, however, Scottish Labour’s position is ambiguous, to say the least, and really unhelpful. It has not come out with and is not taking forward a clear position that demands that a future UK Labour Government, should there be one, devolves employment law as a priority so that the Scottish Parliament can enshrine standards, regardless of what may happen at Westminster.

Will the member make clear his support for repeal of the act and for our new deal for working people by voting for our amendment at decision time tonight?

It has been made clear by Keith Brown, Clare Haughey and others that, to be frank, we do not trust the Labour Party to deliver on that. The only way to secure those rights is for Labour to support the devolution of employment law and, of course, for us to secure full powers as a normal, independent country as soon as possible.

16:11  

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of Unite the Union and a lifelong activist in the trade union movement.

I join the majority of Parliament in condemning a disgraceful piece of legislation—the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. We should be united in our opposition to cheap power grabs and we should speak with one voice against the UK Government’s increasingly hostile and archaic agenda against workers. I am sure that it will not be long before the Scottish public let it know exactly what they think of that and of the dreadful way in which it treats the ordinary people of this country.

Trying to stifle legitimate democratic engagement and workers’ representation across the UK is the kind of thing that we would expect from an authoritarian Government that is desperate to cling on to power. However, I fear that that is not far from what Sunak’s Tories really are. The public will speak in 2024, and the Tories’ attempts to force through unworkable and unjust legislation will not change that. If they think that the problems in our society are caused by trade unions merely asking for a fair deal for workers, they are not opening their eyes at all. Public services, including our health services and our railways, are seriously underfunded, so all that they are saying is a smokescreen to stop people noticing the problems in our society that are caused by the dreadful Tory UK Government.

We cannot ban our way out of productivity and healthcare crises. We have to build something with the people who work in such fields at our side. I whole-heartedly agree with the Scottish Government that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is designed to undermine legitimate trade union activity. In fact, I would go further and say that the intention is to destroy such activity and to ensure that generations to come do not have effective trade union representation.

That is why I am pleased that the Scottish Government has assured us today that there will be no minimum service level agreements or work notices in Scotland. That commitment is very welcome. I am sure that it is particularly welcomed by ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper, which are important services that are owned and controlled by the Scottish Government.

In Scotland, we have a proud and noble history of workers’ struggles. There is indeed a struggle. It is even called “the struggle”. Sometimes, there is a struggle within our own labour movement, as has been discussed. However, that struggle pushes us to go further and to come together as trade unionists. I therefore ask the trade unionists on the benches opposite me to come together with us on the issue. In other times, we have stood together on picket lines to ensure that workers’ rights are upheld. We will stand at any chance to do that. I therefore ask members to support the Scottish Labour amendment.

I appreciate the reasonable tone that Carol Mochan has adopted, but does she understand the point that SNP members are trying to make, which is that what any Labour Government does can be changed as soon as another Conservative Government gets elected—or can she guarantee that there will never be another Tory Government to repeal the legislation? That is why we should devolve the matter: then, at the very least, it would always be in the hands of this Parliament.

I speak from the heart. If I were to ask Keith Brown about every single thing that his party’s front bench has not delivered, we would never move forward.

At this moment, the Scottish Parliament can say to the UK Parliament that trade unionists are united on the matter, and that we believe in the fair work principles that Scottish Labour will fight tooth and nail to establish during the first 100 days of a Labour Government. I say to members: back the new deal tonight and show where you stand as trade unionists.

As I said, the workers’ struggle is strewn throughout the fabric of our nation. As long as there is a Labour Party, as long as there are trade unionists and as long as there is such a movement, we will continue, working together, to be the cornerstone of progress—and there will be progress if we work together as trade unionists.

The result of allowing legislation such as the 2023 act to take hold is simply a transfer of power from those who have the least to those who have the most. It is a green light to cutting wages and benefits in key sectors and to beginning a race to the absolute bottom. It is about the rich taking from the poor. If we want to fight that, we need to take every opportunity to back things that might do so.

Freedom for the rich while the poor know their place is what the Tories want. Let us come together. Let us stand as the Scottish Parliament and as trade unionists together, and back Labour’s amendment and the new deal for working people within the first 100 days of a Labour Government, which would repeal the terrible legislation from the awful Tory Government.

The new deal for working people has been described by the TUC as the biggest expansion in workers’ rights in decades. I ask members to support the amendment so that we can change the outcomes for the hard-working families who have been hammered since 2010. For the last time, I ask members to back the amendment.

