 The next item of business is a debate on motion 11652, in the name of Neil Gray, on application of the strikes, minimum service levels act 2023 in Scotland. I invite members wishing to participate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Neil Gray to speak to and move the motion, cabinet secretary, around 12 minutes. I move the motion in my name and that of my colleagues. Today I seek Parliament's support for the Scottish Government's continued opposition to the strikes minimum level services act and any associated secondary legislation. These are challenging times in the aftermath of Brexit, Covid-19, the war in Ukraine and the cost crisis, topped off by Liz Truss and quasi-quartines many budget last year. We now confront some of the most formidable economic conditions in living memory. These times call for us to share our vision of how we face these challenges head on, while providing clarity on how we will seek to build a better future. This Government's vision is for an economy that is fair, is green and is growing, a country that provides a promising future for every worker, their families and communities, supported by a robust labour market. The Scottish Parliament is limited in what it can do, but we will continue to do all we can to resist this act. Today's debate is a testament to that, where we hope to secure Parliament's support for our position. Trade unions stand as a cornerstone of Scottish democracy, playing a pivotal role in realising our fair work ambitions as we successfully transition to net zero. Those ambitions in turn form the bedrock of a wellbeing economy, providing workers with better job quality, pay, economic security and work-life balance, and employers and an available workforce with the right skills aligned to the needs of businesses and our economy. The SDUC represents around 540,000 trade unionists and members of 39 affiliated trade unions and 20 trade union councils. It can speak for the interests of female workers, black workers, young workers and those who suffer discrimination, not just in the workplace but also as part of civil society. To genuinely foster an inclusive society with wellbeing at its heart, a strong economy, a goal I believe most members of this chamber share, those voices are invaluable in the development of economic and social policies. Only recently, the First Minister and I held a biannual meeting with the SDUC and the affiliates where the issue of minimum service levels was raised. Alongside the First Minister, I made a commitment to do everything in our power to resist the implementation of the strikes act. Back in 2016, Daniel Johnson. I'm very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving me this. He's quite right. At the heart of this is the role of the trade unions and representative workers, but actually they're not much more a fundamental principle, that of the relationship between worker and their work and their right to withdraw their labour when all they have to exchange is their labour itself. Absolutely. I whole heartedly agree. I think that's a principle that Daniel Johnson and I share, which is why I hope that we can secure labour support for the motion that we have before us this evening. Back in 2016, we saw the introduction of the trade union act, a direct threat to workers' rights. Not content with the most anti-trade union laws in Western Europe, the UK Government's way of managing the recent spate of industrial disputes was to further that with the conduct of the trade union act, with the conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses amendment regulations 2022. While the High Court has quashed this legislation permitting the use of agency workers to replace those taking part in the strike action, the UK Government are consulting on this matter again, relentless in their efforts to curb or mitigate strike action. While that goes on in the background, we're now faced with the implementation of the strikes act and the associated secretary legislation, which encroaches on devolved services. It is not just that it is unnecessary, unwanted and ineffective, but it seeks to undermine legitimate trade union activity and does not respect the Scottish Government's fair work principles. Governments should be working with the public sector and trade unions to reach fair and reasonable settlements, respecting the legitimate interests of workers, not seeking to curb their right to strike. Despite that act, and while employment law remains reserved to the UK Parliament, we will continue to use the levers at our disposal to promote fair work practices across the labour market in Scotland. Fair work is a model for innovation and success, with many employers in Scotland working alongside trade unions to implement fair work practices. Fair work supports stronger productivity, economic growth and greater wellbeing. Earlier this week, I met trade unions to discuss fair work and hear the views on how we are progressing in delivering our shared ambitions. For alongside supporting employers, our fair work action plan includes actions to support trade unions. We want to build an economy where our businesses, industries and trade unions thrive and where economic success works for all. There is clear evidence that unionised workplaces have more engaged staff, have higher staff level of training and a progressive approach to staff wellbeing. We are committed to supporting strong trade unions in Scotland for the benefit of all workers and our economy. That is in contrast to recent Westminster Government labour market policies, which are moving in the opposite direction. Inadequate enforcement of minimum employment standards, including the national minimum wage, the introduction of the trade union act 2016 and now the strikes act 2023. I and my ministerial colleagues have written on several occasions to UK ministers expressing our fervent opposition to the introduction of minimum service levels, as well as concerns around the associated codes of practice. Most recently, on 4 December, my colleague Fiona Hyslop wrote to the Minister of State at the Department for Transport. That was in relation to the publication of the UK Government's consultation response in the laying of the minimum service levels on passenger railway services regulations 2023. Despite Mrs Hyslop's letter clearly articulating our position, the regulations have now been approved and are now in effect. Nevertheless, we have consistently maintained our position that we should collaborate with transport operators and trade unions to achieve fair and reasonable settlements, while respecting the legitimate interests of workers and transport organisations. Unlike the approach of the UK Government, which, since 2019, we have not had a single day without either a strike on their railways or mandates for strikes outstanding for them, the UK Government's introduction of the strikes act not only ignores the devolution settlement but fails to recognise the authority of the Scottish Government in devolved areas. By reserving the sole authority to ministers to set the minimum service levels, they can be set at such a high level that any strike will be rendered largely ineffectual, a point that I am sure Daniel Johnson was referring to in his intervention. Moreover, the UK Government has established minimum service levels for passenger services in which Scotland covers rail in Retrams and Glasgow Subway. Fortunately, the minimum service levels set for ambulance services have been limited to England, however further regulations will be forthcoming as UK Government plans to extend minimum service levels to other sectors. In November, the UK Government's Department for Education launched a consultation on minimum service levels for education services in Great Britain, including schools, colleges and universities. The Scottish Government does not intend on providing a formal response to this consultation nor will it assist with the development of any regulations that may arise from this consultation, because in doing so it would only seek to serve the harmful objectives of the strikes act. Let me be clear, however, that the Scottish ministers have no intention of asking any employers within its influence to issue work notices. Instead, we will continue to encourage employers and trade unions within the Scottish education sector to work together constructively to seek resolutions to industrial disputes. The UK Government's introduction of this wholly unwelcome act is unnecessarily inflammatory and will therefore act against the interests of the public. However, we are not alone in opposing this legislation. As it progressed through the UK Parliament, the Welsh Government was utterly opposed. It called it a bill that represents a nakedly political and opportunist attack on the rights and dignity of public service workers. Upon royal assent, it reiterated its opposition and continued fundamental concerns about the impact of the act on devolved public service delivery in Wales. The trade union congress has reported the UK Government to the international labour organisation over the act. Its congress recently backed a motion calling for the devolution of employment law to Scotland, a view as confirmed by Anna Sauer early in November shared by Scottish Labour. Although UK Labour has stated that it would repeal the strikes act, it should be successful at the next UK general election, which is welcome news. It does not share Scottish Labour's view that employment powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which is in stark contrast to our position, which is clear. Securing the full range of powers in relation to employment will empower the Scottish Parliament to fully implement policies that will best meet Scotland's distinct needs and help to shift the curve on poverty and deliver our shared ambition for a fairer, greener and more prosperous Scotland. The Scottish Government is committed to realising our vision for Scotland to be a leading fair work nation by 2025. Fair work is the catalyst for success, wellbeing and prosperity for individuals, businesses, organisations and society as a whole, in a marked divergence to Westminster's labour market policies. We are not alone in thinking this. In the words of Labour's Baroness Brian of Partick, in reference to the passage of the anti-strike act through the Lord, she said, Scottish and Welsh fair work arrangements do not prevent industrial disputes but do allow constructive dialogue between Government employers and trade unions so that when disputes occur there is greater goodwill to resolve them. She also stated that the bill presented a strong case for devolving employment law to Holyrood and that the Sewell convention has been abused repeatedly, rendering it no longer meaningful. This is exactly the point—a further encroachment on the devolved settlement and an unnecessary undermining of trade union relations that will force further industrial disputes elsewhere. The UK is now becoming a global outlier, according to the international trade union confederation. Having fallen from a rating of three, where the ITUC considers there are regular violations of workers' rights, to four, where the confederation says there are systematic violations. Our request of Parliament today is to recognise and endorse our distinct approach to industrial relations and trade union, which is, unlike in that of the UK, one that is based on partnership working. Can I start with two expressions of regret in relation to this afternoon's debate? First, I am very sorry that I am not able to be in the chamber in person this afternoon due to an injury. Secondly, while I am very happy to engage in this debate on the strike's minimum service levels at 2023, I regret that the Scottish Government is devoting the afternoon at this point to discussing what is essentially a matter of regret. A matter of reserved legislation. There are a whole range of issues affecting the Scottish economy, which fall under the remit of the cabinet secretary, which we could be discussing today. We could be looking at Scotland's economic performance. We could be looking at the challenges in sectors such as hospitality right at the moment and their demands that the 75 per cent race relief issued by the chancellor to retail hospitality and leisure businesses in England and Wales be passed on to businesses in Scotland. In the coming year, of course, it was not done in the present year. We could be looking at what the Scottish Government is going to be doing in their budget on Tuesday to support economic growth in those sectors of the economy that are currently struggling. In that respect, I was very interested to read in the newspapers that the cabinet secretary is fighting a battle within the cabinet to oppose additional tax rises, which would widen the income tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK still further. I would certainly wish him well on his endeavours in that respect, although if the latest reports are to be believed, it looks like he has lost that battle already in humiliating fashion. If that is true, and we will find out on Tuesday, it will be deeply damaging to the economy and our prospects for growth with a message that would send out about how unattractive Scotland is as a place for those looking to set up and grow businesses. That is not just my view, but it is one universally held across business representative organisations in Scotland. Regrettably, instead of those matters being the focus of the Scottish Government's debate this afternoon, we have yet another set of grievances with the UK Government, this time in relation to this legislation on minimum service levels, which came into law on 20 July this year. I have to start taking issue with the statement in the motion from the cabinet secretary, claiming that this legislation encroaches on the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. What this legislation actually does, impact upon, are reserved areas in so far as they apply to Scotland, so matters such as border security. Yes, if the minister wants to intervene, I will give way. I wish Bordeaux Fraser well having seen him the morning that he injured himself. I could understand why he would be subject to be housebound and I wish him well for a recovery from what appeared to be a very sore injury. Is he not concerned about where I concluded my remarks around the downgrading of the International Trade Union Congress and what they have said around the UK Government's position, which is clearly an outlier in terms of workers' rights? Is he not concerned that the cross-border rail is currently being impacted by these regulations and it gives the right to all secretaries of state in the UK to be able to come forward with secondary legislation that can impact upon devolved responsibilities? Bordeaux Fraser, I will give you the time back. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for his very kind words. I hope that I will be back in chamber next week. In relation to the point about impact on devolved matters, I am afraid that he is simply wrong in what he has to say, because the issue of notices is a matter for the employing organisation or body. While it is true that matters such as border security, the passport office, nuclear decommissioning come under the remit of the legislation, that would be a matter for UK ministers, which is the case under our current constitutional settlement. When it comes to devolved responsibilities, it is a matter for the Scottish Government to determine whether such notices are issued. It is not a matter for the UK Government to determine that. If the cabinet secretary does not understand that, he has not read the legislation and he has not read the explanatory notes that make that absolutely clear. What he is trying to do is stir up some grievance in this debate, grievance that is simply groundless and without any substance. Let us look at the principles behind the bill. We all accept that there is a right. Yes, I will give way of them. In that case, how does he explain the consultation that is currently under way on the education front, which includes schools, colleges and universities, or indeed the wider NHS consultation, which could also have an impact in this matter? Murdo Fraser. Well, the cabinet secretary surely understands that the issue of notices is a matter for the employer. In this case, the employer would be the local authority or the Scottish Government, depending on which body he is talking about. The UK Government cannot issue these notices to imply in Scotland. That is not what the legislation currently says and it is just a matter of grievance being stirred up by the cabinet secretary. I am going back to the point that I was going to make about where this fits in with wider employment law. I would recognise that the ability to strike is an important part of industrial relations in the United Kingdom, rightly protected by law. It follows from that an element of disruption is inherent in any strike. With that said, the public does expect there to be some level of essential protection put in place even where strikes are taking place. What any Government has to do is to try to get the appropriate balance. I am not going to take another intervention at this stage, Mr Johnson. I have taken two and I need to make some progress. What the Government has to do is to strike an appropriate balance between the ability to strike and protecting lives and livelihoods. We do, of course, even before this legislation has been put in place, already have protections, for example, for the armed services or for the police, protecting individuals from strikes, but what this legislation does is extend these categories to ensure protection of the public. There is nothing unusual about this if we look at the wider European context. Most countries in Europe have restrictions on strike action, including the provision of minimum service levels. It is true that the list of professions that are covered differs from country to country, but I commend to members the research done by the House of Commons library that looks country by country at the restrictions that are put into place. Some countries, such as Portugal or Greece, have explicit frameworks set out in statute for sectors where minimum standards must be provided. In other countries, for example Germany or the Netherlands, there are no explicit statutory minimum service laws, but court rulings have allowed restrictions to be imposed in practice for certain services where the right to strike is balanced against competing public interests. In France, there are elements of both statutory and non-statutory restrictions. It is only in very few European countries that there are no minimum service requirements in law at all, for example Poland or Austria, but in Poland there is still an extensive list of professions prohibited from striking altogether. Across Europe, the breadth and extent of minimum service levels varies considerably. Finland and Croatia draw these restrictions narrowly around the protection of lives, public safety and or property that would otherwise be in danger. Other countries state that the computer requirement is a broader public interest test, while they need to provide services essential to the community, which can include healthcare, emergency services, education, transport, energy and communications. Different European countries take different approaches as to how these laws will work in practice. In Romania and Greece, for example, a flat rate one-third of regular service is set across all restricted services. The most countries determine the actual maintenance service levels on a case-by-case basis. What we are seeing here is that this legislation is simply bringing the United Kingdom into line with the norm across most European countries. Given that it is the stated intent of the Scottish Government to align itself with the rest of the EU, I am just somewhat surprised that it is resisting this legislation, because all it does is bring it into line with the practice in most European countries. However, as I said before, even if the Scottish Government does object to the bill, it does not have to implement the minimum service levels. It will be for the Scottish ministers to determine in relation to the various areas that are brought in. As we have heard, the Scottish Government has no intention of doing so. What we have here is the proverbial storm in a teacup. Will everyone's view on the need for minimum service levels, whether they are appropriate or not, they will only apply in Scotland if the Scottish ministers decide that they are going to implement them? The whole debate is just about posturing and constitutional grievance from the SNP once again trying to stir up a fight with Westminster when there are far more important things that they could be spending their time on. With that, I am very pleased to move the amendment in my name. I, too, wish you a speedy recovery. I now call on Daniel Johnson to speak to you. I move amendment 11652.2, around six minutes. I remind the chamber of my register of interests and my declarations regarding trade union membership, and I move the amendment in my name. Indeed, I thought that it was somewhat striking in the speech that Murdo Fraser just gave that he fully took a quarter of his speech before he even attempted to defend his own Government's policy. That he spent two whole minutes essentially seeking to deflect and indeed apologise, because what I would say is this. What does it say about a party of government that rather than seeking to use its legislative capacity, seeks to use the time and powers it has available to it, not to look at the situation in the country, look at solutions, looking at how it can seek to serve the people but uses that time to seek to trap the party of opposition and to attack it. Indeed, I would say, what does it say about the party of opposition that it has the vision and the willingness to government that the incumbent party seeks to attack it, because that is what this bit of legislation has been about. It is somewhat ironic that Murdo Fraser is talking about this being a storm in a teacup, because fundamentally what the Conservatives, just in a moment, has been seeking to wind back the clock, invoke memories of long bridge and industrial dispute. It is yet another chapter in the culture wars because the Conservatives are a party that are simply out of ideas and I would wager our out of time. Brian Whittle, I am very grateful for Daniel Johnson for giving me a way. I wonder if he recognises the fact that he and I are both in opposition at the moment. Daniel Johnson. I will be interested in seeing what 2024 brings. What I would say about this legislation is threefold. First of all, it is wrong in effect, it is wrong in its analysis and most fundamentally it is wrong in principle. Much of Murdo Fraser's assertion was that we need this to bring us into line with Europe. He cited the House of Commons library briefing, but what he admitted was that self-same briefing points out the fact that minimum service levels do not work in the countries where they exist. If you look at countries such as Spain and France, they lose far more days to strike than the UK does. Minimum service levels have ended up in the courts, gummed up and, frankly, getting in the way of industrial relations, not resolving them. Indeed, you do not even need to take my word for it. You only have to listen to the Government itself. Its own impact assessment stated that minimum service legislation in the transport sector could increase the number of strikes in disruption. The architect of the law from number 10, Andrew Gilligan, said, and I quote, the plans may promise more industrial action than they may mitigate and they won't ensure smooth services, not my words, Andrew Gilligan's. Ultimately, the transport secretary stated in December last year that minimum service levels were real and again I quote, is not a solution and that the way to get better service was to resolve the dispute. A man to that, if only the Conservatives would listen to their own people in the chamber today, but it is also wrong in analysis because the contention is that we need this for safety. That is simply nonsense. The 1992 Trade Union Act makes it illegal to strike when that endangers a human life and limb. A Conservative law, you would think that they would know their own legislation but I think it also makes a fundamental mistake, making an assumption that workers want to strike, they do not, and especially not workers working in healthcare, which is why we saw ambulance workers regularly breaking at strikes, breaking at lines in order to do their duty. People that work in our public services want to serve the public, they want to help people, they want to cure people. That is the analysis. I think that the Conservatives need to understand that the level of strikes that we are seeing is not because people want to strike, is because of the frustration and despair that people feel after 13 years of Conservative Government and the sorry state of our public services as there was right. But most importantly they are wrong as a matter of principle. The member seems very keen to argue about UK situation and UK legislation, notwithstanding that we are in a devolved Parliament, the most powerful in the world. Since he is so keen to argue about UK legislation, can we take it that he will be standing for Westminster next year? South Edinburgh is very well served by Mr Ian Murray and I would not want to get in his way as he seeks to fight the next election. Let me be clear that this legislation is wrong in principle. The right to strike is fundamental for the reasons that I set out in my intervention. Indeed, even the Conservatives used to believe that. The right to strike is set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty championed by Churchill and up until now championed by the Conservative Party. However, it is fundamentally rest on this point that when you are a worker all you have in a capitalist society is your labour as a means of exchange. If you remove the right to strike, you essentially force people to work. It is a form of indenturement and is to be condemned. That is why it is a matter of concern for the UN's independent labour organisation and why this legislation is so controversial. In closing, I think that it should be noted that the Scottish Government has the power simply to ignore this legislation. It does not need to serve those notices. Much of the powers and capacities rest here. I would just gently say to the Government that I am absolutely clear that when this legislation must be condemned, but fair work requires to give introspection and self-analysis to. When the Government's own analysis on fair work says that there is much work to be done, I would prefer to see a debate that talked about fair work in the main and how we can take it forward rather than simply attacking others. However, let's be clear that within the first 100 days we will bring forward the new deal for workers as a Labour Government and it will strike this legislation down. If you believe that you need to vote for Labour and, frankly, I would seek all members' support, our amendment, which would deliver exactly what the Government seems to be calling for. Mr Johnston is a cautionary note about electioneering in the chamber. I think that we probably stayed just about the right side of that line, but it's probably worth a reminder. I call Beatrice Wishart. Beatrice Wishart, around six minutes please. The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the application of the Strikes Minimum Service Levels Act 2023. My Westminster colleagues made this opposition clear during the bill process in the House of Commons. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment that, had it passed, would have resulted in the House declining to give the bill a second reading. Our reasons for opposing this legislation are many. It's simply another attempt by the Conservatives to distract from the appalling mismanagement of the economy and from their failure to avert strikes in the first place. This legislation will simply not work. Minimum service levels will not avert on-going crises in public services or help to solve staff shortages in the NHS. Its scope is far too wide and goes well beyond critical services. Not only will it not work, the UK Government's legislation does not contain any detail about what minimum services will be while it hands extraordinary powers to UK Government ministers to change current legislation without adequate Parliament scrutiny. It does nothing to resolve industrial disputes and instead it will only increase the disruption caused by future industrial action. The best way to avoid disruption during strikes is to prevent them in the first place, which means that the Government is getting round the table with staff and employers to find a solution. As my Westminster colleague Christine Jordan MP said, the cause of strikes is the deterioration in public services that the Government has presided over. This act does not undo that deterioration and it will not help our public sector. The act is an attempt to use both workers and the state of public services as a political football to distract from the mismanagement that has led to this point. Current poor levels of service have not arisen through anyone's will to have low services. There is a result of a lack of resources and investment in public services through which staff have struggled to improve and work through. I do not need six minutes because I am going to conclude by saying that rather than imposing minimum levels of service in a strike situation to make a political point, the UK Government should be investing in public services to improve levels of services all the time. We now move to the open debate. I call for a clear hockey to be followed by Liam Kerr, a generous six minutes. I refer members to my register of interests in that I am a member of the trade union unison and I hold a bank nurse's contract with Crater Glasgow and Clyde NHS. Due to the Westminster cost of living crisis, with many people's wages not keeping pace with increases to their cost of living, coupled with years of Tory austerity, people across the UK have been striking in record numbers. Workers in almost every sector have come together to demand better paying conditions. Just as the right to work is a fundamental human right, exercising the right to strike is a fundamental liberty available to most workers. However, a change in the law by the Westminster Tory Government threatens this liberty for some of our most vital public services. The strikes minimum service levels act 2023 will, under plans announced so far, impact on workers in rail, ambulance service and border security, stipulating minimum service levels in those sectors. The UK Government has also been consulting on the introduction of regulations on minimum service levels to hospital-based health services in England, Scotland and Wales during strike action. Notwithstanding the impact on workers, the act ignores the devolution settlement and fails to recognise the authority of the Scottish Government in devolved areas. The strikes minimum services levels act 2023 is just the latest Tory attack on workers' rights. As I started my working life, I had my first experience of exercising my right to withdraw my labour in 1984, when thatcher's Government removed trade union rights at GCHQ. Union members were told to resign their membership or to be sacked. I was proud then, as I remain now, of the tenacity of the workers involved, their families and the solidarity of the whole trade union movement. However, that was not thatcher's only foray into reducing the powers of trade unionism in the UK. Our Government restricted the right to picket, prevent unions from bringing their members out in support of other unions and introduced ballots for strike action. In 2016, the Tory Government enacted higher thresholds for success on ballots and extended the notice required for industrial action. Now we face yet another crackdown on workers' protections through the minimum services levels legislation. Rightly the Scottish Government will do everything it can to oppose this appalling piece of anti-worker and anti-trade union legislation that will undermine not enhanced industrial relations. Instead of demonising workers and continually limiting their ability to take industrial action, what the UK Government should be doing is giving those in the public sector fair wage rises and proper terms and conditions, while providing additional funding across the devolved nations to support fair pay awards. Labour, as we have heard it again today, has said that it will repeal the legislation in the first hundred days of government, which I would welcome. However, Sarkir Stammer has U-turned on previously announced policies almost every other week, so forgive me for not trusting what Labour says. As they continue to move to the right to appeal to Tory voters, who knows what other progressive proposals will end up on the Labour scrappy? Labour does not have the best record in this regard either. I will take your intervention in just one moment, Mr Marra. Other than overturning the trade union activity within GCHQ, which I mentioned earlier, most restrictions on union activity imposed by successive Tory Governments has been kept by Labour Governments. I will give way to Mr Marra. Michael Marr, I thank the member for giving way. If she supports the new deal for workers people as backed by the STUC and the TUC, will she be voting for it in the Labour amendment today? Clare Haughey. We have been accused of grieving politics by the Tory party. I am aggrieved. I do not trust what I hear from the Labour party. I do not trust you to enact what you say that you are going to do. There have been so many flip-flops by your party leader down in Westminster that I will be supporting what this Scottish Government does and not what the Labour party proposes. The Labour party has hardly got a record to be trumpeted by its members in this Scottish Parliament. In any event, the Tories could simply re-enact the legislation the next time they get into government. With Labour refusing to back calls from the Scottish Government and the STUC to devolve employment law, it is clear that they would rather leave Scotland at the mercy of Tory attacks on workers' rights than giving our national parliament such powers. The only way for Scotland to get rid of Tory governments that we do not vote for for good and by extension anti-worker and anti-trade union policies is for Scotland to become an independent country and have control of her own laws. The trade union movement has a proud history of protecting workers' rights that was born of a desire to combat exploitation and ensure a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Trade unions have been at the heart of social and economic change. I have been a proud trade union member all my working life and, prior to being elected as an MSP, I was a divisional convener for unison for many years. I have represented NHS staff on numerous issues from grievances, bullying and harassment claims to appeals against dismissal. As the only nation in the UK to have averted NHS strikes, Scotland has shown that a better, more constructive way is possible and that is not an accident. It is testament to the fact that this SNP Government has worked constructively to produce acceptable offers befitting of the vital workforce and work that our NHS staff do, although the Tories have done nothing but level outrageous attacks on our NHS staff and unions. On the minimum service levels legislation, the Royal College of Nursing has said that this provocative move makes future strike action by nurses more likely, not less likely. Ms Foyer, the general secretary of the STUC, said that there is a real slap in the face for workers who were on the front line during the pandemic and who put themselves and their families at risk to give us key essential public services. Those workers are now being told that they may be sacked for taking lawful industrial action. The chair of the BMA council said that, even before the recent strikes bill, the UK has some of the tightest restrictions on trade union activity in Europe and now with threats that could see individuals sat if they do not comply with these new laws, it feels like another kick in the teeth for our profession. Those damming statements have been ignored by Westminster and I echo and support those words. In closing, Scottish workers deserve to see the back of Westminster's anti-workers agenda once and for all. We in the SNP are clear that a progressive approach to industrial relations built on greater, not fewer protections for workers is at the heart of a fairer society. I was a little surprised to see that we would be debating UK legislation proposed, amended and passed by the UK Parliament in this chamber today. It just seemed odd that, rather than debating the shocking piece of figures that came out last week showing the decline of education after 16 years of SNP government, something that they left to the Scottish Conservatives to do in our business, or perhaps the housing crisis in Scotland that has arisen due to SNP failures, something that they left Labour to bring forward in their business a few weeks ago, it would be UK legislation, the provisions of which are reserved and which almost entirely apply outside Scotland, save in relation to border security, network rail and nuclear decommissioning. That was what the SNP government decided to debate. However, to ensure that I was fully familiar with what had happened in the UK Parliament, I got my hands on various documents, including the act. I notice that it amends the 1992 act in such a way as to recognise that the ability to strike is a vital part of industrial relations in the UK, rightly predicted by law, whilst seeking to maintain a balance with protecting the safety of the public and maintaining essential services. In order to bust this myth about this legislation being entirely reserved, the transport minimum service level applies to network rail, all-train operators, Edinburgh trams, Glasgow subway. There are no life disputes at the moment, but network rail's current pay deal expires at the end of 2023. Caledonian sleeper pay deal expires on the 31st match. There is no way that the Opposition can argue that this legislation does not and will not impact on Scotland. The Opposition is actually suggesting that this is the fundamental question. Why are we having this debate when this legislation specifically does not apply to Scotland? Well, I have the explanatory notes here, and the explanatory notes say—a member can look it up, I will pass this over after if she wishes—page 3, paragraph 9. The matters to which the provisions of the act relate are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. If there are amendments relating to matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the consent of the relevant devolved legislator will be sought. Give me two seconds. In fact, to make this apply, because I think that the minister may want to reconsider her intervention to any of the six services set out in the new section 234b number 4, this act specifically creates a power which it then gives to the Scottish Government to either bring it in or not. We know from the many reports today—indeed, the cabinet secretary's comments—that the Scottish Government has explicitly stated that it does not wish to use this power. That is its prerogative, but it is odd to see the Scottish Government rail against being given new powers and yet somehow argue that that offends devolution. I think that the second question that many people will have concerns about is that the SNP is apparently a contradictory position when it comes to Europe. You see, this Government has, since the UK left the European Union, made very clear that it disagrees with the UK on many things and prefers to align with the laws of the European Union. In that way, it believes that a Scotland divorced from the UK could become part of that European Union. However, I have my hands on the House of Commons library's research briefing, which details how the European Union countries deal with minimum service laws. What is clear is that, although, like the UK, most countries recognise the fundamental right to strike, most European countries go further on minimum service levels than the UK has done with this act, far from the global outlier that the minister suggests. I am grateful to Liam Kerr for giving way, but does he not recognise that he is misrepresenting what alignment means? Alignment means aligning with European directives, not with European practices per se, and he is deliberately… I just wonder if he would reflect that that is not what alignment means in the formal sense. I am quoting directly from the House of Commons library and from the act. I think that what was interesting there was seeing that Daniel Johnson now does not actually want to compete for Westminster. He appears to want to join the SNP and make their points for them. Indeed, Mr Johnson, whilst the UK act only covers the six