 The final item of this business is members business debate on motion 8211 in the name of Rona Macheye, on condemns unpaid trial shifts. This要ota zeffa cyho riddau onambistunaeth a kryddoedd wiil i ni gwaelch, ac nid yw y byshach iawn oherwydd f secular diОig y debate yna i gallwch cyddiadau a gwneud whiskrwyr gwyd-doventionsamen. Rona Macheye ei chWEch i chi'r wil jy 8 capacitoro nanu palu yn P protest aogỗ sydd wedi'r teint gwellydd un dip yn sea uncertainty blyw i sg renewedon on the 4buzzer I thank everyone from across the chamber who signed the motion. As most of you will know, my colleague at Westminster, Stuart McDonald MP, is bringing this forward as a member's bill, but because it's an issue that affects people from across the UK, he particularly wanted a debate in the Scottish Parliament to reflect the cross-party and cross-border support for this serious issue. Organisations supporting the bill are the Scottish Trade Union Congress, National Union of Students, Better Than Zero, the daily record, just to name but a few. The unpaid trial work period's prohibition bill 2017-19 had its first reading in July last year. Since then, it's gathered cross-party support at Westminster. The second reading is due to take place on March 16 this year. It's gathered nearly 100 responses and 56 per cent of people either had or knew someone who'd been offered a trial period. Many respondents referred to the trials as demeaning, soul-destroing, humiliating and desperate. An independent report shows that unpaid work trials amount to £1.2 billion in missing wages. Let me say at the outset of the debate that unpaid work trials are not work experience for students or pupils, which I think that we would all agree is invaluable in helping young people to learn about the working environment and help them in their choice of employment. This bill is about complete and total exploitation of people, predominantly young, who are doing a job that they should be paid for. This is about employers giving false hope to so many people desperate for a job, desperate to feed their family in a country where bankers get bonuses, directors of failing firms such as Carillion get massive pay-offs, but unemployed young people get cheated of a fair days' pay. This is the shameless exploitation of people for free labour, and as we know, those shifts are often used to cover staff shortages and save money. However, we should recognise that many responsible employers already pay their trial shift workers, and of course that should be applauded. Presiding Officer, this is Scotland 2018, not Victorian Britain. I have just asked that we should be careful with language, because I do not think that it should be applauded. I think that it should be absolutely normal that people get paid for the work that they do. Rona Mackay At that point, you are completely right. This is Scotland 2018, not Victorian Britain, so let me give you a few examples of what we are talking about here. Of course, there was the headline case of a young man with Aspergers being dumped by BNM after 15 hours of free work. He was on the work rotor for the following weeks when, out of the blue, he was told to go. He said, if it was really because I couldn't do that work, then fine, but they should have told me that during the work trial. I was led to believe that I had the job. Presiding Officer, I find that disgusting and cruel. A chef proprietor of an upmarket restaurant in Edinburgh's new town failed to pay hospitality staff for working interviews, lasting between two and four hours. Past and present staff members confirmed that the chef was using dozens of unpaid trial shifts per week to cover busy periods and using desperate young workers as a free cleaning service. Here is my tip for him. Pay your workers and stop exploiting young people. Then there was the mother of a young man who said, my son worked in a well-known bakery for six weeks trial for no wages and no job. He eventually left. Presiding Officer, the size of the business does not matter when it comes to this exploitation. A leading discount supermarket is one of the worst offenders who admit to having 150 youngsters per store coming in for unpaid work trials across the UK. One girl said, I went to one of these and it is actually slave labour. They use you to get the shop ready for opening time and get annoyed if you make any mistakes, even though you haven't been trained to do the job. Rachel, from my constituency in Bearsden, told me, I did two unpaid trials of five to six hours each for a local restaurant who then strung me along for weeks with the promise of shifts before ending contact. Presiding Officer, it has to be said that the hospitality industry is a terrible offender. I am grateful to my friend at Unite Scotland, Brian Simpson, who worked in the trade himself for supplying me with some shocking statistics of some of the work practices in that industry. For informing me of the excellent campaigns that are being run by Unite, such as I am not on the menu, which particularly addresses sexual harassment rife within the industry. Unite Scotland has also launched the fair hospitality campaign, with a charter that codifies the reforms that are required to transform the hospitality sector for the benefit of the workers within it. As well as getting rid of unpaid trial shifts, those reforms include the implementation of the real living wage, rest breaks, 100 per cent tips to staff, paid transport, past 12 am, an end to discriminatory youth rates and, crucially, trade union recognition. Unpaid work trials are an outrage and can never be justified. What can we as MSPs in this place do about it? We can make sure that MSPs in our constituencies vote for the bill, stop it being talked out in Parliament and turn up to vote for it at Westminster. Members of the public who may be watching this or listening can write to their MP and ask them to support Stuart MacDonald's bill and contact Stuart at Westminster to lend their support to his bill. Above all, we must get the message out that working for nothing in 2018 is simply not acceptable. I asked those employers who think nothing of asking young people to do this to stop and ask themselves, would I want my son or daughter to be treated like that? If it's not good enough for them, it's not good enough for anyone else. Presiding Officer, although there's much more to be said, I'll finish now because I'm keen to hear the contributions from across the chamber. The speeches have up to four minutes, please. I'll call Dean Lockhart to be followed by Claire Hoche. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by thanking Rona Mackay for bringing this important debate to the chamber this afternoon. In Scotland and across the UK, we quite rightly pride ourselves on the ease with which we can set up and run a business. It's easier to set up, run and operate a business in the UK than anywhere else in Europe. Partly, as a result of that, employment across the UK is at record highs and unemployment is at record lows. High levels of employment is obviously good news for workers. However, and this is what we're debating this evening, what is not so good, what we need to address and what this debate is looking at is the practice of having someone work for a prolonged period of time without receiving any pay on the basis of a so-called unpaid trial shift. For someone to work for a prolonged period without pay on the basis of an unpaid trial shift, it's simply not fair and Rona Mackay gave a number of good examples. Let me finish this point and I'll be happy to take an intervention. The extent of the problems associated with unpaid trial shifts have been highlighted in the trust for London report, Unpaid Britain. Before I go into the details of that report, I'll give way. Claire Hoche. I thank the member for taking this intervention. The member mentioned on a couple of occasions there about prolonged work on unpaid trials. Would he agree with me that actually to work for any time should be paid? Dean Lockhart. I think that to work in an employment situation for any period, absolutely, I think that there may be, and I'll come on to this later, there may be circumstances where a very brief trial period, however long that might be, to assess the skills and suitability of a candidate for a job might be appropriate in some circumstances, but that is not the same in any respect in the unacceptable examples that were highlighted by Rona Mackay. Part of the reason for the fact that those are unacceptable were highlighted in the trust for London report. We have already heard that a total of £1.2 billion in wages each year are lost and £1.5 billion of holiday pay is lost as a result of that practice. That practice has also impacted 23,000 workers in their cash flows and not receiving a salary, which has resulted in a number of people not being able to buy food at a time when they need it. Deputy Presiding Officer, this is clearly unacceptable. Employers should adequately pay their staff. Unpaid trial shifts should not be used to cover for inadequate workforce planning or as a way to secure labour on the cheap. In order to address the issue, one of the main challenges that we have is that the law in this area is unclear. Work trials per se are technically not illegal in the UK. ACAS has said that the law is not clear on how long a trial has to be before it becomes work and therefore has to be paid. Having further clarity, and I think that this would be when we see the detail of the bill, this, I would hope, would be one of the objectives to provide further clarity around when a limited trial shift may or may not be appropriate. I will, in a second. Further clarity on the law in this situation would be very helpful, because not just for employees but for legitimate employers who might, for a very brief period, want to assess the skills of a candidate applying for a job. Rona Mackay Would you not agree that it is a moral obligation of an employer to pay their workers? No matter how long they are doing it, regardless of the law, it should be their moral obligation to pay their workers. Would you agree? Dean Lockhart I agree that if someone is in a work employment position, they have to be paid. That is the law. What we are talking about here are circumstances in which it may be appropriate to have a trial of the candidate's accessibility for that job. Let me get straight to the point here. There may be examples of where a brief, unpaid trial period could be legitimate but only in very limited circumstances. One of the key questions that the bill will face is how to deal with this, how prescriptive or detailed any regulation should be in relation to whether trial shifts could be appropriate in some circumstances. Other countries, for example, Australia, have introduced a principles-based approach to that. They have set out a number of principles that have to be adhered to if a trial period is to be recognised as being legal. That, perhaps, is one avenue that the bill may pursue. Let me conclude that whatever guidelines or regulations are proposed in this area, there is consensus around the general principle. Workers should not be asked to work for any prolonged period without pay. Workers should be paid for any period beyond that that is reasonably required to demonstrate their skills for the job. If an employer wants to further assess a candidate's suitability after a trial period, they should employ the person as a casual employee for a probationary period and pay them as required under law. No, you have already concluded that, Mr Lockhart. I would like to thank Llew McTie for bringing that motion to the chamber. I remind colleagues of my entry in the register of members' interests as a member of unison. I congratulate Rona Mackayon on securing this important debate. I, too, would like to pay tribute to my colleague MP for Glasgow South, Stuart MacDonald. There is terrific work in his campaign to scrap unpaid trial shifts. As a committed trade unionist, I have passionately fought against discrimination and unfair work practices throughout the whole of my professional life. I was proud to be a divisional convener in my workplace for unison, the trade union that I am still a member of today. As an MSP, I have continued to be an advocate for the rights of workers using my first speech to criticise the pernicious Tory Trade Union Act and having the privilege to chair the SNP Holyrood trade union group. It comes as a real source of frustration that when we are made aware of issues like the use of unpaid trial shifts, we cannot legislatively do anything here in our Parliament due to employment law still being reserved to Westminster. The blocking of those powers by opposition parties during the Smith commission has proven to be a significant miscalculation. However, that is an argument for another day. Stuart MacDonald's private member's bills has the backing of MPs from all parties, and it is absolutely vital that they turn up in their numbers and vote for its progression on 16 March. Most people do not object to trial periods being offered by employers, as they are, of course, a legitimate way to assess a candidate's skills and suitability. However, it is at this point that I have to disagree with Dean Lockhart that any work trial should be paid. I would like to know from Mr Lockhart how long he would continue in a work trial before he would expect to be paid. Would he like to advise the chamber? No. Similarly, he gives an individual an opportunity to assess if a workplace suits them. However, what is objectionable is the fact that this occurs unpaid. Most of us will be aware of the example of the tea firm, Mubu, who