 bysda i fourn yn ei ddestgrwm y bwrdd Cydur. That is the topic of questions. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15130 in the name of Christine Grahame on Pentland Hills Regional permission. Members wished to take part in 급 as we press request speak buttons now. I'll call Christine Grahame to speak how I move the motion around 3 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to open today's debate on the Pentland Hills regional park bill. As a preliminary, it's a very short bill, but in my view deserves better than a 20 minute debate slot. I'm disappointed in the bureau for this. We often have debates in here that are far too long and people have to think of things to say and they're given extended times and they've little to say. Many people put a lot work in this bill so I hope the bureau takes account of that. I'd like to take however this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their considered scrutiny of the bill and all who gave evidence either orally or in writing and not least the non-governmental bills unit. My bill simply provides for the extension of the southern boundary of the Pentland Hills regional park to include the whole of the range. It does nothing more than that. It is simply about drawing a new line on the map. 100 per cent of the range instead of 45 per cent, which is the current position. If we were starting from scratch today we would not call a regional park one if it was only 45 per cent of the range. My bill would not change public access rights, place additional planning restrictions on landowners or farmers or place additional governance conditions on local authorities. The direct financial implications for local authorities would be de minimis. In the financial memorandum it's some 20,000 overall across five local authorities really for consulting about the boundary. The bill would also provide a two-year lead-in period, which would enable five local authorities whose areas abound the Pentland Hills to consult and agree on the new southern boundary. It would also provide them with the opportunity, no more than that, to look at the future management of the regional park and to investigate future funding options. The key word is options. There was nothing mandatory in the bill about financing. Any arrangement on financing the administration of the park would be, as it is now, contractual and therefore consensual. So a line on the map, nothing more, nothing less. That was what the bill committee was asked to consider, but did it? Well, frankly, no. The committee has reported on a bill which does not exist, a bill which would oblige local authorities to fund. I'd ask members to see where that is in my bill. The bill the committee reported was in the words of Ernie Wise, not the bill what I wrote. It was one that they wrote for themselves, which is not in here. There was also criticism on my consultation, yet the Government said that I had consulted widely, and I'll perhaps get a moment to deal with that in the last part in summing up. It has been three decades since the Pentland Hills regional park was created. I don't think that we should wait another three decades before we complete the job and extend the park to include the whole of the range. So, in the very, very brief time I have to speak, I asked members to focus on that line on the map. Nothing more, nothing less, and support this bill at stage 1. The report does not deal with my bill. It deals with the bill what the committee wrote, not the one that I wrote. So I ask you to read my bill and support it, and I'm pleased to move the motion in my name that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Pentland Hills regional park boundary bill. Thank you. I now call on James Dornan on behalf of the Pentland Hills regional park boundary bill committee. Three minutes, Mr Dornan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I set out the committee's findings, I'd like to thank the committee members and clots for all their help support during this committee session. Presiding Officer, an ad hoc committee was established in June 2015 to consider matters relating to the Pentland Hills regional park boundary bill. As convener of that committee, I'm pleased to share with members today the committee's scrutiny of the bill. I'd also like to thank Christine Grahame for bringing forward the bill, particularly after her kind of maths there. Christine prosecuted her case with her usual forensic rigor and passion because I've heard this subject matter, which is relevant to a lot of people who live, work and use the hills for recreational purposes, has a very public hearing. Of course, this bill is groundbreaking procedural terms. Let me explain how the bill has pushed the procedural boundaries, and I apologise for that pun. Although a member's bill has a potential to adversely affect a particular private interest of an individual or bodies of the same category of class, that aspect aligns a bill with that of a private bill. Should such a bill had been introduced by the Government, it would have been dealt with under the hybrid bill procedure. We wrote to the standards, procedures and public appointments committee about that, and it's confirmed that we'll consider including this procedural point in its legacy report. The bill's uniqueness and its potential to affect individuals and bodies differently to others underpinned our approach to the scrutiny of the bill, which I will now set out. We have very little time, as has already been mentioned by the previous speaker, but so I'll just lay out the main considerations and conclusions in the short time I've left. Local authorities already have the legislative power to extend the boundary under the countryside Scotland Act 1967. Local authorities, farmers and objectors told us that they were unaware of any demand to extend the park. Some thought that feasibility studies should be carried out before legislating, while Scottish Borders Council believed that a study ascertaining the current park's effectiveness should take place before adding to its resource burden. We concluded that a detailed feasibility study would be appropriate to identify demand before legislating. We also inquired whether designations as a regional park would provide any additional protection. A number of formal designations already apply to the area. For example, sites of special scientific interest, corn and promoted paths are also currently managed and maintained by local councils. We therefore were not convinced that designations as a regional park would provide any greater protection against development given regional park statuses by design like touch. Section 3 of the Bill concerned us greatly. That automatically extends the boundary of the regional park if local authorities do not agree a boundary within a two-year period. Section 2 of the Bill requires every owner, occupier and less sea of land, to be notified of the extended area and allows representations. We agree with the minister when she said that we should not dispose of the carefully thought-through consultation procedures and arrangements that are provided by the current legislation. We therefore concluded the Bill as a significant shift away from current safeguards. Funding on the large park was of concern, too. The member-in-charge argued that the boundary change would not cost, as it was, just a line on the map, as was just repeated there. The committee disagreed with that interpretation. With the Bill comes expectation that it will deliver something. Those living, working and using an extended regional park will expect an increased ranger service in car parking facilities, for example. We concluded that an additional financial burden on top of local authorities' existing financial pressures would be unwelcoming and impact detrimentally on the current operation of the regional park. In conclusion, the committee unanimously recommends that the Parliament does not agree to the general principles of the Pentland Tulls regional park at Boundary Bill. I would also like to thank the Pentland Hills regional park boundary bill committee for its consideration of the bill and everyone who gave oral and written evidence. I would also like to acknowledge Christine Grahame's commitment to the issue, which has focused minds on the regional park in terms of its aims, successes and future challenges, and to thank her for all the work that she has done in bringing the bill forward and getting the bill to this stage. As I said, when I was giving evidence to the bill committee last November, the Scottish Government recognises the geographical reasoning behind wishing to extend the southern boundary of the Pentland Hills regional park. I agree with the committee when it concluded in December that it could not support the general principles of the bill. Yesterday, the NFU Scotland and the Scottish Land and the States, who represent the farmers and land managers in the Pentland Hills, said the same. I too cannot support the bill, but I would like to explain my reasons why. First of all, the Scottish Government is not involved in the operation of regional parks. They are created, managed and funded by local authorities. They already have powers to extend the boundaries, if they so wish. My view is that decisions on the Pentland Hills regional park should continue to be made at a local level. Secondly, the local authorities told the committee that they were not aware of any demand for an enlarged regional park. Indeed, the two councils into whose areas the park would be extended said that the southern Pentlands is a low priority in terms of pressure for outdoor recreation. South Lanarkshire noted that the area is remote from its main centres of population. The Scottish Boris Council opposed the bill, saying that an extended park would draw disproportionate resources from elsewhere. Thirdly, I have concerns about the procedure that is set out in the bill, because it represents a shift away from all the existing safeguards that are set out in the countryside Scotland Act 1967 and subsequent regulations. Finally, I note that the lead committee, the NFU and the Scottish Land and the States all say the bill, and its line-in-a-map approach would create expectations and has therefore overlooked the funding requirements of an extended regional park. For all those reasons, I cannot support this bill. I welcome the opportunity to speak today as a member of the Pentland Hills Park Regional Boundary Committee. I am sure that everyone here today would share Christine Graham's passion for protecting the landscape of the Pentland Hills for future generations, and I confirm that as a member of the committee we also held that view. However, I would like to thank, as others have, Christine Graham for efforts in proposing the bill. I know that, as someone who has two bills under my belt—one successful and one not so successful—how much work is involved in bill preparation. No one can fault Christine Graham for her absolute passion and her absolute energy in getting the bill on the table. That involves the consultation side, too. I echo the convener's point about the support of the non-exec bills unit, which does a fantastic job in this Parliament. However, as we have heard, there were a number of issues that we did not necessarily share Christine Graham's views on. There were issues, as we have heard already, about the demand. Was there a demand from local communities, from local councils? Were there issues about what extra protection we provided? The convener has already covered that point. However, what I would say, Presiding Officer, that trying to be as positive as I possibly can—if, in the future, there was a bill to come before us where funding opportunities were made much clearer, where governance issues were resolved and where it was clear that there was widespread community, local authority and Scottish Government support. My personal view, and I stress my personal view, is that I would not personally rule out any further bills coming before us if those boxes were ticked. However, the minister has been quite clear that there is no Scottish Government support for this proposal. The councils that we had before us did not give us any positive evidence that this bill should go ahead. For those reasons, my side will not be supporting the bill. However, I would praise the work that Christine Graham has carried out and I would like to put that on the record. I thank Christine Graham for bringing forward the bill, but I congratulate her because it takes no little commitment and effort to bring a bill forward to this stage and whatever the outcome. I am very happy to recognise that she has applied a great deal of both during the best part of the two years that have passed since the proposal for the bill was lodged. I have also got some sympathy with her vision of extending the existing regional park boundaries as the bill seeks to do in that there is a certain logic in assuming that a Pentland Hills regional park should encompass the whole Pentland Hills range, but there, I am sorry to say, Presiding Officer, is where I think the vision should be left as a vision for the foreseeable future. The bill does not seek to create the extended park or, indeed, to establish the infrastructure to manage it. It seeks simply, as Christine Graham has often reminded us and did so again today, to draw a line on the map within which an extended park could operate. However, the committee was surely right to look at the consequences of what that would be. As Graham's belief is that this will drive the five affected local authorities towards putting the necessary management structures in place and funding them to bring about a successfully extended park so far so good. However, the problem with that is that it was made very clear to the committee that four out of those five affected local authorities do not actually want an extended park and that the other would not consider it at all unless sufficient funding was made available by the Scottish Government, who in turn made it equally plain that it was not in the Government's plans to do so. Indeed, the Minister pointed out when giving evidence that regional parks have always been the preserve of local rather than national government. Traditionally, they have been demanded by local authorities, they have been managed by local government and they have been funded by local government. It seems to me that it would be inappropriate for our national parliament to impose extended boundaries on local authorities when they have shown no desire to extend those boundaries themselves. And if we were to agree to extend the boundary, even if it is just a line on a map, we should ask ourselves what the consequences would be. Well, in my view, Presiding Officer, extended boundaries will increase expectation. That increased expectation will increase pressure, particularly within the extended area. That increased pressure will lead to a demand for increased infrastructure and the funding to back it up and we already know that that is not going to be forthcoming. Finally, Presiding Officer, it is not just the local authorities that seem to be lukewarm at best about this. There appears to be little demand, if any, from the likely users of the extended park. That, I am sure, is due largely to the success of the right of responsible access that was brought in by this Parliament back in 2003, a right that gives people access to all land in Scotland. Indeed, we heard from land managers within the proposed extension, who have already diversified into providing various services for walkers, cyclists and other access takers. Those same people said that they did not experience any outward pressure for greater access coming from the existing park. Another sure sign that the demand for an extension is not there. The one and only witness who did enthusiastically favour an extended boundary was the chair of the Belerno community council. Belerno, I believe, is an area that is under increasing pressure from the existing park, but it is not actually included within Christine Graham's proposed extension. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, we have a proposal before us, which, if passed, will impose new park boundaries on five local authorities, four of which are opposed to them and one of which would only consider them if sufficient funding was available, which it won't be. There is little, if any, demand from either the public or land managers. There has been no feasibility or environmental impact studies carried out into the proposal, and it would, I believe, be irresponsible of this Parliament to dictate to local authorities on an issue that has always been their sole preserve, even if it is just to put a line on a map. Presiding Officer, I support the committee's recommendations and we will not be supporting the bill this evening. Thank you very much. I now call on David Stewart. Two minutes closed, Mr Stewart. Thank you, convener. I think that a point that hasn't been covered particularly is the point that the convener of the committee made, that we as a committee have written to standards procedures and public appointments committee to alert that committee to the absence of bespoke standing orders. I think that the point that was made by the minister was a very useful one, that the Scottish Government is not involved in the operation of regional park and they believe that this should be done at a local level. It comes back to the demand aspect of the bill. Where is the demand? I think that is the key point that was also echoed by Alec Ferguson. I take his point that there is a certain logic in the Pentland Bill regional park as an entity, but we have got to look at the demand from local authorities, the five local authorities, from land managers and indeed from the community itself. I do however feel that if that was going to go ahead we would need a full feasibility study to look at aspects of competence and finance. I have nothing further to add on the bill, Presiding Officer, except to echo that the Labour members will not be sporting it at five o'clock. I have listened to the debate with the interests and the contributions of those taking part. The member-in-charge has described the bill as enabling legislation that simply provides a line on the map. As we have heard, an extension of the park's boundary would undoubtedly have significant implications for all the local authorities involved for the farmers and land managers. It would create the expectations about how an extended park would be managed and funded. The evidence that is gathered by the committee shows that local authorities are not aware of a demand to extend the park. As I said only yesterday, the Scottish Land and the States reiterated that they do not support the bill, saying that it would create a public expectation that cannot be delivered and has completely overlooked the obvious funding requirements of an extended regional park and indeed on funding. I note the committee's view that it is clear to us that there are financial pressures on the current management of the existing regional park and that it therefore seems illogical to extend it, thus requiring any available funding to be spread more thinly across an enlarged area. To conclude, while extending the boundary of the Petland Hills regional park to include the complete range of hills might seem illogical at first glance, as I said in my opening remarks, the Scottish Government is not involved in the operation of regional parks. It remains the case that the decision on the Petland Hills regional park should continue to be made at a local level. That is why the Government cannot support the bill, and I will be voting against the bill this evening. Many thanks. Finally, I call on Christine Grahame to wind up three minutes, please. Yes, I find myself in an unusual position being in disagreement with my Government. Strange place to be. Back to that ubiquitous line on the map, nothing in the bill—I repeat, nothing—obliges any local authority to any funding, with the exception I repeat, of 20,000 divided across five authorities to consult on the extended boundary. The rest is fiction. The current financing by three local authorities is by agreement and contractual and is very precarious. Thirty years and the pressure on the Petland Hills has increased and will continue to do so. Regional park status only delineates a boundary for administration purposes—protecting those hills, those who work in them day in day out, and those who use them for recreational purposes. We are all guilty at times of only doing something when it really needs doing. For example, most of us would not, by choice, defrost a freezer, and usually we will only do so when we find that the door will no longer close no matter what the physical effort. In the same way, there is a danger that discussions concerning the future of the Petland Hills will be deferred until we are forced into action, perhaps when the money completely runs out from existing three local authorities. I hear what members say about local authorities having the power, but they will not do anything. When they will not do anything, that is why they all object to it. It will be left to wither on the vine. They hope that it will go away. It will not go away, because if I get re-elected, David Stewart, I am coming back with it. The bill provides the impetus for change, and we provide just a chance to look at the future management and funding of the park. In a recent BBC article, Piddymurdo Fraser is not hearing. Tell him about it. He made some very worthwhile points about creating and preserving national parks. Much more humble is the regional park, and I agree with him. That bill goes towards achieving that. I am looking forward to Murdo Fraser pressing his button to agree with me when it comes to decision time. I would like to leave members with the thought by Richard Henderson, whom I think the committee called thinking he would sabotage me, and he did completely the opposite. He said, Can I say first that this is a bill par excellence? I paid him no money for this. It is an aspirational legislation. As you have said, it says in effect that this is a line. We want somebody to fill it in. There is nothing wrong with aspirational legislation. The regional park would not be being talked about at all if it was not for the bill. Lovely man. I could not have said it better myself. I asked members to focus on that line on the map. Nothing more and nothing less in supporting this bill at stage 1. Remember, it is the bill that I wrote, according to Ernie Wise, not the bill that the committee thought I had wrote. Sorry, all members in that debate gave credit to Christine Grahame for the effort that she put into bringing the bill to that stage. She mentioned in her opening remark the shortage of time given to this debate. However much I might disagree with her, I do think a 20-minute debate following all two years of hard work. Hardly does justice to the work, but in all, indeed, the work of the committee. I wonder if I could ask you and your fellow Presiding Officers to ensure, even if it is in a legacy paper to the next Parliament, that this be looked at because I think the length of time given to this debate has been almost insulting. Thank you very much. As the past Presiding Officer of this Parliament, you will be well aware that that is not a point of order. However, you have made your point, Mr Ferguson, but you will also be aware, I am certain, that this is a matter for the bureau to decide on the business managers of the Parliament. That concludes the debate on the Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15414 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham on the Trade Union Bill. I invite all members who wish to speak in the debate to press their buttons now, and I call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak to you and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, you have 14 minutes today. We are very tight for time. Less would be more. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I first thank the devolution for the powers committee and its convener, Bruce Crawford, for their swift consideration of the legislation and the memorandum sent to them. I think that the majority of members in the chamber do recognise the urgency of this matter, and I appreciate the flexibility that the committee has shown in considering this so quickly. Concerns about this poorly thought-out piece of legislation are being expressed across the board. Last week, the House of Lords asked the UK Government to think again about the impact that the bill will have on political funding. The consultation responses that were published last week show an overwhelming level of opposition to their plans, but they still plough on. In November last year, the Parliament made plain its opposition to the bill with the motion opposing the legislation being carried by 104 votes to 14. In that debate, I explained to the Government's view that trade unions are a force for good in modern society, that unionised workplaces have more engaged staff, a higher level of staff training, and a progressive approach to staff wellbeing, that unions help employers to create the safe, humane, productive working conditions that head off industrial disputes and that build better businesses, that any legislation that undermines the value and contribution trade unions can make was a thoroughly bad idea and that this bill was nothing more than an ideological attack on unions with no evidence to underpin it. That view was emphasised by the First Minister in the Jimmy Reid lecture at the end of last year, in which she said, and I quote, "...the UK Government's proposed trade union bill is based on a world view we don't recognise. It sees the relationship between employers and unions as one of conflict rather than co-operation. It does not reflect public opinion here or the reality of industrial relations. It offers illiberal solutions to a problem that does not exist in Scotland." In November, I made clear my intention to continue to pursue the UK Government to exclude Scotland from the bill entirely. Further, if they remain unwilling to seek the consent of this Parliament, I committed to explore every basis for a legislative consent memorandum and motion, and in doing so fully recognise that this was uncharted territory. While disappointed, I respect the Presiding Officer's ruling on my legislative consent memorandum, even if I suspect that it would not have been taken with any great satisfaction. Similarly, I understand the frustrations being felt on the Labour benches regarding the process. That experience suggests that the Parliament may wish to look again at its standing orders to consider whether there should be a clearer mechanism for the Parliament to be able to express its opposition to what is deemed reserved legislation. I recognise the spirit of the Labour amendment and I will support that. However, it is important to find the right mechanism to achieve that. It is right, I think, that we ask the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to consider that further and to come up with options on the best way forward. By choosing to lay a general policy memorandum on 11 December, I have ensured that the Scottish Parliament has been able to express its opposition in the clearest possible terms to Westminster. The Standards Committee may wish to consider how effective this approach has been. However, expressing our opposition may underline that this fundamentally flawed piece of legislation is unfit for purpose, but it will not stop the bill in Scotland. It is clear to me that the one single action that will do that is to give this Parliament powers over workplace relations. While both the trade union bill and the Scotland bill are still going through that passage at Westminster, I call on all those who oppose this to do everything that they can push for those bills to be amended, to remove Scotland from the extent of this regressive legislation. I want to reassure each and every worker in Scotland that we will leave no stone unturned and no root unexplored as we seek to block this exceptionally damaging legislation being applied in Scotland and that the Scottish Government is regularly making this case to the UK Government at every level, including through discussions between the First Minister and the Prime Minister. Such is the priority that we are affording this matter. Today's debate and the strong support from the Parliament will further strengthen those representations. It is crucial that all those opposed to this bill, whether they are MSPs, MPs, union officials, public sector leaders or indeed anyone else, make the case to the UK Government that this legislation is not needed or wanted in Scotland. Those issues should be the responsibility of this Parliament. The committee's report recognises that the proposed legislation is a litany of errors from its questionable purpose and competence to its lack of proper consultation, all intent on destroying the effectiveness of trade unions and Scotland's good industrial relations. The committee took evidence on the general impact on industrial relations and the culture of partnership working in Scotland. It considered evidence on the specific proposals within the trade union bill, such as ballot thresholds, a statutory cap on facility time and check-off provisions, as well as ECHR matters and other international obligations. In drawing its conclusions, the committee recognised the complete lack of evidence to support a bill of this nature being imposed on Scotland. That entirely echoes the UK Government's own regulatory policy committee findings that the Department for Business Innovation and Skills impact assessment on the bill was, and I quote, not fit for purpose. There is no sufficient evidence to support the UK Government's quoted assumptions to justify the bill. Indeed, the devolution committee heard directly from COSLA's human resources spokesperson, Councillor Billy Hendry, describing the trade union bill as an, I quote, unnecessary and unjustified imposition, which could ultimately lead to more industrial unrest across Scotland. That is a view in which I have no hesitation in sharing. I see the smiles on the part of the Tory benches. It does seem remarkable to me that, faced with a good industrial relations record, it is the intent of the Conservative party to do as much as it could to damage that record. That seems to me to be utterly opposite to what the point of the bill is. I agree with the further powers committee that the bill is unjustifiable both across the UK and its application in Scotland. Industrial relations here are good. The number of working days' lost duty strikes has declined by 84 per cent since 2007. That is the highest reduction anywhere in the whole of the UK. Last year, fewer days were lost in Scotland relative to our working population than in any other part of the UK. Frankly, the UK Government would have done better to learn from partnership approaches to industrial relations, not just in Scotland but across the whole of Europe, rather than flat-out confrontation, which seems to be its preferred wholly unjustified route. The UK Government remains hellbent on demonising trade unions and ignoring the benefits that it brings to employers and our wider economic success. In its report, the committee was deeply disappointed at the lack of consultation with the major public sector employers in Scotland and with other organisations more widely. That is again a direct quote. As the report points out, more than half a million people are employed in the public sector in Scotland. That is 21 per cent of the workforce. 90 per cent of the total are employed in the devolved public sector. As such, the devolved public sector views as major employers with responsibility for industrial relations should have been taken into account by the UK Government, but they simply weren't. It is worth looking at some of the measures and how they will impact on the major part of the Scottish workforce. The UK Government wants the right to restrict facility time in the public sector. Facility time means that employees can spend time carrying out union duties, helping employees at disciplinary hearings, offering training, advising on health and safety matters or meeting and supporting employers. It is a vital part of our partnership working. It is not a drain on taxpayers or an abuse that needs to be controlled. It is most often how we avoid an escalation to strike action and curtailing it is far more likely to cost the public purse than it is to save money. The UK Government also advocates a ban on public sector employees using check-off facilities, the payroll mechanism, which enables union membership subscriptions to be deducted at source. The Scottish Government, as an employer, has been operating a check-off facility for years. The costs are so minimal that we have never charged unions for it. Attempting to change this is an extraordinary attempt to control how we as a Government act as an employer. It demonstrates that, fundamentally, the UK Government wants to discourage union membership and, in turn, curtail Scottish Minister's ability to effectively administer devolved public services as we see fit. It is clear by their actions that the UK Government does not care about the impact on Scotland of this legislation. In fact, it seems to have no interest in its impact on any of the devolved nations. It is also showing little respect for the parliamentary processes in England. Most of the bill will be delivered by regulations that we have yet to see. This is an increasing trend from a UK Government trying to push through unpopular policies that do not stand up to scrutiny. In its report, the Further Powers Committee highlighted the need for good-working relationships between Governments, where parties are seen as equal partners and for adequate consultation on matters that have an impact on each other's jurisdiction and competencies. I agree entirely, but the reality, as I discussed with my counterpart in the Welsh Government late in Andrew's last week, is most certainly not the case. A Government debate on the bill is also taking place today in the Welsh Assembly. It is taking a different approach to its opposition in a way that reflects the differences in its devolution settlement. Both Governments are exploring all the options that they can through the processes that are available. I have called on UK ministers to make clear their intentions regarding how the legislation and supporting regulations will impact on the devolved nations and, in particular, the devolved public services but with no response from the lead UK minister. As I said earlier, the First Minister is now making similar representations to the Prime Minister. I echo the committee's recommendations that the UK Government stops the bill in its entirety or reconsider its position on legislative consent, recognising the widespread opposition across Scotland to the legislation. Unfortunately, I completely understand and share the committee's view that such a call will, in all likelihood, fall on increasingly deaf ears. We must therefore continue to oppose the bill with the STC, with local government, the NHS and others in the Scottish public and private sectors to challenge the bill and its effects in Scotland. In the truest spirit of the trade union movement, we must work together if we are to succeed in this. The Scottish Government does not see trade unions as opponents but as partners. We want to work with unions and businesses to create a more productive, more prosperous, more equal society. To do that, we have established a relationship, not of conflict but of co-operation. The UK Government's proposals are deeply damaging to that approach. They represent an attack on the union movement and an assault on the rights and practices that workers have fought to protect over generations. I fully endorse the further powers committee's rejection of the UK Government trade union bill and commend the motion of support to the chamber. I now call on Neil Findlay to speak to and