categories set out in section 234b4, other countries commonly include the armed forces, the police, judges, public prosecutors, certain categories of civil servants, and the House of Commons library document also shows us that where minimum service levels do exist, their breadth and extent also vary. In Italy, there are regulations during strikes in several public services, which are far more extensive. In Latvia, the 1998 strike law details further sectors far more extensive than anything in the UK act. I actually entirely understand the Labour Party's position against this act. It seems to me that it is born of a consistent philosophical positioning around trade unions, strikes and their views as to the role of strikes and the necessity in their eyes of compromising the public to achieve their ends. I might not agree with it, but I respect that it's a legitimate ideological debate. They have made clear that should they form the next UK government, they will repeal this act. However, what I find puzzling, indeed faintly ridiculous, is the SNP's vitriol and fury, given that this is surely a matter for their MPs and given the apparent serious contradictions with both the devolution settlement and their own position on Europe. Some may very well conclude, therefore, that this is less about the right to strike and more about distracting from the very serious problems that afflict Scotland under the SNP and which are entirely within this Parliament's purview. The only sensible thing to do, therefore, is support the amendment in Murdo Fraser's name. The right to strike is central to a modern and free society, one that approaches industrial relations in a progressive and inclusive manner, with cooperation and compromise seen as essential strengths rather than weaknesses. Unfortunately, that has been eroded under successive UK Governments. In 1997, as part of his election campaign when courting a right-wing vote, Tony Blair proudly announced, changes we propose would leave British law the most restrictive on trade unions in the western world. The pledge he duly delivered on with restrictive measures, which included the imposition of an arbitrary 40 per cent threshold for yes votes in workplace ballots on union representation, a same requirement which had wrecked Scottish devolution 20 years previously and which would have done the same to both Welsh devolution and the London mayor. Certainly not something that Labour members should be proud of and indeed most Labour supporters whom I know aren't proud of. However, history is a habit of repeating itself and with a list of abandoned promises, Sir Keir Starmer does not inspire any real hope that will be allowed to follow his party. His party will be told what to do no matter what they pass here. On the proposed commitments outlined in today's Labour motion, only recently, Sir Keir lavished praise on Margaret Thatcher, who vowed to crush the unions and so much misery and hardship was followed by many. The proposed union UK strikes minimum service levels bill is, in context, another example of the UK government's luch to the right and their increasingly unhinged approach to governance. The party, which until recently prided itself in being the party of law and order, has shown that it is flouting of international law through its unlawful failed Rwanda plan and it has failed because it has not happened, it has not gone. It has attempts to introduce new law to circumvent international human rights that is increasingly unfit to govern. The proposed anti-strike laws have been flagged by the UK's joint committee on human rights as also potentially unlawful, with others going as far to suggest that the law would amount to forced labour. The new law would let employers give a work notice that will identify the persons required to work. If workers fail to comply, they can be fired, even during a good faith trade dispute to prevent pay cuts and the union can be sued into bankruptcy. That will be the first time that could happen since 1906. The right to fair pay and collective action are inalienable rights enshrined in the universal declaration that followed the Second World War and further cemented in the international bill of rights in 1966. Those were enacted to ensure that workers faced with authoritarian employers and governments could always do the one thing they could just say, no, if you don't pay us properly, we won't work. This is an important point. Historically, strikes helped bring down the iron curtain. They forced the British Empire to abandon India and they finished a party in South Africa. The right to strike is essential to a functioning democracy and any backsliding on that opens the doors to authoritarian and repressive policies and regimes. What was seen recently under the UK government is a slide towards a more authoritarian and repressive policies with blatant disregard to international law, the voice of the people and basic decency to those fleeing persecution. The shocking news of the recent death on the Bibby Stockholm barge reminds us all of the tragic consequences of the direction of these policies. In contrast, the Scottish Government has called for a progressive approach to relations with trade unions and has been crystal clear that it will not co-operate with establishing any minimum service order here in Scotland. We have committed to putting workers' rights at the heart of our economic programme through the fair work programme and in the next few years will be critical to ensuring we make the progress needed to achieve the vision for Scotland to be a leading fair work nation by 2025 and meet the changing needs of our economy and workforce. That is despite the considerable challenges faced by the EU exit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the on-going impacts of the war in Ukraine and the current cost of living crisis. Let us be clear that if we want a Government that will stand up for workers' rights, build a fair society and treat those fleeing persecution with compassion and dignity, then the choice is the SNP Government as opposed to the indifferent, heartless, pseudo and real right-wing alternatives offered by Westminster. I now call Monica Lennon to be followed by Keith Brown around six minutes. I too refer to my register of interests as a member of the trade unions, GMB and Unite, and the voluntary section of my register lists my memberships of the RMT, PCS and CWU parliamentary groups and that I chair the Scottish Labour trade union group. Those declarations keep me on the right side of the Parliament's rules but I'm very proud to be a trade unionist like my colleagues on those benches. I first joined a trade union as a graduate worker more than 20 years ago and that was several years before I joined the Labour Party because it was drilled into me from my family background and my community experience, the importance of being in a trade union. I would say to colleagues on the Tory benches that being in a trade union might be something that has been ideological but trade unions are good for the economy and smart employers and smart politicians understand that. In my working life and where we are today more than two decades on, I am in despair about the state of workers' rights in Britain today. Workers' rights are more precarious than any time that I remember. What kind of future will my 17-year-old daughter and her friend group have already known what it's like to be on a zero-hour contract? They know that working hard and being in work is not a protective measure against poverty. They know that a college or university qualification doesn't guarantee them fair work. I am appalled that we are having this debate, not because it's a waste of time but because there are other things that we should be talking about. Our constituents are worried. We are days away from Christmas and Liam Kerr and I have just been singing Christmas carols together. He had my Christmas festive glasses on and I have my reindeer dress on. For a lot of people right now, there is not a lot to be cheerful about. Many people want to see the Tories getting sacked this Christmas at Westminster. I would like to see the Conservatives in this place, maybe stand up to their colleagues. It's not always easy to do that in a political party, but don't just be an apologist. We've seen the Tories in the Scottish Parliament stand up to their colleagues at Westminster before. Maybe it's time to do it again. The Prime Minister may well be one of the richest men in Britain today, but her rotten Government is morally bankrupt. The Tories at Westminster are out of control because they know they are on borrowed time. What we're seeing, not just with this act but in many other actions, is a full frontal assault on workers' rights. I am relieved that the Scottish Government will not enforce the Tories UK Strikes Act. It does attack the dignity and rights of public sector workers. I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary today state that fair work ambitions are the bedrock of the Scottish Government's vision for the wellbeing economy. I support that, but we all need to work harder in here to make sure that the actions that we take match that ambition. That means funding our public services properly, using public procurement powers to improve workers' terms and conditions, tackling the growing disability pay gap that we see in Scotland and tackling the rise of zero-hour contracts. I know that Clare Hawke may have run out of time to take my intervention, but we didn't hear a peep out of Clare Hawke who's left her sheet right now when the SNP was caught using zero-hour contracts in her Rutherglen constituency during a recent by-election. Perhaps she raised that point with the SNP leadership. I see that the deputy leader Keith Brown is here, so I'm happy to hear from Mr Brown. I thank Monica Lennon for taking the intervention. Similarly, could she explain why the Labour Party was reported to be using hire and rehire two years ago for their own staff and why North Lanarkshire proposed such changes affecting many women, that unison had to threaten strike action to make sure they avoided the hire and rehire tactics that she is currently condemning the Conservatives for? Monica Lennon can give you the time back. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm not aware of all the examples that Mr Brown has given, but I'm not shy speaking out about my own party when we don't get things right. Today isn't about keeping scored, but what I am clear about is that the rise of fired and rehired practices across the country is unacceptable. I've written to the cabinet secretary about that. Historically, Labour and the trade unions did fall short when it came to tackling issues around gender pay gap. I seek for a point of consensus. On the Opposition to the Minimum Services Act, there is consensus between the Scottish Labour Party and ourselves. The point that Monica Lennon made previously about using public procurement, for instance, is that she accepts that there has been progress made, indeed, just this year, in further enhancing the fair work first principles to ensure that fair work conditionality is applied to public sector grants, such as ensuring that there is an opportunity to do that. I know that many trade union colleagues are looking to see the implementation of fair work convention recommendations and fair work action plan commitments on collective bargaining. I recently chaired the Scottish Labour trade union group meeting with a room full of trade unionists. The agenda had about 25 items on it, and most of them were about £1,000. I know that many trade union colleagues are looking to see the implementation of fair work convention recommendations and fair work action plan commitments on collective bargaining. I recently chaired the Scottish Labour trade union group meeting with a room full of trade unionists. The agenda had about 25 items on it, and most of them were about issues here in Scotland. I am being robust about the Tory Government, but we need to do better. That also means that local government and other public sector employers too. We have heard a lot of references today to the House of Commons library, and I am sure that there is important reading material there. I am very concerned that the Tory amendment—I feel that Liam Kerr is waving at me, but I know that the Tory amendment is trying to provide cover for the UK Government. Let's not be apologist. We also know that one of the committees at the UK Parliament has called out the UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated in no uncertain terms that the UK Government has not adequately made the case that this bill meets the UK's human rights obligations. I wish that Murdo Fraser well recovered from his injury, but there is a lot of cherry picking going on to try to make out that Tory Britain is a leader when it comes to workers' rights when we know that absolutely is not the case. I have taken a couple of interventions, so time is now short. I know that there was time in hand. I want to conclude by saying that this is a tough time in the country with the cost of living crisis for workers. Christmas is not going to be a peaceful and joyful time for many of our constituents, but union-busting Governments will not win. As Ross Foyer, the STC General Secretary, has said that workers will not be turned into slaves. We know that trade unions are the last line of defence for workers and communities. That is why we stand by them. The message from this place today needs to be that we have to get the toys out of Downing Street as soon as possible. It is vital for workers, for the economy and for the national interests. I know that Keith Brown will be followed by Maggie Chapman in around six