was found to be asking trainees to work for a full 40 hours for free, a full weeks work yet not a single penny in pay. Rightly, there was widespread condemnation of the company with a petition signed by more than 40,000 people urging them to drop their policy, which thankfully they agreed to do. Since launching his bill, Stuart MacDonald has also heard from people who suspect that some businesses are even using unpaid trial shifts to plug staffing shortages with no intention of ever offering an applicant the job. That cannot be right and it should not be legal. If someone is required to work a trial period before securing a position, no matter whether they are offered the job at the end of it or not, they should be paid for doing so. Monica Lennon I am grateful to Claire Hawke for giving way. It was just on the point of—I fully support Stuart MacDonald's bill and I wish him every success in the House of Commons with that. I have had someone in Hamilton, who was in Glasgow for an interview, who was asked to stay on and end up for a couple of hours until her dad came in and dragged her home and said, you are not working here. Does Claire Hawke agree that there is something that we could do in terms of local authority licensing rules? It seems to be in hospitality that is really prevalent and we have got young people going to these hotels and bars and so on. Is there more that we can do with the powers that we have to try to address at a local level? Claire Hawke I certainly support any strengthening of employment laws in Scotland to protect particularly vulnerable young people who can be exploited in such positions. Stuart MacDonald's research showed that over 55 per cent of people either had or knew someone who had been offered an unpaid work trial, while the study is referenced by Rona Mackay earlier by Middlesex University, published last year, estimating that £1.2 billion in wages remains unpaid in Britain each year and unpaid work trials contribute to this figure. Unpaid trial shifts are clearly a prevalent practice. They are demeaning and exploitative and legislation is therefore required to offer people better protection in the workplace. It is disappointing that no Conservative MSP has yet signed Rona Mackay's motion, which is surprising considering trees that may insist that they are the party of workers. Today, I urge them to lobby the future parties at Westminster to support the bill. With Brexit on the horizon, many of our workers' rights could soon be eroded, so it is refreshing to see a bill introduced that would extend our protections and not cut them. During my first speech in this Parliament, I said that fairness means access to fair work for fair pay, and I fully stand by those remarks. No one should be deprived of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and that is why I fully support the bill to ban unpaid trial shifts. Usually at this point I say that I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate. In these circumstances I can say that I am absolutely furious that we have to have this debate at all. I want to congratulate Rona Mackay on securing the debate and her speech, and I also want to congratulate Stuart MacDonald MP on taking this proposal forward. His rigor in taking it forward and trying to build cross-partis and census has been admirable, and I know that our own Martin Hwickfield MP or Labour MP in East Lothian has been a co-sponsor of the bill. I say that I am furious because I hear what has been said about the complicated area of law. It feels to me that it is morally unacceptable. You do not need legislation at one level to tell you that it is unacceptable to bring people in, give them work to do and then not pay them at the end of it. However, the fact of the matter is that something being morally unacceptable is clearly insufficient, so I would all power to Stuart MacDonald's elbow in making sure that the law is clarified in this regard. It is an important issue and an important opportunity to shine light on something that should be seen as utterly unacceptable, but sadly for too many young people it is seen as just the way it is. I would also say that there is legislation already existing, which is routinely ignored, particularly in the hospitality industry, about access to tips, access to proper pay and so on. We know that legislation is not enough, but it is a good starting point in this regard. We know that young people are disproportionately affected by the idea of trial shifts, but it is a reflection of the fact that precarious work is endemic. It is yet another element of an increased workplace practice that is systematically and unashamedly exploitative of the people who seek work from them. We only need to look at what happens to people who are sent by the job centre to various companies, and they have what is known as a revolving door. They know that they are not going to last more than a fortnight, but their business proposal is based on just securing labour that comes through without expecting to stay. Unite and Better Than Zero have spoken about this practice, and the cynicism of offering shifts was no intention whatsoever of giving somebody a job, or indeed, even if they are planning to give them a job, they can see how many shifts they can get out of them first. They must apply as all. We must respond to the testimony of those young people that we got in briefings, and many other young people whose voices are not heard in this regard, who routinely have their expectations treated in this way. It demands a response from this Parliament as well as Westminster. Of course, as in all of this, in this area of precarious work, we are told that it is about choice, but we all know that take or leave it is no choice at all, and too often, young people are faced with either accept whatever conditions are placed on your work, whether it is trial shifts or whether it is not being guaranteed any work at all, they are told that that is a matter of choice. We need to be careful, because we do not elevate some of those work practices to an idea of choice. I do not accept that there may be one person in 100,000 who supports a zero-hours contract, as it is currently deployed as a matter of choice, because all the choice is on the one side. We should reflect that this is about the utter imbalance of power in the workplace, that good employers have resisted that and should be rewarded for that good practice, and we should be denouncing exploitation. It is important that we recognise that there are employers who do not behave that way, and we should also understand that the economy of this country cannot be predicated on those very poor practices, untrained staff doing a job in circumstances where they get no reward, no encouragement for trying hard despite their best endeavours. We want an economy that is