 attitudes adegries from the Cabinet Secretary. My apologies to the two members that I simply did not have time to call.— The next item of business is a debate on motion number 14766 in the name Of Probably Rouzanna Cunningham on the encontraideo June bill, Members who wish to take part in�are the debate should press the request sing button now and will give a few seconds for the front Is to change position. will give a few seconds for the front Benchers to I call on rouzanna cunningham to speak to and move the motionyoruminaitsechery maximum 14 minutes, please. I have asked for this debate today, as I believe that the UK Government's trade union bill presents a threat to the fundamental rights of workers and an unacceptable threat to Scotland's approach to industrial relations. Let me cut to the chase. There is no part of this bill that we think is a good idea and we think that the whole bill is a thoroughly bad idea. It is bad for workers, it is bad for business and it is bad for Scotland. For that reason, I have asked the UK Government to exclude Scotland from the bill in its entirety. However, if it is unwilling to exclude us, I have now also made it clear that the UK Government should seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament before attempting to impose this ill-thought through legislation in Scotland. I have asked our legal advisers to explore several possible bases for a legislative consent memorandum and motion. The first of those comes from a letter written by the UK Minister of State for Skills Nick Boles on 22 October to the lead bill committee at Westminster. That letter suggested that secretaries of state should be given responsibility to make regulations to impose public requirements on employers in their portfolios. On this basis, Scottish ministers would be responsible for making those decisions in Scotland, for example in relation to health services bodies and local authorities. My second concern is about the impact on public authorities in Scotland, which are largely devolved, in particular the impact on the assets of public authorities, including their employment contracts and good industrial relations. My third concern to explore is whether the bill breaches the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. Arguments put to me by both the STUC and in a highly significant move at the Law Society of Scotland indicate that that may be the case. Finally, we also believe that the trade union bill impacts upon the Agricultural Wages Scotland Act 1949, which is a devolved area of responsibility, in particular the section of that act that relates to the terms and conditions of employment for workers employed in agriculture. All of those issues may give grounds for the Parliament to seek consent, but we must be aware that this is uncharted territory. We have never before been in the position where both the UK and Scottish Governments have not had an agreement on issues of legislative consent. That is indicative of the importance of that bill, but unfortunately the lack of dialogue from the UK Government before that was introduced. It will ultimately be a matter for the parliamentary authorities to decide on the need for a consent motion, but let me be clear today that the political will of this Government is clear. In my view, it is entirely right that this chamber has the opportunity to vote on legislation, which I believe is aggressive, regressive and an unwarranted ideological attack on workers' rights. It is a bill that is not supported by any evidence but is driven by dogma. Instead, it is a bill designed to undermine the trade union movement. I believe that many in this chamber today will share my concerns. I am disappointed, if not surprised, to note that at no point ahead of publishing the bill did the UK Government seek our views on how those measures will apply to Scotland. That legislation, unless amended, will undoubtedly have an impact on how many of our public sector bodies will operate in areas of devolved responsibility. The UK Government has made no attempt to understand the Scottish position and it has made no attempt to address the concerns that we have raised. That stance was very evident on Tuesday, 13 October, when I, together with Graham Smith from the STUC, gave evidence to the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Bill, an interesting experience worth a whole different speech, it has to be said. Tory members on that committee made it crystal clear that they had not the slightest interest in the potential impact of this bill. They intend to legislate regardless of any consequences. That is just not acceptable. It does not reflect a mature devolution settlement and it is one of the reasons why I have asked that Scotland be excluded from the legislation altogether. At the very least, given the significant impact that it will have, I believe that the UK Government should have to seek the approval of this Parliament before enforcing this legislation in Scotland. Our programme for government sets out a vision for Scotland to be the best place in the UK to do business. Our economic strategy outlines our plans to develop a Scotland where everyone can reap the benefits of an inclusive, growing economy. Our commitment to fair work is central to those aspirations and this must be built on a progressive approach to industrial relations that delivers a fairer, more successful society. Of course, this is the approach taken by many of the most successful European countries. Trade unions are key social partners. There is clear evidence that unionised workplaces have more engaged staff, have a higher level of staff training and a progressive approach to staff wellbeing. As a cabinet secretary for fair work, part of my role is to ensure that Scotland takes a progressive approach in the area of employment rights, something that I am absolutely committed to doing. Since the start of this administration in 2007, industrial disputes in Scotland have decreased by 84 per cent. The Scottish trend in days lost to industrial disputes is the lowest of all the UK nations and this is a reflection, I believe, of our commitment to effective industrial relations in Scotland. Our strategy underlines the belief that a progressive approach to industrial relations and trade unionism is at the very heart of a fairer, more successful society. The proposals that are set out in the trade union bill are totally at odds with this approach. If enacted as it is just now, my real fear is that the bill will destabilise the balance of the employer-employee relationship. That will make it more difficult for employees to have their voice heard. It will encourage conflict with unions and make employees feel further removed from their working environment. Last year's Working Together review, chaired by former Enterprise Minister Jim Mather, highlighted the importance of unions to the success of both businesses and their workers. We have already undertaken many of the review recommendations and earlier this year I set out how all of the recommendations would be taken forward. That included additional funding for the STC, part of which will be used to support unions in developing their leadership capacity. That is an important sign of our commitment to supporting the positive role of unions in the workplace. We would rather bring unions, employees and employers together in a more constructive dialogue. The Fair Work Convention shows how we are doing that in practice, asking unions and employers to work together to develop a shared framework for fair work by March 2016. Just this week, I received a letter from the co-chairs of that convention setting out their concerns that the trade union bill risks undermining the constructive relationships between employers and unions that form the foundations for the fair work approach, and I deeply share their reservations. The importance of employment rights must not be understated. They serve not only to protect the opportunity and dignity of individual employees, but to strengthen our workforce, workplaces and our economy. In that statement on the UK Government proposals, campaign organisation Liberty says the bill and I quote, represents a significant, unnecessary and unjustified intrusion by the state into the freedom of association and assembly of trade union members, undermine the right to private and family life and jeopardise the UK's important history of supporting peaceful protest. As Liberty also points out, it is difficult to identify any evidence for the bill proposals. Even the UK Government's own regulatory policy committee has described the impact assessment supporting the bill as, I quote, not fit for purpose, and highlights a severe lack of evidence to support the Tory's proposed legislation. There is a clear recurring theme here. Far from increasing turnout and democratising the ballot system, the legislation will serve only to make it almost impossible for union members to withdraw their labour, suppressing the capabilities of organised labour. Further, the bill's reduction in mandate time of any ballot would not allow for constructive dialogue to seek mutually beneficial solutions. Instead, in all likelihood, it will deliver earlier negotiation breakdown or premature action being taken, none of which ffosters effective industrial relations in partnership. Employees must have the ability to demonstrate appropriately through strike action. Bringing in untrained agency workers raises health and safety risk issues with untrained or unqualified staff being brought in to deliver the roles of striking staff. I'm appalled by the UK Government proposal of ancient agency workers to cover a valid withdrawal of labour. The Scottish Government fundamentally opposes bringing in agency staff to cover strike action, and I can make a guarantee today that we will simply not use agency workers to do so. We have worked hard to engender a mature, positive relationship of respect and partnership with the unions that represent public service workers, where there is a devolved responsibility. Similar concerns are shared across the wider public sector, not least with the proposals to limit facility time in the public sector. Facility time is an essential element required to support a partnership working approach between employer and unions, and its use varies across organisations. Employers have regularly told me of how they can call on union reps to discuss not only big changes within the workplace but also how to effectively manage the day-to-day business and the restrictions that are proposed to facility time and to check off for the public sector under the guise of value for money for the taxpayer are unfounded. Far from offering better value, those restrictions will disadvantage our public services and those who work within them, resulting in a greater cost to the taxpayer. The fact alone supports a position that it should be for individual employers to determine the services that they provide in order to support the type of industrial relations that they seek. Scottish ministers should be able to determine how we deliver our effective Scottish public services and we will continue to do so. So much of how this proposed legislation will impact remains unclear and there is significant scope for abuse in the future. The bill is being rushed through the Westminster parliamentary system with little regard to our constitutional interest or devolved differences. Extensive parts of the bill are to be set out in regulations with no formal opportunity for the Scottish Government or this Parliament to influence. It is almost as if Westminster is legislating for a perceived English problem though I would dispute it is even that and has just decided to impose their deeply flawed solution on Scotland and the other devolved nations with no regard whatsoever as to the need or consequences. This is shoddy, shabby Government. I am sure that the majority of those in the chamber share my grave concerns. I propose that all parties stand together and opposing this bill and stand up for the working rights of our people. We will continue to support our public services and do every single thing that we can to stop this bill. It is essential that we work as part of a united effort to oppose the bill as it passes through both houses. On that basis, we must continue to make the case for a more positive approach. I do not think that we should be giving up on that. As the First Minister has made clear, the Scottish Government has no intention of co-operating with a bill that breaches the rights of trade union members. For now, I think that we must focus on getting Scotland excluded from this bill completely. If that is not possible, then I propose that the Parliament must send a clear message that parliamentary consent should be sought before enacting this legislation in Scotland. I commend this motion. I rise to move the amendment in my name and to support the Scottish Government motion. I wish to declare an interest in that I am a member of Unite the Union. Indeed, I have been a member of a trade union every day of my adult life. My grandfather was a trade union activist. My father was secretary of his local branch. I was a teacher. I was a school rep for the EIS. When I worked for Oxfam, I was a TGWU negotiating rep on the joint trade union shop, negotiating salaries and terms for thousands of staff across dozens of countries. I still keep, with great pride, a Founder member's card for the ONP, the Mozambican teacher's union, set up while I worked there in the early 80s. I appreciate that none of that makes me a horny-handed son of Toil, nor is it meant to be what the poet Tom Leonard would call the bunnet hustling. It is simply to demonstrate that trade unionism is a part of me and who I am. That is true for pretty well all of my colleagues on these benches and someone other benches too, I know. It is true of the mining communities that I serve and the party that I represent, founded by a trade unionist, Keir Hardie, so that the values and purpose of trade unionism would find political expression in Parliament. It is true of Scotland, past and present. One of the great deceits of the attack on trade unionism that this bill represents is to try and characterise trade unions as being solely about industrial conflict, strikes and pickets. In truth, they are about the fundamental right of workers and their families to organise in solidarity with each other for the betterment of all. That wider role of trade unions is exactly what underpins the Government's working together review and the inception of the fair work convention that the minister referred to. That, to their credit, brings together Government unions and employers in a constructive partnership for the future. Meanwhile, the Tory Government produces this bill. Whatever it pretends to be, it is aimed at undermining the capacity of trade unions to organise, its purpose is to disable and even destroy the trade union movement and especially public sector trade unions. After all, if its purpose were solely to limit industrial action, why on earth would it be brought forward now? 35 years ago, as many as 29 million working days were lost to strike action in a single year, it is barely a hundredth of that now and two thirds of strikes, which do take place nowadays, last only for a day. The inference that the trade union movement is somehow one of mindless militancy is just absurd. Industrial action already requires the support of members in ballots and the bill's attempt to impose thresholds on those ballots, thresholds that no elected politician would countenance when it came to their own election. Those are an anti-democratic outrage. Removing the ban on agency workers, replacing strikers is an attempt to turn industrial relations not just back to the last century but to the one before. In restrictions on facility time, compromising the right of a representative to have time off for trade union work, that is a naked attempt to undermine the day-to-day work of union reps representing their members. That is a wide range of representation, health and safety reps, trade union learning reps as well as representation in grievances and disputes. The barriers proposed for unions to collect subs through check-off and to maintain a political fund are a straightforward attack on the capacity of trade unions to retain members and to campaign on their behalf. While that might well have consequences for the funding of the Labour Party, driving a coach in horses through the convention against partisan action on party funding—a convention going all the way back to Churchill—make no mistake, that is not just an issue for those unions affiliated to Labour. My old union EIS is not, nor I fear ever likely to affiliate to the Labour Party, but it maintains a political fund to campaign on behalf of its members on education issues, on poverty and on cuts to public expenditure. There can be no doubt that this bill is not designed to regulate the trade union movement, it is designed to undermine it. It is one of a suite of measures from scrapping the human rights act to gagging charities, to restricting freedom of information, which adds up to a wider agenda by the Tory Government to curb democratic rights and to compromise civil liberties. It should be opposed in Westminster, it should be resisted in local authorities, many of whom are following Labour Glasgow's lead in declaring that they will not co-operate with its measures. It should be formally resisted in this chamber too, and I agree with the minister on that. Employment law is reserved, but we believe that the impact of some of this bill on the executive competence of the Scottish Government does mean that it should require a legislative consent motion in this Parliament. That was the view of the minister when she gave evidence on the trade union bill in Westminster. It is her view today, and we agree, as do Unison and the STUC. Like the minister, I have sought legal guidance, and Patrick Maguire of Thomson's solicitors has said to me in an email this week. At the highest level, an LCM is a means by which the Scottish Parliament can express the will of the Scottish electorate in relation to matters of Westminster legislation, which impact on devolved matters or key powers of the Parliament and Scottish Government as given to them by the Scotland Act. An LCM is not a power, it has a right to express that will. Standing orders of the Scottish Parliament should be interpreted against that background. The Scottish Government is given significant statutory and budgetary powers to employ staff. The power to employ staff and determine that staff's terms and conditions is a key