move amendment 15414.1. Mr Findlay of 10 minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to declare an interest at the start of this debate. I am a member of United Union, the EIS, I am a member of Wesleyan Trade Union Council, a chair of the PCS parliamentary group and I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group. Throughout my time in this Parliament, I have consistently worked on trade union issues, because that is where my politics come from. A few weeks ago, we debated the substance of this bill and it was a great deal of common cause across the Parliament with Labour, the SNP, the Greens, the Liberals and the Independents, all uniting to reject this bill. Only the nasty party, the party who seeks to divide and victimise and marginalise working people. The party that has a pathological hatred of trade unions and organised Labour supported this dreadful bill. No one was surprised by their actions. They are the party of regressive reactionary politics, personified today by Attila and Genghis, who they send out on the front bench today to face this up. But what was clear from that debate was that there is an overwhelming majority of MSPs in this Parliament opposed to this bill. When it was referred to the Devolution Further Powers Committee, it raised serious concerns about the bill and its impact on Scotland. I believe again that the vast majority of members of this Parliament accept those concerns and will, like Labour, support the Government motion at decision time today. In our previous debate, the Cabinet Secretary set out the reasons why she believed the provisions of the bill and its impact on Scotland, on Scottish workers, Scottish businesses and Scottish services. That meant that a legislative consent motion was necessary. She was right to refer to the way in which regulations are to be made, the impact on devolved services in public bodies—she referenced the agricultural wages board—and I think critically mentioned the potential breach of human rights legislation to back up her case. That debate, Labour members pointed to the impact on the NHS, local government, the police, fire service, transport, civil service and all other devolved responsibilities. In that debate, the cabinet secretary said and I quote, Ultimately, it will be for the parliamentary authorities to decide on the need for a consent motion, but the political will of the Government is clear. In my view, it is entirely right that the Parliament has the opportunity to vote on proposed legislation that I believe is aggressive, regressive and an unwarranted ideological attack on workers rights. I agreed with that analysis. She went on to say in her speech, that I have asked our legal advisers to explore several possible bases for a legislative consent memorandum and motion. We now know that the Parliament rejected that motion, and it is that ruling that is preventing this Parliament from acting. I believe that that was wrong in both process and decision made. However, we are where we are and we have to deal with the hand that we have been dealt with. Rather than saying, if only this could happen or that had happened, or if only we had this power or that power, we should use the powers and the procedures that we have available to ensure that the will of Parliament is respected and that we can and do have such a debate and vote. Again, in the last debate, the cabinet secretary said that she had taken legal advice and, presumably, the Government lawyers approved the LCM and could justify it. I would contend that that was on the basis of facility time and check-off, the impact on the administration of services, contract of employees, competition law, etc. All of which impinge on the executive competence and duties of Scottish ministers. There is little doubt in my mind that all of that does impact on that executive competence and yet, despite all of that, the LCM approach was rejected. Again, in that debate, the cabinet secretary said that this was the first time that the Scottish and UK Governments had disagreed on the need for a legislative consent motion. Given what is happening at the moment in terms of the devolution of powers, it may be the first time, but I certainly question whether it will be the last time. We have to do something about that. Should that situation arise again, the Parliament has to have the power to deal with that and put that power in the hands of democratically elected members of this Parliament. Given the new powers that we are going to get, those disputes are likely to come up more frequently. However, I do not think that we should leave that decision in the office of the president officer, whoever he or she is, and leave them exposed as it is they who would have to put their name to such a ruling in the circumstances that I describe. What we are proposing is that, where there is disagreement between the two parliaments, on whether or not a legislative consent motion is required, or where any member of this Parliament believes that a legislative consent motion is required, then that member should have the right to lay such a motion and have it voted upon by this Parliament. That would put power into the hands of elected MSPs, and it would increase the democracy and the accountability of this Parliament. It would be easier, if we had all those powers here, so we did not have to rely on LCMs. Mr Stewart makes my case for me. If only this, if only that, if only that, if only that. The reality is that, Mr Stewart, we have the opportunity now to take practical steps that will prevent the worst aspects of the bill impacting on workers in Scotland. I believe that the cabinet secretary is right to work with us on that. No, thank you. The cabinet secretary is right to work with us on that. I am just a bit disappointed that you appear not to want to go down that route. My colleague Mary Fee has submitted such a proposal to the standards and procedures committee. If there is the political will, then that proposal can move through our parliamentary system very quickly, allowing us to have such a debate and to reject the impact of the bill on Scotland prior to the Scottish election. I am absolutely ready to sit down with the cabinet secretary. As are any of my Labour colleagues, we can do it tonight if she wants and we discuss how we move this forward as quickly as possible. I extend that invitation to any member of this Parliament who wants to speak to us. Even, God forbid, they might accept it, but even the Conservative Party. That is a practical step that we want to take. Finally, today, the Welsh Assembly is debating a legislative consent motion on this bill. The Labour Government has said that it will take action to reverse the effect of the bill, and it shows that it is all about political will. If there is no movement forward on what we propose in the Labour Party, working with the Scottish trade unions will pursue every option, including, if necessary, a legal challenge, but it would be quicker, cheaper and better if we did not need to go down that route. I welcome the Government's support for our amendment, and I hope that all members of the Parliament will support it at decision time this evening. Thank you very much, Mr Findlay. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The trade union bill gives effect to manifesto commitments made by the Conservative Party in advance of their being elected as the majority Government of the United Kingdom last May. However, trade unions are an important part of our society. The trade union movement has a proud history of campaigning for workers' rights to improve health and safety in the workplace and to represent members when they are in need of support. However, people have real concerns about the balance between the right to strike and the misery that such action can cause in the public services, particularly in vital services such as the NHS, the fire service, transport and schools. No one wants to undermine the right of trade unions to call a strike as a last resort, but that should be based on the views of the union's membership. It is not right that strikes can be called with the basis of support being fewer than one in ten of the members on very low turnouts. I believe that it is not unreasonable to require an opt-in process for union political donations. Often members are unaware that they can opt out of this political part of the union subscriptions, however it is done. It is only right that people make a clear decision on who they are to donate money to and what that money is to be used for. In relation to the timing and duration of industrial action, the bill will extend the notice period given to employers for open industrial action from seven days to 14. At present, the action must begin within four weeks of the ballot, although that can be extended to eight weeks by agreement with the employer or 12 weeks by a court. The bill will impose a four-month limit on industrial action before a new ballot has to be held. That means that it must start within this period, but it can now start at any time within those four months. The bill will also set out some provisions of the Picketing Code of Practice and put them into law. The current version of the code dates from 1992, but it originates several decades earlier and is well followed by responsible trade unions. One of the catalysts for this legislative change is the inappropriate intimidation that took place at Grangemouth during the dispute that happened last year or the year before. The bill does not propose to stop so-called facility time or time spent by an organisation's staff on trade union duties and activities during working hours. It will, however, ensure greater transparency by extending the requirements on the public sector to publish information on the time and money that is spent on that facility time. Turning to so-called check-off, a number of public sector trade unions members have their union subscriptions deducted from their salary by their employer and transferred on their behalf. That also happens occasionally in the private sector. This practice was introduced at a time when working people did not have bank accounts. In the 21st century, it is equally as easy to set up a direct debit. Those measures are not unreasonable to add to the provisions that have been added by previous Governments in order to facilitate good industrial relations. On the issue of the legislative consent motion, the Scottish Government has set out in detail its position on the bill. It lodged that legislative consent motion in relation to the bill, and the Presiding Officer responded with a letter to Roseanna Cunningham, which stated, having given the matter careful consideration and applying the test set out in the rules, my view is that the Parliament's legislative consent is not required and that this is not competent to lodge a legislative consent memorandum. The UK Government has set out in detail the reasons why it believes that it is not necessary to do so. Believing that it is not required because the subject matter of the bill is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament. Of course, unemployment law, industrial relations and trade union legislation are expressly reserved in the 1998 Scotland Act. The constitutional law expert Alan Trench has commented that there cannot be any argument that the UK Parliament has the power to legislate regarding the operation of trade unions, balloting requirements, the operation of political funds and the like, which make up the bulk of the bill, which operate equally in Scotland as in other parts of the UK. It is therefore reasonable that this legislation should be carried forward. The Devolution Further Powers Committee reported on this bill on 18 January this year. Of course, the views have been expressed by the minister taken from that report. I should make it clear that I did dissent from both the conclusions and the recommendation of that report. I believe that this legislation is reasonable and I believe that the process is legal. We should continue and we should support it. Many thanks. We now move to the open debate. I call on Bruce Crawford on behalf of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. Mr Crawford, six minutes and you will be followed by Margaret MacDougall. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon and my capacity as the convener of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. As members are aware, the Scottish Government referred its policy memorandum on the UK Government's trade union bill to my committee for its consideration. To start, I should emphasise that the report was agreed by the overwhelming majority of members and, as Alex Johnson has just said, apart from him. It is fair to say that that was not a surprise to him. It certainly was not a surprise to the rest of the committee. Nevertheless, I thank him for the way that he made his views clear and enabled the rest of us to agree a report. In Scotland, the context for the introduction of the UK's trade union bill is that, since 2007, industrial disputes in Scotland have decreased by 84 per cent. The position of the days lost to industrial disputes in Scotland is the lowest of the four nations of the UK. The trade union bill is not so much a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but put simply, the bill seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. Indeed, the evidence that we took emphasised the positive working relationship between unions and employers over decades in some of Scotland's largest public sector organisations such as local government or the national health service. I was struck by comments on behalf of COSLA from Conservative councillor Billy Henry of East Dunbartonshire Council, who said that COSLA leaders are extremely concerned that the changes that are proposed in the bill are being brought in without any evidence to back up the assertion that they could modernise industrial relations between councils and trade unions. Council Henry's remarks demonstrate well the broad-based opposition across all sectors of Scottish society to this bill, but not all. I note that the taxpayers' alliance are not supporters of the bill and are not the CBI. We also heard that there has been a lack of consultation with Scottish stakeholders or the Scottish Government on this UK Government bill. As Dave Mock, some of the STU said in evidence to the committee and I quote, there was a failure to consult a very rush process, a committee stage that was, in our view, very poor and the introduction of a couple of key additional aspects of the bill in that process. We did not know about the introduction of the check-off arrangements until well after the first reading and that was not subject to any consultation or any assessment of cost. The bill seeks to provide UK ministers with a power to place limits on the amount of time that union representatives in the public sector can spend on union duties or activities. The Scottish Government has estimated that the total cost of facility time across the entire Scottish public sector was £5.8 million in 2014-15. That is around only 0.02 of the Scottish Government's Dell budget. It is just because he is early in his speech. I wonder if he could later on in his speech might be refer to the point that I made about the principle where the two parliaments do not agree on how we bring forward a procedure for that to be changed. Today I am speaking on behalf of the devolution committee as its convener and it was not subject to any of the processes that we went through in terms of our findings. I am not in a position to, because I am speaking in that regard, to make a comment on that. More importantly, the evidence that we took stressed that facility time should be viewed not as a cost but as an investment in effective workplace management and essential to effective public sector delivery and reform. Shirley Rogers, the workforce director of NHS Scotland, commented. Some years ago, we in the NHS took the view that we wanted to invest in co-cooperation. We wanted to frontload our investment in facility time to allow us to have better product rather than spend our time in conflict resolution and dispute management. In terms of the check-off provisions in the bill, the committee witnesses raised a number of concerns. Those raised from the bill placing regulation-making powers in the hands of UK ministers to how check-off provisions would relate to arms-length bodies set up by local authorities. The overwhelming majority of the committee agreed with the view of the Conservative councillor Bill Henry that the bill was, and I quote, an unnecessary and justified imposition, which would ultimately lead to more industrial unrest across Scotland. The committee, having reached the same conclusion, then went on to make a series of recommendations. First, the UK Government should refrain from passing the unnecessary bill, which lacks any real evidence for its needs in any part of the United Kingdom at all. Secondly, if the UK Government rejects this, the bill should not apply to Scotland and should be amended in the remaining stages in the House of Lords. Thirdly, if the UK Government is unwilling to make such an amendment, the Scottish Government should seek to encourage such amendments by means available to it. Lastly, if all those recommendations are rejected, the committee recommended that, as a minimum, the regulating-making powers in relation to facility time and check-off should be conferred on Scottish ministers. In conclusion, the bill might seem a bit technical, but without it, for instance, we would provide Jeremy Hunt with control over significant aspects of industrial relations in the national health service in Scotland. Given that 89.5 per cent of public sector workers in Scotland are accounted for by employment in the devolved public sector, the bill has passed, including that Scotland will fly directly in the face of the spirit of devolution. I say to the Parliament that that is not a situation that is either acceptable and that it should be rejected, and I commend the report to you. I wish to raise a point of order under chapter 12 of the Standing Orders insofar as it relates to the operation of committees. In doing so, I in no sense make any comment on the selection of amendment 1 in this debate, nor do I speak on behalf of the committee, which is not yet considered the substance of Mary Fee's proposed amendment to Standing Orders. However, I do seek from you, Presiding Officer, an assurance that in the event of the Parliament passing amendment 1 today, which I expect it shall, the committee will retain the freedom to consider the purpose of Mary Fee's amendment while not being bound to take the formulation of that amendment. The initial advice appears to be that the formulation of the amendment has no effect in changing the Standing Order's powers to the Parliament and that, therefore, the committee, I believe, would wish to be able to consider as wide a range of Standing Order amendments or other amendments that it might bring forward to give effect to the purpose of Mary Fee's amendment. It would be very helpful to Parliament and to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to have your assurance that the motion that calls on political parties to take action does not bind the committee in its detailed consideration of the issue. I thank Mr Stevenson for the advance warning of his point of order. Mr Stevenson is correct in that the Parliament cannot compel a committee to take any particular course of action. It would be for the committee to decide how to respond to the amendment if it is agreed. Thank you. Now I move to the next speaker, who is Margaret McDougall, to be followed by Christina McKelvie. I start by expressing my disappointment that, on the day that the Welsh Assembly debates a legislative consent motion that will restrict the imposition of this anti-trade union bill on Welsh public services, we in this Parliament are unable to do so as a result of the Presiding Officer's ruling. Members in this chamber have debated this undemocratic bill before, and barring those on the Conservative benches, a sizable majority have expressed their opposition to it. All those members who have done so have a duty to do all they can to stop the bill, and I should therefore support the amendment to standing orders made by my colleague Mary Fee, as the Labour amendment calls for today. I'm just started, perhaps later. Let's be clear, this anti-trade union bill is bad for business and bad for workers. The only person who will benefit are bad bosses, while the rest of us suffer. It undermines the fundamental right of workers to remove their labour to fight for and defend jobs, pay and terms and conditions. I'll take that intervention now, if you wish. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Can I ask the member, therefore, from her contribution at the very beginning, will she and her colleagues support employment law being devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which would not necessitate this going through at all? Thank you for the intervention, but that is not what we are here to discuss today, and it's not an issue. Removing the ban on the use of agency workers to break strike action, a ban that was introduced by a Tory Government no less than in 1973, is a dangerous precedent, and it undermines the rights of all workers. I fear that if bad employers are able to use low-paid temporary workers to break strike action, it could lead to a new era of protracted industrial ill health and will most certainly be used by those bad employers to push down pay and terms and conditions. We should also acknowledge the unacceptable position many agency workers who are desperate for work will be placed in, where they are pressurised by agencies to accept work in the most stressful of situations. There are also concerns that the use of agency workers could have an impact on the quality of public services, health and safety. Would it really be acceptable, for example, for a business to break strike action with less qualified temporary workers in heavy jobs where the safety of that worker and the wider public could be at risk? We in this Parliament should be making it clear that we respect the right to strike, something that should be a fundamental right in all democratic societies. I do not want devolved public bodies in Scotland to use agency workers to undermine industrial action for the reasons that I have outlined. We should also do all that we can to defend trade union facility time and check-off arrangements. In all the rhetoric about those matters, the Tories always omit two very key points. Trade union facility time is not, as the Tories would have you believe, a costly burden on employers that provides no benefits. The reality is very different. Facility time is already tightly defined and includes undertaking duties such as negotiating with employers and representing members, duties that I am sure all of us in this chamber would expect trade unions to do. In carrying out those duties, facility time provides a substantive benefit to employers in reducing work-related illness, stress and injury. It saves employers and takes checker money by reducing employment tribunal cases, and it helps employers to retain staff saving them money on recruitment and training. On check-off, let's be clear, it is not free. Local authorities, for example, charge trained unions and administrative fee for check-off arrangements. In recent years, as local government cuts have taken their toll, many local authorities, including ones where the Conservatives are in power—South Ayrshire, for example—have raised the fees for check-off. We on those benches have always acknowledged the importance of trade unions. We know that, in workplaces with trade union recognition, workers benefit from better pay and terms and conditions, and, as I just said, employers can benefit from good industrial relations. We believe in the key trade union value of solidarity and the principle that united we stand, divided we fall. Members on those benches will therefore do everything we can to oppose this bill and protect the right of trade unions to represent their members. That is why Labour councils across Scotland have taken decisive action against this bill and pledged not to co-operate with it. Those councils have pledged not to implement the changes to check-off and facility time arrangements. They will also not use agency workers to undermine strike action. I am delighted that, in my area, North Ayrshire council— Last month—I am disclosing—the first SNP-led local authority to make sure a commitment after a successful campaign by Labour councillors. What we need to see is this approach rolled out across the whole of the public sector in Scotland. That is why we need to see a legislative consent motion brought before this Parliament so that members are not only setting out their opposition to this bill but making sure that it is not imposed on Scottish public services. I hope that we can all work together across this chamber to amend our standing order to allow us to debate this last letter of consent. We are very tight for time today. I now call on Christina McKelvie to be followed by Liam McArthur up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. What is wrong with this bill? I think that it was beautifully summed up by Dave Moxham from the STUC when he was given evidence to the Devolution Further Powers Committee. He said that he will not be surprised to hear that the STUC's view is that this bill is designed to fix a problem that does not exist. Given that strike levels are at a historic low across the UK and, as the Scottish Government has pointed out, the levels are even lower in Scotland, we consider the bill to be an ideological attack on the very basis of trade unionism. Trade unionism is designed to provide an effective balance in the workplace between the interests of the workers and the interests of the managers. I could not agree more. However, Westminster clearly has not managed to get a handle on the idea of it aint broke. Do not try and fix it. What is wrong with the proposed legislation is, well, practically everything. We have heard quite a lot of examples already. Not only does it try to repair a problem that does not exist, we have more than enough real problems, I believe, to be getting on with, but it cuts to the heart of every worker's basic human right. Both the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Equal and Human Rights Commission have drawn attention to what London seems to fail is a minor impediment, while the UK business secretary, Sajif Javid MP, is convinced that there is no such threat. He finds it very hard to clarify just how he arrives at that conclusion. The minister has made a statement as to the compatibility of the bill with ECHR rights, and he is rightly required to do so, but he has avoided addressing obligations under the UN and the international labour organisation treaties ratified by the UK, or his obligation as a signatory to the ESC, the European social chapter. Perhaps we should not be surprised that the current Westminster Government has an astonishing ability to not answer any difficult or challenging questions. We have seen that not just in the context of this bill but in everything from immigration and refugee policies to flood defences and the Barnett formula. You do not need to go back to the tall puddle matters of 1834 to concede that the exploitation of workers is bad for them, bad for employers and bad for the economy. Currently, the law protects the right of trade unions to organise and encourages its members to take part in peaceful picketing, provided that it meets certain requirements set out in the 1992 bill. The clause may be in breach of article 11 of the ECHR deal with freedom of assembly and association, particularly alongside article 14, freedom from discrimination in the enjoyment of ECHR rights. Trade union officials in the public sector are accustomed to having some facility time to deal with members' interests. I did that myself when I was a trade union activist. Clause 13 wants to limit that time and probably restrict the proportion of the employer's pay bill that is dedicated to facility time. Those powers are dangerously open-ended and could readily be used to introduce real interference to freedom of association rights. The STUC further says that, with less facility time, members would get a poorer service and workplace disputes would increase. Some private sector employers might reduce facility time even though they are not forced to. Devolution means that employers such as the Scottish Government, councils and health boards should be free to spend resources without interference from the UK Government. We are calling on all public sectors and employers not to co-operate with the legislation, and many have already agreed to do that. The House of Lords is an unelected and unrepresentative body, but it has decisively defeated the Government over trade union funding of political parties, even if it is in some self-interest. There is nothing as effective as creating unnecessary but essential paperwork according to them to hobble any organisation and trade unions to make their life difficult. Many have pointed out that the bill seeks to make everything more time-consuming and old-fashioned while cutting back the time to comply with the regulations. Westminster is making things more old-fashioned. Who would have thunk it? Baroness Smith of Basildon rejected the Government's claims that the bill would not hut her party financially. She told peers that democracy would be damaged if the Government pushed through the changes on funding without them being fully scrutinised by a select committee first. Requiring union members to opt in to paying a levy rather than opting out if they wish is a great way of increasing bureaucracy and reducing the budgets that help members. The First Minister, as we have heard, is seeking exemption for Scotland from this destructive negative bill that seems designed to damage constructive relationships between employers and staff. She is absolutely right to do so and has the backing, I should say, of most MSPs in this place. That effort, Presiding Officers, is only the tip of the iceberg. What we need, of course, is full control over employment legislation, and maybe supporting that in the Smith commission would have meant that we would not be here to debate in this today. What we need in this place, Presiding Officer, is the power to work on Scotland's interests, and a bit of discussion, in the meantime, would help. The late Jimmy Reid once said, from the very depth of my being, I challenge the right of any man or any group of men in business or in government to tell a fellow human being that he or she is expendable. We should never forget those words when we debate the course of this bill. The cabinet secretary made much in her speech of the fact that this bill has no place in Scotland. Frankly, there is no place anywhere in the UK, and I think that the cabinet secretary did at least acknowledge that. The trade union reform is not in and of itself unreasonable, but this bill is not about improving democracy, accountability or even the effectiveness of trade unions. Rather, it is a petty attempt to neuter unions and prevent them properly representing the legitimate interests of their members. It is not driven by the demands of business or the needs of the public sector, but rather a determination to undermine the Labour Party. As for the provisions on political funding, if the Tories were at all interested in tackling the distorting effect that money plays in our politics and our elections, rather than simply manipulating the rules in their favour, they would agree to calls from the Liberal Democrats and others for genuine reform of party funding. Rigging the deck like this is just nakedly political. UK ministers claim that the bill is necessary in the face of increased strike action in recent years. However, given the profound economic shock that we have been through collectively over recent times, it is scarcely surprising that more people were in dispute with their employers over that period. To pin the blame somehow on irresponsible trade union activity is wrong and deliberately so. It is also dangerous. Trade unions are a vital part in standing up for workers' rights, improving productivity and protecting against workplace abuse and bullying. Is it the case that some individuals in some unions on some issues act irresponsibly? Yes. Are there even those who make more of a habit of it, perhaps? Is there anything that suggests that the reforms that have been put forward in the Tory Government's bill are either justified or proportionate? Not at all, in my opinion. Yes, recent polls indicate that 29 per cent of people believe that unions are too powerful, but the same polls show that 77 per cent agree that trade unions are essential to protect workers' interests. UK ministers would do well to reflect on that. Of course, it is no coincidence that this bill is only appearing now. As my colleague Willie Rennie reminded the chamber back in November, this bill is made up almost entirely of measures that were proposed by the Conservatives over the last five years of the previous coalition government but blocked by Liberal Democrats, notably my former colleague Vince Cable. However, it is not just about measures that Liberal Democrats blocked. In the run-up to last year's election, Vince Cable drew up proposals on e-balloting aimed at helping to increase democracy and participation in trade unions. Those plans—good enough, it seems—for Tories in selecting London Mayoral candidates are nevertheless off the table when it comes to union reform. It is not simply trade unions or the Labour Party that stand to lose. A number of the measures risk damaging industrial relations in this country, as all members have mentioned so far. It is madness. Good industrial relations not only protect workers from abuse and intimidation but deliver better productivity. Effective relationships between employers, workers and trade unions are in the interests of all three as well as of the economy as a whole. Trade unions work actively with management to deal with industrial disputes before they go too far. If that balance of power is shifted, as unisons and others have made clear, more serious grievances and greater detriment to that relationship in the workplace could be the result. Take the example of facilities management, highlighted by the RCN, an organisation that even the most right wing of Tory UK ministers would struggle to demonise as Trotskiite troublemakers. In Scotland, trade union facility time is agreed as part of the NHS staff governance framework. Changes proposed in the bill would, however, among other things, give ministers the power to impose a cap on the time trade union representatives are allowed to carry out their duties. The underlying assumption appears to be that there are too many trade union representatives in the public sector. Yet independent research suggests that the bill is attempting, as others have said, to solve a problem that does not exist. As the devolper's committee argued, if this issue cannot be resolved at a UK level and Bruce Crawford, I think, helpfully set out the ways in which that may yet be achieved, we need to ensure that Scotland is enabled to take a different approach. The same would apply with regard to the provisions for check-off, Deputy Presiding Officer. I say that this is someone who believes that employment law is ideally consistent across the UK, and indeed an EU-wide approach has delivered significant benefits over recent times. On political funds, just as evil is a self-interested, piecemeal and counterproductive way of dealing with the serious constitutional reform our country needs, so too is picking off the Labour Party and trade unions for special measures instead of addressing the pressing need for fundamental reform of how all our political parties are funded. This SNP Government often stands accused of legislating not because it should or it needs to, but