minutes. Just to go back to a couple of the strongest themes of this debate. First of all, the Conservative approach, which is to say that this does not really affect Scotland, why are we even discussing it? The reason is that Monica Lennon put her finger on it when she talked about the underfunding of public services. If you have a piece of legislation coming through that will enable the suppression of wages in the rest of the UK, that has a direct consequence in Scotland, and it increases the pace at which the Tories have run down our public services in this country. That is why it is extremely relevant. Already, yes, I will give way to Brian Whittle. Brian Whittle. Very grateful to Keith Brown for giving way. How on earth can you take this legislation and say that it will suppress wage rises in the rest of the UK? That is absolutely fundamental nonsense. Keith Brown. I imagine that Brian Whittle must be the only person in the chamber that cannot see the link by restricting trade unions' ability to strike and the suppression of wages. Maybe if he goes away and researches a bit he will work it out. There has been a great deal of talk over many years about legislation surrounding trade unions in the UK, more often than not caused by the UK Government over the day, bringing forward legislation or failing to repeal legislation, which actively seeks to curtail the effectiveness of trade unions, as is also the case with this piece of legislation. I speak as somebody who was a trade union member for many years, a branch officer and shop steward, who went on strike during the factory years, but against a Labour employer, I should say, at that time in 1989. I think that it is very important to recognise it. I do not want to look necessarily for points of difference between ourselves and the Labour Party, but it is important to explain why Clare Hawhey is not filled with trust from the Labour Party. It was the Labour Party, as I said, that we had to campaign against and strike against in 1989. It was the Labour Party that made huge commitments initially in the nineties to repeal the Tory legislation, so very far-reaching Tory legislation, and in many cases failed to do that, which again has led to that loss on support. I think that many of us have dealt with Labour employers over the years. I remember being threatened by an ex-member of this chamber for my trade union activities, threatened with legal action because of my trade new activities. I remember my own trade union unison encouraging Labour members to spy on SNP councillors and click back to a certain area. There is a long history of—I am not sure what is bothering me—I do not know which debate is actually in, but there is a long history of distrust, and there is some merit in trying to overcome that distrust. It was asked earlier on by Michael Marra whether it should be the case that SNP should support Labour's stated intention. I was asked repeatedly in 2014-2015 to not proceed with the biggest contract that the Scottish Government lets, which is a ScotRail contract, because Labour would be on the second, and it would sort it all out so that we would not have to do it. That was eight years ago. We still do not have a Labour Government. Nobody believes that, given Keir Starmer's track record, they will actually stay true to what they are saying just now. All of that means that the trade unions that we currently have are in a very difficult situation—they have been now for some years—but it is also true to say that, if you look at the actions of the Scottish Government, that is the way to deal with trade unions. Get into a discussion, have the discussion where it is possible to do so, to compromise, but crucially recognise the role of trade unions and how they can help in providing public services. I will do yes. Monica Lennon. I am grateful to keep round for giving way. The Labour amendment adds to the Government motion. That is very constructive. It shows that there is a lot of agreement. It is simply asking to support Labour's new deal for working people. I think that a message from this Parliament reinforces what we want colleagues down the road to do. Is there a problem? Is the member going to be voting against that tonight? I think that I have just tried to explain what I have just said, why there is very little trust if what the Labour Party says it intends to do. I have explained that a number of times. I should also say that strongly trade unions are probably needed more now than they have been for many years, because it is pretty obvious to any working person in Scotland or the UK just how much poorer their paying conditions are now compared to just a few years ago. We know that wages have been largely stagnant in the UK for the past 15 years, for the cost of living has soared beyond all belief. According to the Resolution Foundation, an independent think tank focusing on the improved living standards of low to middle income workers in the UK, the average UK household is now £11,000 worse off in real terms than it was in 2008. When we look to comparable countries like France and Germany, we can see that the typical French household is 11 per cent richer, or typical German household, 27 per cent richer than the typical family in the UK, again according to the Resolution Foundation. On that, I am happy to apportion the blame where it deserves to be, which is, of course, the 14 years of failed austerity that we have had from the Conservative parties. Most European countries, including France and Germany, have a far better, more collegiate approach to trade unions than the UK does. That is reflected in the increasingly worsening living standards in the UK. The Tories are responsible for the biggest fall in living standards and living memory. That is an appalling record for them to preside over. The UK, in my view, is precisely because of the continual strengthening of anti-trade union legislation. Why are they focusing on that? Why do they always focus on taking away people's rights, whether they are strands people, whether they are refugees or, in this case, whether they are trade union workers? Why are they always pandering to their base? I mean the word base in both its senses—their base in trying to attack people and indulging in culture wars. The latest proposal, the Strikes Minimal Services level act, is just the latest in a line of anti-trade union legislation because they think it appeals to their base supporters. I remind the chamber that Scotland has not voted for the Conservative party or any of the earlier iterations of it since 1955. In this coming election, which has been mentioned already, Scotland will have less representatives in Westminster than it does now, down to 57 from 59. That means that, as a country, we are even less able to stop legislation like that. The Labour Party has to wrestle. Daniel Johnson said that we should indulge in some self-analysis and reflection. If Labour were to get in next year, if they repealed that, two big ifs, what is to stop in two or three years' time after that? Going back to the same base Tory party that gets in once again, the usual ding-dong of UK politics and workers again in Scotland having to pay the price for being part of the union. That is what we are trying to avoid here. It is just about the very last nail in the coffin that we have in terms of the UK's conduct of our affairs. The statements by Keir Starmer in relation to Margaret Thatcher, the admiration for Margaret Thatcher that he has, one thing that worries me is the fact that we passed in this chamber the Miner's pardon bill. At that point, various commitments were made by the Labour Party to say that, if they ever formed a government, they would go further. They would provide that pardon across the UK, and they would look at compensation for those miners, given the fact that the UK Government took over £4 billion from miners' pension funds. I really doubt whether Keir Starmer would even look at increasing the protections of the compensation for miners. That is why it is very important that we support the motion today. In the absence of the powers necessary to change the law, we have to be absolutely clear our opposition as a Parliament to this act. We can show what we would do differently if the powers of our employment law were held here in this chamber. For that reason, I support the motion in the name of Neil Gray. Mr Brown, as I indicated before, there is a bit of time in hand if somebody wants to make an intervention. I would encourage them to do that rather than shout it from a sedentary position. I now call Maggie Chapman to be followed by having the key around six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer members to my register of interests. I am a member of Unite the Union and a consultative member of the Aberdeen Trains Union Council. Our public services across health, transport, fire and rescue, education and so much more are the lifeblood of our communities and the bedrock of our society. We all rely on them every day, whether we acknowledge them or not. Of course, those services do not appear by magic, staffed and supported by fairies or elves. No, those vital public services only exist because there are hundreds of thousands of people across Scotland that dedicate their lives to the service of their and our communities. Our nurses, firefighters, bus drivers, train conductors, teaching assistants—indeed, all who work in our life-sustaining public services—deserve our admiration and thanks, but more than that, they deserve each and every one of us elected to represent them to fight for their rights and conditions. The Strikes Minimum Service Levels Act 2023 and Associated Statutory Instruments drive not a carton horses but a freight train through that. Lawyers, trade union activists, academics and indeed people from across civic society are clear that this legislation undermines the fundamental rights of workers, most notably their right to withdraw their labour, as Daniel Johnson and others have highlighted this afternoon. It disrupts the often delicate conditions in industrial relations. It runs contrary to the principles of fair work and it adversely affects not only the workers but their wider communities and our broad commitments to social justice. Scottish Greens are clear that workers' rights and their empowerment are fundamental to social justice. By mandating minimum service levels during Strikes, the legislation restricts the ability of workers to effectively voice their concerns and negotiate better working conditions. It also effectively discourages alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that prioritise dialogue and negotiation over legal restrictions. It sets up a much more adversarial and much less collaborative approach to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a cornerstone of modern labour relations. Any law that limits the right to strike or other options of dispute resolution diminishes the bargaining power of workers. This can lead to even more unequal power dynamics between employers and employees than already exist, favouring the interests of the powerful over those who work for them will only perpetuate inequalities. Indeed, I believe that strong workers' rights are essential for building a fair and just society. Rather than ensuring continuity of essential services and safeguarding the interests of the public, this legislation that we debate today has the potential to destroy constructive and productive relationships between workers and their bosses. If we remember that public sector workers are also members of the public, it undermines trust in government and legislators. The burden of employment and maintaining services should not fall so heavily on the backs of workers. Workers should not have to shoulder the responsibility for upholding the public good, often at the expense of their own wellbeing and job satisfaction. The act's negative impact extends beyond the workplace reaching into communities. By suppressing the collective voice of workers, the legislation weakens the ability of communities to advocate for fair labour practices and inclusive economic policies. Healthy communities thrive on the equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, and any legislation that weakens the position of workers undermines the social fabric that binds communities together. The act could negatively affect local communities and their needs, undermining the principle that decisions that affect communities should be made collectively. Many, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress, believe that this legislation contradicts the very essence of democratic principles. Democracy thrives on the participation and representation of all citizens, including workers, in decision making processes. Limiting the ability of workers to voice their concerns through strikes diminishes their participation in shaping the policies that directly affect their lives. The legislation clearly comes into conflict with the principles of social justice, solidarity and equality. Social justice seeks to create a society where all individuals enjoy fair and equal opportunities and workers' rights are fundamental to that pursuit. By restricting the right to strike, the act perpetuates inequalities and hampers the progress towards that more just and equitable society. I was pleased to hear last month that the cabinet secretary said that he did not believe that such legislation had any place in a forward-looking country that seeks to build a fairer and more equal society. I agree with much in the Labour amendment. Scottish Greens are clear. Not only are fair work principles intrinsic to our vision for a compassionate and caring economy, but we also vehemently oppose the use of zero-hour contracts, fire and rehire practices and the other appalling practices mentioned in the Labour amendment. However, I share some of Clare Hockey's distrust of the Westminster Labour Party. After all, it had 13 years under Blair and Brown to undo all of Thatcher's anti-trade union laws. It could have ensured that we could be improving workers' rights in Scotland now had they not vetoed the devolution of employment law during the Smith commission. I appreciate the member giving way. Given her own mistrust in the Labour Party, we are going to be best to vote for the amendment and put that extra pressure on the Labour Party to make sure that we deliver that. If it is a set of reasons that you agree with, then surely you should vote for that. I think it's very clear that whoever governs Westminster hasn't needed Scotland's support for a long time and I would rather be focused on our efforts on what we can deliver here in Scotland. In conclusion, this debate matters to us here in Scotland because workers' rights should always matter to us. I express my solidarity with those workers elsewhere in the UK who will be negatively affected by this legislation. We should be standing up against any laws that undermine the principles of democratic participation and fair labour practices. Those must be central to any socially just society. I think it's important to recognise what this debate is about and what this legislation is about, because it's primarily an attack on workers' rights. Clare Holly has laid out the history of Tory Government attacks on trade union rights over many decades. It seeks to undermine legitimate trade union activity and it doesn't respect the fair work principles that are so central to the Scottish Government's approach to building a fairer and more successful economy. It's also an attack on devolution, which is impacting on devolved areas, which has been highlighted by the Government Front Bench and others. I commend the Scottish Government's position in not co-operating with establishing any minimum service orders that may come to pass as a consequence of this legislation. It's important to recognise where we are. Front Bench, when many clear the UK record in having a higher prevalence of low pay, longer working hours, lower statutory sick pay and many other negative indicators compared to other independent European countries. That has led, I believe, to a lower growth and productivity economy. Scotland has highlighted missing out on EU workers' rights enhancements due to the Tory party's hard Brexit. Meanwhile, in Scotland, we have an approach that seeks to avoid public sector strikes and work very constructively with trade unions. Trade unions are, of course, a key part of the democratic fabric of Scotland's Scottish society. It's important that we build on that as partners, taking forward that critically important fair work agenda. Recognising, as the Government does, and I was delighted to be a part of this when I was a minister in shining or including trade union representatives in the work that we do with various sectors through the industry leadership group, is something that has been recognised by Keith Brown and others through the course of the discussion that we have had this afternoon. I am delighted that others have highlighted the fact that the importance of trade unions is not just in a domestic setting but in an international setting. Bill Kidd highlighted some hugely critical examples of why trade unions are an essential part of the democratic fabric of our society. It's also critically important to recognise the hugely important role that public sector workers and other workers in key sectors of the economy do to support all of us, particularly at this time of year. The critical importance of trade unions in supporting the work that they do, highlighted by Maggie Chapman, Monica Lennon and others, is important to recognise the fact that the bill brings to bear on those rights. It's really important to recognise where we want to get to. The Scottish Government has been clear that the economy that we want to build is something that is based on high wages, leading to high productivity, high innovation and economy strong in the industries of the future. I am absolutely focused on working with trade unions and working with workers across all those sectors, public and private industries, to be able to build that economy, because that link between trading workers and having high wages and enshrining high conditions for workers' rights within the economy and legislation is critical. An element needs to be recognised by building that high productivity economy. Again, the legislation seeks to attack and lead to a detriment of that. In conclusion, I recognise what needs to happen next. Clearly, the Scottish Government's approach to resisting the legislation is to be welcomed and supported. It's critical that we work to secure the devolution of employment law to this Parliament, something that we have debated in the chamber on many occasions, an area where the Scottish Labour's position is ambiguous to say, the least is really unhelpful and not coming out. I am taking forward a very clear position demanding that future UK Labour Government, as a matter of priority, will have to happen with the devolve employment law so that we can have the standards enshrined in the Scottish Parliament in future, regardless of what may happen in Westminster. I am delighted to hear that. Can the member then make clear his support for the repeal of the legislation and the new deal for working people, his support, by voting for our amendment tonight? Make that clear? I've been very clear by Keith Brown and other members today, Clare Haughton and others, that frankly we don't trust the Labour Party to deliver on that. The only way to secure those rights is for Labour to support the devolution of employment law and, of course, for us to secure the full powers as a normal independent country as soon as possible. I now call Carol Mocken to be followed by Liz Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer members to my register of interest as a member of Unite the Union and, of course, as a lifelong activist in the trade union movement. I join the majority of Parliament to condemn this disgraceful piece of legislation. We should be united in our opposition to cheap power grabs and speak with one voice against the UK Government's increasingly hostile and archaic agenda against workers. I am sure that it won't be long before the Scottish public let them know exactly what they think of this and the dreadful way in which they treat the ordinary people of this country. Trying to stifle legitimate democratic engagement and workers' representation across the UK is the kind of thing that you would expect from an authoritarian Government desperate to cling on to power. Presiding Officer, I fear that that's not far off what Sunach's Tories really are. The public will speak in 2024. Trying to force through unworkable and unjust legislation is not going to change that. If the Tories think that the problems in our society are caused by trade unions simply asking for a fair deal for their workers, they are not opening their eyes at all. Public services, health services and railways are seriously underfunded. All of that is a smokescreen to stop you noticing the problems within our society caused by this dreadful UK Tory Government. We cannot ban our way out of productivity and healthcare crises. You have to build something with the people who work in those fields, build something with them by your side. I wholeheartedly agree with the Scottish Government that this legislation is designed to undermine legitimate trade union activity. In fact, I would go further. Its intention is to destroy it and ensure that generations to come do not have effective trade union representation whatsoever. That is why I am pleased that the Scottish Government assured us today that there will be no minimum service level agreements or work notices in Scotland. That commitment is very welcome. I am sure that, particularly by ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper, important services are owned and controlled by the Scottish Government. Here in Scotland we have a proud and noble history of worker struggles. It is a struggle. That is why it is called the struggle. It is a struggle sometimes within our own movement, as has been discussed today. The struggle pushes us to go further, and it pushes us to come together as trade unionists. I am standing here and I am asking the trade unionists in the benches opposite to come together on this issue. We have stood together in other times on picket lines. We have stood together to ensure workers' rights can be upheld. If there is a chance that we can do that, we stand on that. I ask you to support the Scottish Labour amendment this evening. I appreciate the first follow-up act that Karen Watkins has taken intervention and for the reasonable tone that she has adopted. Can she understand the point that SNP members are trying to make? Regardless of what any Labour Government might do, that can change as soon as another Conservative Government gets elected. Unless she can guarantee that there will never be another Tory Government that will not also repeal this legislation, that is why we should be devolving this so that it will always be in the hands of this Parliament, at the very least. I thank Keith Brown for the intervention. I am doing this from the heart. If I was to stand here and take the position of asking you about every single thing that your front bench has not delivered on, then we would never move forward. This is a moment in time where this Scottish Parliament can say to the UK Parliament that trade unionists are united on this. We believe in the information that is in the fair work principles that Scottish Labour is saying that we will fight tooth and nail to get in in the first hundred days of a Labour Government. Back the new deal tonight. Show where you stand as trade unionists. The workers struggle is strewn into the very fabric of our nation. As long as there is a Labour Party, as long as there are trade unionists, as long as that movement is there, we will continue to be the cornerstone working together of that progress. The best progress if we work together as trade unionists. The results of allowing legislation like this to take hold is simply a transfer of power from those with the least to those with the most. It is a green light to cut wages and benefits in key sectors and begin an absolute race to the bottom. It is about the rich taking from the poor. If we want to fight that, we need to take every opportunity to back things that might actually cause that. Freedom for the rich, whilst the poor know the place, that is what the Tories want. Let's come together. Let's stand as the Scottish Parliament. Let's stand as trade unionists together and back Labour tonight. The new deal for working people in the first hundred days of a Labour Government would repeal the terrible legislation that we have from this awful Tory Government. The new deal for working people is described by the TUC as the biggest expansion in workers' rights in decades. I ask you to support the amendment this evening so that we can change the outcomes for those hard-working families that have been hammered since 2010 and I ask you for the last time to back the amendment. I now call Liz Smith. I put on the parliamentary record that in my previous life, before I was elected to this place, albeit at some time ago, it has to be said, I was a member of a trade union, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, because I believe that unions have a vital role to play. I do not accept that Tories are anti-trade unions. The issue is all about seeking the right balance between the democratic right to strike and maintaining public services, most especially those that are providing essential and emergency services. It is a complex and delicate balance, but it is also an important one. On the one hand, the right to strike is a fundamental Labour right, which allows workers to collectively voice their grievances and negotiate for better working conditions, wages and benefits. In other words, it is a crucial tool for workers to exert pressure on employers and ensure that their rights are protected. On the other hand, as we all know, public services are essential for the functioning of the economy and society, most especially the wellbeing of its citizens, whether that is healthcare, education, transport or emergency services. Although we all accept that strikes inevitably mean disruption, we have seen in recent times that the scale of these disruptions to essential services have had particularly severe consequences in impacting the general public, vulnerable populations and, of course, the economy as a whole. To achieve the right balance, many countries have established legal frameworks that regulate the right to the strike. In the context of the public services—and as Murdo Fraser rightly said in his opening remarks—he gave some examples from these other countries, pointing out that the frameworks may differ, but they also include restrictions such as mandatory negotiation periods, minimum service requirements and arbitration mechanisms. Collectively, those measures aim to secure that the essential services are maintained to a certain extent during the strikes, minimising the impact on the public. Additionally, as several other members have stated, dialogue and negotiation between unions, workers and employers are absolutely crucial in finding compromises that address workers' concerns while minimising disruption to public services. Open communication channels, mediation and alternative dispute resolution methods help to facilitate that process even if it takes time, but sometimes they fail. That is what this issue is all about in this debate. We know how many working days have been lost both last year and I am sure that the same statistics will emerge for this year. I am not going to rehearse the examples of a very small minority of striking individuals deliberately choosing to obstruct blue light services from accessing emergency sites. I have had a constituent who has suffered as a result of that, or to those who choose to bring transport networks to a complete standstill, or to those who choose to cut off and willfully damage energy networks. However, those are quite clearly situations that have a considerable impact on the public rather than on those with whom the strikers are in dispute. That, as far as the public is concerned, is inexcusable. At its simplest level, the Strikes Minimum Services Act is designed to ensure that there is a necessary level of services being maintained when protesters are exercising their democratic rights. On that issue, for example, in the healthcare service in England, there have been 125,000 outpatient appointments cancelled, nearly a million outpatient appointments cancelled. That is incredible harm. The public are not cross with the striking workers for that. The public are furious that the UK Government has let the dispute get to the stage where people have to withdraw their labour. There have been no strikes of that scale in Scotland because this Government is willing to negotiate and work in partnership with our healthcare worker unions. I'm not at liberty to show you some of the correspondence with one of my constituents, who I'm afraid would have a very different point of view from what you have just stated. Excuse me. If a member wishes to participate in the debate, they know how to do that, and it is not from a sedentary position. For the SNP, the debate seems to be the usual line that everything that emanates from Westminster has to be wrong and opposed. I'm afraid that I struggle with the assertion that the act undermines devolution, because the legislation relates to areas of reserved matters that affect Scotland. Colleagues have mentioned border security, nuclear decommissioning and passports, but, as several people have said, it does not impact on the devolved responsibility since the Scottish Government is not obliged to mandate minimum service levels. My colleague Liam Kerr read out that legislation and the notes that accompany that. The argument that it is undermining devolution simply doesn't hold water. I think that I'm in my last bit. As a result of what I've just said above, we really should be concentrating on some of the issues in devolved politics. Whether the SNP likes it or not, there is a long list of critical challenges, just like the education debate that took place in Conservative time yesterday. As far as I'm concerned, the debate is unfortunate in many ways, but it is about getting the right balance between the democratic right to strike and ensuring that there is a provision of essential services. I, quite frankly, don't see how anyone would oppose that. Before we move to closing speeches, I note that we are missing two members, one of whom is the Cabinet Secretary. It is discourteous for those who have participated in the debate not to be present for closing speeches. I hope that I receive an apology from both members concerned. I call on my comara to close on behalf of Scottish Labour. I hope that the cabinet secretary has not felt necessary to withdraw his Labour at this moment in the proceedings. Let's be clear. I think that there is a widespread agreement on most of the chamber that this is a really atrocious piece of legislation emanating from the Tory government and Westminster. I think that most of us recognise exactly why they are doing it. It is just an attempt to distract from what is a dreadful record on the economy and public services across the UK. On the horizon, the Tories know that they have nothing positive whatsoever to offer this country. None of that is really about the safe operation of public services in this country. As Daniel Johnson pointed out, the approach simply does not work. We know that. More days are lost to industrial action in countries that have those provisions than in the UK today. It was a Tory adviser that has told us that those provisions promise more strikes than they mitigate. Of course, trade unions have already put in place agreements and arrangements to ensure that when exercising their basic human rights and withdrawing their labour in order to protect, that is what they are doing, the safe delivery of lifeline public services. They have agreements to make sure that lifeline services are protected in this country. That legislation is part of what is an incessant attempt to draw labour into culture war dividing lines that pit one part of our country against another. Sewing division and hatred with manufactured controversies in order to do anything at all to distract from their disastrous record of incompetence, corruption and party division. We would cite getting the woke out of academia and made up war on motorists, fictitious taxes on meat, the seven deadly bins, the war on tofu and on chai latties, the despicable and now farcical Rwanda policy. The Prime Minister's infected and infantile tantrum over the Elgin marbles, summoning a far-right mob to the cenotaph when we are remembering our dead. Is there no depth, Presiding Officer, to which this Conservative Government will not sink? No issue of respect of decency that remains sacrosanct in their desperate attempts to change the conversation from their economic vandalism and the shockingly weak leadership of a Prime Minister waiting now to be put out of misery by the electorate if his own party doesn't get them first. In contrast to all of this, it was right of Bill Kidd to remind us and this chamber of the moral contribution of trade unions such as fighting apartheid in South Africa. I would also commend Keith Brown MSP for what I thought was a single, very important contribution in his speech. The reminder that the suppression of wages in the UK due to Tory austerity lessens the bargaining power of workers in Scotland and their fight for better wages from this Government and against private companies as well. In essence, that attacks on workers anywhere is attack on workers everywhere. That is a fundamental premise of what trade unionism is about. I am afraid at that point that Mr Brown's contribution went downhill somewhat. It is fundamental for the SNP to understand that the struggle for workers' rights is never won. It is not won by one piece of legislation. It has to be re-won every single day. That is why we are members of trade unions. I proudly remind the chamber of my register of interests as a trade union member since I was able to join. I thank Michael Marra for taking intervention. Will he acknowledge the point that I am trying to make? He is right to say that it is never won, but it is surely much more secure if this Parliament has the powers over these issues so that they cannot simply be trumped by the election of another Tory Government in the future. Why can he just support that, as Labour Party used to do a few months ago? I remind Mr Brown that not everybody in this country is immune to the appeal of right-wing populism. I do not think that he has to look very far from the recent split in his own party and the emergence of ALBA as to what the appeal of some of these people can be. People who take those views no matter what they might like or object to in a democracy has a struggle that has to be re-won time and time again. Independence has no salve to that. It is an argument that will have to be made and won by its progressive parties in this country until we run out of democracy. I would say then that you have to consider, and I thought that it was a very timely and typically impassioned contribution from Carl Mocken to endorse the position of the TUC and the STUC talking about the generational transformative nature of Labour's proposed new deal for working people. I would say to members of the Green Party and the SNP genuinely that if you want to support something, you have to vote for it. If you want this legislation repealed, then you are going to have to vote for a Government that is going to do it. I would say to them that you have to exert pressure if you do not trust the Labour Party. Tell us in this vote today what we should be doing. You say that these are things that you believe in, then good God vote for them. I would also say that the governing party does have much work to do when we talk about fair work. Despite the Government committing to making Scotland a leading fair work nation by 2025, the fair work convention just last month described Scotland's performance as mixed. According to that same convention, Scotland ranks fifth out of nine of comparator small countries. Our disability employment gap is 31 per cent, second bottom of that list of comparator countries. 29 per cent of workers in non-permanent work are there by choice. That figure is 4 per cent in Austria and 7 per cent in Iceland, so so much more that needs to be done by this Government, by all progressive parties across the country who claim that name. The right to withhold one's Labour is a fundamental human right, and it is essential to the fabric of our society and our economy, which depends on a healthy and safe workforce. The two things in this country that have secured the most in workers' rights are the right to strike, industrial action and the achievements that have been won under Labour governments. Those freedoms are hard fought for and hard won. Trade unions and the Labour movement more broadly have an unrelenting task in holding back that Tory tide of anti-worker policies. On that basis, I would say that the position that the Tories take and their amendment is furious, and I beg and really implore the people on these benches and the SNP and the Greens to vote for what they claim they believe in. I now call on Brian Whittle to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. This has been a debate with lots of sound and fury, but not a lot of substance. Of course, that is what the SNP were probably aiming for, because sound and fury is good if you are trying to cover the deafening silence on how the Scottish Government proposed to deal with the abysmal pacer scores and NHS in crisis in years of economic mismanagement coming home to roost. Murdoff Fraser and Liam Kerr forensically dismantled the cabinet secretary's position and, quite frankly, made this debate the farce that it actually is, because today is just another example of the SNP filling the void of competence with righteous indignation, leaving opposition benches to bring forward devolved topics, as highlighted by Liam Kerr. I turn to the subject of today's debate. I do not propose to spend much time highlighting how disingenuous the SNP motion is, not least of all because my colleagues Murdoff Fraser and Liam Kerr have already done this. However, it is said to me that the SNP is attempting to outlabor Labour. As Liam Kerr noted, at least Labour is consistent in its approach, however much we may think that it is flawed. However, I do think that we need to draw a distinction between workers' rights and trade union powers, because they are not the same, even if it benefits some to suggest that they are. Let's be clear. The Scottish Conservatives support workers' rights, as do all Conservatives. The first health and safety measures for working with machinery, the decriminalisation of trade union liability and legalising of picketing, the introduction of paid holidays and the rights against unfair dismissal are all a few of the improvements to workers' rights brought in by Conservative governments. The legislation is not about eroding workers' rights. It is about showing that everyone, workers and all, can still rely on a basic level of essential public services during industrial disputes. It is about ensuring that when the trade union takes forward the nuclear option of strike action, the disruption caused is not disproportionate. We are not talking about banning strike action, we are talking about reducing the potential for indirect harms as a result of strike action. Of course, there is a hugely important place for trade unions in Scotland to stand up for workers and when necessary to take forward strike action, but the debate that we are having on this issue is driven by the Scottish Government's unwillingness to do anything that risks upsetting trade unions. The nature of relations between employer and employee always comes with a certain level of tension and continual debate about its balance. In this case, Liz Smith said that we are talking about the balance between the right of those providing essential public services and healthcare education public transport to strike and the right of the wider public to expect those public services to be available when they need them. Strike action is, at its most basic level, a tool of leverage in negotiation. The right to deny your labour in protest at unfair treatment is one of the most basic rights any worker has, and to place restrictions on it is not something any Government should do lightly. However, there has long been a recognition that the right to strike is not absolute. Police officers are not permitted to strike. Secondary strikes and sympathy with other strikes are against the law and so on. Similarly, legislation on minimum service levels is not unique to the right-to-kingdom, as Murdoff Fraser and Liam Kerr have alluded to. I find it strange, as Liam Kerr said, for a Scottish Government to take. I appreciate the member giving way. Can he tell us then what has happened over the last two years that requires the dial to be moved further in the direction of further restrictions? What are the instances that he feels where they have been harmed to the public that has resulted from that industrial action? I do not accept that the dial has moved. That is about striking a balance. We need to strike a balance, and that is always a debate that is going to be had. We are always going to have that debate. There is always a tension between that. The process of writing to Mr Marra for missing the opening of his speech. In seeking to get the balance right in response to Michael Marra, why on earth would the Conservative Party be willing to see the universal opposition that there has been from the trade union movement, not just domestically but internationally, to those bills, if this is about getting the balance right because it is quite clearly getting the balance wrong? What a surprise that the trade unions are against this. I will give you a little indication, but you have to take the contrary position sometimes, assuming that you are doing negotiations. It is something that, when you are taking hard decisions, we can avoid strike action. I am going to come on to that a little bit if I may, Cabinet Secretary. There are those who argue that any legislation limiting the rights of trade unions to launch strike action are unfair, that they are harmful to industrial relations, but I would argue that there is a responsibility of any Government to weigh that harm against the potential harm and disruption from the loss, even temporarily, of key public services. Government, like any employer, has a balance to strike between spending on its workforce to provide good paying conditions and spending on other costs. There is a balance between decisions that benefit the short term and those that are right for the long term. No Government can credibly satisfy all of the people all of the time, but in the SNP we see a Government that consistently prioritised a short term game even when it stores up long term pain. That unwillingness to make hard choices, Cabinet Secretary, for the long term has consequences for all of us. While the SNP has been quick to pat itself in the back every time it avoids strike action when the rest of the UK did not, that comes at a cost, specifically at a public sector wage bill that is predicted to have risen by at least £1.7 billion more than anticipated on the back of settlements that sit well outside of the Government's own public sector pay policy. Regardless of whether you believe that those pay deals were at the right level or not, that is a bill that has to be paid. Whether it is a lack of willingness or a lack of ability to take a firm negotiating line with trade unions, the outcome is the same. The actions of this Scottish Government will leave the public paying the price, of course. Cabinet Secretary, I do not know if Mr Whittle has recognised that there has been a UK cost crisis in aspiring inflation in the UK that meant that it is absolutely right that we seek to give fair pay settlements to public sector workers, which I would have hoped Mr Whittle would have agreed is the right thing to do. By giving front-line public service workers more money in their pay, it is also supporting the economy, as particularly low-paid workers spend disproportionately more in their local economies, thus supporting local businesses in their communities. It is a virtuous thing to be doing. It will be interesting to have that conversation after we see the budget next week, when you have a £1.5 billion black hole to fill, spending money that you do not have. You can negotiate. If people want to intervene, they know how to do that. Otherwise, the person who has the floor has the floor and we do not need secondary commentary. While the legislation that is being debated today asks us to consider the balance between the public's right to essential services and the right to trade unions to disrupt those services in pursuit of a better deal for those who provide them, it also raises the wider question of how the Scottish Government balances its priorities. What we have here is more evidence, if they were needed, that the SNP Government has its priorities all wrong. Just days before a budget that looks set to tell everyone in Scotland that they will pay the price for the SNP's economic incompetence, they have chosen to waste a debate in this chamber, taking potshots at the UK Government. On a piece of legislation that, as Murdo Fraser pointed out, the Scottish Government has already said that it will not apply. That is the distraction, the Scottish Government put even half of its effort into political gameplay and supporting Scotland's businesses would be in a far better place. Instead, we see yet again that the only economy that grows under the SNP is the grievance economy. I now call on Marie Todd to close on behalf of the Scottish Government. Today's valuable debate has highlighted two important points. The first is the essential progressive role that trade unions play in delivering our fair work and our economic wellbeing ambitions. Secondly, a discernible trend has emerged over the years under this Tory Government, characterised by the persistent erosion of workers' rights, which this Government will continue to defend against where we have the power to do so. I always will be a strong supporter of trade unions in their right. In my current portfolio in social care, I want the unions to be a key partner to help us to build a strong national care service. As we move forward, our commitment to partnership with trade unions remains unwavering and we will persist in advocating for the devolution of employment powers. It is heartening to note a growing recognition of the pressing need for this crucial step among the wider trade union movement and the Scottish Parliament. However, it is disappointing to note that, despite the growing recognition among the Labour movement in Scotland that those powers should be devolved, senior UK Labour politicians continue to side with the Conservatives to block it. Labour's deputy leader Angela Rainer and shadow debt secretary Ian Murray have both in recent months rolled out supporting the devolution of employment law to this Parliament. I hope that Scottish Labour colleagues in this chamber will continue to encourage their colleagues at Westminster to support our calls. I am certainly welcome to the point that she makes about trade unions being a partner in stopping her disastrous policies on the national care service, as they do. It is right that she listened to them. The Labour amendment sets out a series of principles that should be delivered in government. The idea that our backbenchers are saying that you should not vote for something because you do not think that it is going to happen is a very strange position to take. Minister, the Labour amendment asks us to have trust that it will win the general election. That is a big if. It asks us to have trust that, if it wins, it will repeal the legislation. Again, that is a big if. Forgive me if myself and my colleagues are not content to wait for our neighbours in England to vote in a Labour Government occasionally in order to fix this problem. That has been my life experience. I was seven years old when Margaret Thatcher took power in the UK. Forty-three years on, we have had a Labour Government for 13 years. That intervening 43-year period Scotland has never voted for a Tory Government, but it gets a Tory Government time and time and time again if England votes for it. I do appreciate the minister giving way again. I do not want to wait as short a time as possible for this legislation to be repealed. Do you not agree with me that there is more of a chance of that in a general election next year than there is in the idea that we might have independence sometimes in the next decade? Is the shortest time possible to get this legislation repealed is to get a Labour Government? Why should we not back it in the amendment tonight? Minister, Labour has failed to devolve employment law to Scotland. The full devolution of employment law to the Scottish Parliament would enable us to pursue fair work goals such as setting the minimum wage. Improving the gender pay gap reporting. Those powers would enable us to create workplaces that are fairer, that bolster workers' rights in Scotland and contribute to combating poverty. That is what Scottish people want. That is what Scottish people keep voting for. Yes, we would like to go a step further on those benches, because only with independence will Scotland have the full range of economic and other policies. To take decisions based on Scotland's own needs, a new approach to fair work could be developed in an independent Scotland with full control over employment law, equality legislation, industrial relations and social security, enabling us to tackle inequalities. With independence, we would have the power to introduce progressive measures like a real living wage, an increased statutory sick pay. Independence would enable us to grow a green economy, tackle poverty head on, create opportunities to thrive, giving us the chance to replicate the success of our neighbouring countries, which are so much more prosperous, so much more productive and so much fairer than the UK. That debate has confirmed widespread opposition to the most recent of the UK Government's anti-union legislation. Yes, I'll take an intervention. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I hope she was here when I was speaking. What we're trying to do is come to some agreement. If I was to stand here and say that my son has lived his entire life under an SNP Government and I'm not sure that he's getting the delivery that he deserves in terms of education, I could go over all of these things. What we're asking is, there is something that we can come together and agree that would make a big difference in the short term. Would you come together with us on that point? Let me be clear that there is a lot of consensus between us and Labour on this issue. We, absolutely, along with the Welsh Government, the STUC and the TUC oppose this. It is opposed by Westminster Opposition parties, the House of Lords and even drew criticism from members of the Conservative Party itself as it was going through Parliament. As my colleagues stated at the outset, during a cost-of-living crisis, the Government should be working with the public sector and the trade unions to reach fair and reasonable sentiments, respecting the legitimate interests of workers, not seeking to curb that right to strike. I've spoken, I've tried to explain to my Conservative colleagues that it's not at all clear for rail transport that people working on the Glasgow subway, on the Edinburgh trams, on ScotRail and the Caledonian Sleeper for Network Rail will be protected from this minimum service legislation. However, let me speak very clearly about the health service. The consultation on minimum service levels for hospital levels that was just closed on 14 November was for hospital services in England, in Scotland and in Wales. That is a reality. The member is shouting from a sedentary position that is nonsense. It is absolutely true. The UK Government has consulted GBW, not Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. We are expected to trust that the precedent of non-application in Scotland that applied within the ambulance service regulations will be followed within the upcoming hospital service regulations. The decision to introduce in Scotland or not, unlike the position put forward by my Conservative colleagues, is entirely up to the Secretary of State. In this case, on the hospital regulations, that means it is Victoria Atkins who makes the decision, not the Scottish Government that makes the decision. It is entirely unclear what will happen if health boards do not issue work notices. We do not know what will happen after that. I reiterate that this Government remains strongly opposed to the strikes, the minimum service levels act and any associated secondary legislation that could be applied in Scotland and therefore encroach on devolved services. We view that legislation as unnecessary, unwanted and ineffective. It seeks to undermine legitimate trade union activity and it does not respect fair work principles. The Scottish Government firmly believes that a progressive approach to industrial relations and trade unionism is absolutely at the heart of a fairer, more successful approach. The right to strike for fair pay and for safe work conditions should be an integral part of the rights of citizens in Scotland and right across the UK. We are committed to working with the S2UC and affiliates in responding to the cost of living crisis, creating a wellbeing economy and working towards a just transition to net zero in complete contrast. We are committed to the UK Government, which continues to take an anti-trade union and an anti-fair work stance. Our distinct approach is based on partnership work and our endorsement of the fair work conventions framework. We call on this Parliament to recognise and endorse that approach. The minimum service levels act 2023 in Scotland and it is now time to move on to the next item of business. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now and I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business and can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Daniel Johnson will fall. The first question is that amendment 11652.1 in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion 11652 in the name of Neil Gray, on application of the strikes minimum service levels act 2023 in Scotland be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.