fairer than that. I very much support the legislative proposals, but I would also say that we need to look at what we can do here right now. Exploitation should not be rewarded. No business should be given money by Government, or support by Scottish Enterprise, or other enterprise agencies. They should not access the small business proposal if they are in circumstances where they do this. Ultimately, as I have said before, we should not be defining as a positive destination any work that exploits the young people who go and access that work. We know that we can do that. We can support the legislation, but I would ask the minister in summing up to confirm that he will be willing to look at how he can use his power not to reward bad practice, but to take the opportunity to eradicate it. I remind members that there can only be one conclusion to a contribution. I did ask for speeches of up to four minutes, please. I have been generous in relation to where people have taken interventions. Time is running short. Can I have Ross Greer plus Tom Arthur, please? Colleagues, I am very grateful to Rona Mackay for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue in Parliament today. There have been some really exciting developments in Scotland in recent years. Campaigns such as Living Rent against Dodgy landlords and the Better Than Zero campaign, led by young people being exploited by an economy designed to take from them and to give to those who already have more than what they need. Those campaigns, particularly Better Than Zero, have shown the power that young exploited workers have when they come together, not just in individual workplaces but as a movement to fight for their rights. Better Than Zero has had some huge wins, such as over the notorious employer, the G1 group, only achieved after a campaign that included direct action, lobbying and negotiation. That campaign secured an end to staff paying for their own uniforms, having spillages and breakages, docked from their wages and an end to zero hours contracts. Of course, the G1 group tried to roll back from the promises that they made, but they know that young workers are ready to shut them down again if needed. That is exactly the kind of mass movement of workers that we need in an era of economic exploitation. Of course, that is only treating the symptoms, not the cause. It is the responsible of parliamentarians to treat the cause of that. Better Than Zero should not have to fight so hard for basic justice for workers. The reason that they do is that the UK has the worst, the weakest employment laws in Western Europe. Unpaid trial shifts are not clearly addressed in UK law at present. It is not enough to say that the law mandates employers to pay staff once a trial becomes actual work. As Dean Locker did fairly highlight, there is no black and white separation of the two. There is no clear definition when it moves from being a trial to being work. Bad bosses love grey areas of the law, where they can exploit often struggling and desperate people to maximise their own profits. That is exactly what Stuart McDonald's proposed bill would hopefully bring to an end. That is why it is backed by the Better Than Zero campaign and by the STUC. We know the link between low pay and no pay, the link between low-paid work and poverty. Those in low pay are often more likely to be in unreliable work and temporary work, so they are far more likely to often be out of work entirely, unable to pay rent to put food on the table to cover heating bills. We are all as MSPs very familiar with this situation. It fills our inboxes and appears at our surgeries every week. In this position, someone is far less able to say no to unpaid trial work that has the potential for paid work at the end of it. As organisations such as the Joseph Roundtree Foundation have repeatedly shown, that makes it near impossible to break out of a cycle of low pay and no pay. All someone's energy is spent looking for work and struggling to get by while out of work or in unpaid work. That puts all the power in the hands of exploitative employers. It shows up the red herring of this being a matter of workers' choice. What choice do you have when you are struggling to stave off eviction because you cannot cover your rent, you are struggling to feed yourself or your family and the potential for paid work is dangled in front of you? The UK's welfare system only makes this even worse, as MSPs were well aware of the disaster that is universal credit. It takes over a month from making a claim before payment is given, and making that claim requires a lengthy application process and significant amounts of evidence. Many people simply cannot afford to wait so long to take the risk of unpaid work in the hope that it will become paid work quickly. However, we have heard many instances of unpaid work that does not result in paid work. Examples have already been given by other members, including by Ron Mackay, the infamous case of the young man at B&M, who was dangled along for a significant amount of time before being told to go home. People are left even further away from a paycheck, any money at all, than they otherwise would have been, and closer to or deeper into poverty. Let's be clear. That is all about maximising profits for the employer. Work creates wealth, and the expectation that the worker who creates that wealth shares in it should be the norm, but that does not happen in the cycle of unpaid trial shifts. Whether you rest at my end of the political spectrum or Dean Lockhart's, surely you should understand that that is wrong. I hope that MPs across the west of Scotland will support Stuart McDonald's bill and that MSPs across the country contact better than zero to see if you can help combat bad bosses in your area. Workers are the real wealth creators in our society, and in the UK of the 21st century, they deserve to know that they will receive fair pay for fair work. I still have four open debate speakers wishing to take part. I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes, but by nowhere near that. May I invite Rona Mackay to move the motion? The question is that under rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we agreed? We are agreed, and the debate is there for extended. I call Tom Arthur to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I promise that I will not take any more in four minutes. Rare for me. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague Rona Mackay for bringing us a very important motion to the chamber and also to a paid tribute and thanks to my SNP party colleague Stuart McDonald for his vigorous pursuit of this issue and for introducing his member's bill. It is a bill that all MPs in Scotland and across the UK should get behind. Ross Greer rightly highlighted, regardless of who we are, on the political spectrum. I should have this point before I proceed. I declare an interest as a member of the Musicians Union and as a former musician. I do not know if you ever can be a former musician, but where music leads the rest of the economy tends to follow, I do not think that there is any working musician who is not familiar with being asked to work for free. Indeed, it is often seen as the only path that success is often seen through working for no pay. Indeed, the Musicians Union in 2015 and the survey of our members, 60 per cent of our members, that is 30,000 members, had reported that they had worked for free. Interestingly, there was research in 2016 by the Association of Independent Professions in the Self-Employed and the Freelancer Club, and it suggested that 20 per cent of respondents identified working for free as a standard practice in the industry. The reason that I highlight that is because it has become the cultural norm, it has become culturally accepted if a young musician of a young band starting off a subject, an unscrupulous promoter or agent who encourages them to go and work, and perform on certain venues and take on certain gigs. With the promise of more work down the line, we are likely to accept, but very often it can be the case that the work does not materialise or the promise rates do not materialise. It is something that our musicians have been familiar with for quite some time. I want to pay tribute to the Musicians Union for their work not play campaign, which has been highlighting the issue for some time. There were probably a couple of points that I wish to highlight before moving on from the survey that I just mentioned, the independent professionals in the self-employed survey and the Freelancer Club, because there is some interesting data on those people who are working unpaid. It suggests that a majority of the respondents of the survey are 44 per cent fit into the 16 to 29-year-old age bracket. Shockingly, many of those freelancers had up to seven years' experience in their trade, so it is not just young and experienced people, it is people who have real skills and real experience in that area who are still working and not being paid. This is very telling. A large, quite significant proportion, 67 per cent were women. When we look at the groups that are being affected, we know the challenges that we face between a more equal economy with addressing the gender pay gap, and given that we are celebrating young people this year, there is no more appropriate year to be seeking to end trial shifts. One of the points that I would make to Dean Lockhart, who suggested that, perhaps for a limited period of unpaid trial shifts, we might have merit, is how it started in extent in music. You then develop a culture that becomes expanded, and it becomes a norm that we end up with 20 per cent of people working, certainly. Dean Lockhart, would the member suggest that we ban all trial shifts on that basis? There is an option for a probationary period. People can have a probationary period where they are paid a wage, as anyone else would be. At the end of that probationary period, if we do not meet the requisite requirements, action can be taken. I think that the laws already exist. I think that people who work should be paid. The final point that I would want to make, because this speaks to the broader fair work agenda. One of the other terms that has been imported from the world of music into the general economy is that of the gig economy, which is just a fancy way of saying insecure work, low-paid work, precarious work. I think that the challenges that we face going forward as an economy with the rise of automation and the hollowing out of middle-income jobs and middle-skilled jobs is that now is a time to actually be strengthening workers' rights, because if we do not do it, we are going to face a future where more and more people are going to be in a position that far too many musicians have found themselves in, which is that of insecure work, and all the stress that comes with that. Thank you. So much for promises, Mr Arthur. I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to be followed by Ruth Maguire. I am not going to make that promise on that basis. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I would like to congratulate Rhona Mackay for securing this debate today and highlighting some of the cases that she did. I would also extend my congratulations to Stuart Macdonald for bringing forward a private member's bill in the UK Parliament on this important issue. We have already seen a level of public debate around unpaid work trials and some examples coming to light. Many of the instances that we have heard of where it seems trial shifts are being abused are in retail and hospitality industries. Sectors represented disproportionately in tourism-focused economies, like those in my region that I represent. It is often a hidden feature of the economy too, as Mr Macdonald mentioned. We are often dealing with low-paid workers, people coming out of spells of unemployment, and industries where trade union membership is not commonplace. As a consequence, where we see abuse of work trials, it is most commonly perpetrated against the very people that are often found at the sharp end of sharp practices in employment relations. It seems barely conceivable that it can take a month to assess someone's suitability for a job. It is true that many employers are moving away from— Neil Findlay. I might have gone too fast on that, but he seems to be suggesting that he supported people who are organised in trade unions. I wonder if he could advise why his party brought in the trade union building. We are changing the subject slightly here, but as a former general secretary of a trade union, I recognise the role that they can play, but that does not necessarily mean that in every case that trade unions are right. As a consequence, where we see the abuse of work trials, it is most commonly perpetrated against the very people—sorry—it seems barely conceivable that it can take a month to assess someone's suitability for a job. It is true that many employers are moving away from the traditional 45-minute sit-down interview, with a rise of day-long assessment centres, practice tasks and more probing questioning now being seen as giving a better reflection of an applicant's behaviours and abilities. However, in the case of unpaid work trials, the applicant—if we can call someone who is effectively working a job for several weeks as an applicant—is not just experiencing a rigorous interview. They are undertaking the duties of an employee in a workplace, and the cost can be considerable. Not only is a person deprived of an income for the work that they are undertaking, but there is also a potential loss of the opportunities that may have been otherwise taken