because it can, fixing problems that do not exist. Some of that criticism has emanated most vociferously from the Conservative benches, yet I can think of a few more egregious examples of wrong-headed lawmaking than the trade union bill. UK ministers propose to act not on the basis of what is in the interests of our country, our economy or our workforce, rather they have made a political calculation about what they think will damage the Labour Party financially and politically. The fact that their proposals risk damaging workplace relations, workers' rights and productivity seems to matter little to that Government. On the grounds of civil liberties, workplace harmony and higher productivity however, Liberal Democrats will continue to work with others here and at Westminster to oppose the trade union bill and I will support the motion and the amendment at decision time this afternoon. I refer you to my register of interests and declare that I am a member of the trade union unison. The trade union bill seems to be part of that wider Tory agenda to restrict employees' rights. We have already seen the removal of legal aid access for personal injury claims. Anyone who started working after 6 April 2012 will have to work for their employer for at least two years before they can meet the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Changes to employment tribunals have restricted access to workplace justice and, of course, tribunal fees of up to £250 just to register a case that has been introduced. Attacks on employee rights. Those changes were bad enough but now we have the trade union bill, which seems to be an outright ideological attack on worker representation. In its submission for today's debate, the British Medical Association has provided us with an excellent summary of the bill. The BMA does not have a political fund, is not affiliated to any political party or to the trade union congress. No one could ever accuse the BMA of being a reactionary militant organisation unless, of course, your name is Hunt. The BMA believes that the trade union bill risks diminishing not only the important role that trade unions play in the workplace, but also their legitimate right and needs to represent their member's interests. The imposition of tighter restrictions on trade unions may have the inadvertent effect of prolonging workplace disputes, thereby making it more difficult to resolve disputes amicably. A similar view was held by Shirley Rogers of NHS Scotland, who stated at the devolution committee that the NHS took the view that we wanted to invest in co-production, we wanted to frontload our investment in facility time to allow us to have a better product rather than spend our time in conflict resolution and dispute management. The proof is in the pudding that during the past 10 to 15 years, we can count on one hand the number of disputes that we have had. My experience of facility time is similar. Facility time has been beneficial to some of the organisations that I have been involved in, including Aberdeen City Council. Beneficial in areas such as health and safety, in terms of input to education committee, in terms of the work that went on in the three hours project, which built 10 new schools in the city of Aberdeen, and beneficial in terms of budget setting. Trade union colleagues were at the forefront of those things. I hope that that continues throughout the country forever and a day. The bill undermines workers' rights to representation. Of that, we can be in no doubt. The BMA document says that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills had stated that the bill is not a declaration of war on the trade union. However, the bill, alongside the measures introduced by the transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration at 2014, appears to be another ideological attempt by the UK Government to curtail the legitimate activities of trade unions. Esther Lynch, the confederal secretary with the European Trade Union Confederation, recently wrote that the very fact that the trade union bill has been proposed is shocking. Attacks on the fundamental right to strike recognises that a basic human right is not just an attack on workers and their trade unions, but an attack on society as a whole. Weaker unions mean greater inequality. By interfering with trade union collective action, Governments prevent workers from effectively participating in the choices involved in their workplace society and economy. The deck becomes firmly stacked in favour of the powerful and the privileged. Should we be surprised that, once again, the Tory party attempting to stack the odds in favour of the powerful and the privileged? Probably not, but what we should be doing in this place is to do all that we can so that those draconian laws cannot be implemented here. We must all support by the call by the devolution Further Powers Committee that Scotland be excluded from this bill. We have heard today from Mr Finlay that he would like to explore every avenue to combat this bill. Margaret McDougall says that we should take every measure that is required to do so. The measure that we must take, the avenue that we need to go down, to protect trade unionists, to protect human rights, to defend our freedoms, is to ensure that all aspects of employment law are devolved to this place. That is the measure that we require. That is the avenue that we must go down to protect Scottish trade unionists and employees across the board. I now call Leslie Brennan to be followed by Claire Adamson. I first want to note that my interest is a member of your night. As we have already heard, a significant number of local authorities, including my own in Dundee City Council, have had motions. Thankfully, the SNP administration supported the Labour motion saying how much we were against the trade union bill. Scottish trade unions and trade unionists and other stakeholders such as the NHS Scotland are opposed to this bill. The extent of the opposition to the bill in Scotland was clear, as I have heard when the bill was debated here on 10 November. There was a significant majority of support in the Parliament for the motion against the bill, with only 14 voting against it. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government's legislative consent member random was rejected. I believe that there is evidence that the trade union bill will have an impact on the devolved functions. For example, the proposed changes to facility time, which I would like to concentrate on today, will have an impact on the NHS, local authorities and other organisations that come under the remit of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, I believe that there is a strong argument that the bill encroaches the legislative competence of this Parliament. It is important to remember why the current UK Government is taking forward this bill. For the Institute of Employment Rights, it is a fact that workers in unionised workplaces enjoy better terms and conditions. Why? Because trade union reps are active in the workplace and negotiate in representing and promoting the wellbeing of the workforce. Facility time is an important component of trade union reps' role. The time off for an individual's job is granted by the employer to enable a rep to carry out their trade union role. It has been our right since 1975. As Margaret MacDougall had said, those duties are really tightly defined, so we must acknowledge that the work that the reps do on top of their own workload, especially if they are in the public sector and how much their workload has been expanding over the past seven years. Those reps do a huge amount of their case loads and other prep for meetings in their own time, so that facility time is not a complete amount of time that is involved in resolving the issues. We need to be really mindful of the contribution that trade union reps make. The proposals regarding facility time in this trade union bill are very concerning, because if it passes, all public sector employers in Scotland will be required to publish information about the money and money used for the trade union facilities, including paid time off. Trade unions need to publish the percentage of money spent on facility time and taking up with different trade union activities. The critical point is that the Government will have the power to introduce a cap on the amount of money local authorities can spend on facility time. The cap could also apply to different trade union activities. It is really important to remember that facility time is not some altruistic action by employers. There is a clear business case for facility time. According to the Royal College of Nursing, the trade union bill could have serious consequences for productivity and morale in the NHS, as new research shows that trade unions are saving the NHS across the UK at least 100 million every year. Independent evidence has revealed that staff turnover in organisations without union representatives is three times higher than those with trade union reps. When you add it up, that saving is how it comes to £100 million a year. The evidence from a survey from the TUC and personnel today notes that the majority of HR professionals agree that unions are an essential part of modern employee-employer relations. However, the Tories at Westminster want to seriously weaken the effectiveness of unions and not to promote industrial harmony and business efficiency, so the evidence of those beneficial outcomes are not being considered. There is no plausible case that can be made regarding this bill as constructive. It is not constructive, it is destructive. Facility time does not just benefit trade union members, it benefits everyone. The Scottish economy is weak. Further reduction in the public sector will weaken it further. Thus, the Scotland needs a robust response from the Scottish Parliament with respect to the trade union bill. Scotland cannot afford the trade union bill. The Scottish Government acknowledges that the trade union bill will have an impact on devolved functions. The trade union bill will have devastating implications for Scottish public services, which will benefit from facility time. Research that was published earlier this month in the Journal of Work, Employment and Society notes that NHS Scotland, union participation in strategic decisions produced extensive co-operation to improve services and enhance staff terms and conditions. There is overwhelming opposition to this bill. I feel that we have a unique opportunity today to move beyond the rhetoric that I worked genuinely together for Scotland. I was really heartened to hear the minister how she is going to support Neil Findlay's amendment and to support the proposal for mary fees to amend the standing orders to allow a thorough debate of the trade union bill. You really must come to a close. The proposed changes to facility time will impact on devolved matters and productivity of those organisations. I am delighted that the administration is going to support Neil Findlay's motion today. Once again, I ask members to keep to their six minutes or the members at the end of the debate will lose time. Clare Adamson, to be followed by Patricia Ferguson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I declare an interest as being a member of the NUJ and also a member of the SNP trade union group, which now stands at over 16,500 strong. Does someone born and brought up in industrial Lanarkshire, the trade union movement and industrial relations have often been prominent in my life? Those traditions of solidarity and unity in Lanarkshire were brought home to me last year when I stood with representatives from the trade union movement, the SDUC and the community of Mother Wale and Wisha at the unveiling of the steel workers memorial, a beautiful sculpture from Andy Scott, and a fitting tribute to the many workers of the steel industry who lost their lives or were injured in the workplace. The site of Ravens Creek on which the statue stands will be forever remembered by me from my formative years as a place epitomising the failure of industrial relations. I remember the minor strike and the picketing of Ravens Creek, and I fully believe that that conflict in my mind was orchestrated by a Government set on their own agenda to irreversibly damage the trade union movement. I thought that the anti-trade union legislation that followed was the worst that a Tory Government could do to a movement that has done so much to secure workers' rights, improve health and safety and work to protect workers. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The proposals in this trade union bill will further restrict the fundamental rights of workers to organise, bargain collectively and, if necessary, withdraw their labour. One only has to look to the junior doctors in England and Wales to know how important that right is with faith by an unjust Government. In Scotland, we have good industrial relations. The trade unions are well recognised and hugely important part of our society and indicative of a healthy modern democracy. As convener of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness, it has been my absolute pleasure to work with the Scottish Hazards Group in its endeavours working with the SDUC in raising awareness, training, supporting workers and aiming to reduce work-related injury, ill health and death as a result of work. We aim to increase knowledge and to increase awareness, most importantly, improve practice and develop worker involvement in the most important part of their lives, their working environment. However, how many of those hard-fought protections for workers would exist without the efforts of an effective trade union movement? We have heard the mantra from other parties in the UK, particularly from UKIP, about the red tape of health and safety. Not so. Those are hard-fought protections in place for workers through the endeavours of a strong and effective trade union movement. Unfortunately, the legacy of those industrial days, we all understand so well the dangers. Mesothelioma, Pluroplach, COPD, vibration fight finger, the list goes on and on. Anything that we do that further diminishes the rights of workers and the trade unions in the UK, we do so at our peril. I have talked about my formative teenage years. I remember the 1979 devolution referendum and the late amendment that required 40 per cent of the electorate to support that proposal, not just a simple majority. It was an affront to democracy then and clause 2 and 3 of the bill is an affront to democracy now. There has been talk in the chamber this afternoon of how this will be debated in the Welsh Assembly today. Mr MacArthur spoke about how he is in favour of a UK-wide employment legislation solution, but we do not have that now. It will not be discussed in the Northern Irish Assembly, because it is devolved to the Northern Irish Assembly. Had we had support in the Slyth commission, that might well have been in Scotland's power too. It is a shame that we are in a position now where we do not have that power in this place, which would make such a difference to the future and the deliberations happening today. One of the reasons that has been mooted for the need for this trade union bill is so that it can limit the number of days' loss to productivity in the UK economy. I would like to see the UK Government look to what this Government has done in introducing the living wage, something that research has proven to increase productivity, motivate workers and be of benefit to people. We can do things differently here, we can take different decisions, we need the power to do so and we should reject as any way possible that we can find, reject this bill proposed by the Tory Government. Many thanks and now call Patricia Ferguson to be followed by Mark McDonald. It is widely recognised that this bill is one of the most ill-judged, unnecessary and ideologically driven pieces of legislation since the days of Margaret Thatcher. Ill-judged because it will take away the last resort that is industrial action by workers and will force them to take more direct political action. Unnecessary because days' loss to strike action are at an all-time low and ideologically driven because it seeks to give Government and employers more power and working people less. In short, it is a bad bill and we must do everything in our power to oppose it. We debated this issue in November, so I do not intend to rehash all of the arguments that are used then. They still stand and are a matter of public record. What I want to do today is to look at where we now stand and what options are open to this Parliament to make its view on the bill known to the UK Government and, crucially, to seek change. Ideally, of course, the UK Government would drop the bill, but we know that that is unlikely to happen. The report of the devolution committee is a very welcome addition to the discussion around this bill and, as we know, one of its recommendations was that we should have this second debate on the trade union bill so that the committee's conclusions could be aired. The committee took evidence from relevant people with a direct interest in the bill's provisions, and its evidence backs up the view that that proposed legislation was rushed into Parliament and has not been properly consulted upon. Indeed, the committee quotes the conclusions of the UK Government's own regulatory policy committee, which stated that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills' own impact assessment on the bill was not fit for purpose and, quotes, lacks evidence to support many of the quoted figures. The committee concluded that the provisions on check-off and facility time will not lead to savings or to efficiencies. I was struck by something that Claire Adamson said in her speech about health and safety and about the Scottish hazards movement. As members know, I have had a great deal of involvement in the stock line factory. That was not a unionised workplace, but I would like to think that, if it had been, those union officials and late trade