executive power and an essential issue of executive competence. The trade union bill significantly impacts upon and undermines the Scottish Government's executive power and competence in relation to employing staff in that context. Accordingly, in that context, the Scottish Parliament should certainly have the right to debate an LCM on the relevant provisions of the trade union bill. I have therefore written with this advice to the head of the parliamentary business team and asked the clerks to investigate whether an LCM would be relevant in the context of this bill, explaining why I believe that it is competent and required. If it is, I would propose to bring one forward at the earliest opportunity or indeed to support the Government should they feel able to do that to. I believe that this chamber will say no to the trade union bill this evening, but we should and must find a way to say no formally to. That most unbaked teachers trade union I joined years ago was new because that was a country trying to build freedom and civil society from the legacy of colonialism. All nations who seek to build a democratic society based on rights know that they need strong and free trade unions. How much more should we, so proud of our long established democratic credentials, understand and defend the importance of trade unions, free to organise, free to act in defence of their members and free to argue for the improvement of society for all? The trade union movement is right to reject this bill and we should stand tonight for square in solidarity with them. Many thanks. I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak to you under move amendment 14766.1, maximum six minutes, Mr Fraser. I believe that trade unions are an important and valuable part of society and I have written as much in the past. The trade union movement has a proud history of campaigning for workers' rights to improve health and safety in the workplace in representing members when they are in need of support. The concept of trade unions as voluntary associations is entirely in tune with Conservative philosophy. They are partners in progress in creating a stronger society one with good-quality jobs, fair conditions and decent levels of pay. That said, there are real concerns about the balance between the right to strike and the misery that such an action will cause to the public, particularly when we are dealing with vital public services such as the NHS, the fire service, transport and schools. That is why the trade union bill has been brought forward at Westminster. There was, I remind the chamber, a very clear pledge in the Conservative manifesto for the recent general election to legislate in this area. I appreciate that other parties, given their track record, might be confused when a Government is elected, which then endeavours to keep its promises made prior to an election. However, that is exactly what the Conservative Government is doing. If it is to be challenged for that, then the appropriate place for that is in the House of Commons. This is the second week in a row. The second Tuesday afternoon in a row where we are having a debate on a reserved issue. The trade union bill, whatever its merits are otherwise, is currently being considered by Scotland's other Parliament at Westminster. For the second week in a row, we are devoting a large part of Tuesday afternoon to discussing a matter that is properly the responsibility of another Parliament and where the matter is currently being actively debated, as the cabinet secretary... Yes, I will give way to... Neil Findlay. Do you accept that the bill impacts on public services in Scotland, like the fire brigade, like local government, like the NHS, and that this Parliament has the right to express its view on this bill? Mr Findlay is well aware, as Mr Gray has just stated, that employment law is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament. I do not remember Mr Findlay's colleagues in the Smith commission arguing when that matter came to the Smith commission that this should be a matter that should be devolved. Indeed, a wide range of people who gave evidence to the Smith commission, including employers' organisations, business organisations and workers' organisations, including the trade union congress, argued that employment law should continue to be reserved. Is there any reason why the Scottish Government is spending so much time talking about reserved issues? Could it possibly be that its record on devolved matters is such a dismal one, whether that is in the area of education, or the health service, or justice, the list of failures are piling up? Why are we not spending our time discussing those matters, rather than matters that are properly the reserve of Westminster? There are, after all, 59 Scottish members of Parliament in the House of Commons, whose job it is to represent the views of their constituents in those matters. Maybe the Scottish Government believes that 56 or 55 of those representatives are so inept that they cannot make the case to stand up for Scotland, so the Scottish Government has to bypass them entirely and bring reserved matters for debate in the chamber. However, that chamber should not be duplicating the work of the House of Commons. Order, please. Mr Harvie, was that a point of order? All right. Well, that is up to Mr Fraser. No, thank you. I am going to make some progress. I want to get on to the substance of the trade union bill. Let me deal briefly with the essential elements in the trade union bill, just to put those on the record. The Conservative manifesto commitment was that strikes should only ever be the result of a clear, positive decision based on the ballot in which half the workforce had voted. The turnout threshold is an important and fair step to rebalance the interests of employers, employees, the public and the rights of trade unions. In relation to essential public services such as health, education, fire and transport, industrial action in these essential services would require the support from at least 40 per cent of all those entitles to take part in strike ballots, as well as a majority of those who are actually turning out to vote. There are numerous examples in the past of strikes in essential services that have gone ahead with a very poor level of support from members. Unison balances its members in NHS England, including nurses, paramedics and cooks in September 2014 for strike action. Just 16 per cent of those voted, and 11 per cent of all union members voted in favour. Last year's tube strikes in London were voted for by fewer than one-third of RMT union members. The National Union of Teachers in England voted for strike action in September 2012, with only 27 per cent voting and only 22 per cent of all union members voting in favour of a strike. The important issue is that these strikes affect everyone. Strikes in education are hugely disruptive, not just for children, but for parents having to make alternative childcare arrangements. Because of the public inconvenience, there is a clear public interest in ensuring that strikes that are held do require substantial support within a trade union. Ian Gray referred to the turnout in general elections where members of Parliament and other representatives are elected. However, there is an important difference between those and strike ballots in trade unions in essential services. Everyone has the right to vote in a general election. Some people choose not to use that vote, but that is their choice. However, a contrast, everyone can be affected by strikes in essential services, but only a small minority of union members have the right to call a strike. The UK Government has made it very clear that it is happy to bring forward amendments to the bill in order to address some of the concerns that have been raised in this debate and elsewhere. It will be happy to do so in response to concerns that are aired in the House of Commons, which is the appropriate forum for discussing these matters. I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name. Thank you. We now turn to the open debate. I am afraid we are rather tight for time this afternoon. Speech is at this stage. Maximum of six minutes, please. Linda Fabiani to be followed by Johann Lamont. During the Smith commission negotiation, Civic Scotland called for devolution actions covering various aspects of what we are discussing today. The STUC called for devolution of employment law, health and safety, trade union law and the minimum wage. Children first called for devolution of employment rights and conditions to thus create a much more family friendly employment regime. Ingender and the equalities organisations called for devolution of equalities legislation. The SNP and the Greens, unfortunately, weren't supported in these demands during the Smith commission negotiations. As we can see as the Scotland bill progresses through Westminster, there appears no wish there to change that position. Therefore, we must recognise where we are with proposed legislation that, in the words of Graeme Smith of the STUC, is vindictive, unfair and unnecessary. We have to debate that position and move forward as united as possible in this Parliament imposing the attack by the Conservatives on, as Rosanna Cunningham says, the fundamental rights of workers to organise bargain collectively and, if necessary, withdraw their labour. Fundamental rights that have been marched for and fought for by men and women right across our land. For that reason alone, I would be opposed to the trade union bill. Ian Gray's amendment states that free and healthy trade unions are an important element of a modern democracy. Yes, they are. The Conservative Government must recognise that, but they wish their ideology to be unchallenged as often as possible. For that reason alone, I would be opposed to the trade union bill. Those issues of ballots, picketing opt-in facility time, check-off, industrial action have been discussed right across the country, continue to be discussed. Neil Findlay MSP and myself spoke recently at a well-attended South Lanarkshire trades council meeting in East Kilbride, along with South Lanarkshire council councillors and the STUC. It was interesting that the man that shared that meeting, John Keenan of the trades council, was one of the three East Kilbride folk that worked in Rolls Royce and during Pinochet's regime in Chile refused to work on the engines to allow people to be murdered by Pinochet during that terrible regime. I wonder, thinking about where the Tories would go next with their legislation if they get this trade union bill through, what would have happened to the likes of John Keenan and his friends who took that very, very principled stand and took a right stand against their employer and were protected by their union. It was very obvious to those who attended that meeting that what they have here is an absolutely deliberate attack by the UK Government to undermine trade unions and therefore workers. It was also obvious to those who attended that the Scottish Government has a very, very different way of doing things. The Scottish Government views trade unions as partners, not opponents. We have seen that in lots of various ways, and perhaps I could expand that as well. I do not just mean that the Scottish Government does that. I think that most MSPs in this chamber and I think that, in fact, most of Scotland views trade unions as part of the fabric of our society and as partners and not as opponents. The current Government here has shown that in various ways, further action to promote the real living wage through providing funding for the living wage foundation and through its public sector pay policy. The Scottish business pledge key social partners are the trade unions. In fact, the Scottish Government has a memorandum of understanding with the STUC. It seems to me that this trade union bill, as well as just being an absolute attack on workers' rights and wanting to be able to ride a rough shod over all sorts of things, is also another example of the UK Government seeking to interfere with devolved Administrations, local authorities and, in fact, public bodies' rights to determine their own industrial relations. It has been part of a wider programme when you look at what the Tories have been up to to restrict employees' rights. Removing legal aid access for personal injury claims? Changes to unfair dismissal? Now that you have to be employed for two years before you can meet the qualifying period for unfair dismissal? Changes to employment tribunals, restricting access to workplace justice by imposing tribunal fees? It is all part of the great plan, as far as I am concerned, and what it looks like is that we are going back to the dark ages here, we are going back to the times that the likes of Orwell and Tressill wrote about, and we have to guard against this so very, very much, because once you lose those hand-earned rights, it is very difficult to get them back. So the Scottish Government has called for Scotland to be excluded from the trade union bill. It has also been very clear from the SNP's point of view that, while that progresses through the House of Commons, we will take absolutely every opportunity to oppose it at every stage. I know that most MSPs in the chamber will back us and join us in that. I thank my staff members to keep to their six minutes on my afraid other members will lose out in speaking in the debate. Do Ann Lamont to be followed by Gordon MacDonald? Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I, in rising to speak, declare an interest as a member of the EIS and of United Union? It was as a young school teacher. I joined the EIS not just to protect my terms and conditions, but because I believed that it was an opportunity to shape educational thinking and opportunities for our young people. Today, we must look at what action we can take here and commend the work of local councils driven particularly by Labour councils to look at how we can protect people. However, it is also a question of solidarity with people right across the United Kingdom who need the support of trade unions in their everyday lives. It is always useful when looking at legislation to explore its purpose. I have to confess that if the trade union bill is the answer, what on earth is the question? For it is an answer that makes it more difficult for people to be members of trade unions, more difficult for trade unions to support their members to influence, cooperate with or challenge their employers. What problem is the bill addressing that requires these solutions? Those who propose support for this action would like to create the impression of a world of overweening trade union power with unions bullying and intimidating employers holding the people of this country to ransom. That might be the view of the Tories' wish to create. That is not the real world. In the real world of work, life is different. Strikes are rare. People across our communities have been suffering economic and social consequences of a financial crisis brought on not by rampant trade unionism but by the reckless and dangerous decisions of people with a huge amount of power in our banks and financial institutions. In the real world, many trade unions worked to mitigate the impact of the crisis, accepting cuts to conditions in order to secure people's jobs. In the real world, people are delivering services, doing more, stretching further where people leave not to be replaced. In the real world, people working in retail, in care, in hospitality and beyond are being expected to be increasingly flexible but with less guarantee and security of employment than for many generations. There is increased evidence of the stress that people feel who are willing to work, who continue to seek work despite the odds and who, for their trouble, have to see their incomes reduced through cuts to tax credits. In the real world, we still have the scandal of blacklisting unresolved, where, when someone raises a problem or a concern about health and safety, the solution was not to sort the problem but to get rid of the person who was raising those concerns. For the truth is, in the real world, trade unions are a force for goods, ensuring the importance of health and safety, encouraging partnership between employers and employees and negotiating on difficulties. If I can say very gently to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government had listened to the unions, particularly the civilian police unions, we may have had less concerns about Police Scotland than we currently do. That trade union bill, far from improving those relationships, will break them down. Strike action represents failure, but it creates a further imbalance between employer and employee. The danger in the bill is that it increases the complexity of complying with strike ballots and opens up increased opportunities for employers to exploit technical issues around the ballot rather than focusing on solutions to problems that emerge in the dispute in the first place. There is a challenge for our economy, and it is in the nature and quality of the jobs that people do. For the absence of doubt, the evidence shows that poor quality jobs, where people have little control over their conditions and hours, are not just bad for their health but bad for our economic performance. The evidence also shows that trade unionised workplaces improve the quality of work. It is contrary, dangerous and makes no sense to opt for hostility rather than co-operation. Far from the Tory Government introducing the legislation and hastening the dry line of the trade unions, they should work with trade unions to increase membership of trade unions before the betterment of our economy. I believe that the bill represents Tory self-indulgent politicking when the truth is that working people are under real pressure and the economy continues to struggle. The Tory Government should show more maturity, stop drawing cartoon depictions of what trade unions do, recognise their critical role in supporting people in safe work, in good work and in our strong economy, show maturity and withdraw this bill. Many thanks. I now call Gordon MacDonald to be followed by Willie Rennie. Graham Smith, the Scottish TUC general secretary, addressed the SNP conference in Aberdeen last month and highlighted the inequities that the current Tory bill aimed at restricting trade union activity and imposing greater restrictions on workers. In his speech, he said, the trade union bill is a solution to problems that simply do not exist. We do not have a strike problem in this country and even if we did, that would be no reason to trample