16:18  

I put on the parliamentary record that, in my previous life, before I was elected to Parliament, albeit that it was some time ago, I was a member of a trade union—the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association—because I believe that unions have a vital role to play. I therefore do not accept that Tories are anti trade unions.

This is all about seeking the right balance between the democratic right to strike and maintaining of public services—most especially, essential and emergency services. The balance is complex and delicate, but it is important. On the one hand, the right to strike is a fundamental right of labour. It allows workers to collectively voice their grievances and negotiate for better working conditions, wages and benefits. In other words, it is a crucial tool for workers to exert pressure on employers and ensure that their rights are protected.

On the other hand, as we all know, public services are essential for the functioning of the economy and society, and most especially for the wellbeing of its citizens, whether through healthcare, education, transport or emergency services. Although we all accept that strikes inevitably mean disruption, we have seen in recent times that the scale of those disruptions to essential services has had particularly severe consequences that have impacted on the general public, on vulnerable populations and, of course, on the economy as a whole.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will not, if you do not mind.

To achieve the right balance, many countries have established legal frameworks that regulate the right to strike in the context of public services. In his opening remarks, Murdo Fraser rightly gave examples from other countries and pointed out that although the frameworks might differ, they include restrictions such as mandatory negotiation periods, minimum service requirements and arbitration mechanisms. Collectively, those measures aim to secure essential services being maintained to a certain extent during strikes, thereby minimising their impact on the public.

Additionally, as several other members have stated, dialogue and negotiation between unions, workers and employers are crucial in finding compromises that address workers’ concerns while minimising disruption to public services. Open communication channels, mediation and alternative dispute resolution methods help to facilitate that process, even if it takes time. However, sometimes they fail, and that is what the issue is in this debate.

We know how many working days were lost last year, and I am sure that similar statistics will emerge for this year. I will not rehearse examples of the very small minority of striking individuals who deliberately choose to obstruct blue-light services from accessing emergency sites—I have a constituent who suffered as a result of that—or who choose to bring transport networks to a complete standstill, or who choose to cut off and wilfully damage energy networks. However, those are clearly situations that have very considerable impacts on the public, rather than on those with whom the strikers are in dispute. That, as far as the public is concerned, is inexcusable.

At its simplest level, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is designed to ensure that a necessary level of services is maintained when protesters are exercising their democratic rights.

In the healthcare service in England, for example, 125,000 in-patient procedures and nearly 1 million out-patient appointments have been cancelled. That is incredible harm. The public are not cross with the striking workers for that; the public are furious that the UK Government has let the dispute get to the stage at which people have to withdraw their labour. There have been no strikes of that scale in Scotland, because this Government is willing to negotiate and work in partnership with our healthcare workers’ unions.

Because of the general data protection regulation, I am not at liberty to show the minister correspondence with one of my constituents, who I am afraid would have a very different point of view from that which the minister has just stated.

Those are facts.

I am sorry? Do you want to intervene?

Please resume your seat for a second.

If a member wishes to participate in the debate, they know how to do that, and it is not from a sedentary position.

Please continue.

For the SNP, the debate seems to be about its usual line that everything that emanates from Westminster has to be wrong, and has to be opposed. I am afraid that I struggle with the assertion that the act undermines devolution. The legislation relates to reserved matters that affect Scotland. Colleagues have mentioned border security, nuclear decommissioning and passports. As several people have now said, the act does not impact on devolved responsibilities, because the Scottish Government is not obliged to mandate minimum service levels. My colleague Liam Kerr read out the notes that accompany the legislation. The argument that it undermines devolution simply does not hold water.

Will the member take an intervention?

No—I am in my last bit.

Given what I have said, we should be concentrating on issues in devolved politics. Whether the SNP likes it or not, there is a long list of critical challenges, such as those that were mentioned in the motion for the education debate that took place in Conservative time yesterday.

As far as I am concerned, this debate is unfortunate in many ways, but the legislation is about striking the right balance between the democratic right to strike and ensuring provision of essential services. Quite frankly, I do not see how anyone could oppose that.

Before we move to the closing speeches, I note that we are missing two members, one of whom is the cabinet secretary. It is discourteous to those who have participated in a debate not to be present for the closing speeches. I hope that I receive an apology from both members concerned.