union members had been able to go on a health and safety course, that parts of the build-up to that incident that happened that day that caused the lives of nine people would not have happened, because people would have been alive to the dangers that were so apparent if one just cared to look. However, our devolution committee noted that the UK Government does not believe that LCM or Legislative Consent Motion is needed in spite of the fact that the legislation would seem to confer some of the powers about the operation of check-off and facility time in the public sector on ministers of the UK. The committee has suggested that it wants to encourage the UK Government to think again about the issue, but it recognises that it is unlikely to do so. Ironically, of course, as we know, our debate is taking place at the same time as that in the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly with considerably fewer powers than this Parliament is, of course, debating an LCM. However, as matters stand, an LCM here has been rolled out by our presiding officer and her legal advisers. Consequently, Scottish Labour has suggested a standing order's rule change that would alter the way in which an LCM is handled in the Scottish Parliament. There is no reason why, if there is a will to do so, that Parliament cannot quickly change its standing orders to allow any member to table an LCM. I am very pleased that the Scottish Government has said that it will accept our amendment this evening. I would say to my colleague Mr Stevenson, who is not here, that those of us who are Labour members on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Bill, we are very happy to work with him and with other colleagues to make sure that the amendment that we come up with is absolutely the right one for the purpose. Parliament's devolution committee has suggested that Scotland should be removed from the territorial extent of the bill by amendment. We know that time is running out and the committee suggests a further fallback that, as a minimum, the regulation-making powers relating to facility time and check-off should be conferred on Scottish ministers as they directly relate to public services in Scotland. I know that my Labour colleagues Ellen Morgan, Peter Hain and George Fawkes, as well as Jeremy Pervis of the Liberal Democrats, have tabled amendments to do just that, but perhaps the minister could tell us what discussion and engagement she has had with them about those issues. I understand, Presiding Officer, that those amendments will be taken in the Lords on 8 February. It seems to me that the UK Government sees this bill as some kind of demonstration of its virility, but I have to say that, to me, it is actually a sign of weakness when you are reducing the rights of workers and attempting to silence their voices by process rather than by argument and discussion. However, I do think that it is symbolic of their attitude and their views about trade unions, but not just about trade unions, but about ECHR and, indeed, about democracy. The symbol sometimes can be important, so can I perhaps suggest a small symbol that we might as a Parliament like to make? Perhaps our business managers, those of all the parties represented in this chamber who oppose this anti-trade union bill, should go to Downing Street and should take with them to hand in copies of the official report of the two debates held here to demonstrate in a practical but also symbolic way to the UK Government that there is a contrary view, a strongly held contrary view, and that it is one held by the majority of Scots and the majority of their representatives. Many thanks. I now call Mark McDonald to be followed by Sandra White. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. My colleague Kevin Stewart has spoken of his time in Aberdeen City Council, where he was the convener of the Finance and Resources Committee and the important role that trade unionists played in relation to a number of the budget discussions that took place and also in resolving the vexed issue of single status and equal pay and modernisation, something that regrettably remains unresolved in a number of local authority areas. I wonder what the impact would be on ability of unions to affect resolution to that issue, were the trade union bill to be passed at Westminster. During my time at Aberdeen City Council, I convened the appeals committee and I saw first hand the benefits of trade union facility time in being able to provide appropriate support and representation for staff members who were lodging appeals against disciplinary procedure. I have serious concerns that, if the bill is passed, the ability of trade union officials to work on behalf of their membership in relation to appeals against disciplinary procedure or in matters of grievance will be severely restricted and potentially remove some recourse to justice for members. I also spent time on the Corporate Health and Safety Committee at the council, which was an important forum that brought together council officers, union representatives and elected members in order to drive forward the health and safety agenda, which my colleague Claire Adamson spoke of in its wider context. At a local authority level again, I have concerns that those union voices could be lost to that process. Were the changes around facility time to be introduced? Recently, at Aberdeen City Council, my colleague Councillor Jackie Dunbar, who leads the SNP group on the council, tabled a motion. A motion worded similarly to motions passed to other local authorities across Scotland seeking to express the council's explicit opposition to the trade union bill and also seeking to put the council in a position where it would not take action in order to undermine union rights as a consequence of some of the measures of the bill. That motion regrettably was ruled as incompetent by the Labour Party Lord Provost despite it being along the same lines as those passed in other councils. An attempt to lodge a motion with different wording in a bid to get consensus was not included on the agenda of the council's urgent business committee. My hope is that that was not a narrow consideration that a motion put forward by the SNP was the issue, and I hope that a resolution can be found so that Aberdeen can join those other councils, which have, I believe, quite rightly expressed their outright opposition to the trade union bill. It was interesting when Margaret MacDougall was speaking that she spoke about regressive union legislation passed by the Conservatives in the 1970s that remains on the statute books to this day. I regret the fact that we retain regressive Conservative union legislation on the statute books in spite of 18 years of unbroken Labour government from 1997 to 2015. That raises a secondary concern for me. That suggests to me that we have no explicit guarantee that we are the legislation to pass, which I hope that it will not, but we have to work within the reality that there is a majority Tory government at Westminster. Were the legislation to pass and were there to be a change of government, we have no explicit guarantee that the legislation would be reversed, given what we saw following 1997. I will take a brief intervention from the panel. The member needs to keep up the news. Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely committed to reversing the legislation. We shall see whether Mr Corbyn is Prime Minister after 2020 and, secondly, whether he keeps to his word in that respect. However, Mr Findlay and his colleagues have spoken in relation to the legislative consent motion, and we will accept the Labour amendment at decision time. The point is that until the UK Government changes its position around the requirement for legislative consent, the passing of a legislative consent motion will have no meaningful effect, because the legislation can still pass at Westminster. The parliamentary supremacy that Westminster commands means that the challenge to legislation passed by Westminster is almost entirely likely to fail. No amount of hand-ringing can deflect from the fact that the Labour Party stood in the Smith commission and followed the Smith commission during the debate on the Scotland bill to leave employment law and trade union law in the hands of the Conservative party at Westminster by rejecting the proposal that was put forward by my colleagues at Westminster to devolve employment rights as part of that process. I hear the argument that union movement solidarity transcends national borders, although, as my colleague Clare Adamson pointed out, it will not affect unions in Northern Ireland because the decision has already been taken to devolve matters to them. However, the very simple fact, Presiding Officer, is that what is very clearly demonstrated in this trade union bill is that this is not an example of better together, it is an example of suffer together. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. I thought it was a nightmare last week when the lights went out as well, but perhaps that went out too. Maybe some folk would have preferred it did, but never mind, it's on anyway. I would like to take this opportunity to echo the views of those who have spoken today in opposition to this bill. It is important that we speak up against the bill, which I believe is not only a direct attack on trade union rights but a direct attack on human rights. It has to be seen as well. As a former shop steward, I was proud and privileged to represent and serve my members in trade union us-daw. We did not raise issues that the trade union has raised with us. We facilitated meetings with management as well. I think that that is the crux of a lot of the argument in this particular bill. We actually, I think, probably prevented any strike action perhaps. We actually facilitated along with management and we put the union members' voices there first and their concerns also. We won a lot of the concessions, and I think that is one of the jobs of the trade union movement as well. To reiterate what the cabinet secretary mentioned, trade unions are an essential part of the workforce, not just for the fact that they represent their members, but for the training schools as well and putting people through colleges, etc. I think that they do an absolutely fantastic job. I think that it's a very, very bad piece of legislation. There are other areas of it, which one in me and others have mentioned, and I will probably pick up some of it myself. The lack of dialogue between not only the Scottish Government but the other devolved legislators in the UK is deeply troubling for a number of reasons, and I will perhaps set some of them out. Given devolution, as it stands in, hopefully, more powers that we will receive and subsequent responsibilities to transfer to Scotland, much of the dealings that we have with the trade unions in Scotland are in relation to sectors of the responsibility that is already devolved. That is very, very important. Over the past 16 years, relations with those sectors have been largely influenced by the actions of consecutive Administrations and Scottish Government here in Scotland. We have a distinct relationship with the sector and the employees also. The proposed registration will have a direct impact on that relationship, and they therefore believe that it is something that the Scottish Government and the Parliament should have had a major say in. Others have mentioned the fact of where Dave Moxham and others mentioned that fact also that they were not consulted in any way whatsoever. I also think that it is troubling that this present Conservative Government is more interested in bypassing Parliament to implement what I would call ideological drive against the poor in favour of the rich. The conventional guarantee against autocratic rule in any democratic society is the rule of law, separation of powers and public access to legitimate scrutiny of action. However, the Tories want to restrict us. They try to introduce, as has been said before, the criminal justice and courts bill, which have made it more difficult to challenge unlawful Government decisions, subject public bodies to effective scrutiny. It was defeated in the House of Lords, and I love this week's quote. As a Labour peer, Lord Beecham said at the time, in an unlikely event of Vladimir Putin becoming aware of this Government's approach, he would be lost in admiration. I do not think that that is the kind of admiration that we actually do want. Even from the Conservative benches, I would hope that they would not. They then wanted bypass Parliament to introduce new freedom of information laws, which was incredibly described by the Information Commissioner as an attempt by the Tories to return to private government. Indeed, since elections, the Tories have increasingly used statutory instruments to try to introduce swathes of significant new laws, such as benefit cuts, without debate on the floor of the House of Commons. To get back to the trade union bill, it is another way of removing people's voices and making it more difficult for them to challenge unlawful Government decisions. It comes in the back of a concentrated war against workers by the Tories, removing legal aid, changing the rules, governing unfair dismissal, changing rules to employment tribunials and cutting back in health inspectors, all to the detriment of workers. All part and parcel of the Tory plan is another way of rolling back democracy and rights, rights that have been had fought over, and we all know that. With the lack of proper discussion and scrutiny, another example of the Tories' lack of respect for Parliament, be it in Westminster or here in Holyrood, we know that they are keen to go to war in Syria, covet them without parliamentary approval in Yemen, and now they are new orders, war on democracy. In conclusion, we must oppose this badly thought-through legislation, the fundamental attack on workers' rights, and more insidiously, a further attack on our democracy by an increasing, secretive, totalitarian Tory party, held bent in eroding fundamental rights within and throughout the UK. In addition, and others have called for this also in the side of the Parliament, we must also call for the devolution of employment law for the guardlers of the Labour Party's stance today against a trade union bill they fail to support the one measure which would actually defeat it. I declare an interest in the debate as I am a registered member of the union and a member of the cross-party group, the RMT group. I would like to thank the Scottish Government for bringing this debate to the chamber today and to report from the Devolution Further Powers Committee. This is a vitally important debate, and one that, as I have mentioned, is of particular interest to me. Trade unions are vital resource for workers across a broad range of industries. The trade union bill represents nothing more than an attack on the rights of trade unions and, as a result, the rights of workers across Scotland and the rest of the UK. As I said last week in oil and gas debate, I applauded the role that the trade union movement played in securing and defending the rights of workers across that industry, especially on health and safety issues. We have a duty to listen to trade unions that represent workforces across Scotland. The STC, COSLA and other organisations have made their professional opinion on the matter clear. The trade union bill is a draconian, archaic and politically motivated piece of legislation. It is an attack on trade unions and nothing more. Trade unions organise workforces, they represent the workforce and they actually make sure that workers are protected in more ways than just in terms of earnings. They protect workers in terms of health and safety, they make representation on behalf of those workers. The facilities time that we are talking about eroding in terms of the trade union bill is facility time that trade union members take to represent their members on a wide range of issues to their employers and to others. The right to strike has been a long and proud tradition in Scotland and the UK. Striking, I see as a fundamental right. People who take strike action do not take strike action lightly. I know from my own experience when I worked in industry that when we did go and strike, the majority of workers lost financially by going and strike, but what they did was their right to protect their rights and protect the health and safety conditions that they had fought for. The right to stand up to employers and businesses and demand a certain standard of rights and welfare in employment is fundamental to our society. It is a fundamental in creating a just and fair society for all. The trade union bill comes from an incorrect assumption that striking is a problem in modern-day Europe and the UK, where, according to the STC last year, there were only 151 strikes, and less than 2 per cent of workers participated in a strike. The days lost due to strikes were less than 3 per cent of the 28.2 million days lost due to work-related accidents and ill health. If the Tories wanted to stand up for working families as they keep on claiming that they should ensure that they protect the health and safety legislation and ensure that workers have safe, fair contracts that allow them to work in a consistent and stable manner and that workplace health and safety representatives are protected against employers who wish to undermine the hard fought for protections in the workplace. The trade union bill is undemocratic and anti-worker. The imposition of a minimum 50 per cent of eligible voters, as others have mentioned, is a nonsense. The UK Government would not be elected if it required 40 per cent of the eligible voting public to support them. It is quite clear that the UK Government has claimed that it is attempting to increase democracy in the workplace by imposing those restrictions. However, greater restrictions on vote results will only serve to strangle democracy and not increase it. The UK Government consulting on draft regulations will allow