over workers' civil and human rights. The trade union bill received its second reading at Westminster and was debated at committee where SNP and Labour MPs opposed every clause. It was not just SNP and Labour MPs who opposed the legislation. David Davis, the Conservative MP, said that he was offended by the bill's proposals that a picket organiser must give his name to the police and describe the measure as a serious restriction of freedom of association. The Society of Radiographers, representing NHS professionals, stated that the UK Government has promoted this bill as enhancing trade union democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill intends to change turnout thresholds, but, as the Society explained, many of our members abstain from voting in industrial action ballots. That is a principled position that they wish to take, but then abide by the decision and participate. Unfortunately, the bill will no longer allow members to abstain, and we would instead regard them as voting against industrial action. The UK Government's proposal to introduce a 50 per cent turnout threshold for industrial action ballots has been called into question under article 11 of the European Convention, and, as Thomson's solicitors have stated, it is likely that the 50 per cent turnout requirement is unlawful. Even the Law Society of Scotland has raised concerns about this issue. In their written evidence to the UK Parliament, it said that the memorandum on human rights compatibility published in July 2015 did not address compatibility with the European social charter, the international labour organisation standards, and the international covenant on economic, cultural and social rights obligations. It then stated that we would suggest that further consideration be given to whether the bill's provisions comply with those ratified treaties. However, if legislation is about increasing trade union democracy, why not allow electronic voting? Newspapers regularly ask readers to vote online to gauge opinion. Political parties use electronic voting for internal elections, and millions are traded electronically worldwide on the stock market, yet somehow trade union voting alone is not suitable for electronic voting. Presiding Officer, the proposed trade union legislation proceeding through Westminster has no place in a modern Scotland where the Fair Work Convention is promoting new partnership working between employers, employees, trade unions, public bodies and the Scottish Government. To take the proposal on facility time, North Lanarkshire Council highlighted that the value of facility time is well documented, enabling meaningful consultation to take place between employees and their employers, and promoting good workplace relations. Then there is the new clause in the collection of union dues. The Government introduced this clause recently, and as a result it was not able to be debated at the bill's second reading. The new clause 14 would prohibit the deduction of union subscriptions from the wages of relevant public sector employees. The employers that this would apply to will be defined in later regulations. However, companies and public bodies already allow wage deductions for a whole range of payments, including charitable donations, repayments of loans, council tax harassment, child support agency payments, benevolent funds, welfare associations, credit union savings and staff association subscriptions. If the facility is in place for all of those other deductions, then it is not credible to claim substantial financial savings can be made if union fees are removed from this process. When it comes to the political levy, we have to remember that legislation already requires a ballot of all members to establish a political fund and that those who wish to can opt out once it is established. Also, a large proportion of the TUC's member unions are not affiliated to the Labour Party and include the Fire Brigade Union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Public and Commercial Services Union to name but a few. Those unions use our political funds for campaigns ranging from protecting public services or health and safety campaigns to supporting anti-fascist or anti-racist organisations who receive the majority of funding from trade unions. That legislation is an attack on trade unions ability to campaign on behalf of its members and the wider community. The STUC wants trade union legislation to be dovolved to the Scottish Parliament. If it is not, then public sector employers in Scotland who have responsibility for wholly devolved areas of public service will be prevented from managing employment relations and engaging with staff in a constructive manner. If the bill becomes law, as the British Medical Association believes, the imposition of tighter restrictions on trade unions may have the inadvertent effect of prolonging workplace disputes, thereby making it more difficult to resolve disputes amicably. The trade union bill is not so much a bill to aid the operation of effective and democratic trade unions, but a means to neuter them from properly representing their members. The bill is purely party political. It does not help to address industrial disputes and simply seeks to undermine the Labour Party. We believe that responsible trade unions are vital in standing up for workers' rights, improving productivity and protecting against workplace abuse and bullying. The Conservative Government is trying to solve a problem that does not really exist. The Government claims that the bill is necessary due to the increase in strike action over the past few years. There has been a 77 per cent increase in working days lost to industrial action from 440,000 days in 2013 to 788,000 days in 2014. That is higher than in previous decades. However, it is about to be expected in a period of great financial difficulty. It is not a surprise that more are wanting to seek dispute with their employers over that period. I think that to claim that this is somehow a result of more active and irresponsible trade unions is wrong. It is therefore understandable why many believe that this is simply being used as cover to bring forward a series of measures that are designed to limit the power of a key Labour Party ally and put Labour on the wrong side of public opinion. They are wrong on this. Polling from 2014 by Epsys Moray suggests that 77 per cent of people believe that trade unions are essential to protect workers' interests, compared to only 14 per cent who disagree. The number of people who believe that unions are too powerful is only 29 per cent. Many of them—I just want to reflect shortly on our role, the Liberal Democrat role, over the last few years in this. The bill is almost entirely made up of measures that Conservatives proposed in government and which were blocked by Vince Cable and Nick Clegg. It is no coincidence that this measure did not come forward in the last five years. It is because we stood firm against those measures. Just last year, the Guardian reported in July 2014 that Vince Cable had opposed attempts to tighten the law on industrial action. Vince Cable, earlier on this year, on 21 March, had drawn up measures that Gordon MacDonald was just referring to about e-balloting, and e-balloting has been dropped by this Government. If they were interested, if they were genuinely interested in greater democracy within the trade unions, we would make it easier for them to vote, but they are not, so those proposals are off the table. Find it ironic that the Tories will use e-balloting to select their candidate for the mayor of elections, but they will not trust anybody else to use e-balloting. I think that Neil Findlay is absolutely right. He tells everything about the priorities. This is not about democratisation. This is not about improving trade unions. This is not about protecting workers' rights. This is about trying to do down Mr Findlay's party, but also trying to make sure that they can try to turn public opinion against trade unions. I do not think that it is going to work. A number of different measures that they are proposing will be detrimental to industrial relations. I believe in good industrial relations to have better productivity, while also protecting workers from abuse and intimidation. It is important, therefore, to have effective relationships between employers, workers and their trade unions. To put an arbitrary 50 per cent threshold in the way that I think is wrong, I think that it is going to result in potentially a greater number of legal strikes over a period of time. I do not think that that helps in trying to resolve industrial disputes. Somebody else mentioned earlier about how trade unions actively participate with the management to make sure that they can try to deal with industrial disputes before they get too far. If their rights, if that balance of power is shifted, I think that that may lead to even greater grievances and a greater detriment to the relationship within the workplace. The political fund—I find it difficult to believe that the Conservatives cannot come to some kind of universal agreement about the funding of political parties, and they are trying to pick off the Labour Party and the trade union separately from the need—the desperate need—to have a proper funding arrangement for political parties. We attempted in the last few years in the House of Commons to deal with this, but it broke down for one reason or another. If we are going to have changed the funding arrangements of political parties for the good of long-term interests of political parties, it needs to be universal. That is a half-cocked way of trying to resolve the funding issue that I do not think is going to help. In my conclusion, I come to this argument from trying to improve relationships within workplaces and trying to protect civil liberties. I am quite amused by the people who are on the side of being against the trade union bill. The British Medical Association is hardly part of the international brotherhood and the fellowship. They are opposed to it. They are challenging the bill. They do not think that it is going to help workplace harmony, and I agree with them. On the grounds of civil liberties and workplace harmony, on the grounds of higher productivity, on all those grounds, Liberal Democrats will oppose the trade union bill. Thank you very much. A casual observer for someone else in Europe might be forgiven for thinking that this Westminster Government seems determined to restrict the fundamental rights of ordinary people from monitoring everything that we do in saying the phone or online to trying to withdraw our essential human rights protected under EU legislation. We have just learned that Mr Cameron believes that everyone ought to have the right to broadband access just like utilities such as water and electricity. He says that access to the internet shouldn't be a luxury, it should be a right—absolutely fundamental right in the 21st century Britain. I certainly would not disagree with him for a moment, but it sits very hypocritically alongside the trade union bill, specifically designed to be restrictive. It is rather ironic, since the Prime Minister also manages a ban on trade union members to vote online much of what we have heard of today. We should all have access to the internet, but we should not be allowed to use it to vote. It seems absolutely mental. The bill is a ferocious attack, in my opinion, on every aspect of trade unionism. It shifts the balance of powers and workplaces further to the advantage of employers and away from workers, whether they are union members or not. It is fundamentally attack on the core trade union activity of facility time, check-off and the ability of unions to underpin collective bargaining with a credible right to strike. It subjects unions to unprecedented levels of civil criminal penalties, red tape and monitoring by the certification officer, and it proposes to curtail unions' abilities to fund political activities and campaigns. In Scotland, we need to demand a legislative consent motion at Westminster, which would allow us to refuse to comply with aspects of the bill. My colleagues and other colleagues at Westminster planned to do just that. The STUC has clearly advocated the devolution of work protection law to Scotland. That includes employment law, health and safety, equalities, minimum wages and, of course, the regulation of trade unions, strangely both the Labour Party and the TUC oppose it. I would hope that they would change their mind on that. The Scottish Parliament is not going to be part of a race to the bottom or different legislatures fight to reduce employment legislation to gain competitive advantage. We have heard that from the cabinet secretary. Evidence from the new economics foundation shows that when you have got workplaces with the most effective unions, that is when you get the best productivity and the best motivated workforce. Constraining trade unions is clearly economically misguided and completely misguided from the perspective of social justice, fairness and workers rights. The Westminster Government recognises that it dares not to try to interfere on how the private sector manages its agreements with trade unions. That means that we are looking forward to a discriminatory piece of legislation in which some workers will have rights and others won't, mainly workers in the public sector. The irony is that the taxpayers' money that the Government says it wants to save in this bill is not actually their money, yet Westminster is going to instruct us on how we spend it. Nick Bolds, the minister-in-charge, has confirmed that, under the provisions of the bill, the NHS in England will be able to tell the NHS in Scotland how it can and cannot spend its money in relation to facility time and check-off. That effectively means that the UK health minister can tell the Scottish Parliament what it can and cannot do in respect of its own resources. The Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities should not be allowed to choose to allocate resources to promote positive industrial relations, even if those resources are entirely separate from the UK Treasury. There is a planned requirement for a 50 per cent turnout for a ballot that, in the case of essential public services, 40 per cent of the electorate having to back a walk-out before it is legal. I should remind Murdo Fraser that the only Tory MP in Scotland managed to achieve 39.8 per cent of the vote only a few short months ago, so maybe he should just give up his seat. It clearly has not occurred to the Government that many of its politicians, especially at local level, are elected on less than 50 per cent. It certainly does not occur to Murdo Fraser. Certainly, some of them did not even get 40 per cent, including the business secretary, Savvy Javid. The trade union bill starts from a false premise that unions are dangerous in fact. As a lifelong and proud trade unionist and a member of unison, I know that it is not so and that trade unions are contributing positively to the running of every public service or private sector operation that I have worked with them on. Why? Because their reason for existing is not only to better working the conditions and practices, but to co-operate with employers to create those very conditions. That is indeed a win-win situation. Trade unions want decent working practices as much as their bosses need them. The SNP will defy any attempts to impose a bill on Scotland that the Scottish people do not want. As my colleague Chris Stevens put it, an act of first-rate bullying, only a week after describing Scottish MPs as second class, from a third-rate administration without the foresight to realise that they are spinning towards a constitutional crisis, that nasty vindictive piece of legislation is designed to water down the power of trade unions to stand up for basic workers' rights. It hits the heart of international convention designed to keep workers safe and ensure fair conditions. Finally, the UK Government appointed a regulatory policy committee to scrutinise the bill. Do you know what it said? It said that it was not fit for purpose. I believe that it is not fit for purpose. We believe that it is not fit for purpose. Scotland believes that it is not fit for purpose, so let us kill this bill. Once again, I remind members to keep to your six minutes. Please, Drew Smith, to be followed by Willie Coffey. I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer. I support the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary and, indeed, the Labour amendment. I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests. This Parliament was established on the back of a campaign for democracy that had the trade union movement at its heart. Without the activism of generations of trade unionists, none of us would be gathered in this place, and I know that without the support of my trade union, I certainly would never have had the opportunity to serve here. The Conservative amendment before us today states that trade unions are valuable institutions with a long history of promoting workers' rights, improving health and safety and representing members in need of support. If we accepted the sincerity of the Scottish Conservatives in believing that trade unions are key social partners and a force for good in society, then there would indeed be more common ground between us than the introduction of this trade union bill suggests. I have made the point here before that, although there are good employers and not-so-good employers, there is a fundamental truth borne out by the history of workers' struggle, that the selling of our labour has the potential to be exploitative. Trade unions are voluntary associations of individuals who simply seek to collectivise their interests in order to rebalance that potential for exploitation in favour of partnership, partnership between groups of workers and partnerships with employers, in order to minimise the risks that exist at work, the risk of ill health, of injury and even of death, the risk of exploitation through unfair wages and working practices, the risk of insecurity of work through short-termism and the tendency to put pursuit of profit alone above the interests of the community. It is sometimes said in Johann Lamont, when she was leader of my party, said it to the annual congress of the Scottish trade unions that they represent a gathering of optimists. It is the optimists who have struggled for safer workplaces, for fairer wages, for decency and respect, not just to workers but to all in our society. The bill is an attack on the fundamental optimism of organising for a fairer