16:25  

I hope that the cabinet secretary has not felt it necessary to withdraw his labour at this moment in the proceedings.

Let us be clear: there is widespread agreement among most members that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is an atrocious piece of legislation that has emanated from the Tory Government at Westminster. I think that most of us recognise exactly why it introduced it. It is simply an attempt to distract from a dreadful record on the economy and public services across the UK. With a general election on the horizon, the Tories know that they have nothing positive whatsoever to offer this country.

None of this is really about the safe operation of public services in this country. As Daniel Johnson pointed out, the approach simply does not work. We know that more days are lost to industrial action in countries that have these provisions than in the UK. It was a Tory adviser who told us that the provisions promise more strikes than they will mitigate.

Trade unions already put in place agreements and arrangements to ensure that, when people exercise their basic human rights and withdraw their labour in order to protect the safe delivery of lifeline public services, lifeline services are protected in this country. The legislation is part of an incessant attempt to draw Labour into culture war dividing lines, with one part of our country pitted against another, and to sow division and hatred with manufactured controversies in order to do anything at all to distract from the Tories’ disastrous record of incompetence, corruption and party division.

I cite calls to get the woke out of academia; a made-up war on motorists; fictitious taxes on meat; the seven deadly bins; the war on tofu and chai lattes; the despicable and now farcical Rwanda policy; the Prime Minister’s confected and infantile tantrum over the Elgin marbles; and summoning a far-right mob to the cenotaph when we were remembering our dead. Is there no depth to which the Conservative Government will not sink? Is there no issue of respect or decency that remains sacrosanct in its desperate attempts to change the conversation from being about its economic vandalism and the shockingly weak leadership of a Prime Minister who is waiting to be put out of his misery by the electorate if his own party does not get him first?

It was right of Bill Kidd to remind us, in contrast to all that, of the moral contribution of trade unions, such as their fighting apartheid in South Africa. I also commend Keith Brown for reminding us, in a very important contribution, that the suppression of wages in the UK due to Tory austerity lessens the bargaining power of workers in Scotland in their fight for better wages from the Scottish Government and private companies. In essence, attacks on workers anywhere are attacks on workers everywhere. That is a fundamental premise of what trade unionism is about.

I am afraid that Mr Brown’s contribution went downhill somewhat after that. It is fundamental for the SNP to understand that the struggle for workers’ rights is never won. It is not won by one piece of legislation; it has to be rewon every day. That is why we are members of trade unions. I proudly remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I have been a trade union member since I was able to join a trade union.

Will Michael Marra acknowledge the point that I was trying to make? He is right to say that the struggle is never won, but surely we would be much more secure if the Scottish Parliament had the powers over those issues so that they could not simply be trumped by the election of another Tory Government in the future. Why can he not support that, as the Labour Party used to do a few months ago?

I remind Mr Brown that not everybody in this country is immune to the appeal of right-wing populism. He does not have to look very far from the recent split in his own party and the emergence of Alba to see what the appeal of some of those people can be. Despite what we might like, and no matter how much we object to such views, there are people who hold them. In a democracy, that struggle has to be rewon time and again, and independence is no salve to that. That argument will have to be made and won by progressive parties in this country until we run out of democracy—and woe betide all of us if that were to be the case.

In a timely and typically impassioned contribution, Carol Mochan endorsed the position of the TUC and the STUC in talking about the generationally transformative nature of Labour’s proposed new deal for working people. I say to members of the Green Party and the SNP that, if they genuinely want to support something, they have to vote for it. If they want the legislation to be repealed, they will have to vote for a Government that will do that. They have to exert pressure. If they do not trust the Labour Party, they should tell us in today’s vote what we should be doing. If they are saying that those are things that they believe in, good God, they should vote for them by voting for the Labour amendment.

Scotland’s governing party has much work to do on fair work. Despite the Scottish Government’s commitment to making Scotland a leading fair work nation by 2025, the Fair Work Convention last month described Scotland’s performance as “mixed”. According to it, Scotland ranks fifth out of nine comparator small countries; our disability employment gap is 31 percentage points, which puts us second bottom of that list of comparator countries; and 29 per cent of workers in non-permanent work are there by choice, whereas that figure is 4 per cent in Austria and 7 per cent in Iceland. So much more needs to be done by this Government and by all parties across the country that claim to be progressive.

