Chamber and committees

Over the past number of years, I have listened to a number of Labour MSPs stating explicitly that they wanted to see employment law devolved to the Scottish Parliament. They now have caveats, and they are unwilling to support a straightforward motion that would help defend the rights of workers and trade unions in Scotland.

I am sorry—I did not hear the first part of what Pam Duncan-Glancy said. She mentioned a number of trade unions working together. I am happy to come back to that if she wants to come back in.

As I have said, the Scottish Government works collaboratively with trade unions; that has been my experience during the days when I was in—[Interruption.]

Under the most recent Labour Government, £4 billion was pillaged from the miners’ pension fund; no pardons were given to miners; and there was no end to blacklisting. Crucially, in 2015, 2017 and 2019, we were told that those things must wait until a Labour Government was elected. If we do not devolve employment law and Labour does not win the election, Scottish workers will continue to wait and will continue to be deprived of the enhanced rights that they could possibly get.

The devolution of employment law, which the motion calls for, would allow us to take that constructive approach even further. It is for that reason that an increasing number of trade unions across the UK now back the devolution of employment law. I am pleased to say that the UK-wide Trades Union Congress recently followed the Scottish Trades Union Congress in calling for employment law to be devolved to Scotland, as well as calling for the repeal of all anti-trade union legislation—two measures that the Scottish Government supports but which it does not currently have the power to deliver.

Given that both the STUC and the UK TUC stand behind the devolution of employment law in their support for workers and for devolution, I would like to make known my feelings of utter disappointment and dismay at the recent announcement from the deputy leader of the UK Labour Party that the party has now scrapped its previous commitment to devolving employment law.

I have with me a printed copy of Scottish Labour’s 2021 manifesto, on which the 22 Labour MSPs were elected. On page 30, it states in no uncertain terms:

“We support further devolution of powers to”

Scotland,

“including borrowing and employment rights”.

Members can imagine my shock, therefore, when the Daily Record broke the news last week that an email had been sent around all the Labour MSPs, advising them not to sign the motion for today’s debate, a motion that might or might not in fact support one of their own policies. Why would they not want to support something that absolutely reflects their own policies, unless it is the case that they do not mean it at all?

It reminded me of something that happened a long time ago, when I was a councillor in Alloa. I put up a motion that congratulated Alloa Athletic on winning promotion to a higher division. It was opposed by the Labour Party—when I asked the Labour councillors afterwards why, they said, “Well, it was the SNP that proposed it.” They went back at a future meeting and agreed the motion, having changed one word of it.

It was what became known as the Bain principle, which is, “If the SNP proposes it, you cannot accept it.” In doing the same here, however, Labour members are, in this case, flying in the face of the rights of employees and the need for better employment law in Scotland.

Just days before a crucial by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, the Scottish Labour Party is back-pedalling on yet another of its fundamental principles, just to abide by the diktats of Keir Starmer’s UK Labour Party.

I rise to speak to the motion. It calls for the devolution of employment law, which is something that aligns with the Scottish Government’s commitment to a fairer and stronger Scotland, with the right to fair work at its heart. However, the motion is important for all of Scotland, especially those areas where the history of industrial action runs deep, such as my constituency of Clackmannanshire and Dunblane.

Clackmannanshire holds a significant place in the history of industrial action in Scotland, as one of the focal points of the miners strikes of the 1970s and 1980s. We must never forget those who, in their fight for fairer wages and safer working conditions, all too often found themselves the victims of the actions of particularly callous and uncaring United Kingdom Governments. The memory of the Clackmannanshire strike serves as a stark reminder of the challenges that workers endured before the creation of this Scottish Parliament, and I know that that history will resonate with many members in the chamber, and with many communities across Scotland.

For too long, successive UK Governments have legislated against the right of Scottish workers to take industrial action. The motion highlights two pieces of legislation: the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022 and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, both of which pose “a significant risk” to the rights of workers in Scotland and across the UK. Those regulations represent yet another attempt by the UK Government to curtail the right of workers to take industrial action to protect the dignity of their labour.

Trade unions are an essential part of our democracy, and are absolutely necessary in ensuring that the voice of working people is heard. Having served as a trade union representative myself, I will always speak up for the right of workers to engage in industrial action. Scotland’s history is filled with examples of successful collective action, such as the upper Clyde shipyard work-ins, led by the indomitable Jimmy Reid. Such instances continue to stand as testament to the power of industrial action not only in Scotland but around the world.

The creation of a Scottish Parliament has allowed Scotland to right some of the historical wrongs that were perpetrated on working people by the UK Government, by implementing measures such as pardoning those who were convicted during the miners strike. I was very proud to take that legislation through this Parliament, and proud that the measure had relatively unanimous support.