world. It is for this reason that it is being proposed by a Tory Government, which stands opposed to the advancement of working people in this country and in defence of every privileged interest that they enjoy and believe that they are entitled. To require working people to achieve ballot thresholds that the Conservatives have no intention of applying to themselves is nothing short of hypocrisy. To do so, whilst denying unions the ability to access the tools to achieve higher turnouts with online or secure workplace balloting is nothing short of vindictive. The attack on trade union finances is a completely illiberal move, and it is a direct attack on the ability of working people to achieve the aims that the amendment claims to support. It is, of course—Willi Rennie was right to say so—that ultimate hope that the result will be financial penalty to the Labour Party, supported by some of those organisations and which exist to further the interests of those who bear the costs of economic injustice. Neither the Labour Party nor any trade union affiliated to it or otherwise are perfect institutions, but those changes are designed to make the cause that they serve less achievable and less efficient to organise. What poverty of ideas? What weakness of confidence in their own arguments to use Government to diminish the organisational ability of those who oppose them? I therefore welcome the support of the Scottish Government in imposing these outdated and mendacious attacks on organised labour. This Parliament was created not just with the aid of trade unions but with the aim of improving the law of working people. The Scottish Government's fair work agenda is an important step on that long road. It is the law of progressives and of the labour movement in particular to not just advance the cause of fairness but to continually defend each of our achievements. The achievements of generations of trade union organisers against the continual efforts of Conservatives to roll back, to look back and, if the bill becomes law, to take industrial relations back not just to the 1970s but to the 1870s. I hope that Labour, SNP, Liberals and others here will unite against the bill, but I hope that we do more than that. I recognise that calls are made by nationalists and others for devolution of employment protection, and that is a debate that is worth having, not least because this vicious legislation makes that case stronger. However, those who support that option have a job to do to achieve a consensus in favour of it, not just with the opposition here but with those trade unions in Scotland who are unconvinced and with trade unionists across Britain who look to build solidarity against regressive law, not just exclusion from it. There is another question that those of us who will unite today must consider. What will we do? I support local government employers who have made clear that they will not pay the cost of removing check-off facilities, a privilege for which public sector trade unions actually pay the taxpayer, nor should they be forced to abandon facility time, which is used to reduce conflict within the workplace. I hope that the Scottish Government will be clear that it will follow that lead in the national health service and across the Scottish public sector. The Scottish Parliament must also be clear that the bill is not just bad law, it is a law that seeks to illegitimately interfere in the right of this place to make decisions about how public money is spent once it is in our control. To allow this law to be passed without the consent of this Parliament would be to fail to defend the power that we already have to take decisions in the best interests of those we represent. For those reasons, we must demand the right to deny our consent to this desperate bill. To those opposite, I say that your amendment makes clear how uncomfortable you are rather than making a case for support of this bill. If the Scottish Conservatives will allow themselves to be dragged along with this policy, then they demonstrate themselves not as optimists, but as a party whose weakness is there for all working people to see exposed and to be opposed. You must close. Many thanks. Willie Coffey to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Presiding Officer, thank you very much. Can I firstly welcome representatives from Kilmarnock Trades Council along with friends and supporters of the trade union movement to the chamber this afternoon? I don't often read Tory party manifestos, but I had a look at what they said about their proposed trade union reforms. Not a single positive word anywhere about the role that trade unions can play in helping to build and create a successful economy, nor the equally important role they carry out in representing the interests of ordinary working people. It's all negative language about tackling disruption and putting the unions in their place. Even Mrs Thatcher's 1979 manifesto managed to kick off with a positive comment about strong and responsible trade unions playing a big part in economic recovery. We know that they didn't mean a word of it, but they managed to utter a positive word even if it was only weasel words. The 2015 Tory manifesto could not muster a single positive message about the relationship that they want to develop with the trade unions, nor the vital role that they have played in championing and protecting the interests of the ordinary working person. That is shameful. It started by promising to protect you and me from disruptive and undemocratic strike action. Then it rambled on about removing and sensical restrictions, which, if applied, could see strike-breaking agency staff marching into a place of work totally untrained and unprepared for the jobs that they are taking from other people. On top of that, they are going to tackle the disproportionate impact of strikes in the public sector. That, Presiding Officer, isn't a Scotland that I recognise, and it painted a picture of gloom and conflict that I'm sure the majority of people in Scotland don't recognise either. Neither, it seems, to the Scottish Tories recognise it, because their one-page insert by their leader in their manifesto didn't even mention trade unions in Scotland or anywhere else for that matter. We're left to assume that the Scottish Tories agree with their UK pals that there's a huge problem with the trade unions in Scotland that this disgraceful bill needs to fix, and I think that's shameful too. Scotland doesn't need this bill, and Scottish Tories shouldn't be bending over to kiss David Cameron's loof on this matter. They should be supporting trade union colleagues in Scotland and maintaining the good relations that we have established here. Our industrial relations record in Scotland has been excellent in the seven years from 2007. There's been a huge drop of 84 per cent in the number of days lost due to industrial disputes, meaning that it's now the lowest in the UK, and we have a solid record of working in partnership with our trade unions. The fair work convention was set up to advise the Scottish Government on how to improve and innovate in the workplace, how to develop industrial relations and to advise on fair work in the living wage, and we'll see its framework and proposals coming next March. The Working Together review focused on the positive role for the trade unions in the workplace and was published last year, and many of its recommendations, for example in things like training, equalities and change management, are now coming forward to implementation. We're promoting the real living wage through our public sector pay policy, and more employers are signing up to the scheme, which is now topped 380. A new statutory guidance came into force just a few days ago, where those bidding for public contracts will be expected to adopt fair work practices like paying the living wage, not using zero-hour contracts and giving workers an active voice in the workplace. These are just a few examples of how Scotland is progressing with a positive agenda of engagement and co-operation with our trade unions, and it beggars belief that this anti-trade union bill coming from a Tory Government should be backed in Scotland by any political party. It should be totally rejected because it's divisive, and as Graham Smith says, it's vindictive and is not needed. It has nothing to foster good relations and will undermine the solid progress made in years. Is it not time for the Tories here to stand up for Scotland's trade unions instead of standing up for thatcher's legacy of division and mistrust? In May of this year, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government demonstrated how co-operation should work by coming together in a number of issues. Concerns were shared about the impact on the poorest of more austerity cuts and the further aeration of erosion of trade union and employment rights, and the shared view that there should be full devolution of powers over the minimum wage trade union and employment law. Common ground, Presiding Officer, can always be found, but there first needs to be a spirit of co-operation and mutual respect. That's what we have in Scotland, and it seems what the Tories seem held bent in trying to throw away. There are real fears that this legislation is taking us in the wrong direction and will do nothing to promote the kind of harmonious and respectful working relationship that Scotland's employers have had with the trade unions for many years now. Coslas Councillor Henry warns us that the bill will endanger all of this good work and may even lead to more industrial unrest. Pat Rafferty rightly says that no bill should criminalise people for defending their right to protect themselves from exploitation. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, Scotland doesn't want this bill and Scotland doesn't need this bill. It's an import from a Government that we didn't vote for and it strikes at the heart of what we have valued in Scotland for generations. The right to work and the right to defend ourselves and fellow workers from exploitation. I'm delighted to support the motion today condemning this bill and urging the whole Parliament to unite in rejecting it. Thank you. Many thanks. I now call Patrick Harvie to be followed by Bob Dorriff. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and as others have done, I draw members' attention to my entry of the members' interests as an associate member of the NUJ and a recipient of a small but very generous donation at the last election from the FPU. Over the past few years, Green parties throughout the islands have sought to broaden and deepen the relationship that we've enjoyed with the trade union movement. I was very pleased to welcome Graham Smith and other representatives from trade unions at our most recent conference. We've found the door open to that approach to broaden that relationship, a sign, I hope, of the understanding that a political relationship between the trade union movement and the party political landscape needs to be one of pluralism, because their allies are so many in the Scottish political landscape and their opponents are so few. I was pleased to join with representatives of other political parties, Ian Gray, Christine McKelvie, Willie Rennie and Colin Fox, speaking outside at the rally a few minutes ago. I'm delighted that so many of the trade union movement representatives have joined us here in the gallery, but we are going to need to join with them as well. The opportunity to have a debate about this pernicious bill to vote against it as it's clear we're going to do in substantial numbers this evening that's really important to make that argument in Parliament, to make that argument for a legislative consent motion to which I hope again we will say no, and for those at Westminster who are able and willing to challenge this bill to do so, but we're going to need to join with our colleagues in the trade union movement as well outside of Parliament over the months and perhaps years to come if this bill does, in fact, become law. Others have made the case very strongly for a strong trade union membership and I think there is evidence from around the world that countries with a high level of trade union membership, an active trade union movement and the ability for trade unions to represent the interests of their members articulately and powerfully in the political landscape, those things go hand in hand with a more equal society and with a better, fairer and healthier workplace for the people those unions represent. There's a case for many forms of democratic workplace but trade unions are a critical part of that picture and I think that will always be the case. The right ultimately to withdraw your Labour to go on strike and to take other forms of industrial action is critical to having people believe that there's a good reason to join a trade union. Trade unions need to be strong enough to be able to act at that last resort if people are going to know that there is a good reason to bother joining. That's something that we all have a collective interest in seeing happen in society. Murdo Fraser tells us that when such action is taken everybody in society suffers and I know I've been inconvenienced occasionally when there's been a strike in a service that I rely on. People don't like that, of course not. But I'll tell you what, we would all like it a damn sight worse if we were the kind of society that operated without people's ability to take that last course of action when that final resort comes. We would end up as a meaner, more selfish and more unequal and more exploited society as a result of losing that right. That's what this legislation is, an attempt to strip that right away from people to act collectively whether at the first resort or at the last. Whether in terms of the day-to-day functions of unions in representing the interests of their members and the extra levels of complexity and bureaucracy that will be piled on top of that or the barriers that will be placed in front of them when they seek to exercise the last resort and take industrial action. And it is generally a last resort. Willie Rennie tells us that the number of days lost to strike action has gone up a bit in the past few years. And that's true. It actually went down a bit in the few years before that. Before that, it went up a bit. Before that, it went down a bit. Those year-to-year fluctuations have gone on whether there was a Labour Government or since the Tories were put into power in 2010. But the long-term trend shows that other than the 70s and early 80s, the level of strike action and the number of days lost to strike action in the UK has been consistently very low in this country since the 1920s. We should be proud of a legislative framework that allows people to take those actions of last resort, ensures that they have the power and the authority to do so, without imposing the kind of absurd thresholds that this bill imposes on them. Taken together, the 40 per cent and 50 per cent thresholds, taken together, effectively represent an 80 per cent threshold that our union would have to demonstrate. That coming from a Government which was elected on the votes of fewer than a quarter of the electorate, fewer than a quarter of the electorate and no one can tell us that the actions of that Government does not impact on everybody whether they chose to vote for it or not. Finally, as well as making that case for legislative action, legislative consent being withheld here in Scotland and challenges to the bill's passage at Westminster, if that bill does pass into law, there is a clear, I would say unanswerable case for a programme of non-compliance by the Scottish Government, giving leadership to other employers in the private and public sectors in Scotland, making sure that we have no willingness to support this legislation and that instead we will stand with those unions who feel the need to take industrial action in defiance of it. That is the programme that I hope this Government is willing to commit to and I will vote for its motion and for the Labour amendment tonight. Thank you very much. Very tight for time today. I call on Bob Doris to be followed by Cara Hilton up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I start by quoting a Conservative politician? Not a contemporary one, but one from 1954, I assume in the presence of Dwight Eisenhower at a White House luncheon and that is of course Winston Churchill who famously said, Jo Jo is always better than war, war. I think that we could certainly all agree with that, but unfortunately, can I quote another Conservative politician this time? Sagi Javid, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, because in the second reading of the trade union bill debate in the Westminster Parliament, he said, this is a declaration of war on the trade union movement and I think that sums up precisely what this piece of legislation at Westminster is all about. It's designed to provoke industrial discord and division. It's designed to provoke our trade unions, I suspect, to go even further than the dreadful details that are already contained within this current trade union bill. It's a declaration of war whilst effectively placing workers and their union representatives in a straight jacket by denying them the ability to fight back. And actually the irony is, Presiding Officer, Scotland's trade unions, our workers' representatives, they want to talk, they want Jojo, they don't want war, war, but what this bill does is it doesn't even allow them the basic tools to defend themselves. I think that the UK Government's misdefect, that Scotland's engaged in a process of embracing our trade union movement and seeing them as key partners, key stakeholders in the modern Scotland that we all want to build. And I think that as Gordon Willie Coffey said, what the UK Tories are doing is dragging this country back to the worst excesses of factorism and indeed going beyond that even further. I'll pick just one example of the straight jacket that I believe this trade union bill places our workers' representatives in. And that's in relation to the cap on facility time, the restrictions around that time off to do union business. I want to concentrate on the healthcare aspects of it and refer to the briefing from the RCN. The RCN quite rightly says that they are very well placed, they're in a unique position to comment on this whilst having the right to strike, never actually an authorised strike action themselves. I don't think you'll exactly find them as a radical union. I think you'll find them as a progressive union. The RCN is calling for provisions in the bill which