The right to withhold one’s labour is a fundamental human right, and it is essential to the fabric of our society and our economy, which depends on a healthy and safe workforce. The two things that have secured the most in terms of workers’ rights in this country are the right to strike—industrial action—and the achievements that have been won under Labour Governments. Those freedoms were hard fought for and hard won. Trade unions and the labour movement more broadly have an unrelenting task in holding back the tide of Tory anti-worker policies.

Mr Marra, I hope that you are concluding.

I will conclude, Presiding Officer.

On that basis, the position that the Tories have taken in their amendment is spurious, and I beg and implore SNP and Green members to vote for what they claim to believe in.

16:32  

This has been a debate with lots of sound and fury but not a lot of substance. Of course, that is what the SNP was probably aiming for. Sound and fury are good if you are trying to cover the deafening silence on how the Scottish Government proposes to deal with the abysmal PISA scores, an NHS in crisis and years of economic mismanagement that are coming home to roost.

Murdo Fraser and Liam Kerr forensically dismantled the cabinet secretary’s position and, quite frankly, showed the debate to be the farce that it actually is. Today is just another example of the SNP filling the void of competence with righteous indignation, leaving Opposition members to bring forward devolved topics, as highlighted by Liam Kerr.

Turning to the subject of today’s debate, I do not propose to spend much time highlighting how disingenuous the SNP motion is, not least because my colleagues Murdo Fraser and Liam Kerr have already done so. However, it seems to me that the SNP is attempting to out-Labour Labour. As Liam Kerr noted, at least Labour is consistent in its approach, however much we may think that that is flawed.

We need to draw a distinction, in this discussion, between workers’ rights and trade union powers because they are not the same, even if it benefits some to suggest that they are. Let us be clear: the Scottish Conservatives support workers’ rights, as do all Conservatives. The first health and safety measures for working with machinery, the decriminalisation of trade union liability and the legalising of picketing, the introduction of paid holidays and the introduction of rights against unfair dismissal are a few of the improvements to workers’ rights that have been brought in by Conservative Governments.

This legislation is not about eroding workers’ rights. It is about ensuring that everyone, including workers, can still rely on a basic level of essential public services during industrial disputes and that, when a trade union proceeds with the nuclear option of strike action, the disruption that is caused is not disproportionate. We are not talking about banning strike action but talking about reducing the potential for indirect harm as a result of it.

There is a hugely important place for trade unions in Scotland to stand up for workers and, when necessary, to take forward strike action. However, the debate that we are having is driven by the Scottish Government’s unwillingness to do anything that risks upsetting trade unions. The nature of relations between employer and employee always comes with a certain level of tension and continual debate about balance. In this case, as Liz Smith said, we are talking about the balance between the right of those who provide essential public services in healthcare, education and public transport to strike, and the right of the wider public to expect those public services to be available when they need them.

Strike action is, at its most basic level, a tool of leverage in a negotiation. The right to deny their labour in protest at unfair treatment is one of the most basic rights that any worker has, and to place restrictions on it is not something that any Government should do lightly. However, there has long been a recognition that the right to strike is not absolute. Police officers are not permitted to strike, while secondary strikes in sympathy with other strikes are against the law, and so on. Similarly, legislation on minimum service levels is not unique to the United Kingdom, as Murdo Fraser and Liam Kerr outlined. As Liam Kerr said, it is a strange position for the Scottish Government to take—

Can the member tell us what has happened over the past two years that requires the dial to be moved in the direction of further restrictions? What are the instances that he feels have been harmful to the public as a result of industrial action?

I do not accept that the dial has moved. This is about striking a balance, which we will always debate, because there will always be tension in it.

I apologise, Presiding Officer. I have written to you and I am in the process of writing to Mr Marra to apologise for missing the opening of his speech.

Why on earth would the Conservative Party be willing to see the universal opposition that there has been to the legislation from the trade union movement, both domestically and internationally, if this is about getting the balance right? Quite clearly, it is getting the balance wrong.

What a surprise that the trade unions are against the legislation!

I will give the cabinet secretary a little indication. During negotiations, you have to take the contrary position sometimes. When you are taking hard decisions—

To avoid strike action.

Strike action can be avoided. I will come to that in a little bit, if I may.