The Scottish Government’s record in collaborating with trade unions rather than working against them speaks for itself. The notable absence of any national health service strikes in Scotland over the past year, unlike in other UK nations, should not be dismissed. It is a clear indication that the Scottish Government’s approach of actively engaging with trade unions works.

No—I do not have much time left, and I have given way twice in relation to this matter. That said, I am happy to give way again if the member can give me a compelling reason why he cannot support the terms of the motion in front of him, given that there is nothing in there that conflicts with Labour policy. If he is going to do that, I will give way.

I acknowledge the sincerity with which Monica Lennon speaks on these issues, as she has done in the past. In fact, in 2021, she was explicit in saying that Scottish Labour was supportive of the devolution of employment law, so we do agree on that.

However, I put together the terms of my motion explicitly to crystallise that agreement. There is nothing in my motion that should dissuade Monica Lennon, who has a proud track record in relation to the issue, from supporting it. Why has she not done so? Does she believe that workers in Scotland should always wait on something happening elsewhere before they can get access to full employment rights?

Thanks for the contributions so far. I spent two-and-a-half hours in Edinburgh central library yesterday, which means I spent more time in the library than at a Scottish Premiership game this week—that is unusual for me. For me—I am a new member of the committee—context is quite important here. India Divers made a point about the fact that we have seen eight councils go bankrupt south of the border, and there has been a 40 per cent reduction in funding to local government. The issue of assets being sold off in Wales was also mentioned. The idea that Scotland can be immune to that is a nonsense debate, as far as I am concerned.

Much of what has been said today has been said for at least 35 years. When I first joined local government in 1988, the same discussions were taking place, with words like “cliff-edge” and “crisis” being used. I think that, as Duncan Dornan said, we have seen continued managed decline in that period. In fact, it goes back to the mid-1970s when the Government had to go to the International Monetary Fund to get funding, but we have had managed decline in public services over that time, and 13 years of austerity does not help.

It is useful to understand the context. For example, Duncan Dornan’s submission says that there has been a 36 per cent decline in public library services between 2010-11 and 2020-21 and a 22 per cent real-terms decline in museums expenditure in the same period. It would be useful to know how that compares with the rest of the UK. The comparison is valid because the same funding underlies much of it. I would like to know where the Scottish Government is doing something good—I would not expect to get too much of that—or where it is doing something that is neglectful of or impinging on the cultural sector, which it could change. Liam Sinclair has made a couple of suggestions of potential ring-fencing and other things. I think that it is part of this committee’s role to reveal the context for what is going on and a feel for where the Scottish Government could improve or where it is doing well and it should do more of it. That is probably more relevant and useful to me in trying to get a handle on some of these things.

My point was not so much about a comparison, although it is interesting to hear about the different services, and it was not so much about, as Liam Sinclair said, a global economic situation. It was simply that, in Scotland, the budget is driven by what the Government in Westminster wants to spend on its services, and we get what we get as a consequence of that. What we need is not thought about; it is just about what we get as a consequence. There is vital difference between ourselves and Ireland and Australia, which is pretty obvious.

I will raise a question, although I am not looking for an answer to this, because I am aware that we are pressed for time. I was interested in the Van Gogh exhibition that happened last year in Edinburgh and which I think is going to other places now. I know that one of the issues was the cost, as a lot of people would not have been able to pay to get in. However, I wonder whether there is anything in that kind of initiative—a bespoke exhibition that travels around—that might be helpful to museums, given the treasures that they have.

I am not looking for an answer now, because I know that we have to move on, convener.

Perhaps if anybody has any thoughts on the following, they can write back to us.

Going back to Donald Cameron’s point and the Van Gogh exhibition that I mentioned earlier, I do not know enough about it—after all, it is probably the only art exhibition that I have been to—but it seems to have raised an awful lot of money, although I do not know who it raised money for. Can we learn anything from that approach? The exhibition probably used pieces of art from public collections. I wonder whether any thought can be given to that, as I think that it made a huge amount of money in Edinburgh alone, and it has now gone on to London and Manchester.

I also mentioned that I was in Edinburgh’s central library yesterday. It is holding an exhibition on witches—indeed, it sits right next to where most of the witches were killed in Edinburgh—but there was almost nobody in the building. Even post-festival, the streets are packed with tourists from everywhere, and I think that, with a little bit of advertising, you could get folk going in. Even the library part was almost empty. I think that you could have brought in folk who might also have been going to the library, and it could have been monetised, too. That might be anathema to some people, but any entrepreneurial ideas that might help the funding situation would be worth hearing, and I think that it would help the work of the committee—and would certainly help me—if anyone who had any such ideas were to send them in.