enable the ministers to cap facility time, not Scottish ministers, but ministers to cap facility time to be rejected. They say that evidence shows that current arrangements for union facility time are working well and the RCN believes that in the interests of patient care and staff welfare they should not be capped. They say that continued pay restraint coupled with the attacker workplace democracy contained within the trade union bill will do nothing to improve industrial relations. And as for this being a devolve matter, absolutely, because they also say we believe that the bill poses a profound risk to productivity, morale and the delivery of a safe patient care in the NHS. That is a devolve matter to its bones. We all know it and it's about time the Conservatives faced up to that and gave us the chance to formally vote against it in this chamber and kill the bill as far as I am concerned. But I think that they are also targeting the NHS because we've already seen the UK policy coming from London is to gradually pick away and dismantle the NHS in relation to Jeremy Hunt and other moves that they've got. And the BMA also make a useful contribution in relation to the debate because they also have significant issues in relation to time off for union duties and facility time. They say and I quote, they're deeply concerned that it could be used to restrict the ability of unions to represent the members on a range of issues such as resolving workplace disputes, collective bargaining and improving workplace practices. The NHS is at one public sector body, a vital one that will be undermined at a devolved level if this bill was to go through at a UK level. I should perhaps have declared at the start throughout the House that my declaration of interest is an on-going member of the NHS formally having been a teacher. But I'm minded in 2001 that there was a significant debate within EIS and other organisations in relation to the McRown agreement which was eventually signed. And there's still on-going debate always teachers that remember that. There was significant arguments but the unions did it from a point of view where they were well informed and the time off to discuss and take informed positions and to inform their members as to whether they wished to sign the McRown agreement or not. That bill would deny unions making an informed decision on many occasions. I want to say a little bit about city building in the region that I represent. It's an example of what workers' representatives are very much involved progressively in helping in the delivery of service. In the last 10 years they've helped to raise and make £50 million for Glasgow City Council in relation to the work that they're involved in. They're actively engaged in supporting over 400 city buildings and they're involved with the RSBI and employees that otherwise may not have employment elsewhere. They're progressive in their part of the agenda to take Scotland forward. They're not the enemy. They're who they work in partnership with, I have to say. Presiding officer, what I can see the UK Government are promoting in-work poverty by exhilarating tax credit cuts. They're exhilarating out-of-work poverty by conditionality and sanctions on benefits and they now seek to deny that basic human right to withdraw your labour and do something about it when there's a right-wing Tory Government attacking the very basis by which society is founded. That has been able to withdraw your labour for the sake of a better life for you, your family and your community and we have to kill this bill. Many thanks. Colin Carrollton to be followed by Gil Paterson up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As a trade unionist and a member of USDOT and the United Nations, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate. I begin by thanking the many constituents who have contacted me on this issue, the thousands who have signed my local petition to say no to the trade union bill and the many trade unionists who have come along today to lobby MSPs and to listen to the debate, including members of five trades council. The Tory trade union bill is not just an attack on trade unions, it's not just an attack on trade unionists and it's not just an attack on trade union members. The Tory bill is an attack on every single worker in Scotland and right across the United Kingdom. And it's a direct threat to all our rights at work. Rights at trade unions have fought for and secured only through many decades of struggle. Rights which we often take for granted such as rest breaks and time off at the weekend, maternity leave and sick leave, equal pay, health and safety. Rights secured for workers today by the actions and solidarity of the generations before us. Every trade unionist knows that the bigger the trade union movement the better chance to protect workers' rights. And right across the UK 6 million, more than 6 million people are members of trade unions making it the largest democratic organisation in the UK. Trade unions speak up for their members on maternity rights, sick pay, holiday pay, flexible working, health and safety, pensions and wages. Trade unions challenge discrimination, harassment, bullying and inequality in and out of the workplace. Trade unions campaign for equality, fairness and for justice at home and abroad. And it's strengthened numbers that allows trade unions to represent members individually at work if they've got a problem, to represent members collectively to secure improvements to terms and conditions and to campaign for a better, fairer society and economy that's run in the interests of working people. And that's exactly why David Cameron wants to strike right at the heart of the trade union movement. This trade union bill sends out a green light to bad employers to behave even worse. By eroding the rights are most importantly the power of working people in Scotland and right across the UK. This bill would place extreme and severe restrictions on the right to strike making it legal for employers to use agency workers to replace strike and workers outlawing nearly half of strikes making already very demanding rules even more complicated It would undermine trade union's ability to represent and protect their members at work restricting facility time for reps tying union branches up in red tape and stopping the easy collection of union Jews and it would silence many trade union campaigns stopping unions' campaigning against Tory austerity making it all the easier for the Tories to impose their cuts and just like the Tories attack on welfare which hit women workers who'll be most affected by this Tory assault TUC had researchers reveal that three quarters of union members affected by the most oppressive proposals are women women who are most likely to be working in the public services and for these women workers they're leverage to prevent unequal pay discrimination and to protect maternity and other rights will be dramatically reduced by this bill Presiding Officer this bill is a direct attack on workers right across the UK and we must all unite to resist it Scottish Labour will stand shoulder to shoulder with the trade union movement we will oppose this bill and fight it every step of the way Labour-led councils have led the way in saying that they were refused to co-operate with the trade union bill and I hope that every Scottish council will see the same and we must use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to resist this bill in every way we can I'm pleased that the cabinet secretary is pursuing a legative consent motion and I hope that this will be brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity we must resist the bill right across the UK too and I'm pleased that Labour, SNP and Lib Dem MPs will unite against it in Westminster later this week because trade unionism is above all about solidarity and one of the most popular trade union slogans is the workers united will never be defeated and that slogan is central to trade unionism breaking the bond a worker in Dunfermline shares with a worker in Doncaster or Derby strikes at the very heart of the trade union movement where an injury to one is an injury to all but as Jeremy Corbyn stated in his letter to the First Minister last week by showing that this bill can't be enforced in either Scotland or Wales we will expose it as legislation that's ill-conceived, poorly drafted and unfit for purpose we've already seen pressure on the UK government starting to pay off with the planned to ban unions from publicising protests and pickets on social media being dropped and if the Scottish government makes clear to Westminster that we won't comply with this bill either then that adds growing pressure right across the UK because this bill has got to be stopped it's unfair, it's unnecessary and it's democratic and it's an ideological attack on trade unionism it's about shifting more power directly into the hands of employers making it virtually impossible for workers to take strike action leaving working people with little or no power to stop employers imposing cuts and pay and conditions to jobs and to pensions it flies in the face of the partnership approach that's been embraced by many trade unions and employers not just in Scotland but across the UK promoting fairness at work through dialogue not confrontation it's an outdated response to the challenges of the modern workplace those aren't my words those are the words of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development so we must fight this bill every step of the way in our council chambers in Holyrood and at Westminster and we must use the powers we have to resist this bill should the Tory succeed in forcing it through in 2015 when millions of people are employed in zero hour contracts when women continue to be paid less for doing the same jobs as men when it's deemed acceptable by the Tory government to pay younger workers less than the going rate for the job when so many people are continuing to be denied a living wage when 20,000 workers die every single year due to accidents at work the need for strong unions is more important than ever trade union values are more important now than they ever have ever been and so today I hope we will unite and send a clean message from the Scottish Parliament to David Cameron and his Tory government we reject his plans to attack our rights at work we reject his plans to undermine the solidarity and unity on what trade unionism depends we will refuse to implement this bill in Scotland where we can and we will work alongside the trade union movement the length of the UK to stop this vicious attack on our rights at work and to say no to the trade union bill thanks so much now call on Gil Paterson to be followed by John Penland many thanks presently officer as a member that represents Clydebank a town rich in trade union history it's a pleasure to be speaking in this debate today I like many of my colleagues just wish it was under more positive circumstances Clydebank has its mark in history when it comes to trade unions who could forget the efforts of Jim Reid and his fellow workmates in the 1971 upper Clyde shipbuilders work in the organisation of the workers saw the Tory Heath government relenting and keeping the two yards open alas the shipyard at Clydebank was sold however the example set by Jim Reid and the workers of the UCS highlighted the effectiveness of trade unions to organise their workforce gain public support and to campaign towards a positive outcome the Conservatives clearly feel the threatened by the examples of history if Jim Reid were alive today he would be campaigning on the steps of Westminster against this bill however he would be surprised he would not be surprised at the contempt the Conservative government is showing trade unions the bill is an attack on workers and it will make it considerably more difficult for employees to have their voice heard the bill is an attack on the fundamental right of employees to withdraw their labour a right that is enshrined in a range of international conventions however Presiding Officer this is not just about or just bad for trade unionists and the workers this is bad for business most folks know here that I own a family business that my son now runs we have got close to 50 workers there at the present time we regard our work where our employees is gold dust moreover when you work hand in hand giving ownership of decisions on a day to day basis when you involve closely with your workers more as a partner when you engage with the problems and work out the solutions together then when hard times come and by God hard times will definitely come certainly Neil Findlay I think he makes some really good points but in order to show show us that great example I wonder if you could tell us which union is recognised in that workplace Bill Paterson well do you know no union has ever approached me never if they approach me the doors will be welcome they can come in there I run something that's close to a cooperative rather than a business however when hard times come and they certainly do come then it's a workforce that gets you out of that problem but that's only if you work and trust people as an equal therefore this proposed bill is madness and will cause division where none exists at present Presiding Officer if we were to look at other countries typically high wage economies who coincidentally have worker participation at management and boardroom level doing exactly what I was describing just earlier then these companies small and large elsewhere and of course the countries as a whole are the most successful on almost every measurement available better health and safety records better conditions for the employees wages and days lost to absence why not copy the success why cause conflict it makes no sense on a business basis never mind in a trade union basis this attack on unions is essentially removing mechanisms of protection that workers still had against the Tories wider programme to restrict human rights including changes to unfair dismissal and restrictions to access to workforce justice Presiding Officer the SNP and the Scottish Government has consistently shown its support towards rights of employees and the work of trade unions so much so that the Scottish Government as part of its economic strategy established the fair work convention to provide independent advice to the Scottish Government on matters relating to innovative and productive workplaces industrial relations fair work and the real living wage in Scotland it's worth saying again Scotland's commitment to effective workplaces described has ensured that the number of days lost to industrial disputes decreased by 84 per cent between 2007 and 2014 and it's the lowest of all of the UK nations I wonder why Is your drawer so close please unfortunately the proposal set out in the trade union bill would jeopardise this positive record and undermine the progress made through positive partnership that the Scottish Government has built up with the unions over a number of years again I suspect that the Tories wish this to happen Presiding Officer the SNP and the Scottish Government consider trade unions and the workforce to be key social partners not opponents and we want this to remain in my view neither does any decent business so therefore I would ask the Parliament to support the motion in the Government's name thank you very much thank you so much now Colin John-Pennall to be followed by John Mason up to six minutes please Presiding Officer the establishing the rights of working people and the improvements in their working conditions have been the result of centuries of struggle against oppression the biggest advances have always been one by working people organising through trade unions and their precursors and through the Labour movement engaging in parliamentary action to achieve advances in workers' rights and it's worth reminding ourselves of those advances that have included better pay the five-day week shorter working days parental leave workplace pensions health and safety improvements sickness benefits paid holidays and better housing education and health services advances that have almost always been resisted at some stage by the Tories and their friends whose wealth is derived from the sweating toll toil of the working people not the least their friends in the media because if it was down to them we would still have child labour outrageous gender inequality with women getting a sack because they get married or become pregnant no minimum or living wage no security of employment no redundancy schemes laws about unfair dismissal or a right to organise and I am not saying the Tories have never supported improvements it's just that when they do they have generally lost the argument and are trying to save face and credibility with the facade of caring about workers' rights and with the trade union ball and having lost their liberal chains the facade has well and truly slipped reading human rights groups have called it a major attack on civil liberties but it is one that Margaret Thatcher would probably have been proud of we are of course still suffering from her legacy many years on particularly in areas such as Motherwell Bishop where the exemplary organisation of working people in the steel industry was seen as a threat that had to be countered and with the miners by the hatchet man Ian McGregor put simply the money grabbers and free marketeers regard trade unions as an obstacle to free markets and profits in other words their ability to make as much money as possible without being obstructed by workers who dare to demand safe working conditions and a fair share of fruits of their labour to provide a decent life for themselves and their families the trade union ball as a proposed will take us back to the dark ages it will make it much harder for workers to stand up to employers and assert their rights among the provisions are the extraordinary powers given to the certification officer the government regulator regulator for trade unions and employers associations as TUC Secretary Francis Agraedie says the certification officer will become investigator judge and jury with trade unions being made to foot the ball not to mention the 20,000 pounds fines for crimes such as not wearing armbands on picket lines even some Tories think that this is OTT with Tory MP David Davis compare some of it to Spain under francus fascism such as the requirement for pickets to give their names to the police force business associations are worried that it will backfire on them having warned that it could have unintended consequences employment agencies oppose