There are those who argue that any legislation that limits the rights of trade unions to launch strike action is unfair and harmful to industrial relations. However, I argue that it is the responsibility of any Government to weigh that harm against the potential harm and disruption from the loss—even if it is temporary—of key public services. The Government, like any employer, has a balance to strike between spending on its workforce to provide good pay and conditions and spending on other costs. There is a balance between decisions that have benefit in the short term and those that are right for the long term. No Government can credibly satisfy all people all the time, but in the SNP we have a Government that consistently prioritises the short-term gain even when that stores up long-term pain. Its unwillingness to make hard choices for the long term has consequences for all of us.

Will the member give way?

I will just finish my point.

Although the SNP has been quick to pat itself on the back every time it has avoided strike action when the rest of the UK did not, that came at a cost—specifically, a public sector wage bill that is predicted to have risen by at least £1.7 billion more than anticipated on the back of settlements that sit well outside the Government’s public sector pay policy. Regardless of whether we believe that the pay deals were at the right level or not, that bill must be paid. Whether it is a lack of willingness or a lack of ability to take a firm negotiating line with trade unions, the outcome is the same. The actions of the Scottish Government will leave the public paying the price.

I do not know whether Mr Whittle has recognised that there has been a UK cost crisis and that inflation in the UK has spiralled, which has meant that it is absolutely right that we seek to give fair pay settlements to public sector workers. I would have hoped that Mr Whittle would have agreed that that is the right thing to do. Giving front-line public service workers more money also supports the economy, as low-paid workers spend disproportionately more in their local economies, thus supporting local businesses and communities. It is a virtuous thing to do.

It will be interesting to have a conversation after we have seen next week’s budget, given that the Government has a £1.5 billion black hole to fill and is spending money that it does not have—[Interruption.]

Mr Whittle, please resume your seat. If members want to intervene, they know how to do that; otherwise, the person who has the floor has the floor, and we do not need sedentary commentary.

To come back to Liz Smith’s comments about balance, although the legislation that is being debated asks us to consider the balance between the public’s right to essential services and the right of trade unions to disrupt those services in pursuit of a better deal for those who provide them, it also raises the wider question of how the Scottish Government balances its priorities.

What we have is more evidence—if it were needed—that the SNP Government has its priorities all wrong. Just days before a budget that is set to tell everyone in Scotland that they will pay the price for the SNP’s economic incompetence, the SNP has chosen to waste a debate in the chamber on taking pot shots at the UK Government for a piece of legislation that the Scottish Government has said that it will not apply, as Murdo Fraser pointed out. This is a distraction—pure and simple. If the Scottish Government put even half the effort that it puts into political game playing into supporting Scotland’s businesses, we would be in a far better place; instead, we see yet again that the only economy that grows under the SNP is the grievance economy.

16:41  

Today’s valuable debate has highlighted two important points. The first is the essential progressive role that trade unions play in delivering our fair work and economic wellbeing ambitions. The second is that a discernible trend has emerged over the years under the Tory Government that is characterised by the persistent erosion of workers’ rights, which the Scottish Government will continue to defend against where we have the power to do so.

I have been and always will be a strong supporter of trade unions and their rights. In social care, which is in my current portfolio, I want the unions to be a key partner in helping us to build a strong national care service.

As we move forward, our commitment to partnership with trade unions will remain unwavering, and we will persist in advocating for the devolution of employment powers. It is heartening to note a growing recognition of the pressing need for that crucial step among the wider trade union movement and the Scottish Parliament, but it is disappointing that, despite the growing recognition among the labour movement in Scotland that those powers should be devolved, senior UK Labour politicians continue to side with the Conservatives to block that. Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, and the shadow Scottish secretary, Ian Murray, have both in recent months ruled out supporting the devolution of employment law to the Scottish Parliament. I hope that Scottish Labour colleagues in the chamber will continue to encourage their colleagues at Westminster to support our calls.

I welcome the minister’s point about trade unions being a partner in stopping her disastrous policies on the national care service as they stood; it was right that she listened to them. Does she recognise that the Labour amendment sets out a series of principles that should be delivered in government? Her back benchers are saying that they will not vote for something because they do not think that it will happen, which is a strange position to take.

The Labour amendment asks us to trust that Labour will win the general election, which is a big if. It asks us to trust that, if Labour wins, it will repeal the legislation—again, that is a big if. Forgive me if my colleagues and I are not content to wait for our neighbours in England to vote in a Labour Government occasionally to fix the problem. That has been my life experience. I was seven years old—

Michael Marra rose—

Let me finish this point. I was seven years old when Margaret Thatcher took power in the UK. In the intervening 43 years, we have had a Labour Government for 13 years. In that period, Scotland has never voted for a Tory Government, but it gets a Tory Government time and time again if England votes for that.