employers to greater freedom to employ strike-breaking temporary workers. That fundamentally undermines the rights and purposes of striking. Undermining the purposes and actions of the strike undermines the democratic principle behind the strike, once again showing how the legislation does not in fact increase workplace democracy, as the Tories have claimed, but instead simply serves to undermine and attack trade unions and the right to collective action. There have been a number of things said today, Presiding Officer, and I would refer particularly Lallick Johnson to go and look at the legislation regarding political funds. The legislation that the Tories introduced in the 1990s to try and undermine the political representation that trade unions can make on behalf of their members, political funds are not about funding political parties, they are about, further than that, protecting and representing their members in relation to electoral campaigns and other campaigns to put their members' views across in those elections. The issue whether or not the legislation that goes through Westminster is legal, it can be legal because it may be passed by Westminster, but I would argue whether or not it is legitimate to put some of the legislation through that is currently being proposed. The embarrassing thing for the UK Government at the present moment is the least organised grouping of workers that have currently taken industrial action, and that is the junior doctors have highlighted the role that the UK Government is playing at undermining the rights of workers, not just in terms of industry, but including the NHS. Finally, Presiding Officer, I think that what we could see here with this legislation as a precursor to the Westminster Government's attempts to enter into further action against workers in the coming months and years to undermine the fundamental rights that workers have at the present moment of withdrawing their labour, representing their members and campaigning for the better rights, better health and safety and better workplace security for their workers clearly shows that the Conservative Government is only interested in one thing, and that is protecting the rights of employers and undermining all the other rights that have been hard fought for over centuries by the Paris union movement. I thank the members of the devolution further powers committee for the comprehensive report on the impact of the UK Government's trade union bill in Scotland. For this bill, if enacted, will I believe have a detrimental effect on labour relations in Scotland for many years to come? In the debate held in the autumn, I highlighted the problems that would be created by introducing a general voting threshold, reducing facility time, making it difficult to collect union dues and undermining of democracy by not allowing electronic voting. My concerns and those areas still stand, so today I want to raise my concerns about clause 3 of the bill relating to ballot thresholds for important public services. That clause would require that at least 40 per cent of those eligible to vote would vote yes for any industrial action. The areas of public employment that have fallen under this clause is yet to be defined but is likely to be the NHS, education, fire service and transport. The Scottish Government issued its policy memorandum and on the question of clause 3 stated, that power is wide enough to affect and have a negative impact on trade unions and their members who work in the public sector in Scotland in the important public services. The 40 per cent rule has been used to Scotland's detriment before, back in the 70s, but what would it have meant for the Tory Government if it had been introduced for Westminster elections? The Tories in 2015 received 11.3 million votes across the UK, or 37 per cent of the vote. Although that fails to meet the 40 per cent level, that is not the criteria that they are trying to impose. The turnout at the 2015 general election was 66 per cent of 46.4 million potential voters. Therefore, the Conservatives achieved only 24 per cent of those voters eligible to vote. Is not that a nonsense for them to try and impose a threshold for union voting ballots that they themselves failed to reach? The BMA in its evidence to the Westminster committee said, the ballot thresholds are arbitrary, unnecessary and inappropriate. We have seen no evidence as to why an additional 40 per cent threshold in important public services has been chosen. The purpose of this double threshold appears only to make it more difficult for unions to organise industrial action. Even the FPU, who have met those thresholds in its recent ballots, stated in its written evidence to Westminster that those restrictions have no basis in domestic or international law or in other voting systems. The devolution committee report highlighted the evidence of Dave Mock, some of the STUC, who argued that it is fundamentally and democratically wrong that an abstention should be counted as a no vote. It is not as if we have a strike problem in Scotland. Since 2007, industrial disputes have decreased by 84 per cent. The Scottish Government policy memorandum highlights that the Scottish trend in days lost to industrial disputes is the lowest of all the UK nations. If enacted as it is, the bill has the potential to destabilise the balance of the employer-employee relationship. Of course, in order to ensure that the number of strike days lost continues to fall, it is to improve dialogue between employer and employees. Clause 13 would create a reserve power whereby a UK minister may make regulations to restrict facility time. As the Scottish Government has argued, that restricting facility time is likely to limit the Scottish Government's ability to work effectively with trade unions on a range of issues, as they will not have the capacity to engage. The justification for cutting facility time is explained by a letter from the UK Minister for Skills to the Westminster Trade Union Bill Committee in answer to a request from the SNP MP Chris Stevens. It seeks to cut facility time from 0.14 per cent to 0.07 per cent of the public sector pay bill. However, as Bruce Crawford has highlighted, facility time in Scotland is already lower and costs the public purse less than the target set by the Tories. Once again, the bill tries to resolve a problem that simply does not exist. The First Minister, speaking at the United Scotland Conference on 17 January, said that the bill is nothing short of a full frontal attack on the rights and freedoms of trade unionists. It is, in my view, an attack on basic human rights. Of course, if all the political parties who oppose the bill had supported the devolution of employment law, as called for at the time by the STUC, we would be able to address the problem rather than just talk about it. I believe that the devolution of employment law would be the most effective means of preventing the imposition of punitive and regressive Tory attacks on workers' rights in Scotland. Last June, Labour refused to support a Scottish Government motion calling for the immediate devolution of employment law in order to ensure the protection and promotion of the rights and responsibilities of workers in Scotland. The Labour Party has repeatedly refused to support that. I am sure that Labour does not prefer to leave power over workers' rights in the hands of the Tories and Westminster. Unfortunately for Labour, people are judging them on the basis of action that speaks louder than words. When I look at my constituency, there is a strong industrial heritage, strong history of mining, steel making and manufacturing. Through that was born strong trade unionism because it was a need for collectivism. Historically, some of the employers in the constituency had very bad employment practices. Although industrial relations and working conditions have improved substantially to the 21st century, even just a cursory glance at recent news cuttings shows that we still have major issues to deal with. The resolution foundation last week reported that one in five Scots earned below the low-pay threshold. We have seen the reports in Sports Direct where thousands of workers are on exploitative zero-hours contracts. That makes the role of trade unions more relevant than ever as a voice for people in the workplace. That means that when you look at the logic of a trade union bill, what does it do for those who need the strong voice of trade unions that undermines that voice? It has been brought forward by the Conservative Government because it operates on a basis that the trade unions are not a force for good. In a lot of people have mentioned facility time and the attempts to restrict facility time. That is all about shutting down the opportunity of trade unions to organise, to assist their workers in the workplace and to assist the employers. As Leslie Brennan pointed out, if you look at some of the benefits of facility time, there are lower exit rates, lower incidences of people going to employment tribunals and lower rates of illnesses and injuries. There are clear benefits there. In terms of the discussion this afternoon, I think that what it is about is how we can move forward and express a view as a Parliament that is legally binding within Scotland. Bruce Crawford made a really relevant point when he said that one of the implications of the bill is that Jeremy Hunt could have responsibility for a substantial amount of trade union activity in relation to the Scottish NHS. To me, that makes the point that Scottish ministers have executive competence over areas of the bill. From that point of view, it is regrettable that the Presiding Officer ruled that we were not able to debate a legislative consent motion. From that point of view, I think that Mary Fee's motion to the Standards Committee is a helpful one. I know the contributions this afternoon from experienced members of the committee, Stewart Stevenson and Patricia Ferguson. I think that that lays the basis of a political will at the committee to look and explore how the legislative consent motion can be brought to the floor of this Parliament. I think that that could be very helpful indeed. I do not agree with Mark McDonald's analysis of an LCM being debated in this Parliament. It has merely been a moot point. I would point out to Mark McDonald the Welsh experience. Mark McDonald? I do not think that I said that it was a moot point and indeed we will back the Labour amendment at decision time. The point is that unless the UK Government takes the view that legislative consent is required, an LCM has no practical effect because it can still force the legislation through at Westminster. I do not agree with that point and I draw your attention to the Welsh example. Firstly, it has a set of standing orders that allowed an LCM to be debated. Secondly, consideration not just of that LCM but of the legal binding aspects of that LCM. If you look at the interpretation of the Supreme Court rule from 2013 on the Agricultural Sector Wales Bill, it is broadly interpreted in favour of the Welsh Assembly. I think that it could be argued strongly in favour of making it not only an LCM in Wales but also in Scotland. I think that that is very helpful. If you wish to request an intervention, perhaps Mr Kelly would consider it. Otherwise, James Kelly will continue speaking. Thanks a lot. I am in my last minute. The other point, emphasising the importance of how we move that forward and how we can explore how we oppose the bill. If you look at the Delegated Powers Committee report, I was interested to see the contribution that the law society had made in relation to ACHR. It noted that the UK Government had published a statement of compatibility, but the law society certainly questioned whether, if you took all the measures together in the bill, it still would be compatible with ACHR. That is another basis that would allow the Scottish Government a legal basis to oppose. There has been a lot of strong speeches in opposition to the trade union bill, which is understandable, but the key task going forward is to look at the ACHR points and the Standards Committee, exploring the opportunity of making a standard order change that could bring an LCM to the floor of the Parliament. There are two things that I can say with some degree of conviction. The first is that that is a couple of hours of my time. I am never going to see you again. During the course of the debate, I simply failed to notice that there was an alternative interpretation to the legislation and went on to debate a bill that I do not think actually exists. The truth is that speakers during this debate were more interested in outlifting each other for political reasons rather than actually debating the nature of the bill itself. It came across in a number of ways, not least the fact that there was a bit of name call in winter on. I think that myself and my colleagues together were at various times described as Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun and then later Leil Vladimir Putin. I am not sure about that last one, but I might actually show a degree of pride on the first two. Nevertheless, there is actually a case here for talking about the bill in the way it is meant to be implemented. I think that we failed to do that. It is unfortunate that we got too tied down in dogma and not enough was said about the bill itself. However, a specific interest that Rosen made during the course of the debate was the fact that there are different interpretations as to where we are coming from or what the status quo is. We heard in the opening statements from Roseanna Cunningham, who appeared to believe that things were going rather well in industrial relations in Scotland, and yet that was established on the basis of reforms that were introduced 20 years ago, if I am not much mistaken, at a time when Roseanna Cunningham was actually a member of the House of Commons and argued against those very reforms, which he now is willing to claim credit for their achievements. The other strange thing that has gone on during the course of this debate is the fact that there are others within the debate who are willing to highlight the hypocrisy of the Labour Party in this matter, given that much of the trade union regulation that we have in this country today was introduced against fierce opposition by the Labour Party in the House of Commons, and that same Labour Party then served in government for many years and never at any time did anything to reverse any of those regulations. No, thank you, not at this point. Mr Johnson acknowledged that the Government that he is talking about is the one that introduced the right to join a trade union and the right to trade union recognition where the workforce demands it. I think that that is a perfect example of how governments work with changes in the way that trade unions operate and facilitate changes. That Government is simply doing what it feels is appropriate to change the position of trade unions as the preceding Government did in its own way. I am afraid that I must make some progress. It is on that subject that we, of course, have to take into account that we are talking here about something that is, I believe, being deliberately misinterpreted for political effect. Nowhere is this more obvious than the assertion that has been made by one or two speakers during the course of this debate. No, thank you, including Patricia Ferguson herself, who offered an interpretation of the bill that it would confer powers over implementation of restrictions on facility time and check-off to UK ministers. I do not believe that case has been made at all. I think that there are opportunities there to ensure that we do have proper implementation of this and that we do not see that reversal take place. I think that we need to take that opportunity to allow this bill to make progress and then make up our mind on it at the end of that process, not making the mistakes that we could make by not giving it the time. The fact is that industrial relations in this country have progressed in different ways at different times. As a young man, I remember forming opinions on trade unions that were based on the activities of the trade union movement in the early 1970s during the course of Edward Heath's Government in 1978 during the period of a Labour Government and then again in the 1980s when a Conservative Government returned to office. We have seen these dark days put behind us. We have seen changes in trade union regulation by successive Governments that have made it possible for us to have a much more effective way of working within the workplace and facilitating trade union activity. I believe that those changes are capable of having the same effect and being positive in the longer term. Failure to deliver this would be a missed opportunity, and I believe that everyone who has participated in this debate needs to think long and hard about whether their interpretation is accurate. Can I begin by declaring an interest as a member of Unite the Union? We may indeed, this afternoon, have spent the debate largely reiterating arguments that we have made before, but I make no apology to Alex Johnson for forcing him to listen to them because he is not hearing them. He has to understand that we will keep returning to this bill again and again until it is finally discredited and defeated. Let there be no doubt that in the end it will be defeated, because even if the UK Government flying in the face of reason, argument and principle force this bill on to the statute book, it will be resisted as law and ultimately repealed, because that is the sure and certain ultimate fate of legislation like this, which is unnecessary, undemocratic, inflammatory, petty and vindictive. Unnecessary, because this is a period of modern partnership trade union organisation, as Mr Johnson has just acknowledged. It is not the winter of discontent. 