Chamber and committees

I bring members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I was a West Dunbartonshire Council councillor until May 2022.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of the Unison trade union.

I congratulate Keith Brown on securing the debate and acknowledge his long-standing commitment to workers’ rights and fair employment policy.

The devolution of employment law would give the Scottish Parliament the ability to protect workers’ rights, increase the living wage, end statutory living wage age discrimination, give us the powers to act on companies that use fire-and-rehire policies, tackle the gender pay gap, support parental leave and better trade union recognition policies, and much more.

The Tories’ anti-trade union policies, which were never repealed by the Labour Party, have undermined workers’ rights and allowed for an employment landscape in which the needs of workers can be placed last. The Trade Union Act 2016 and Brexit legislation show that the Tories care only about continuing in the same direction. Scotland needs a different path, and that will be helped by the full devolution of employment law.

The Labour Party arrogantly claims to be the party of trade unions, but it turns up here showing that it does not care about the opinions of trade unions that are clear that they want employment law to be devolved. Roz Foyer of the STUC is clear that devolution gives

“the chance to draw a line in the sand and ensure no worker in Scotland could ever be subject to any pernicious attack again from a Tory government hell-bent on undermining working people.”

However, despite the views of all trade unions, the TUC and the Labour Party, it has dropped the ball in another screeching U-turn in policy. The Campaign for Socialism, which some of the lapsed Corbynistas purport to be members of, said:

“This move would put the SPLP at odds with the STUC, TUC and Scottish Labour members ... MSPs must pick a side & abide by their manifesto commitment.”

We can see what side they have picked. Effectively, their memberships have lapsed.

Instead, we are expected to trust Westminster Labour to deliver, even though its record on keeping promises is shoddy. The party that now backs Brexit and the rape clause cannot be trusted on workers’ rights. Professor Keith Ewing of King’s College London has pointed out that the recent omission by Sir Keir Starmer to commit to a “single status of ‘worker’”

“would render completely pointless the commitments relating to zero-hours contracts, hire and rehire, and flexible working arrangements.”

On fire and rehire, Labour has questionable principles. When it comes to its own staff, The Independent alleged that Labour used fire and rehire, with one senior MP saying:

“To learn that our party are now using what can only be described as ‘fire and rehire tactics’ appals me. It’s everything we as a party should be aggressively opposing. Sacking individuals and hiring others with worse wages, terms and conditions are the actions of the worst of the very worst employers.”

When asked to rebut that, a Labour Party spokesman said:

“We don’t comment on staffing.”

We also know about the Labour Party’s shameful record on equal pay, so we will not trust Labour on workers’ rights. Instead, I stand with the trade unions and call for the full devolution of employment law to give this Parliament the means to provide fair work and decent pay and conditions.

Let us have the ambition to go further to support workers, with independence. Powers over health and safety law will mean that we can do much more to keep our workplaces safe. Power over social security policies will mean that we can do much more to support low-paid workers.

Crumbs from Westminster’s table are not for us. They are not enough for Scottish workers. A better path is an independent Scotland.

With your indulgence, convener, I have one further question. There was a really good discussion there about overpayment, but does the risk of overpayment outweigh the benefit of allowing advance applications and advance payments? That question is to whoever can answer it.

Good morning to the witnesses, and thanks for your time. The programme for government committed to inflation-linked uprating for some benefits and referred to

“increasing the Scottish Child Payment, Funeral Support Payment and all disability and carers benefits in line with inflation.”

Do you expect all devolved social security benefits to be uprated in line with inflation? For completeness, do you expect the UK Government to uprate all reserved social security benefits in line with inflation? I put that question to Bill Scott.

Paul Traynor, do you want to comment? No. Okay. Back to you, convener.

I totally agree. The issue of overpayments is a real concern.

Judith Paterson, SCOSS made recommendations on the issue. Are you satisfied with the Scottish Government’s proposals to deal with overpayments?

Thanks, Bill.

In the interests of time, I will move on to my next question. Chris Birt, in your written submission, in relation to disability benefit, you say that it

“will clearly have a significant impact on the Scottish Government’s budget if the UK Government fail to commit to a real terms uplift in these payments.”

Will you expand on how that impact will be significant?

Thanks, Chris.

Finally, in “Equality, opportunity, community: New leadership—A fresh start”, the First Minister stated that the Scottish Government would have to

“target every pound we spend and invest in order to get the maximum value, ensuring it reaches those that need it the most.”

How should the Scottish Government determine who needs it most? I will put that question to Chris Birt.

I certainly wish that there was, Chris. Does anyone else want to come in before I hand back to the convener? [Interruption.]