up over that period. Throughout that time, the possibility of a job is dangled continually in front of a person, perhaps more than one, competing for the same position. At the end, it may well be that the prospective employee has found him or herself still unemployed, and it is tempting to say that the applicant is then landed back where he or she started, but that is not the truth. In reality, they have been set back. The law rightly limits attempts to restrict and bind people's labour when businesses step beyond a level seen as legitimate. Restricted covenants, for example, must be proportionate to be enforceable, as the courts recognise not only an individual's interests, but a public interest is not standing in the way of people taking on work. Through that same lens, we can see the problem with individuals effectively taking off the job market for a month, but with no promise of any work. Some employers have pointed out that employees have resources expended on them during trial shifts, staff time induction and so on, which they suggest make those shifts not particularly productive in a business sense. That, however, seems to miss the point. Even when an applicant is successful, the employer has offset the cost of the normal induction training that is part of any job. That, too, is a clear disadvantage. Mr MacDonald's focus on that area is commendable. There are certainly some details that require to be clarified in his proposed legislation, several of which he himself has highlighted. One is how earnings from a work trial will interact with out-of-work and other income-related benefits, and significantly where those need to reapply if unsuccessful. Another will be whether some flexibility may be found. Instinctively, it is quite different to place an applicant in a workplace for a few hours, as opposed to a few weeks. As I touched on earlier, there is already a move among recruiters towards the sort of assessment process that can take the best part of a day. In any case, I am sure that I will be joining members from across the chamber in keeping a close eye on the progress of the proposed bill, and I look forward to being it debated. Ruth Maguire, to be followed by Neil Findlay. I thank my colleague Rona Mackay for bringing this important topic to the chamber. Thanks are also due to Stuart MacDonald MP for his work in building cross-party consensus on this issue at Westminster, and I will take this opportunity to reiterate my full support for his private members' bill to ban unpaid trial shifts. It is maybe particularly appropriate that this debate is taking place during the year of young people, because, as the motion points out, it is our young people who are most likely to be exploited in this way. At the very beginning of their working life, young people who are ready and willing to work are being treated with contempt and disrespect and left disillusioned and disappointed about the world of employment. This exploitation is indefensible. It takes advantage of young people's desire and need for employment to manipulate them into working for free. Working for no reward is the very definition of slave labour, and it should have no place in a modern Scotland. We will all have heard stories of the exploitation happening and the unpaid trial shifts, and I thank Unite and the STUC for their briefings in advance of today's debate, which include case studies of young people being exploited through unpaid trial shifts. One girl describes doing two unpaid trial shifts in a restaurant of five to six hours each, no job at the end of it, no remuneration. Another tells of how a young man did an unpaid trial shift in a local restaurant. As well as not being paid for his time, he was just left behind the bar with no direction, and the manager did not even speak to him. My own daughter once undertook a trial shift at a bar, only to be told afterwards that they were looking for someone with bar experience, something that she had pointed out that she did not have in her application. None of those examples are acceptable, and they have to change. Trialing people before hiring them is completely legitimate—that is what probation periods are for—but it has to be done fairly and respectfully. At the very least, that means that young people must be paid for their time, whether they get offered a job at the end of the trial or not. More than that, it should mean treating them fairly and with respect throughout their trial. They should be given proper training and induction before being set to work. They should have frequent breaks in accordance with the law. The employer needs to ensure that they are properly fed and watered, and if they are working late hours, they get home safely. None of those things are radical, and they do not place a great burden on a healthy business. It is simply about treating young people with common decency and basic fairness, something that I am sure that no one in the chamber would disagree with. The good news is that we can all play a part in changing things. As consumers, we have a lot of power. We can put pressure on businesses by refusing to give our custom to those who exploit young people. Johann Lamont, I absolutely agree with you on that. I think that we need to know where those bad practices are and vote with our own feet. Do you agree with me that there are things that the Scottish Government could also do as an organisation with money that could use its authority to insist that those practices do not continue? Ruth Maguire, I think that we all, everyone, should do everything that they can. So, absolutely, I think that, unfortunately, money talks, so we need to spend a little wisely, whether it is individuals or organisations. As consumers, we can put pressure on businesses by refusing to give our custom to those who exploit young people through unpaid trial shifts and poor working conditions. Those of us in a position to do so can expose those businesses and make sure that as many people as possible know what is going on behind closed doors. We can also encourage the young people in our lives to join a trade union. As MSPs, we can work with local councillors to embed the fair hospitality charter within the required business practices of local licensing authorities. As is the case when it comes to discussing the living wage or supporting flexible working, treating workers with fairness and respect is not just about being morally right. It is also good for business, because workers who feel valued and supported will be more productive and more committed to their workplace. Banning unpaid trial shifts is absolutely the right thing to do, and I fully support that motion. The last of the open debate contributions is Neil Findlay. Thanks, Presiding Officer, and I thank Rona Mackay for bringing up what is a very important debate to the