provisions allowing tents to be used as scarves that of course will be less likely to happen when strikes need a 50% vote but the means of voting are heavily restricted and I'm happy to see that COSR has voice of position Labour councillors like Mone and North Lancer council are saying that they will not comply with the legislation and that you have now been joined by North Ayrshire council which has said it will defend and support check-off arrangements as part of its collective and contractual arrangements with unions and it will not use agency staff during industrial action we need to see that attitude prevail right across the public sector and I hope the First Minister will follow her mother's lead and ensure all bodies do likewise with the Scottish Parliament refusing to grant legislative consent to the proposals The trade union bill seeks to roll back the clock on workers rights but the truth is that there are still too many sectors where they have barely entered the 20th century let alone the 21st rather than dilute workers rights we should be adding to them and my granddaughter recently applied for a part-time job with a local hotel she was interviewed and clearly met their requirements then came the crunch if she wanted a job she would have to come in for a trial period where she would have to work for nothing she responded as you would well expect this shows how if employers think they can get away with it they will exploit their workforce trade unions are weak in hospitality sector and that is what happens we need stronger not weaker trade unions we need stronger not weaker workers rights we need better health and safety action on blacklist and action on zero our contracts and people to be paid what we can read as this trade union bill I now call on John Mason to be followed by Hugh Henry thank you in any modern democratic society we need to have a balance between different groups within that society and that is true of the relationship between employers and employees just as it is for other groups now through my lifetime some people would say there have been periods where employees had too much control and managers were unable to manage but if that has happened it has been very much the exception rather than the rule what we see today even without this bill is a great imbalance in favour of owners shareholders employers and management at the expense of employees and especially at the expense of poorly paid employees let me just finish this bit I do not see this debate today on this bill as isolated incidents they come against a background of a great divide in our society where the wealth they get more and more while the poorer whether they are working or not get less and less Mr Finlay I do not want to be divisive today of all days I wonder if Mr Mason could elaborate on that point where he said that there was an imbalance in favour of working people when was the time that actually happened? I think there was a time certainly when I was younger when some people at least claimed that and that's all my point is that some people have claimed and my main point is that there needs to be a balance and at the moment there is not a balance between employers and employees between management shareholders and so on we are a hugely imbalanced society and it was more balanced in the past and I certainly hope it will be more balanced in the future this proposed legislation is yet another example of the strong getting stronger at the expense of the week I have to say I was not initially planned to speak on this debate however as I have looked more into the proposals it is clear that the trade union bill will harm workers rights and I believe will damage the economy at large in Scotland the proposals outlined in this trade union bill as I see it are not intended to make the striking process more democratic or transparent instead it is purely an ideological attack on the workers rights to collective organisation and bargaining this bill will lead to a worsening balance of power in the workplace harming relationships between employees and employers at a time when this relationship is a key to our future prosperity and as has been mentioned I think by the cabinet secretary in other countries they seem to have that balance and that relationship much better trade unions perform a number of roles in a society like ours for example in promoting health and safety as the conservative amendment correctly states as part of my case work for constituents I do get a number of constituents coming with workplace problems and my first question to them is what union are you a member of and what is their position and what are they doing about this problem sadly there do seem to be fewer employees these days who are members of trades unions and that can cause a real problem when an issue arises at work of course not every union member will be happy with the line that the union reps or their leadership take on every single case but I believe that both management and the employees benefit when there is a clear forum for dialogue and it is clear who is representing whom as trades unions do unions provide a vital role in making sure that the voices of employees are heard alongside the voices of their employers but this bill would make it much more difficult for trades unions to provide their members with the organisation and support they need alongside this robust unions help reduce levels of inequality in society and as such if we are serious about making our country a fairer place we must welcome the role that unions play there has been a recent report written by the independent think tank the new economics foundation and the University of Greenwich called working for the economy the economic case for trades unions this report highlights important contribution that unions play in the economy the report estimates that up to £27.2 billion has been lost due to the decline in wages as a share of national income by almost 10 per cent between 1975 and 2014 the report finds that unions have a positive impact on the economy as a whole due to their work ensuring that employees are paid fairly for their work which obviously increases demand in the whole economy this is something I agree wholeheartedly with and in the absence of power to set the minimum wage here in hollywood the unions must be free to pursue the best deal for their members in the long run that will benefit the employers as well one of the most concerning aspects of this bill for most unions is the imposition of arbitrary ballot thresholds for strike action the right to strike should be respected in a free and democratic country many of the progressive policies that we have today were earned through industrial action such as the five day week and the minimum wage it has been noted by some unions that this attack on the right to strike may well lead to longer more drawn out action as trade unions are forced to make sure that they will meet the threshold to ensure the action is legitimate all in all this looks like looks like to me like a recipe for poorer industrial relations rather than better ones and many of us as politicians as has been mentioned including some of the conservatives would not have been elected on the thresholds that are being proposed for the trade union ballots I was elected in a turnout of 37 per cent so I assume that means that the conservative thinking is that there should be no MSP for Glasgow Shetleston because the turnout was low no close please to sum up the UK is already one of the most unequal countries in the world and the restrictions proposed in this trade union bill and in all likelihood will only exacerbate the problems we face once again we find ourselves in the situation of having to react to misguided laws being forced upon us by an out-of-touch party which is not representative of the people of Scotland thank you thanks very much now Colin Hugh Henry to be followed by Sandra White thank you for saying officer we may actually wonder what's the point of trade unions after all you know when Murdo Fraser can say that trade unions are partners in progress then we could reasonably say jobs done you know boys and girls just turtle off home we're all part of the big society we're all one nation Tories we don't need these outdated old-fashioned concepts we're all partners in progress and yet if you look at what's happening not just in this country but around the world then you might actually reflect that there is a need for trade union organisation when ordinary men and women are faced with injustice or oppression when they're faced with danger when they're faced with living standards that are leaving them in poverty then you know that they need to do something and when we look at some of the tragic accidents that have happened in countries like Bangladesh and India when we look at the conditions that workers are often working in in countries like the Philippines or Indonesia and often producing products for companies that are located in this country whose directors are often members of the Conservative Party who are supporters of hedge funds who make a fantastic living out of those products then you wonder why is it that if we're all partners in progress why is it that in these countries those individuals are left so vulnerable and so open to exploitations and then you can reflect in this country because it wasn't so long ago when many workers in this country had to suffer and endure the same kind of conditions of unsafe working practices of poor pay of living in a society where there were no additional benefits and it was really because in this country they did organise in trade unions through the collective strength of their trade unions that they were able to make sure that when they went to work in the morning that they were relatively safe at work and it was through that collective organisation that there was a political expression that said well do you know something that as well as going to work to earn our sustenance we actually want to make sure we have a decent house to live in we want an education for our children we want a health service that we can fall back on when we are ill and we want pensions in our retirement and that's why the trade unions in this country not only organised in the workplace but said we need a political expression for our activities now the job to some extent has been done and much of what I in my life have accepted as normal has come about because of the organisation determination and struggle of these men and women over many generations in this country but you know unfortunately we will take for granted at our peril what we have achieved because I can't say that the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of many of my constituencies have that same security that I had during my working life because they are now more vulnerable than ever before to low pay and to exploitation and we do see in some industries trade unions which are weak and which are under represented and that's why in a sense we can see what the Conservative Government is trying to do because it's trying to make that type of exploitation many of the fast food outlets that we see in this country that type of organisation that type of pay and conditions the norm to make Britain to make Scotland competitive in the world and that's why they want to make life difficult for unions like the CWU that organises postal workers and many communication workers and call centres across the country when they say look we have a problem with some of the weight that you ask our members to carry in their day to day delivery or we have a problem with the kind of shifts that you ask our members to work that's why unions like that are so important in protecting the health and not just the pay of their workers and that's why unions like us do don't just represent shop workers in the workplace that's why they believe that they've got to fight on the political front as well that's why they have waged a campaign that's running just now freedom from fear which says we want protection for our members when they are attacked for doing the job that the Scottish Government asks them to do in refusing to sell alcohol to people and that's why they have an expectation quite rightly that there should be no double standards that we don't hear in today warm words of support about the rights of trade unions to represent and then we turn their backs in trade unions when we can actually do something to help them in their moment of need so I'm blind today that there is a strong level of solidarity and support against this trade union bill but we all need to look to ourselves to make sure that we put into practice what the trade unions are struggling for in their workplaces day in and day out and we make sure that this bill is put in to the bin of history thank you thanks very much now call on Sandra White to be followed by Patricia Ferkson thank you very much Presiding Officer and can I also greet and welcome the many members of trade unions who are in the gallery today Presiding Officer it was Linda Fabiani that said in her contribution we are where we are and we have to get on with it and it was Murdo Fraser who certainly told us in his contribution that as far as the Tories were concerned this Scottish Parliament had no mandate on this bill and I hope that Murdo Fraser and others have been listening to the contributions from all of the other parties in this debate and I think he will certainly realise that yes certainly this Scottish Parliament does have a very big mandate on this bill and I'll come back to that later in my contribution Presiding Officer I was a member of the us draw trade union there seems to be a number of members here and I was also a stop steward and I took great pleasure representing my members we didn't win everything that we set out to do but we certainly won a number of cases and it was very much a collective contribution from all of our members but I want to also touch on not just the fact that the trade unions obviously represent their members at the going strike etc etc I want to look at the bigger picture of trade unions what I learned when I was a shop steward and a member of the trade union was the fact that they actually put people through college you actually had representatives that was going into schools I think it was an absolutely fantastic movement that the trade union is and I think it's something that we shouldn't forget and what really deeply worries me is with the situation at the moment with this trade union bill going through I think someone else actually mentioned this where are they going to stop you talk about you know collection trade union memberships monies etc I remember you know trade unions I said putting people through college I remember them helping with fees to put them through HNDs HNCs I remember the trade councils and the meetings that I used to attend and many friends that pass and present I still have within these trade councils and to me that was a huge strength of the trade union movement not just the fact that they were there on the shop floor they actually educated the workers and that's something I think we would deeply regret if the Tories tried to go down that road and I said I'd touch on some other aspects of the trade union bill and I do want to thank Linda Fabiani once again because she raised a particular issue in regards to the STEC and this is for Murdo Fraser and the Tories benefit perhaps he would like to check the minutes because certainly some of his issues and his first contribution certainly did not stand up if you want to look at any other minutes the STEC repeatedly stated that it was in favour of the evolution of employment law and its submission to the Smith commission it specifically called for the evolution of employment law health and safety trade union law and the minimum wage and I think it would be wise if you did check what Murdo Fraser actually said you also know that the first minister in the STEC had a meeting it was highlighted the Scottish Government in the STEC shared the view that as a priority the UK Government should agree to the full devolution of powers over employment law and of course the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the STEC I would think that everyone here would say is that not the way forward instead of the retrograde steps that are being forced upon trade unions by the Tory Government and Westminster a Government I think should remind you does not have a mandate from the people of Scotland and I think that's something you should remember I also want to thank the cabinet secretary for her opening remarks in regards to Scotland being excluded from this bill and that an LCM be brought forward to this Parliament to ensure that this Parliament has the power to vote out this bill as Dave Moxman said earlier at the rally the trade union rally outside the Parliament we in Scotland she could show the way and I'm very pleased that Drew Smith in his contribution recognised that we in the Scottish Parliament must work together not only to defeat this bill but also to give a better future for all of our workers and I think that's the thing that we do best by working together trade unions as far as I'm concerned are very very important they're far too important to be used even as a political football they are workers out there and we've got a right we represent them we've got a right to put forward the best wishes of the trade unions and we really need to make sure that this bill does not go through and this Scottish Parliament has the powers to defeat it thank you very much Presiding Officer thank you very much indeed and now call on Patricia Farragasson up to six minutes please thank you Presiding Officer and I rise to support the amendment in the name of my colleague Ian Gray and firstly I would like to declare an interest as a trade union member since 1976 a former shop steward and a member of the GMB since 1990 having listened carefully to Murdo Fraser's contribution which consisted mainly of telling the chamber how reasonable it was that the Conservative Government should bring forward its trade union bill and having considered the Conservative amendment which is couched in such moderate terms that the casual observer might be forgiven for wondering why Scottish Labour and all other parties in the chamber are making such a fuss well here's why in truth the provisions in the Conservatives Government's Bill undermine and I quote workers' rights to representation and their right to express an opinion through industrial action which is taken as a last resort now these are not the words of the STUC or the TUC but are in fact the considered opinion