I appreciate the minister giving way again. I want to wait as short a time as possible for this legislation to be repealed. Does the minister not agree that there is more chance of that happening with the general election next year than with the idea that we might have independence sometime in the next decade? The way to get the legislation repealed in the shortest time possible is to get a Labour Government. Why will she not back the amendment tonight?

Labour has failed to devolve employment law to Scotland. The full devolution of employment law to the Scottish Parliament would enable us to pursue fair work goals such as setting the minimum wage and improving gender pay gap reporting. Those powers would enable us to create fairer workplaces that bolster workers’ rights in Scotland and contribute to combating poverty. That is what Scottish people want and it is what Scottish people keep voting for.

Yes, members on the SNP benches would like to go a step further, because only with independence will Scotland have the full range of economic and other policy tools to take decisions based on Scotland’s own needs. A new approach to fair work could be developed in an independent Scotland, with full control over employment law, equality legislation, industrial relations and social security, enabling us to tackle inequalities. With independence, we would have the power to introduce progressive measures such as a real living wage and increased statutory sick pay. Independence would enable us to grow a green economy, tackle poverty head on and create opportunities to thrive, giving us the chance to replicate the success of our neighbouring countries, which are so much more prosperous, so much more productive and so much fairer than the UK.

This debate has confirmed widespread opposition to the most recent of the UK Government’s anti-union legislation.

I think that the minister was in the chamber when I made my speech. We are trying to come to some agreement. I could stand here and say that my son has lived his entire life under an SNP Government and that I am not sure that he is getting the delivery of education that he deserves. However, we are asking that we come together and agree on something that would make a big difference in the short term. Will the minister join us on that point?

I will be clear—there is a lot of consensus between us and Labour on the issue. Along with the Welsh Government, the STUC and the TUC, we oppose the act. It is opposed by Westminster Opposition parties and the House of Lords, and it even drew criticism from members of the Conservative Party as it went through Parliament. As my colleague stated at the outset, during a cost of living crisis, the Government should be working with the public sector and the trade unions to reach fair and reasonable settlements, respecting the legitimate interests of workers and not seeking to curb that right to strike.

I have tried to explain to my Conservative colleagues that, for rail transport, it is not at all clear that people who work for the Glasgow subway, the Edinburgh trams, ScotRail, the Caledonian sleeper service or Network Rail will be protected from the minimum service legislation. However, let me speak very clearly about the health service. The consultation on minimum service levels for hospitals, which just closed on 14 November, was for hospital services in England, Scotland and Wales.

Nonsense.

That is a reality. The member is shouting from a sedentary position that it is nonsense, but it is absolutely true. The UK Government has consulted Great Britain-wide—not in Northern Ireland, but in England, Wales and Scotland. We are expected to trust that the precedent of non-application in Scotland of the ambulance service regulations will be followed for the upcoming hospital service regulations. The decision to introduce such regulations in Scotland or not—contrary to the position that my Conservative colleagues have put forward—is entirely up to the secretary of state. In the case of hospital regulations, that means that it is Victoria Atkins who makes the decision, not the Scottish Government. It is entirely unclear what will happen if health boards do not issue work notices. We do not know what will happen after that.

I reiterate that the Scottish Government remains strongly opposed to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and any associated secondary legislation that could be applied in Scotland and could therefore encroach on devolved services. We view the legislation as unnecessary, unwanted and ineffective. It seeks to undermine legitimate trade union activity, and it does not respect fair work principles. The Scottish Government firmly believes that a progressive approach to industrial relations and to trade unionism lies at the heart of a fairer and more successful society. The right to strike for fair pay and for safe working conditions should be an integral part of the rights of citizens in Scotland and across the UK.

We are committed to working with the STUC and affiliates in responding to the cost of living crisis, creating a wellbeing economy and working towards a just transition to net zero. That is in complete contrast to the UK Government, which continues to take an anti-trade union, anti-fair work stance. Our distinct approach is based on partnership working and our endorsement of the Fair Work Convention’s framework. We call on the Parliament to recognise and endorse that approach.

That concludes the debate on the application of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 in Scotland.