chamber. I declare my membership of United Union. The reality is that employment in Scotland and across the UK is one in which far too many people and their families are struggling on low-paid job insecurity with repeated attacks on their rights. I recently carried out a survey of hospitality and food workers in my area. Poverty pay failure to consult over shift changes, zero hours contracts, companies taking tips, staff having to find their own way home after working late, are just some of the ways that workers are being exploited and put in danger. Some of the comments that I received back from people who were employed in a wide variety of workplaces from Glen Eagle's hotel, to Wetherspins, to Sports Direct, Rhymon, Starbucks, Tesco and many others. However, it is the prevalence and normalisation of the use of unpaid trial shifts that I think is one of the most pernicious ways in which workers are being exploited, often by some of the biggest and most profitable businesses on the high street. The number of companies using those shifts has grown massively. 25 per cent of the people who responded to my survey had been asked to do an unpaid trial shift, and 52 per cent were on a zero-hours contract. People have mentioned the case of Craig Robertson, that young man's anti-contact mate is one of my constituents about his situation. People have said that he had to do three separate five-hour shifts at B&M in Whishaw. B&M refused to write back to me when I wrote to them, asking what had happened. If they are willing to exploit a young man with Aspergers, it makes you wonder what else they are willing to do in order to maximise their profit. It is absolutely despicable. I have one employer who has offered an offer of employment for him later in the year, but if there are any employers who are listening to this debate, if they can offer Craig a job, please get in touch. All he wants to do is a chance to work. Over the last while, I have been working with members of my own party. We unite the union and Brian Simpson and others from Better Than Zero to target Livingston's shopping centre promoting unites fair hospitality charter. Livingston is the fast food capital of Scotland with hundreds of school pupils and students working for some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the food and hospitality sector. What type of introduction to the world of work is it when you have to do an unpaid trial shift half a week or an unpaid trial week? Many of those young people, when they get a job, struggle to get by on £4. Is it £4.20? Yes, £4.20 an hour for a 16-year-old. That is the minimum wage. For some, the bus fare is more than an hour or two's wages. At new year, the company that runs Edinburgh's hugman A celebration under belly sought to employ 300 volunteers to work night shift for free and one of the busiest, coldest and most profitable nights of the year at the new year celebrations. That was presented as a great development opportunity for volunteers. What utter garbage! It was plain and simple exploitation to maximise their profits. But working with Better Than Zero, Unite and the STC, we embarrassed the company into a U-turn on many of those jobs. That was a publicly funded event. It got public money. It should never happen when we are financing events like that. I applaud Stuart McDonnell's bill and I support him in taking that forward. A fair day's work deserves a fair day's pay. If we allow those young people to be exploited, then they will come for the rest of the workforce and indeed they already have in many sectors. Finally, I can say to Mr Lockhart that I can just see him in the 19th century saying to the young boy, five-year-old, listen wee man, get up that chimney. If you're any good at it, we'll pay you in a couple of weeks' time. Dean Lockhart. Just to clarify with the member, we agree with the general principles of this bill. Maybe he has the details. Stage 1 comprised the three lines of text. Does Mr Finlay have more details about the actual content of the bill? If you would close now, please, Mr Finlay. Could you stand up and say that? Just keep everything right. I don't have any more details of the bill, but what Mr Lockhart has said simply is that he is willing to allow exploitation to continue. That's what he's saying. That's what you're saying because you're saying that you would be willing to continue with people not being paid for being employed. To me, that's exploitation. To you, it might not be. I think that we'll close now. I'm very conscious that other members have been declaring an interest with their trade union membership, and I did not do so, so just to very briefly declare that I'm a member of the National Union of Journalists. It's not really a point of order, but I'll let you away with that one for clarity. I called Jamie Hepburn to respond to this debate around seven minutes, please, minister. I have to say that we've been remarkably and uncharacteristically generous this evening, so I'm going to make no promises whatsoever about sticking to my time, sure that you wouldn't have expected to do so. Can I join others in welcoming this debate that we've had this evening? I think that it's been an important one, and it's an issue that we should be debating in this chamber, so I thank Ron Mackay for having brought it forward this evening. I fully support Stuart MacDonald MP's private members' bill on unpaid trial work. It appears that it is very much in alignment with the Scottish Government's fair work agenda. He should be congratulated for taking it forward. Rona Mackay, Ross Greer and others mentioned the better than zero campaign being led by young members of United Kingdom. I know that they have been crucial in informing Stuart MacDonald's bill, and I congratulate them for the activities that they are taking forward. Of course, the better than zero campaign is one that we are supporting through the trade union and modernisation fund, and I wish them well in all their endeavours. I don't believe that any person should be put in the position of having to make the choice of working for free in fear of the risk of not working at all. Unpaid work trials are thought to be the most prevalent in the retail and hospitality sectors, with the young people and migrants most affected, although it is clearly why it is welcome that the better than zero fair hospitality campaign has been put in place in focusing on the hospitality sector. It is difficult to quantify the number of cases of unpaid work trials, because it is very clear from what we have heard this evening that it is out there and it is a very real practice. Tom Arthur and Neil Findlay were very correct to caution against the danger that such practice becomes normalised. It is important that we focus on the issue, and it is particularly important that the state acts responsibly in that regard. On that basis, we should focus on the Department for Work and Pensions voluntary unpaid work trial programme. That is an initiative that is actively promoted by Job Centre Plus through its website to promote the idea of unpaid work trials in the business environment. There are aspects of that that are particularly concerning to me, not least the language that is utilised by the Department for Work and Pensions on its website. It talks about the benefits of the work trial. It stole the virtues more to the employer than it did to the potential employee, which, in the first instance, is of particular concern to me. Clearly, Job Centre Plus should be about getting a person into fulfilling and meaningful work. However, the language that it uses about promoting the benefits of the programme to employers along the lines of being risk-free, you can try the person out before making a final decision. It is not only for me somewhat demeaning and disrespectful to that potential employee. It strikes me as a very little serious commitment to the long-term employment prospects of any individual taking part in such an initiative. In that regard, I wrote to the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions David Gottback in November to not only set out the Government's support for Stuart McDonald's private member's bill but to raise the concerns that we have about the manner in which Job Centre Plus is promoting the programme. In my letter, I was very clear that, although I understand that the expectation is—I will not get too drawn into how that could be done on a practical basis, because I think that we have heard very clear concerns about how it could be done on a practical basis—that employers are expected to run work trials in a positive way with the expectation that they will offer the job unless the participant proves not to be suitable, I then went on to ask that I would be grateful to receive statistics regarding the number of work trials that have led to permanent employment and work trials that have not resulted in employment, the reasons why. It is of considerable concern to me that, thus far, I have not had any response. Therefore, I look forward to Mr Gock's successor estimate that will provide me with that detailed information. If you were able to establish the companies that are being exploited in this way, would you be willing to say as a Scottish Government that you would not allow them to access the support that is provided by the Scottish Government in relation to whether it is procurement, whether it is support for apprenticeships or whatever? Of course, what I was going to go on to set out is our very clear and firm commitment to fair work practice. First of all, I would need to secure that information and to look and analyse and assess what that means in practical terms. Thus far, I have not been furnished with that information. My perspective is that, ultimately—and that is what we are debating this evening, of course—is that we require a changed employment law. That is the fundamental way in which we can deal with this particular matter. That is why we are debating Mr Macdonald. Give me a second, Mr Finlay. Of course, I will give way to you. That is why we are debating this legislation. I understand the point that John Lamont talked about. It should be a moral imperative for employers not to act in this way. I agree with that to some extent. That is why the Scottish Government recognises that model imperative. We do not act in that fashion, but what we have heard this evening is that far too many employers act in a particular fashion that does not recognise that model imperative. I find it confusing that she is, from a certain position, is disagreeing with the legislation that is required to think that that is why we are having this debate. I recognise that there are actions that we can take. Excuse me, minister. I had a request for an intervention that Mr Hepburn was considering. Can I remind all members that, for all this is a member's debate and much more informal than business during the day, everyone should still speak through the chair and have recognition that the chair is here for a reason? Can you decide, Mr Hepburn, which intervention you are taking? I was going to take Mr Finlay's intervention just before I do, just to let me finish the point. I am very clear that there is more that we can always be willing to consider to do, but fundamentally I believe that it requires a change in the law. Putting aside the change in the law and thinking about the powers that we have here and very much on a point of principle here, would the minister agree that, where we know that there are companies that are exploiting young people, whether it be on paid trial shifts or in other areas of their employment practices, that the Government should not be furnishing them with public money? We set out a clear expectation that those businesses and employers that we engage with should adhere to our fair work agenda. In that sense, we are promoting that fair work agenda through a variety of means, such as the living wage accreditation scheme, whereby we see nearly one-third of accredited businesses and employers across the UK. Here in Scotland, the highest proportion of its working-age population, paid at least a living wage or more, is found to be in Scotland. That is why we have the business pledge, which contains so much fair work practice, and that is why we are promoting the fair work agenda through the fair work convention. That is why we have proposed the trade union act, and that is why we have the trade union modernisation fund. Fundamentally, it comes back to the fundamental point that I made, that although we can take those actions, the fundamental challenge that we have before us, that is why most of us, at least, have taken part in this debate. A support instrumentary Donald's bill before the House of Commons is that we need and require a change in the law. I wish that it were that this Parliament could change the law. We can't, so that is why we should be getting behind instrumentary Donald's MP's bill and let's make sure that we see Westminster pass that legislation. The minister may have inadvertently misled the chamber, but he said that a third of businesses had signed up to the living wage. There are 300 odd thousand businesses in Scotland and a thousand have signed up to be living wage employers, so maybe the minister would want to correct that at a future date. Try to be helpful. I am happy to let the minister respond to that to have clarification in this member's debate. I urge Mr Finlay to check the official report that is not what I said, the point that I made is that nearly one third of those accredited businesses across the UK are here in Scotland. Is everyone finished? That concludes the debate and this meeting is closed.