of the British Medical Association a politically neutral professional association and trade union representing around 16,000 members in Scotland which does not have a political fund and is not affiliated to any political party or to the TUC or to the STUC for that matter the criticisms of the bill though made by the BMA mirror in many respects the fundamental concerns raised by trade unions that are affiliated to the TUC and STUC and for example let's take the provisions of the bill that seek to introduce ballot thresholds clauses 2 and 3 despite the Tory Government's claims that these measures are not an attempt to ban industrial action the purpose of the double threshold is clearly to make it more difficult for unions to organise industrial action clause 2 of the bill would require as we've heard a minimum threshold of a 50 per cent turnout in all industrial action ballots clause 3 goes further introducing an additional barrier that would mean that 40 per cent of the eligible membership would have to be in favour of action in specified public services before any action would be legal in effect that means that a trade union would need 50 per cent of members to take part in the ballot and 80 per cent of that number to vote in favour of industrial action before it would be legal Presiding Officer how many Tory MPs could pass that test the BMA is right when it says that the ballot thresholds in this bill are arbitrary unnecessary and inappropriate and that introducing such a threshold for each individual instance undermines workers fundamental right to strike in reality the provisions contained within the bill follow the pattern set by clauses 2 and 3 they are ideologically motivated blatantly partial and essentially vindictive the attempt to restrict facility time is another case in point unions are concerned that these measures will restrict the ability of their representatives to represent their members and as the RCN stated another predictably non-political organisation attempt to solve a problem that simply does not exist now we would all want to see modern constructive industrial relations regimes where there is a proper balance between the interests of the employed and those of the employer but this bill so clearly weighted against trade unions and their members will instead stoke up grievance and foment unnecessary dispute it is in short a bad bill despite murdo Fraser's nuanced but essentially disingenuous amendment these the provisions of this bill form a less than subtle attempt to smash the trade union movement and in effect to finish off Mrs Thatcher's work and it is for that reason that we must use all democratic means at our disposal to kill this anti trade union bill stone dead Scottish Labour will not stand by and allow working people's hard-won rights to be swept aside by these privileged smug oldytonians now I'm proud that Labour local authorities and all others who have pledged not to cooperate with attacks on facility time or check off and that they have committed to oppose the use of untrained agency workers to break strides and I also applaud my colleagues at Westminster and Cardiff who've taken a principal position against this unjust legislation I note too the strength of the minister's opposition to this bill and her attempts to exempt Scotland from its provisions that is very welcome and I do hope that an LCM proves to be something that can be worked upon and that can be brought forward Presiding Officer free democratic trade unions have been a civilising force in society they are responsible for equal pay legislation maternity rights health and safety at work holiday pay paternity rights the minimum wage and the living wage and so much that constitutes progress in the workplace The Tory trade union bill is a vindictive hotchpotch that attempts to take us back to the early years of the last century it must be defeated by positive concerted political action so let us all unite with our constituents and ensure its failure Many thanks and I'll call on Czech Brody after which we'll move to the closing speech this is Mr Brody's six minutes please Thank you very much Presiding Officer forgive my voice Presiding Officer it's paradoxical that today we are considering the limited further powers for the Scottish Government yet we entertain here in this debate a proposed taking of free and democratic powers from our workforces and our trade unions I'm delighted to be taking part in this debate today and I do so wearing a tie given to me by the GMB which I'm proud to wear and I say to some and never judge a book by its cover Presiding Officer when or when will this UK Tory Government lay aside its tribalism and recognise that there could be benefits for all financial operating skills and talents securing fair work practices and so on and that will only be achieved when its tribally driven conflict is laid aside this then would apply in developing good working relationships which of course this bill has proposed tears apart The facts Presiding Officer provide me with a conundrum and there are these that in the workplace private and public sector alike labour in the workplace and capital i.e. those who own revenue in its disbursement should be and have to be partners to work together yet it's okay for the owners of capital to move money at a whim to withdraw from any exercise or any complex be able to move that that they own now that's all right for the owners of capital to withdraw it and distribute it at will then so must it be for the workforce but we don't want that rather with proper understanding with an acceptance of practical trained and beneficial management and strong employee representatives at the workplace that we can achieve a much better arrangement but this bill is and is shown to be in the current circumstances and with that objective in mind are nonsense and unnecessary and with this bill we will continue to have conflict or a potential for it that's why it's a disgrace and it must be killed if not so Scotland should certainly be excluded from the bill and given the opportunity and our known propensity for community empowerment we can extend that to the workplace and in participation and decision making with the trade unions and thereby secure a consistency of practice and fairness across individual sectors in the last few years Presiding Officer in Scotland there has been a closer relationship more discussion with trade unions nationally and locally resulting in fewer days of industrial action compared to the rest of the UK disputes have decreased over the last seven years by 84 per cent communication communication problem resolution personal relationships and agreed joint positive actions I believe have contributed to that this trade union reform bill however flies in the face of us continuing that it flies in the face of us creating progressive workplace practices meaningful workforce and union engagement being innovative thereby increasing productivity and enhanced employee commitment and compensation what we need is good management and leadership an agreement of people in practices across the workplace practices far from understood in Eaton at Oxford or in the Bullwingdon Club and requires Scotland to be allowed to continue to be ahead of the curve on this issue this bill does nothing does nothing to cement good relations it does nothing for fairness and democracy for example in setting a 40 per cent support requirement of those entitled to vote in favour of industrial action in certain essential public services what the Tory Government tends to forget that is creating welfare mayhem on the back of a public support of less than 40 per cent conflict not partnership industrial aggression not peace that is the Tory Government's byword for industrial relations for example the change on unlawful picketing to that of a potential criminal offence is intimidating an increase in the notice period prior to industrial action is confrontative proscriptive detail to be included on ballot paper is absolutely unnecessary I repeat Presiding Officer this bill is a symbol of tribalism a totem of conflict and all that negates positivity and cohesion that there should be and can be in industrial relations paragraph 2 of the bill states and I quote provision for legislation to reform trade unions it doesn't and to protect essential public services against strikes the way it is drafted it won't paragraph 3 says and I quote again allows us to pursue this bill allows us to pursue the most prosperous made to be the most prosperous major economy in the world by 2030 they must be daft as conceived this bill will have the very opposite effect that goal will only be achieved I believe by collaboration a redrawing and meaningful strategy for employer relations and participation in decision making best that it be moved to Scotland so that we can get home with that job anythings can we now move the closing speeches and I call on Gavin Brown six minutes or thereby please Mr Brown I'm presenting officer thank you I want to start by reiterating some of the comments made by my colleague Murdo Fraser and indeed the wording of our amendment because it was described by Patricia Ferguson as being disingenuous but I have to say I do take issue with that quite strongly we thought very carefully about what sort of amendment we'd put in we reflected very much upon the contents of the bill and upon previous writings and discussions by Murdo Fraser on the subject of trade union so what we said in our amendment was exactly what we felt about the valuable role that trade unions have played in the past and the role that I certainly believe they will continue to play in the future because they have had a very important role in the promotion of rights as we've heard across the debate in just one moment they've had an important role in health and safety Hugh Henry asked the question of whether the job was done and he concluded quite rightly that the job is not done there are still far far too many people who are intimidated, injured or indeed killed at work and I think trade unions have a critical role to play in that going forward and I named checked it Patricia Ferguson happy to give way Patricia Ferguson I thank Mr Brown for giving way but in actual fact he's made my point about the amendment being disingenuous because you cannot say all those really good things about trade unions all of which are true and then at the same time be part of a party that's trying to pass legislation that will completely, utterly neuter them I do think there's a bit of hyperbole there, Presiding Officer I think it's perfectly plausible to believe in the strength of trade unions and to promote the excellent work that they have done and will continue to do but also to believe that some of the many of the contents of the bill will improve I think the balance between employers, employees, trade unions and indeed the general public I think to say that we're trying to neuter them it's hyperbole that may well fit in the debate it may well be go down well at a public meeting but I certainly don't believe it's true if the bill were to have the effect as some of Serian Gray said it's trying to disable and destroy the trade union movement I don't accept for a second that that's what the bill is trying to do I think it would be awful if that's what the bill ended up doing because as I said in the opening remarks I think they have a critical and key role to play so what has driven the bill because we have heard I think quite a lot of hyperbole today and things that I think just simply aren't true that the bill will undermine the right to family life is making it more difficult to become a member where it doesn't talk about that at all Willie Rennie saying it's purely about beating the Labour Party which I don't think is true and Chick Brody saying it's the totem of conflict I don't think those are true at all I think there are some legitimate concerns that I've been put forward I think quite effectively by a number of unions and by a number of members at least in parts of their speeches here today and I think as a basis for going forward that approach will bear far better fruit and far better results so that we do end up with a bill that is better and stronger than the one we have today like any bill that is published it's not perfect there are clauses that could be improved and I think the Government has made it clear that it's open to amendments and indeed has suggested one or two already at this stage but what I think is driving the bill is a comment made by a number of people that we have to balance the interests carefully not just between employers and employees and trade unions but also for a group that I have to say have barely merited a mention today a group which I don't think any speaker and I might be wrong but I think barely any speaker has mentioned the general public that is what I think is behind this bill because it is the general public who do ultimately bear a large part of the brunt in an industrial dispute that's not what I suspect the unions on employers want but they are whether it's an operation being cancelled whether it's trying to get different childcare arrangements for it is being unable to legitimately get into work or to get home from work the public do bear the brunt and I think they are another factor that need to be taken into account when producing the legislation and they haven't featured heavily today happily give way to Joanne Lamont Joanne Lamont recognise that ordinary trade unionists are in fact members of the public they're ordinary working people trying to do their best and it's reasonable that their voice should be heard in the workplace of course trade union members are members of the public but not every member of the public is a member of a trade union and not every member of the public has the ability to vote in any ballot cast by a trade union to decide whether or not to take industrial action so they have many members of the public have no say whatsoever in the process none whatsoever but ultimately bear a large part of the brunt of the industrial action taking place so Presiding Officer that's what I think is driving the bill and we've heard a lot about the important work of trade unions today almost all of which I have to say agreed with entirely and I accept too that the bill itself is not perfect and amendments will be required but certainly in some of the substantive issues which very few of which we got to today surely I think even those who oppose the bill as a whole would accept some of the arguments on the substantive issues for example the mandate expiring after a ballot after four months now people may disagree strongly on whether it ought to be four months and they're quite tempted to say so but does everyone in the chamber outside of my own party genuinely believe that the mandate goes on in perpetuity whether the action takes place a year two years or even three years after a ballot takes place surely the principle of having in legislation some form of end point whether you agree on the four months of course is another matter some point of end point it surely is something that can be discussed and debated is it really so wrong that two weeks notice has to be given so that people are better prepared for the outcome of that industrial action again you can disagree about that and is it really so wrong that there has to be a higher turnout you can disagree with the 50 per cent but is it correct or is it fair to say that just 11 per cent in the example Murdo Fraser gave just 11 per cent alone without any obviously the public voting can decide that industrial action goes ahead you might disagree with 50 but surely people would accept that 11 it does seem a little bit unfair so I just think that there is genuine political disagreement certainly from our side and with others on the chamber over the course of the bill but I hope they don't question the motives of our party and so doing and because I think at the heart of it it is trying to get a balance towards the general public I'll leave it there thank you many thanks I'll now call on Neil Findlay eight minutes are thereby please Mr Findlay thanks very much Presiding Officer I'd like to put on the record my membership of Unite the Union and the EIS and I'm also chair of the PCS parliamentary group and a member of the R&T group and I think Ian Gray and Drew Smith and Joanne Lamont and others were right to point out how the values the solidarity of community and workers rights are ingrained in the DNA of our party and our movement and I'm very very proud of that and many people have said that this bill is a concerted politically sectarian attack on the rights of working people to organise themselves and to collective groups to promote and defend the rights at work and I was very pleased at lunch time to see Green Party members, Liberals, Independence, SNP members, SSP members and Labour members joining the rally outside at lunch time the bill is nasty it's vindictive and it's unnecessary and it's driven by a hatred and complete misunderstanding of the role of trade unions and it is without any doubt a continuation of Cameron and Osborne's class war at work sits very nicely with their tax credit cuts their benefit cuts and their attack on public services and today we have been accompanied by two of their Scottish class warriors Mr Brown and Mr Fraser Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee they are the agency staff sent in to cover as the rest of their members have been on strike never having participated in a ballot and they've sat there looking at their faces glum faces all afternoon they look as though they've just gone into Greggs to buy a sausage roll and dropped it in a puddle on the way out and they should be embarrassed and ashamed to support this bill because it is not needed strikes are at their lowest level for decades as Patrick Harvie has told us people lose money when they go on strike no one withdraws their labour easy it's always a last resort particularly at a time of major economic uncertainty and the purpose of the bill is to impose conditions and regulations on trade unions wrapping them up in red tape at a time when the Tory party tell us they're cutting red tape for business and everyone else none of this legislation will apply to the hedge fund the pawn shop owners the payday loans companies or any of the other businesses who bankroll the Tory party just trade unions representing ordinary working people and the bill aims to introduce greater powers for the regulator not reduce powers for the regulator and the certification officer with his or her increased powers unions will have to pay for the privilege