35 years ago, as many as 29 million working days were lost to strike action in a single year, the total is now barely 100 of that. The implication that the trade union movement is one of mindless militancy is just absurd and for that reason the legislation is not needed. It is undemocratic because it seeks to impose outrageous thresholds on ballots for strike action, particularly in key public sector. Six million workers are members of trade unions. More than any political party and yet one party, the Tories, seeks to manipulate the democratic rights of those six million in a way that they would not countenance applying to themselves. It is inflammatory firstly because the changes to ballots, as many speakers have indicated, will reduce not increase the likelihood of disputes avoiding strike action and it is inflammatory in allowing agency staff to be used to replace striking workers. That is the industrial relations of the 19th century, not the 21st. The bill is petty because it attacks the simple good practice of check-off and facility time and it is vindictive because it seeks to cut off a source of income to the Labour Party. That unilateral attack on one party's funding by another in government has long been considered unacceptable, not least by the likes of Winston Churchill. As I made in my contribution, Mr Gray said that the political funds of many trade unions do not just fund the Labour Party, they fund vital work on behalf of the members of those unions. It was indeed a thanks for the intervention. It was indeed the next sentence of my speech to recognise that many trade unions who are not affiliated to any party will find their capacity to campaign, not least against this kind of legislation by the measures in the bill. Those are views overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, shared across the chamber. It is regrettable that so many speakers have chosen to use this as an opportunity to return to debates about constitutional powers. I differ with SNP members in that I believe that standards of workplace rights should be protected across the United Kingdom. I oppose the bill in Scotland, but I oppose it in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Cardiff, too. To do otherwise, no. To do otherwise is to fail the very principle of solidarity that underlies those trade union rights that we seek to defend. I cannot do better than, quote the STUC, who said that arguing for devolution of workplace protection is an insufficient response to the trade union bill, because we would still have to fight its imposition in the rest of the UK. Frankly, no. Frankly, to use this struggle is to betray the unity of opposition to the bill across party lines and national boundaries. To make that the core of your argument for party purpose is to betray the interest of 6 million trade unionists. Far better, then, to focus on where we do agree. Back in December, Labour and the Government strongly agreed that this Parliament should debate a legislative consent motion for this legislation. The argument was clear, and as far as we are concerned, it remains correct. The bill may not impinge on the legislative competence of the Scottish Government, but it certainly impinges on its executive competence in health services, education fire services and certain elements of transport. We welcomed the submission of an LCM by the cabinet secretary, and we regret the decision taken that it is not competent. We remain frustrated that the lack of an LCM leaves the recommendations of the committee and any decision that we take tonight without force. Our colleagues in Wales have successfully brought an LCM to their chamber today. We are told that our standing orders are different. We are told that our standing orders do not allow an LCM on this bill. Our view is clear. If that is the case, then our standing orders are wrong, and we should change them. That is the thrust of our amendment today. I want to assure Mr Stevenson that our intention is to ask the committee to find the best way to correct the situation in which we find ourselves, and we are not wedded to a particular amendment. I welcome the Government's support this evening, and I think from other members too, for that approach. There is another far more fundamental reason why we believe that we not only should oppose this bill but should resist it too and believe that the Scottish Government must resist it too. Christina McKelvie alluded to this when she spoke in her speech about her concerns regarding the breach of human rights constituted by the trade union bill. I agree with her. Our view is very clear that this legislation breaches article 11 of the convention on human rights, which says that everyone has the right to form or join trade unions and that no restriction can be placed on those except in the interests of national security, prevention of disorder or crime, public safety or protecting the rights of others—a test that is not met in this case. However, those rights are, of course, embedded in this Parliament in a way that they are not in Westminster. Indeed, the Scotland Act states that a member of the Scottish Executive has no power to make any subordinate legislation or do any other act so far as the legislation or the act is incompatible with any of the convention rights. We will continue to pursue legal advice with regard to this point, but if the cabinet secretary agrees and she has the political will and determination to found on that view, then not only should she reject the legislation morally, she will be obliged to do so legally. Whatever, Presiding Officer, there is a long way to go in opposition to this legislation, whether Mr Johnson and his colleagues like it or not, and we intend, Presiding Officer, to stay that course. Thank you. I now call on Rosanna Cunningham to wind up the debate until 5 o'clock, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That was a very spirited end to today's debate. I just say to Ian Gray that he came very close to making me change my mind about the amendment, given the nature of some of the closing comments, which I do not think reflected the whole of the debate, because today's debate has been valuable and it has reinforced a couple of messages. Of course, we come at this from slightly different perspectives. If we do not respect and understand that, I think that it is unfortunate. However, the first of the messages for me is the essential progressive role that trade unions have to play in our society and in developing safe, productive and fair workplaces. That was a point that was made very eloquently by Clare Adamson and Patricia Ferguson in their contributions. The second is how misplaced and ill-thought-out this bill is, and the dangers that it presents in undermining those valuable contributions. The obvious unanimous opposition to this bill is clear for all to see, an opposition not only in Scotland but a reflection of what is also happening in Wales and indeed in England, where the flaws in this legislation, of which there are many, are continually being brought to light. I fear that if this legislation was passed, it would continue to be brought to light, some perhaps unforeseen. This bill is not driven by evidence or by a commitment to creating better workplaces. It is a bill driven by an out-of-date ideology and a dogmatic opposition to the fundamental principles of trade unions and workers' rights, and no amount of dressing it up to the contrary is going to persuade anybody of anything different. The refusal to listen is clear in the UK Government's response to its own consultations and has been clear in the lack of response to this Government's representations to the UK Government. Despite the UK Government's unwillingness to engage, we will continue to make those representations working alongside all those who share our view. Once again, today's debate has shown the wide range of ways in which this legislation will have a negative impact if passed, and I would like to reflect on a number of the issues raised. It is clear from the UK Government's own response to the consultation supporting this bill that it does not care about the views of the people that this bill will affect. Instead, it is bloody-mindedly determined to drive through this legislation regardless of impact. This scant regard to consultation is reflected in the Government's response to the bill's consultation on ballot thresholds in important public services, mentioned by some of the members. Even though a majority of respondents disagreed with the categories that should be subject to the 40 per cent rule, do you think that the Government took any heed of not a chance? Kevin Stewart mentioned the BMA's response to the legislation. In fact, they have described the plans as, I quote, arbitrary, unnecessary and place punitive restrictions on workers employed in specified public services. Despite the UK Government's claim that those measures are not an attempt to ban industrial action, the purpose of the double threshold appears simply to be to make it more difficult for all unions to organise industrial action. That is what the BMA had to say. The UK Government chooses to ignore such evidence. Now, no doubt, Alex Johnson thinks that the BMA, or indeed his own Tory councillor, Henry, is politically motivated. Nor, frankly, can his analysis, which was interesting at the end of today's debate, explain why Scotland has so much better a record than the rest of the UK in terms of industrial relations. If the legislation had been so wonderful, one might have expected to see the same kind of change in the rest of the UK, but Scotland stands ahead of all that. It might reflect on the measure of this Government's commitment to working with the STUC and the trade unions, evidenced in the memorandum of understanding, setting out the parameters of that relationship first signed in 2002, but refreshed on a number of occasions since then, including as recently as May 2015. That is how sensible Governments do things. That is how they make the kinds of achievements that we have made in Scotland. That is the kind of thing that the UK Government should be looking at and considering if it actually intended to do anything about industrial relations in a partnership way. I noticed that, despite Alex Johnson's assurances and rhetoric, his contribution was still singularly short on actual evidence that he might have taken the opportunity to lay before us today. That absence makes it clear once again that there is no such evidence and, indeed, clearly Bruce Crawford was unable to identify any such evidence either. The clear lack of evidence, now identified by so many organisations, so many individuals, must surely make even Alex Johnson think again. We can conclude there for that. However you might categorise the Conservative Government, and many words do spring to mind, it is clearly not in the business of evidence-led governing. Christina McKelvie emphasised how detrimental the Tory Government's approach to trade union issues was to healthy businesses and productivity and, indeed, Leslie Brennan also referred to that in respect of the NHS in her contribution. I think that that is absolutely right. That is the view that this Government takes about healthy industrial relations in the workplace, leading to healthy and productive workplaces. It is one of the foundations of both the working together review that was carried out some years ago and the existence of the fair work convention, which is currently looking at fair work practices. That comes out of that understanding that, without that essential partnership, you will not get the improvements nor will you get the increases in productivity. Margaret MacDougall mentioned the likely adverse impact of the use of agency workers. She may recall that in the debate in November I made it clear that the Scottish Government will absolutely not use agency workers to cover a valid withdrawal of labour. The First Minister reiterated that assurance at the trade union rally on 10 December last year. Gordon MacDonald raised the issue of clause 3 regarding emergency workers who will now need to reach a 40 per cent threshold on any ballot, abstentions being counted as a no vote. I wonder why this leaves such a bad taste in people's mouths. A number of members have referenced the LCM process in this Parliament. I do understand why members do, why Neil Findlay, Margaret MacDougall, Patricia Ferguson want to focus so much on the issue of parliamentary process. However, I do fear that they misunderstand the likely impact of any LCM in the circumstances that we are in with this bill. The assumption appears to be that Westminster will or must abide by a vote of this Parliament if it is a vote on an LCM. The difficulty is that there is no such certainty. The LCMs, formerly known as sole motions, are a convention, not mentioned anywhere in the original Scotland Act. Unfortunately, the Scotland bill, currently being debated at Westminster, does not do anything that would strengthen the position and role of LCMs. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of the devolution of all relevant employment powers, it might have helped had there been more attention paid at the time of the Smith commission to the role of LCMs in this Parliament. Neil Findlay? I think that she is making a number of very fair comments. Devolution is a developing process. This is a situation that is developing that, if we do not deal with it, will arise again. It is better that we deal with that cross-party to establish that principle. The point that I am making is that we have to be just a little cautious not to overstate the likely potential from them. Reference is made to the Welsh Government. Yes, they are discussing an LCM this afternoon, but the difference in their devolution settlement means in practice that there is different constitutional interpretation than here in the Scottish Parliament when looking at issues of competence. Sadly, however, the history of LCMs in Wales suggests that Westminster ignoring the outcomes is an all-too-real experience for our colleagues there. I understand the motivation. I want us to just be a little cautious about what the process might end up with. Ultimately, however, the debate that we are having today in this chamber will make clear this Parliament's opposition to the very idea of consent to this legislation. I sincerely hope that such a clear expression of the will of Parliament and the voice of the Welsh Assembly will see the UK Government reconsider their position on the bill and to do otherwise would demonstrate little regard for the devolved Parliament or the impact the bill will have on industrial relations in the devolved nations. I do understand the challenges to the Parliament's procedures. I recognise the need to consider a mechanism that can allow this Parliament to formally express its view on a reserved matter which impacts on devolved areas. I am happy to engage in any constructive dialogue around that. However, I do think that this has to be done properly through the Parliament's Standards, Practices and Public Appointments Committee, and we must all respect the role of that committee in this, as in other matters. Such consideration will of course take time, so for now our efforts must continue to focus on where we can make the biggest impact. That is why this Government will continue to make the case against this bill, extending to Scotland directly with the UK Government, including representations from the First Minister directly to the Prime Minister, to conclude, Presiding Officer. Let me once again thank the Devolution Further Powers Committee and its convener for this report, which gets right to the heart of the issues here. The first is a response to this legislation and let me be clear that the Scottish Government fully endorses its recommendations and we will continue to make the case to the UK Government that the bill has no place in Scotland. If we cannot be fully removed, then at the very least we should be able to set the regulations that apply to devolve responsibilities in Scotland. If the UK Government truly respects the will of the Scottish Parliament and the spirit of devolution, then it should work with us to reach a such a position. That concludes the debate on the trade union bill. We now move to the next point of order, Mr Findlay. Information that I have received from NHS Lothian has exposed how senior officers of that organisation colluded with senior civil servants and politicians to delay the publication until after the election of a critical report into the future of the children's ward at St John's hospital in Livingston, despite warnings that such a delay could damage the viability of that service even further. Can I ask if there is an opportunity this week for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health so that she can be held to account for her actions and the actions of her officials? Thank you for the advance notice of your point of order, Mr Findlay. As you are aware, ministerial statements are a matter for the Scottish Government and for the parliamentary bureau. May I suggest that you raise the matter of a statement with your own business manager who can then get in touch with the Government? We move to decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 15130, in the name of Christine Grahame, on Pentland Hill's regional park boundary bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15130 in the name of Christine Grahame is as follows. Yes, eight, no, 105. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 15414.1, in the name of Neil Findlay, which seeks to amend motion number 15414, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, on the trade union bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15414.1, in the name of Neil Findlay, is as follows. Yes, 99. No, 14. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 15414, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, as amended, on the trade union bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15414, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 99. No, 14. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed to. That concludes the decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.