of that greater regulation it will allow agency workers to be hired to break strikes legislating for scab labour even agencies themselves don't want this how on earth can something like that enhance community cohesion some of our communities are still suffering from the legacy of that 30 years ago and this will take us back to those divisions and they want unions to appoint picket supervisors who will provide their name in advance to the place no doubt so they can be identified for blacklisting afterwards Patricia Ferguson and a number of others mentioned thresholds and the increase of them and the purpose of thresholds of course is to make it more difficult to go take industrial action of course as many people have mentioned very few politicians across the whole of UK would ever reach such a threshold and the most absurd and ludicrous claim about this bill is it's all about democracy what utter rubbish if it was about democracy we would have electronic voting we would have text voting with workplace balloting which is all designed to increase turnout in ballots but of course they reject all of that because this is nothing to do with industrial democracy and everything to do with an attack on the organised labour movement they use electronic voting in their own internal ballots but won't allow anyone else to do it these are the actions without doubt of a tin pot dictatorship and Ruth Davidson wherever she is and her group should distance herself from these actions and this far right ideological attack people have mentioned that the bill seeks to restrict time off for duties the time this is the time that reps have to deal with disciplinary issues health and safety and welfare issues and pay all of these things help prevent and resolve workplace conflict making business easier and smoother to complete we only need to look at how an employer like INEOS how they have brutally attacked the union's right to organise before the dispute at INEOS 63 safety reps were on that site a very dangerous place how many are there now three three that employer has taken advantage of that situation to downgrade safety on that site the bill wants to ban public employees from deducting union fees from pay slips the claim it's about saving taxpayer money it is rubbish many unions actually pay to have cheque of administer so it costs little or nothing to administer cheque of it is a complete non-argument and it also exposes the politically sectarian nature of the bill I thought Gordon MacDonald made an excellent speech today words you will not often hear from me but he did make an excellent speech and it was very detailed and he got it because cheque of donations to charities are not affected to credit unions are not affected neither are saving schemes things like the cycle to work scheme not affected only trade union cheque of can you defend that Mr Fraser I'll give you the opportunity if you want to didn't think so and they want to say they want to eat further into union's political funds many people mistakenly believe that it's about funding the Labour Party it is not it's about funding all manner of political and community campaigns and it's not about funding the Labour Party it is about it because trade unions who are not affiliates to the Labour Party support the political fund Presiding Officer union members have the right to spend their money how they want the government has no right to interfere and Carault was right to express her view about opposition to this bill in the communities the bill has been opposed anywhere we've been on the streets campaigning about it it's been opposed fiercely in the house of commons and today we seek to unite the parties in this chamber bringing on board if they exist in the Scottish Conservative Party moderate or libertarian Tories David Davis has been mentioned likening the bill to something that would be found in Franco's Spain and he said that because of the experience that his father a blacklisted worker in the mining industry so will the Scottish Tories line up behind him or will they line up behind legislation that could have been passed by a fascist dictatorship we will find out at decision time it's clear the bill impacts on areas of devolved authority and I'm pleased that the minister has given a commitment to bring forward an LCM or see how we can bring forward an LCM and we fully support that we should also be challenging this bill in the courts under human rights and competition law because it places a burden on public bodies that it isn't placed on competitor private companies and that is clearly unfair competition and I hope the Scottish Government will look into that and bring the weight of their legal department to that many people have mentioned the leader of Labour councils up and down the country and I'm pleased that North Ayrshire SNP council have now come on board with a non-compliance policy I hope the Scottish Government will do the same let's build a coalition against this bill trade unions have been at the forefront of almost every major progressive development in our society they are a force for good let's make sure it continues I know Colin Rosanna Cunningham to wind up the debate cabinet secretary until 5.28 please sorry got a little fright there Presiding Officer I'd forgotten the decision time was extended thank you very much what has been clear from the discussion here today is the key role that unions play in developing our economy and improving the conditions of many people working in Scotland and indeed that has been the case over decades reaching right back into the later part of the 19th century I think we all agree or we all should agree that joining a trade union seeking to protect your rights at work and in some instances withdrawing your labour are enshrined rights protecting workers in Scotland not only does the UK trade union bill devalue these rights it erodes international labour organisation conventions to support workers rights of trade union representation collective bargaining and protection from anti trade union discrimination conventions long ratified by the UK which are now directly under attack and you have to ask yourself why why would a government seek to destroy the rights of its workforce challenge the employee-employer relationship and silence the voice of employees what evidence does it have that these things need fixed well there's a simple answer there is no evidence there's no justification for this attack on unions ability to fairly represent their membership and can I say particularly there is no problem to fix in Scotland in Scotland we see trade unions as partners not opponents that partnership that partnership approach is undoubtedly one reason why the number of days lost in Scotland due to strikes has declined by 84% in the last seven years perhaps just perhaps what the UK government should have done before they brought this silly piece of legislation forward was come and talk to us about what is happening here in my view the UK government's approach to trade unions is not only wrong it's also counterproductive it's bad for the rights and conditions of workers but you know what it's also bad for business some weeks ago I took part in a round table discussion in Inverness which included employers employees and trade union representatives what was clear in that discussion was the value that employers place on their ability to speak with unions regularly to deal with issues well in advance of them becoming major concerns and can I say that's an aspect of trade union activity which is kind of going under the radar here the reality is that the vast majority of trade union activity takes place in that way in conversations like that day and daily we can weekly month and monthly in workplaces where things are worked out long before they ever get to the position of industrial action and I think that's really really important employers placing importance on that ability to speak with unions regularly to deal with those issues well in advance of them becoming major concerns isn't that what should be happening everywhere but this bill shatters the ability of many businesses to support their workforce aggravating relations between employer and employee to the detriment of both it is doing the opposite precisely the opposite of what it claims that it does and one wonders in those circumstances whether what they claim they want to do is precisely the opposite of what they are looking to do it seems with this bill that the United Kingdom Government is spoiling for a fight it is not looking to resolve the problem it is looking to provoke a major dispute and I think that that is reprehensible on the part of any government to approach things in that manner now in Scotland we do have a clear approach to engendering constructive and progressive industrial relations it's why we've established the fair work convention in the first place bringing business unions the public and third sectors together to validate good industrial relations and promote better working practices in Scotland and that came out of the working together review which again was a joint enterprise the recommendations of which we have signed up to in whole the danger with the approach that is being taken by the Westminster Government is it rides roughshod over the good work that is being done in Scotland that results in our days lost to industrial disputes being so much below what they were in 2007 and certainly below where they were in the rest of the UK and I would just compare and contrast the approach being taken here in Scotland with the approach of the Tory Government at Westminster where what looks like emerging is a Government of confrontation not a Government that's in any way interested in resolving problems but is a Government that is spoiling for a fight and they think I suppose that that's going to play to their own backwardsmen well it certainly won't play in Scotland and I'm guessing if they go on the way they're going the one Tory MP returned from Scotland will be no Tory MPs returned from Scotland and I would suggest that the Tories in Scotland next year will find themselves in much depleted numbers because this is just going to be seen as a vindictive attack on the rights of workers now our approach in Scotland differs significantly from that of the rest of the United Kingdom which makes it all the more frustrating that the UK Government is bulldozing through this legislation with no understanding or interest in the impact it will have in Scotland indeed the House of Commons committee meeting at which I gave evidence alongside Graham Smith I think showed clear evidence of the total disinterest of the Conservative members on that committee regarding the actual impact of the bill Conservative members were only interested in trying to assert a reserved function with precisely no concern given at all to the actual impact of the legislation on the ground and that of course is reflected in their attitude towards those giving evidence from the rest of the UK as well and I would argue that if they were serious about industrial relations they might consider looking northwards to assess why we in Scotland have achieved such a major reduction in industrial disputes it comes about as a result of a lot of hard work and discussion over a long period of time and I think Ian Gray is absolutely correct to say that this bill would return us to 19th century industrial relations it's absolutely shameful so I'm grateful for Labour support for a legislative consent motion and we shall see how we get on with that in terms of the various authorities I was interested in listening to Mardo Fraser he had a lot of warm words for trade unions but he seems to then want to exclude public service trade unions from those warm words he also I think in the by-going misrepresented the STUC's position as Linda Fabiani made clear subsequently who in their submission to the Smith commission did call for the devolution of employment law health and safety trade union law and the minimum wage I'm grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way just to clarify I didn't refer to the STUC in my opening speech I referred to the TUC I clearly he doesn't want to talk to the Scottish trade union congress that's a interesting interesting interesting point the unpalatable truth for the conservatives is that far from reducing days lost to industrial disputes their approach could very well lead to more actions I'm just watching the time here I want to try and make reference to some of the people who've actually contributed to this debate I think Joanne Lamont was right to draw attention to the detrimental effect this will likely have in industrial relations most discussions between trade union reps and employers work to reduce conflict which was what I was referring to earlier but which is in no way reflected in anything that the conservatives are currently doing and I think you know what Gordon McDonald had to say about the value of facility time and the nonsense of the proposed removal of check-off facilities is is absolutely clear he also highlighted the adverse effect of this bill on industrial relations as a whole I'm I'm kind of pleased to hear Willie Rennie's comments about the conservative government trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist because that is exactly the position that we feel we are in to I couldn't agree more and he made a helpful reference to that 2014 poll which suggests that public support for trade unions is far greater than the Tories might think and they would be well advised to be very careful when they make such public attacks on trade unions and I can see my the presiding officer's pen being waved in my direction which suggests I probably have to move swiftly to closing as I mentioned previously the UK government has it no point prior to the publication of this bill sought the views of the Scottish government as to how this would impact in Scotland and specifically how it would impact and our approach to delivering effective public services in Scotland which is why we're taking the action that we are taking we will continue to support as we do now our workers and the trade unions that represent them presiding officer it's right that this parliament's consider this legislation being put forward by the UK government it will affect fundamentally the operations of Scottish public services and those who work to deliver them which is why we're taking the action that we are taking and I strongly commend the motion and the amendment thank you that concludes the debate on the trade union bill the next item of business is consideration of motion number 14776 in the name of Liam McArthur on the reimbursement of members expenses scheme I call on Liam McArthur to move the motion on behalf of the Scottish parliamentary corporate body thank you Presiding Officer on behalf of the corporate body I'm moving the motion to amend the reimbursement of members expenses scheme specifically to make changes to the staff cost provision and office leasing arrangements we are bringing these amendments now in order that changes can be fully effective from the start of session five to enable new and returning members to set up offices and employ their staff Presiding Officer earlier today all members will have received a letter from you on behalf of the corporate body explaining the detail of the changes proposed the first relates to the level of staff cost provision largely unchanged since 2010 the corporate body believes the provision is already under significant pressure and this will only increase with the additional powers the Scottish parliament will assume during the course of the next session a strong parliament depends on having members who are equipped to fulfill their role and we believe the recommended change will help to ensure that MSPs will be properly supported to represent their constituents and hold the government of the day to account if agreed therefore from the start of session five the staff cost provision limit will be increased to £85,000 a year this will enable MSPs to employ up to the equivalent of three full time staff in a flexible way to suit the individual office needs the corporate body recognised the wishes of members from all parties to build on current good practice to continue as living wage employers and to put our staff arrangements on a more robust professional and transparent footing for that reason the sbcb is also recommending the introduction of standard terms and conditions for members staff together with consistent job roles and pay scales the second element of this motion will end the ability of members to lease offices from or to political parties this will create a very clear divide between parliamentary and political activities encounter any potential perception that public funds are being used to support party political organisations these changes have the support of all party leaders at hollywood and i hope the corporate body can count on the support of all members in this chamber this afternoon for this motion. Presiding officer i move the motion on behalf of the corporate body. Thank you Mr McArthur the question this motion will be put decision time to which we now come there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business the first question is at amendment number 14766.2 in the name of yain gray we seek to amend motion number 14766 in the name of rosanna cunningham on the trade union will be agreed to are we all agreed the amendment is therefore agreed to the next question is at amendment number 14766.1 in the name of muddle phraser which seeks to amend motion number 14766 in the name of rosanna cunningham on the trade union bill be agreed to are we all agreed the amendments not agreed we move to vote members should cast votes now the result of the voter amendment number 14766.1 in the name of muddle phraser is as follows yes 14 no 104 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed to the next question is at motion number 14766 in the name of rosanna cunningham as amended on the trade union bill be agreed to are we all agreed parliament is not agreed we move to vote members should cast votes now the result of the voter motion number 14766 in the name of rosanna cunningham as amended is as follows yes 104 no 14 there were no abstentions the motion as amended is therefore agreed to the next question is at motion number 14776 in the name of Liam McArthur on the reimbursement of members expenses scheme be agreed to are we all agreed the motion is therefore agreed to that concludes decision time we now move to members business members should leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly