 The First Minister Good afternoon everyone and the first item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion number 13442 in the name of Rwzanna Cunningham on protecting employee rights and access to justice. I would invite all members who wish to take part in this debate, please press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible and can I remind members that for the purposes of the standing order rule rôl ond subjudysu, no mention should be made of any live cases during this debate. I now call on Cabinet Secretary Rosanna Cunningham to speak to and move the motion. Presiding Officer, as the 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 we are absolutely committed to doing. This is a difficult task because of course we do not have powers over employment law. Instead, we have to contend with the Conservative Government and Westminster that is pursuing a regressive, corrosive and oppressive approach to employee rights. Today, I want to set out our opposition to the gradual erosion that we have seen of employee rights under the last UK Government, an erosion that looks set to accelerate in the coming years. I believe that the majority of members will have grave concerns about the direction of travel. Neil Findlay? While she is setting out our opposition to that, and I am sure that we will join in with that, could she set out her vision for what the Scottish Government would do if there was the further devolution of any employment rights? If the member would allow me to get more than two sentences into my speech, she may hear things that he is happy about, because I actually do believe that the majority of members will have grave concerns about the direction of travel. It is therefore helpful to discuss what can be done to address this and to try to protect the rights of workers in Scotland. The central purpose of this Government is to grow Scotland's economy. Scotland's economic strategy set out our belief that boosting economic growth and tackling inequality must go hand in hand if we are to succeed. Just last week, the ONS economic review highlighted the continuing downward trend in the number of quality jobs and that contributes to weak productivity growth. I agree entirely with the TUC's general secretary's comments that this shows that the Chancellor's plan is failing. The current growth is based on a low-pay economy that is unsustainable in the long term and a UK Government committed to huge austerity and further cuts is only going to worsen this situation. That is why we will continue to oppose spending reductions of the scale and speed that the UK Government has suggested. Those would slow economic recovery and make deficit reduction more difficult, something that is shown by the impact of the cuts that are imposed after 2010. It is also why we are committed to seeking greater powers for Scotland. First, by ensuring that the recommendations of the Smith commission are met in full, and then by making a clear case for additional responsibilities beyond those that the Smith commission identified, in particular powers over business taxes, employment law, the minimum wage, health and safety and welfare would enable us to create good quality jobs, grow the economy and lift people out of poverty. One of the things that we know that we will get responsibility for through the Scotland bill is likely to be employment tribunals. Those are a perfect example of where decisions made in Westminster are failing workers in Scotland. With our new powers, we must maximise the opportunities to reintroduce fairness and justice for employees that are affected by bad employment. The previous UK Government pursued an employment review programme, which resulted in the slow dismantling of employee rights built up over many decades. The coalition increased the qualifying period for making a claim at a tribunal from one year to two years in employment for the majority of cases. Despite Scottish Government opposition, it introduced fees for making a claim at an employment tribunal in July 2013, which ranged from £390 to £1,200 for an employee to raise a claim, while the employer paid no fee. Could you clarify whether the Scottish Government has the power to alter or reduce the tribunal fees? Prezent is my understanding, and I will come on to issues that are connected with fees, because the introduction of the fees for employment tribunals, which I currently entirely reserved, has had a dramatic impact in Scotland. The number of single claims received in Scotland from January to June 2013 was 2,118, whereas the number for the same period in 2014, after the fees were introduced, was 880. That marks a reduction of almost 60 per cent in single claims in Scotland. An area of particular concern is the drop in certain categories of cases, for example, unlawful deduction of wages claims, reduced by 71.5 per cent and sex discrimination cases declined by 83 per cent. That has been compounded by the fact that only 49 per cent of those successful at tribunal receive payment info from the employer. There is a mounting body of evidence detailing the adverse effects of this discriminatory legislation, backed up by research by Citizens Advice Scotland and Strathclyde University, entitled The Price of Justice. There can be no doubt that this is an appalling state of affairs whereby long fought for protections in law are made meaningless as the vulnerable and those in most need are priced out of access to justice. The potential transfer of powers in the Scotland Bill gives us an opportunity to consult on new and innovative ways to ensure that employees are supported through the system and ensure that they get the money that they are awarded. I will be looking to employers, employees and experts in this field and to assess the impact of the fees and to look at new ways to improve fairness at work. We are committed to the principle of abolishing fees for employment tribunals, but we must be absolutely clear on how the transfer of powers and responsibilities would work before we commit to a timescale for this. The importance of employment rights must not be understated. They serve not only to protect the opportunity and dignity of individual employees but strengthen our workforce, workplaces and economy as a whole. There are fundamental protections and liberties and enriched democracy across the country. Joining a trade union seeking to protect your rights at work and, yes, in some circumstances, withdrawing your labour are not only a part of those rights, but are key to safeguarding them. However, the Conservative Government and Westminster is proposing to further restrict those rights, particularly the right to strike, with the introduction of the Trades Union Bill. The bill aims to bring about highly regressive reforms, making it more difficult for employees to have their voice heard. We oppose the measure set out in the bill to further restrict the right to strike. Instead of helping unions to ballot more effectively on strike action through measures such as online voting, it will impose a 50 per cent turnout threshold on strike ballots. 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 and will serve only to suppress and inhibit the capabilities of organised labour. Indeed, as STUC General Secretary Graham Smith rightly pointed out on 27 May, if the same rules were to apply to the UK general elections, David Cameron himself would be unable to govern. Those measures will impose even greater restrictions on employees and certain essential public services such as health, education, fire and transport. Those are areas where the dedication and commitment of employees should be recognised and applauded. Instead, to sanction and restrict their trade union rights does them a great disservice. We believe that trade unions are key social partners, playing an important role in sustaining effective democracy and society, particularly in the workplace, and that the existence of the good employment practices that they promote are a key contributor to economic competitiveness and social justice. Our memorandum of understanding with the STUC demonstrates our commitment to work inclusively and productively with all key social partners. We will continue to work with them, alongside employers, to ensure that we continue to build sustainable and inclusive economic growth. One example of that is our establishment of the Fair Work Convention. It brings together trade unions, the private sector and the wider public sector. It aims to encourage workforce policies that encourage innovation, higher productivity and better workforce engagement. It is through positive action and constructive relationships like those that we can create a fairer workplace instead of punitively, regressively and unproductively restricting the right of union members to take industrial action. Let us be very clear. Attacks on the rights of our workforce will be bad for individuals, bad for our economy and bad for democracy in our country. Those are just two reasons why I believe that employment law should be devolved to Scotland, so that we can both protect the rights of employees and continue to build sustainable economic growth. Over the past year, we have made great steps towards improving fairness, democracy, dialogue, productivity and innovation in our workplaces. Of course, there is more to be done about making sure that those in work are fairly rewarded. The First Minister last week met with key industry bodies as part of a living wage summit. The living wage is one of those policies that virtually everyone accepts as being desirable in principle. The agreement that the living wage is the right thing to do is already taking hold in Scotland. The number of Scottish-based living wage accredited employers has grown from 30 this time last year to more than 200. Scotland now has approximately 13 per cent of the accredited employers in the UK, significantly more than our population share. In addition, 81 per cent of Scottish employees are paid at least the living wage compared to 78 per cent across the UK as a whole. What the Scottish Government is trying to do, in addition to leading by example through our own living wage accreditation, is to promote and share some of the experiences of employers who now pay the living wage. The living wage is increasingly seen by both society and employers as the norm. With powers over the minimum wage, we could accelerate the progress of bringing everyone up to this level. Of course, we will also focus our efforts on those seeking work. We already deliver a range of employability support services in Scotland. With the devolution of employability support services, I propose to build on the strengths of the employability delivery landscape in Scotland. It is an opportunity to develop our Scottish approach, reflecting our core aims of sustainable economic growth, inclusion, fair work and social justice, supporting those seeking work and those in work to have access to quality job opportunities. There is, Presiding Officer, a lot that has been done. However, there is a lot still to do, and this Government is determined to do it. The approach that we are taking is in line with a growing international consensus, supported by the IMF, the OECD and many others, that prosperity and fairness are not in opposition to each other. They reinforce each other. They are two sides of the same coin. Creating a more equal society will help us to become more competitive. If I could turn briefly to the amendments before I close, Presiding Officer, we will not be accepting either of them. There is a clear line in the sand between what the Conservative Government and Westminster intends and what we could ever agree to, so it probably will come as no surprise to hear that I will not be accepting the amendment in the name of Alec Johnson. As for the Labour amendment, all I can say is that it is a missed opportunity to forge a joint approach between us. About a third of the demands do not even relate to my responsibilities in my own portfolio. Perhaps instead of posturing that they had come forward with something constructive, I might have been able to accept it, but that is not going to happen today. Clearly, the amendment that I have seen has a typo in it, because it is missing the line that talks about the devolution of employment law, particularly to Scotland, which would be essential to satisfy most of the demands that were within the amendment. To deliver what we need in the area of employment rights, we need greater powers for Scotland, powers to protect the rights of employees and deliver more progressive employment legislation that supports innovation, productivity and justice in the workplace. Indeed, that has all been called for by the STUC. Today, I move the motion and I hope that colleagues in the chamber will be able to support it. I now call on Siobhan McMahon to speak to and move amendment 13442.2. Ms McMahon, you have 10 minutes or thereby please. I welcomed the opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon. As I have stated on our amendment, Scottish Labour welcomes the wide-ranging debate that is currently taking place regarding the pro and cons of devolving employment law to Scotland and the impact that that might have on the lives of working people. We are keen to take part in those discussions, but we recognise that the issue is far from black and white. As we have stated on our amendment, there are wide-ranging views held within the trade union movement on that issue, and we would be interested to take part in discussions where those views are being heard and listened to. The cabinet secretary will be aware that we pledged in our workplace manifesto for this year's general election that we would establish a Scottish hazard centre. Although that is a pledge that we will clearly not be able to deliver, I am delighted that the health and safety charity, Scottish Hazards, has launched a funding appeal to make this ambition a reality. The centre would provide support, advice and training on a wide range of health and safety issues. The theme of this year's international workers' day memorial was removing exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace. That centre would be fitting, a fitting way to honour that theme. It is an atrocious fact that every year more people are killed at work than in wars. Currently, an estimated 132 people die in Scotland in work-related incidents. That is why the appeal is supported by those benches and the STUC. I wonder if she is aware that, in my region last week, a Romanian migrant worker was killed on a site and that the Scottish Hazards centre is exactly the type of place that would be able to get information out to people like that who are not represented by a trade union. I recognise that. When I was drafting this part of my speech, the thoughts of the full chamber will be with the family at this time. As I said, I hope that the Scottish Government will also support this appeal and place not only their vocal backing but much-needed financial backing. There are many pay disputes and other work-related disputes happening across Scotland on a daily basis. That is why the role of our trade unions is so crucial. However, the role of government is also crucial in resolving many of those cases. The Scottish Government would like more powers to evolve to this Parliament. However, the record in relation to those types of disputes, disputes that deal with public sector contracts, cannot be characterised as anything other than woeful. Currently, the porters of NHS Tayside are in dispute regarding their pay. The matter has been brought to the tension of this chamber by Jenny Marra when she was asked when she asked the Scottish Government to encourage NHS Tayside to bring in the advisory, conciliation and arbitration service to resolve the dispute. However, that request has so far been denied. Similarly, there has been a long-running dispute at the National Museum of Scotland with regard to the decision by museum management to remove weekend working alliances for their staff. The National Museum of Scotland has topped a poll as most visited tourist attraction in Scotland, and yet management believe that it is okay to remove much-needed money from the workers by simply saying that weekend payments are no longer common in the culture and tourism sector across the UK. Is this the type of justice that we wish to see for our hard-working public sector staff? The Scottish Government has been posting missing in this dispute, so what would the new powers that they so desperately wish for this place do to help this situation? The point is that the Government simply does not use the powers that they currently have to resolve significant workplace problems, so if we base their country on the record, I would say that it does not look favourable for them. The above example shows how vital it is that we have trade unions. I am a proud trade unionist and I know many in this chamber are. Our pride is shaped by the values of this important body of the Labour movement, but it is also shaped by the past—something that I will talk about in just a moment, but I first want to say that the proposals by the current Conservative Government to further restrict the ability of trade unions and individual employees across the UK to access redress to legitimate industrial grievance with a continuation of attacks on fundamental employment rights, including the right to strike, are truly important. I do not belong in a democratic society. Instead of bringing on legislation to limit the rights of trade unionists, we would have liked to see a concentrated effort to support and promote our trade unions and their right to role in industrial relations. As our amendment sets out, we consider higher turnouts and industrial ballots as desirable as higher turnouts in any other democratic election, where we reject entirely the UK Government's suggested approach, which makes no attempt to support over due reforms. One reform that we would support would be the introduction of online balancing, which we believe could attract more people to vote in strike ballots and therefore create the outcomes that the UK Government tells us they so desperately want. As I said earlier, the history of the trade unions has shaped many of us in this chamber, although maybe not all of us in positive ways. When I mentioned the strike by NHS TSI porters, I feared to mention that a financial appeal has been launched to make sure that the porters do not lose too much of their income. Many people have contributed to that appeal, including Dot workers in Liverpool. That is not surprising, as that is what we have come to recognise as one of the finest characteristics of our movement, but it shows the collective responsibility workers across the UK feel for those who find themselves in those types of disputes. That is not new. It is something that we have seen in many disputes across the years, especially the minor strike of 1984-85. That strike still stains the very fabric of industry relations in our country. Despite the fact that 95 miners have received compensation for the way that they were treated—or should I say mistreated by the police during this time—no officer or, indeed, Government minister has ever been held to account for their actions. That is why Scottish Labour reiterates our call for a public inquiry, similar to that of Hillsborough inquiry set-up. Let's be clear that the Scottish Government has the power to do that, but up until now they have lacked the will. Remember, people have been persecuted for simply taking part in their democratic right to strike. We now hope that those people get the access to justice that the Scottish Government so desperately wants for others. It was only last week that Neil Findlay heard a member's debate congratulating the Welsh Government in their efforts to address the matter of blacklisting and employment practices on public-funded projects. During that debate, many Labour members reiterated to our call for a full and transparent inquiry into blacklisting, and we again call on the Scottish Government to initiate the inquiry without delay. The issue of blacklisting has not gone away and is still a barrier to employment for many in our communities today. Do you accept that, even if an inquiry was held, that this Government has no powers to legislate to prevent these kinds of malpractices going on in the future? No, I do not believe that. I am glad to see that Mike Mackenzie is continuing his theme of the last debate last week, because there are many things that the Scottish Government can do in its abdicating responsibility, and I will go on further in my speech to outline that. The Government has previously said that it would wait for the Scottish Affairs Select Committee to report on the matter before deciding the course of action. While that committee has reported twice since then, it still will await the Government's response. Previously, the Government said that guidance linked to public procurement was the way to make sure that no company involved in blacklisting would be awarded a Government contract. However, the National Health Service Common Services Agency has awarded a £660 million contract to a consortium of contractors involved in the blacklisting scandal. That contract was awarded after the introduction of the Scottish Government policy note. It is clear that that note is not worth the paper that was written on. That scandal first came to light in 2009, and yet we are still waiting for this Government to grant access to justice to those workers and establish an inquiry into those practices. I hope that it will now do so and that it will use its powers over public procurement to make sure that any business involved in that practice does not receive one penny from the public purse. In relation to so-called umbrella companies, we call on the Scottish Government to use their contractual powers to stop the awarding of public contracts to companies using that practice. We know what is happening where public money has been sent. For example, at the Ineos site in Grainsmouth, it must be stopped. It cannot be right that workers do not get the paid wage that was agreed to, that they do not get holiday pay and that they can be dismissed from their duties without a moment's notice. I would encourage the Government to use all their existing powers to discourage that practice as soon as possible. We also call on the Scottish Government to use the powers that it currently has with regard to the living wage. It is a fact that the Government has voted against our proposals a total of five times now in relation to this extremely important matter. As we know, in 2014, 10 per cent of all those employed in Scotland earned £6.79 an hour or less, and 20 per cent earned less than £7.85 an hour. We have to rectify that and rectify that now. Therefore, we are calling on the Scottish Government to establish a unit within Government to actively promote the living wage. I hope that that is something that we can work on together. Finally, there are additional powers already coming to Scotland regarding employment tribunals. We believe that that would give us the opportunity to withdraw fees that currently levied at people wishing to exercise the democratic right, but we also believe that it is an opportunity to reshape the future of this service. We know that the introduction of fees has led to a decrease of 81 per cent in claim cases. That has had an impact on every section of society, but women have been bearing the brunt of it. As Gillian Merchant from Thomson solicitors points out, all types of discrimination cases have fallen, however sex discrimination cases have been most affected with a reduction of 91 per cent. We know that fees can be reduced in some circumstances, however many women lose out because the criteria for reduction is based on the household income and not individual income. Scotland can and should change this. We have an opportunity to do things differently now and I hope that the Government will take that opportunity. As I said at the outset, we welcome the debate currently taking place regarding when employment legislation should be held. However, we do not believe that the Scottish Government has done nearly enough with the powers that it currently has, and we urge it to commit to giving the access to justice the workers that I have mentioned today require and deserve. They can and should do that now. I move the amendment to my name. Many thanks. I now call on Alex Johnson to speak to and move amendment 13442.3. Mr Johnson, you have six minutes, so thereby please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I forget to begin by moving the amendment that stands in my name. When I think back to the 1970s, I think of the hairstyles and I think of the fashions and I think that it was the decade that common sense forgot. However, the thing that makes me think that most is the industrial relations that we experienced during that decade. Many will remember the strikes, many will remember the way that great industries were brought to their knees, and few will remember that that happened 10 years before the high days of unemployment, before the days of Margaret Thatcher. In fact, it could well be said that it preceded them because it caused that. Industrial relations made this country an economic failure, and it was with that in mind that great effort has been put in to ensuring that employment rights and access to justice in the workplace are carried out in such a way that does not destroy public service or undermine the means of production in this country. The Conservatives, in fact, have an exceptionally good record. We have been a party that has sought to liberalise the workplace to make the opportunities available for people to get back into work, and those who do not recognise it do so simply because they see the world through a particular rose colour of spectacles. However, as we address the issues during the course of this debate, it is important that we recognise that the policies that have been in place have resulted in two million new private sector jobs being created over the course of the last UK Parliament, and that the employment rate in Scotland has increased by 42,000 in the last year alone. High unemployment rates across the UK and Scotland are largely due to the UK Government's fiscal discipline and robust economic plan, which it has stuck to over the past five years. However, we support the conclusions of the Smith commission that employment law should remain reserved to the UK Parliament within a UK framework. Of course, the Smith commission recommended that the underlying reserved rights and duties of tribunals should continue to be reserved, while the management and operation of reserved tribunals can be devolved. We need to make sure that that is taken forward and made to work for the benefit of all. We, of course, always agree that, although good relations between employers and employees are good for the workforce, it is also extremely good for the economy. The rights of trade unionists are important, but they are required to be balanced by the rights of hard-working taxpayers who, in the past, have often had to pick up the bill and carry the can. Is the member suggesting that the hard-working taxpayers exclude trade unionists? Is that really what the member is saying to the people of Scotland today? No, not at all. You must realise that we, on this side of the chamber, are entirely inclusive in our approach to this. We are not exclusive and divisive in the way that other parties choose to be, but we further agree that businesses should pay a living wage when it is affordable for them to do so. The idea that we should pay a living wage wherever possible is one that does find support in this corner of the chamber. However, if you look at the economy as a whole, you must realise that many small businesses who are very small employers do find it extremely hard to achieve that. It is important that we should not bully or cajole businesses towards that before they are ready in a way that will damage their business. As I have said in the chamber many times before, there is often immigrants to this country, family businesses who are examples of those who can be most significantly damaged by it. Of course, I welcome the UK Government's legislation to ban exclusivity clauses and zero-hours contracts and to ensure that workers throughout the UK get a fairer deal and greater flexibility in choosing a work pattern suited to their individual needs. Without going into great depth, I would also like everyone to note that we also have concerns about the issue of blacklisting, and while we have not taken a lead in that matter, we continue to be interested in finding a solution that satisfies the demands of all. However, the important thing that we need to remember is that this country, Scotland, is best served by finding a way of legislating and going forward with employment rights and access to justice, which is UK-wide. The reason for that is that, if we choose to go a different way and we are significantly different, we may actually find ourselves in that situation where workers south of the border are exploited and workers north of the border are left without jobs. I am in my last minute. It is important that we are not part of a race to the bottom, and here in this chamber only two days ago, we heard Government ministers and SNP backbenchers argue for the case that we should have European-wide standardisation when it comes to workers' rights. It is wholly inconsistent to ask for EU-wide standardisation and not understand the benefits of UK-wide standardisation. Peddling the myth of Scottish moral superiority as an excuse for simply driving a wedge into the UK's single workplace is wholly unacceptable. It is the inevitability of socialist failure. It is the economically illiterate and the morally bankrupt simply repeddling the myths of the past. Let's grasp the opportunity afforded us by this Conservative Government to take forward the rights of workers, and the most important right is the right to full employment. Are we the only party in this country that supports that right? We now move to the open debate. I must say that the signs for a consensual debate are not particularly favourable since the two selected amendments and indeed the liberal one that was not simply delete the whole of the Government's motion. Let me redress that apparent breakdown of consensus by saying that I think I can probably, on a personal basis, welcome the first four paragraphs of the Labour amendment, which reflect multiple views, and in particular calls for legalisation of online ballots for trade unions. Unless I am missing something, that sounds a perfectly reasonable thing to be asking for. At the core of my take on the debate is the Tory's absolutely egregious attitude to democratic mandate. That is a party that continues to support the anti-democratic, non-democratic, undismisible House of Lords that constitutes the majority of the UK's legislatures, on a mandate of 37 per cent of the electorate who voted a few weeks ago, want to impose a very, very substantially higher requirement on trade unionists. I said that trade unionists are not trade unions. That is quite deliberate, because I think that what the Tories are really about is weakening the position of individuals in our society. In particular, people whose relative lack of power means that they choose to collectively work together to nudge the balance just a little bit in their favour through members' trade unions. I have long heard the Tories are champions of individualism, but I have to say that the current plans absolutely give the lie to that and reinforce my long-term view at the Tories of the party of big business to whom they are absolutely in frawl. There are no more champions of individual citizens whom they wish to remove the human rights champion by previous generations of their party like Winston Churchill than Napoleon was an intimate friend of Wellington 150 years ago. For many of us, a substantial part of our constituency work is about care, and in recent times in particular about carers. As our population ages and more live with multiple concurrent disabilities, conditions and ailments, that is not perhaps surprising. The Tory motion refers to 2 million private sector jobs that are being created, but they are not necessarily new jobs. A lot of them have simply been a transfer from the private sector, but they are not new jobs to the extent of 20 million. What that means is that they move from jobs in a position where they gave priority to public benefit. They are now in the private sector where priority has to be given to the owners' interests for businesses, and that has very rarely improved the conditions of the individuals who have been affected by those moves. In particular for carers, the commercialisation of carer services has created jobs where the relationship between employed and employer is wholly, wholly out of balance. In Aberdeenshire, we may be comparatively lucky—I understand that 11 out of the 13 companies providing carer services are living wage employers—but, of course, there are other difficulties, in particular not paying staff who travel between care appointments. It is common place across Scotland. In a rural area, like Aberdeenshire, the council area is with the highest proportion of people living—I am grateful for the member for taking intervention. The statutory obligation rests with the local authority. It has responsibility for the armoured stem, which is outsourcing that to the private sector and, by default, condoning that. Stuart Stevenson? I certainly intend to persuade my colleagues in Aberdeenshire Council, now that they have taken over the running of it from the Tories, that there may be a different way forward. Of course, we will be locked into existing contracts, and I know that there are difficulties there. However, I think that the member is right that there are opportunities there. However, in particular in Aberdeenshire—I just make the point—it is the most rural area in mainland Scotland. More of the population who live in the rural setting in Aberdeenshire, so for carers who are travelling from appointment to appointment not being paid a bigger proportion of the day, it is a particular issue. There are many reasons why we need new powers over those issues, but this is one of them. I am sure that others will emerge in the debate. The majority of us here, I suspect, could make common cause on how we might exercise the new powers if not unanimously. Fair Work is an awful lot easier to support if we have the powers to do it. As has been mentioned, looking again at access to the legal system to get rights for employees, making it more expensive and making it impossibly expensive for those on lower wages is just part of a Tory agenda—absolutely unambiguously clear—to remove people who most need the protection of the legal system from the opportunity to gain that. The debate is about protecting employee rights. We have had various references to trade unions, and we have had references to borders. I cannot help noticing that the later Labour leadership contenders went to Dublin to speak to trade unionists, because we have a trade union that works across borders. Borders are only barriers against the effective delivery of policy if we choose to make them. Collaboration is the way forward. I hope that we can build some consensus. By pointing to the first half of the Labour motion today, I hope that that has done so. Perhaps, at some future date, I will come forward and say that it is time that we have helped low-level bank employees who have been so damaged by the irresponsible actions of a tiny number of highly-paid, very senior bankers. The issue of fairness in the workplace and making life better for working people and their families is the issue that drove my interests and politics and brought me into the Labour movement. As a teenager, I watched in my own community, and across the UK, proud men and women lost their jobs as government and corporations discarded loyal workers, often without a thought for the consequences. Industrial closures in British Leyland, in Motorola, in Bathgate, in Polkemat, in Levis, in Whitburn, Continental Tires, Newbridge and, more recently, Halls or Broxburn, to name but a few have had a profound and lasting impact on many of the towns in my region and a life-changing impact on the people who lost their livelihood. The reality is that the neoliberal creed, worshiped by the sons and daughters of Thatcher, sitting on the benches over there, cared not a job for the plight of people and communities. That was not their priority. There was no such thing as a society-only individual, as Thatcher said. Those with a collective view were singled out. Trade unions, rather than being seen as a force for good standing up against exploitation, became, as we know, the enemy within. Every Tory Government since has gone on to introduce offensive legislation, further restrictions on trade unions and their ability to organise. They do not want anyone defending working people. They want to continue the attack on living standards and public services, while introducing legislation to restrict the ability of working people to stand up for themselves. I am grateful for Mr Finlay for taking that intervention. Can he perhaps outline the steps taken by the 13 years of Labour Government to reverse the Thatcher worker? Bill Finlay. There was huge changes brought in under that time. We brought in a national minimum wage. We reversed the restrictions at GCHQ. We gave people the right to join a trade union. There were many trade unions that were brought in under that time. You have selective memory, Mr Finlay, but if you are asking, did we go far enough? Of course we did not go far enough, and I will always argue that. The difference is between me and some of the people over here, because they never disagree with their own party on anything because they are just a shower of sheep who follow whatever they are told. It is for those reasons that, since entering this Parliament, I have championed issues and campaigned against injustices that impact on the lives of working people. I am pleased that we are debating the devolution of employment rights, but it does not do justice to the importance of this debate to just say that we want powers for powers' sake or to allow employment rights to become just another pawn in the game of constitutional wrangling. The Government has to set out why powers should be devolved and what they will do with them. I am, personally and have been for some time convinced of the case for devolving employment law. I set out those reasons publicly during the Labour leadership election, but only after a great deal of thought and consideration, not at the moment. As we see in our colleges, in our legal system and social care and the rest, devolving power does not necessarily mean better decision making. No, thank you. There are different opinions on this in my party and across the Labour movement, and it is incumbent upon us to debate those issues through. What can we do using the powers that we have now and any powers that may be devolved? There is no point in having the power if you are not going to do anything with it. In life, we can find excuses for things that we do not want to do. Teaching in school, I heard every excuse under the sun for pupils not doing their homework, usually the dog or the school bus featuring prominently among them. I have exhausted my back catalogue of excuses for not going on a diet, taking more exercise or giving up the odd beer or two. We can all trot out excuses and repeat them, but on each occasion the credibility of that excuse becomes less and less convincing. It is with the Scottish Government on many of the employment issues that they appear to champion. Let me be positive and suggest some steps that the Scottish Government could take to show its intent. It could settle that 18-month-long dispute with PCS members at the National Museum. It could sort out with the United porters at 9mh hospital. That dispute, the education secretary, could end the attack on our colleges and stop blaming teachers and support them. The teaching unions would appreciate that. They could support a bill to protect shop workers from violence along with us doh. They could use the weight of government to hold companies to account over blacklisting and help the construction industry to self-cleanse. GMB and UKAT would support that. They could set up the living wage unit, as I mentioned, not just to get companies to be accredited but to get more and more companies to pay it. The S2UC would support that. They could use the fair work convention to bring in companies such as Amazon that have received £10 million of selective assistance and tackle them about their poor employment practice in their anti-union stance. They could do something about 30 years of injustice against Scottish miners. The NUN would support that. They could introduce free bus travel for apprentices, some of the lowest-paid workers in the country. They could explain how they intend increasing public sector and influencing private sector pay. They could help finance the Scottish Hazard Centre and introduce corporate homicide legislation. At the general election, I was involved in setting out Labour's workplace manifesto with a positive vision for justice and fairness in the workplace. I hope that many of the policies that we put forward will be supported by the Scottish Government. It is time for less talk and more action with the powers that we have now before we get any more. Thanks very much. I now call on Christina McKelvie to be followed by Graham Pearson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Less work and more action. Yeah, that's rich coming from Neil Findlay. With my long background history of involvement and support for the trade union movement, I'm very, very aware of the primary importance of decent working practices. We are talking, of course, about payment of a living wage, about holiday pay, about the length of the working week, about women's equal rights at work, as well as the exploitative abuse of zero-hour contracts, harassment at work and blacklisting. Citizens Advice Scotland says that employment problems are one of the most common types of issues that clients face. I experienced that a few weeks ago when I spent an afternoon at the Hamilton Citizens Advice Bureau, and I commend them for the amazing work that they do. Presiding Officer, the fees now charged to bring a claim to an employment tribunal mean that many with a case are unable to fight it. Those charges range from £390 to £1,200 just to fill the form in and hear the case. Those fees need to be removed so as to allow access to justice. The trade unions have been good at helping people find the money to bring such a case, but they should not need to carry the burden any more than the victims themselves. Presiding Officer, we heard from the cabinet secretary earlier some of the figures. In the period of October to December 2012, there were 774 unfair dismissal cases. In the same three months period in 2014, there were 272. In October to December 2012, there were 186 sex discrimination cases. In the same period in 2014, there were just 27, a reduction of 85 per cent. That is not justice in anybody's eyes. There are some tribunal cases that are eligible for free remission, but the criteria and the flux in a client's financial situation makes determining eligibility highly complex. Even when an award is made by a tribunal, it is often not paid. The system in Scotland should be strengthening to address this issue, but because of the overlap with reserved matters, we currently lack the powers to enforce payment. Some action that I would like to see at Neil Findlay Andy's party is to hear at least a single Scottish Labour member in this place or their single Scottish member in Westminster call for the devolution of employment law. That is the type of action that I want to see. This Government legislated last year to make Scotland's devolved tribunals simpler and more flexible, but we are unable to go far enough to tackle the underlying issues. Only fully devolved powers over employment law will allow us to sort out this mess. We want to make work fair— Point of order, Neil Findlay. What a point of order, a point of information for the member. If she did not, if she would reflect on my speech that I just made, I did say that I was convinced of that call for the devolution of employment rights, just to put the record straight, Presiding Officer. As you know, Mr Findlay, that is not a point of order. You have none the less made your point. Christina McKelvie, please continue. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We want to make work fair and we want it to pay fair wages. Contrary to the Conservative view, we do not believe that employers need to exploit people in order to make a profit. On the contrary, better paid and decent employment lead to a stronger economy for us all. We want to ensure that at least 500 organisations are set out by the cabinet secretary during the living wage accreditation scheme. I am one of those employers. We want zero-hour contracts that are easy to misuse, and many of my constituents have suffered from the devastating impact of not knowing whether any work is going to be available at the start of the week—never mind the end of the week. The UK Government needs to strengthen the law to give protection for unfair dismissal and to have full parental leave and pay rights for zero-hour workers and to give them the statutory right to request a contract to guarantee their hours. While those legal reinforcements are essential, they are only part of the story. There is also a critical human justice dimension. Is it acceptable that someone can be dismissed because they have been off sick or try to take a holiday? Is it appropriate that they are told, with a text message, that they no longer have a job? No, I do not think so. The numerous examples of malpractice in the Citizens Advice Scotland report include people not being paid at all, employers who fail to pay employee income tax and national insurance contribution leaving the employee to pick up the bill. They have seen many, many examples of people being paid below the national minimum wage, never mind the living wage, and people denied sick pay when seriously ill. Employees have been told that they cannot take paid holiday leave, women dismiss because they are pregnant, and a highly alarming rate of racist and sexist bullying at work. Migrant workers, Presiding Officer, are especially exploited and made to work excessive hours. Though the Smith commission recommended that all powers over the management and operation of all reserved tribunals will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the current Scotland Bill falls well short of that. It would allow Westminster to make changes without any requirement to consult the Scottish Government, not the respect agenda that was promised. The whole employment system is heavily biased in favour of the employer, leaving workers struggling to get even the most basic rights. Not only are employment tribunals expensive, even when they make an award and forcing the payments adds more costs and may not be successful in any event. Only 41 per cent of successful claimants actually managed to get an award. That is absolutely unacceptable. Westminster is determined to move backwards. The Scottish Government has categorically rejected the Tory's move to restrict the right to strike, rapidly becoming the only option left to badly treated employees. The trade unions are our key partners, and the STUC has signed a memorandum of understanding with the First Minister, which commits to fight austerity. Twelve billions in welfare cuts and further erosion of trade union employment rates. I call on all of my colleagues across the chamber to pressure the UK Government to devolve employment law to this place and to allow us to get on with building the fairer society that we all strive for. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate this afternoon. In work, the application of employment law, the protection and promotion of rights and responsibilities for workers is of paramount importance. In that context, the right to strike is not only a necessary but a fundamental right in a society that encourages people to sell their labour for a salary or wage. If Alex Johnson needs evidence of the need for a wide-ranging debate outlined in Labour's amendment, he needs only to examine the impact of zero-hour contracts on constituents who no doubt live in his area—a contract that enables some employers to demand people to turn up at their own cost to describe times but then to be sent away home as work is not available to them and the cost of those attendances is borne by the employee. He should look at part-time working, which, for some employees, is not by agreement but by an arrangement from an employer to take it or leave it. That enables employers to pick and choose, as they wish, and to discard workers when it does not suit them. He should also look at the impact of the so-called minimum wage, which, in its time, was entirely virtuous in trying to drive up the costs of labour. However, the minimum wage and even the living wage are not the level of earnings that allows families not only to exist but to play a part in our economy and play a part in society. Of course, we have the blacklisting, which has been spoken about by others here in the chamber, and the pre-packed administration, which has affected so many companies in Scotland in the past year. I have direct experience of pre-packed administration. I was called to Kilmarnock and invited to hold a meeting with workers who had suffered the outcomes from such an administration. Two hundred workers in a fashion directorate were told, with a 15-minute notice, that they were no longer employed. They discovered that, although some of them were in full-time employment with contracts, some of them in part-time employment and some of them employed on zero-hour contracts through agencies that none of them were given rights by their employer and that they were leaving at the premises with no redundancy payments, with a view that it would be left to lawyers to pursue some payments on their behalf from Government agencies. If that is modern employment relationships, it is the kinds of relationships that I would want nothing to do with and it is the kinds of relationships that I think that this Parliament and the Parliament across the United Kingdom should ensure no longer occurs. In the light of that experience, the call from the Government for a full and swift devolution of powers of employment law seems to reject the complexity of what we are trying to deal with here. From a union perspective, the presence of two different approaches in the islands would not only—I am happy to take the intervention. I thank the member for taking an intervention. You mentioned the fact about complexity and two different areas—exactly what the Tory party said. However, do you not agree that the SGC called for the full powers that we brought here? You are against what the SGC said? I am grateful for that intervention. In my working life of 38 years in the public sector, my conditions and the service that applied to me were maintained thanks to collective bargaining across the whole of the United Kingdom to ensure that public sector workers here were played the value of their labour, no matter whether it was in Aberdeen or in London. From a union viewpoint—I am sorry, I do not have time—I think that the two different approaches in this island smashes the approach of the power of a unified worker and enables employers to divide and overcome. From an employer's viewpoint, I think that it places businesses in the situation of choosing a location that provides them the most conducive circumstances with which to employ people and take advantage of any shortcomings on either side of the change in that divide. From an employer's viewpoint, it sets the nation's workers against each other. It allows workers on one side of a divide to try and take advantage of those who are less able to defend their situation and creates the opportunity for employers to move their businesses about the islands in a way that is good for profit, but is certainly not good for the prospects of living wages for the future. In all the circumstances, I would have thought, as was acknowledged by our member in the Opposite Benches, that now is indeed a good opportunity for a truly wide-ranging debate to look at all the circumstances that we are considering just now. It should not be the position of any member in this Parliament to take pride in the fact that we maintain merely a living wage. We need to drive up the value of our workers in Scotland, not only for their integrity and for their own self-respect, but to ensure that Scotland is a place to live where we all can hold our heads high and we can all pay our way and contribute. I now call on Gordon MacDonald to be followed by Jim Hume. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Over the last 30 years, trade union membership has halft partly as a result of legislation passed by the Conservative Government in the 1980s that gradually reduced the autonomy of trade unions and the legality of industrial action. The Labour Government of Blair and Brown made no attempt to overturn much of this legislation. As a result, after the last five years of a Westminster Tory-Lib Dem coalition government, we have an employment situation where many have insecurity of employment, are underemployed and are low-waged. Zero-hour contracts are on the rise with the Office for National Statistics, highlighting that in the UK, employees with no guaranteed hours have risen 26 per cent since 2013, from £1.4 million to £1.8 million in 2014. A large proportion of people have as their main job a zero-hour contract, and there are thousands who have held zero-hour contract posts for 10 years with no access to employee benefits other than those guaranteed by law, such as holiday pay. Not only that, but as the Resolution Foundation discovered, some employers use zero-hour contracts as a management tool that disempowers the employee. Employees who are unable to work additional hours because of childcare issues or who refuse to do additional hours at the end of a week's work find that they are zero down, which is effective where they are pushed to a very few or no hours in the medium or long term. Then there are the underemployed. The TUC analysis that was published in September last year identified that the underemployment at the current level of £3.4 million is over a million higher than it was before the recession. Eurostat data shows that the rate of underemployment in the UK in 2014 was worse in the rest of the EU 28 countries other than the five countries with high unemployment. The result of that underemployment is that, for many people, their incomes are lower than they would like because their employer is unable or unwilling to offer them a longer working week, so their living standards are lower than they would want and many of those workers will be claiming inward benefits due to their low earnings. In terms of earnings, the Eurostat analysis across Europe highlights that annual net earnings in Germany grew by 16 per cent between 2007 and 2014, with France seeing an increase of 13 per cent over the same period in comparison the UK annual net earnings fell by 2.5 per cent. Low-paid workers will not be able to fall back on support from welfare payments as a newly elected Tory Government highlighted in the Queen speech that new legislation will freeze the main rates of the majority of working age benefits, tax credits and child benefit for two years from 2016 to 2017. The GMB union warned last month that £3.2 million in-work families who currently receive child tax credits and working tax credits face a cut in their weekly income. The minimum wage since 2009 has failed to keep pace with inflation and the 1.1 million workers in receipt of it have seen their standard of living fall. The resolution foundation has estimated that even if the minimum wage increases to £7.12 by 2017, it will still be worth less in real terms than what it was worth in 2004. The foundation identified that if the minimum wage was increased to the living wage, the Government would save money. If the 1.1 million workers on the minimum wage and the 3.6 million workers who are paid below the living wage received that level of increase, then they estimate that a saving of £2.2 billion a year could be made as a result of higher tax and higher national insurance receipts and lower spending on tax credits and benefits. For many workers, their standard of living is falling and they feel that they have no influence to change the situations. Unions no longer have the same power through collective bargaining and legislation has reduced their ability to react to situations quickly. The pendulum has swung too far in the employer's favour, and as lawyer Edward Cooper stated at the time of changes to employment tribunal fees, an underlying assumption in those proposals is that employers all act reasonably. We see day in and day out that employers do not always act reasonably, especially when there is money to be saved. However, the new Conservative Government, rather than addressing the issue of low pay and conditions with employers and discussing a way forward with trade unions, has decided to further undermine the remaining influence that trade unions hold. The proposed trade unions bill introduces a 50 per cent voting threshold for union ballot turnouts, and for public services, 40 per cent of those entitled to vote must vote in favour of industrial action. However, the Tories were elected last month in only 37 per cent of the vote, or 24 per cent of the eligible vote. There has to be a recognition that trade unions are the collective voice that allows employees to challenge management decisions, bringing a measure of balance to the employment relationship. Unions are best placed to represent workers to ensure that they are not exploited and can defend the weak, vulnerable and disadvantaged. Rather than undermining further the role of trade unions, the Westminster Government should ensure that there is balance between the rights of employers and worker representatives. If they are not prepared to do that, then they should devolve the responsibility for employment law to this place in order that we can address the issues. Employment rights are fundamental to a well-functioning economy. The aim should be a fair, simple and transparent system where workers know their rights and protections under the law and where businesses are equally clear of those rights and their responsibilities. Too many employees and employers are simply unaware of their rights and responsibilities must be addressed. Constitutional change will not improve matters. In the UK wide market, there is no sense in having one set of rules and regulations for companies south of the border and another for those operating in Scotland. Not only would differences create unnecessary complications for companies that operate in both countries, but also for the numerous individuals who work across the UK. Our economy is increasingly global. Just this week, we had a debate on the importance of the EU. I therefore failed to see the sense in putting up needless boundaries, of course. I was very interested in Jim Hume talking about the global economy. Of course, international companies seem to manage perfectly well to work across numerous countries. Why should it be a problem for countries working across different conditions in the rest of the UK and Scotland? I think that you will find that it is more common for people to work across the UK than they do work globally. If the member would like to listen, parties had the opportunity to discuss those matters during the Smith commission process and the agreement by all parties was that employment law should remain reserved to the UK Parliament within a UK-wide framework. We believe that the agreement is the most sensible and still sustainable position. Of course, as our economy and workforce grows, it is important not only to embrace the opportunities that that brings, but also to acknowledge some of the challenges. Low pay is certainly one of those challenges. That is why we, as part of the previous UK administration, Liberal Democrats, followed the recommendations of the Low Pay commission and increased the national minimum wage, and that is why we support the living wage being paid. It is also why we acted to end exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Zero-hours contracts can suit some workers, for example students, but they should not be widely used or used to the detriment of individual workers. Of course, in government, we forced the Conservative Party to a U-turn when they then wanted to undermine workers' rights by introducing moves to give companies sweeping powers to dismiss underperforming employees. We started a wide-ranging employment review because, as the former business secretary said, now that the economy is firmly on the road to recovery, it is important that the fruits of the recovery are shared by all. Confidence, secure employees spend money, which is ultimately good for the UK PLC. We also work to bring in more rights for employees, updating employment rights, to fit with the realities of modern life, things like shared parental leave and a right to ask to work flexibly. Neither the benefits of recent reforms nor the challenges facing working people and employers are exclusive to Scotland. They span the UK, and we believe that they are best addressed at a UK-wide level. With that in mind, we welcomed the fair work convention, which was announced in April. Its task is to learn from national and international research and cutting-edge practice in employment relations. I am sure that its input will be valuable and I look forward to hearing more about its work. Part of the convention's remit is looking at gender equality in Scotland. That is a crucially important part of its remit. I very much welcome the work that the coalition did to highlight and close the gender pay gap, but more must be done, not just on pay but on equality of opportunity in our workplaces. I am glad to see that the First Minister herself has taken this very point up today with IMF in her trip to the United States. Just this week, we saw a noble laureate, Sir Tim Hunt, make inexcusable comments about women working in the scientific community. I think that his views are a reminder that equality is still anaspiration and not something that can be taken for granted by us. We know that we must get more women into the workforce and particularly in STEM areas to meet our economy's future demands. I hope that the convention will look particularly at the STEM area and what more can be done to support women into the field, as well as other underrepresented groups. Such work is crucial, absolutely crucial if we are to reach our potential not only as individuals, but also as a society in a country. Clarity around employment rights not only protects workers, but also ensures that businesses are clear on the responsibilities and the rights that their staff have. While it is right that we work to further improve the situation, we should do so with our neighbours in the United Kingdom. As I have said, our challenges are not unique and the interests of employees and employers are best served by a collective approach, a approach that reflects the diverse nature of businesses operating in the United Kingdom. I am going to address the Labour amendment and pretty well ignore the Tory amendment though. I found Alex Johnson's speech bizarrely entertaining, so I must be needing a rest. Of course, I agree with the sentiments in the Labour amendment, opposing regressive punitive restrictions on the rights of the workforce through trade unions to withdraw their labour. It is a basic human right. I support online balancing, the living wage, creating a unit to promote the living wage and so on. In fact, the Scottish Government established the fair work in 37 seconds. If the member supports the Scottish living wage, I wonder why the member has not been accredited as a Scottish living wage employer, as many MSPs have. I have always paid the living wage, but I am very thrown at when a newspaper tries to bully me into doing something that I do willingly, I will not comply. So, be aware that I do pay the living wage and always have done and always will. There you are. I am accrediting myself. You never took an intervention from me, naughty person, so sit down. The Government established a fair work convention to give independent advice to the Government. I am going to stop for a minute, Ms Graham. I will decide who is naughty and who is not. I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer. I have carried away with the moment. The action on funding the poverty alliance to promote the living wage accreditation, and I have had an additional £200,000 procurement reform Scotland Act 2014. Ministers can issue statutory guidance on a range of issues, including the principle that blacklisters are excluded from public works unless they have taken appropriate remedial measures. Improving FAIs for accidents in the workplace, of course. It is currently under scrutiny by the Justice Committee and it is not the least to ensure that relatives of the deceased are more informed and we try to tackle delays within the system. However, the issue for me is why has the Labour Party deleted all of the SNP motion from calls for. That means that the words calls for full and swift devolution of powers over employment law to ensure the protection and promotion of the rights and responsibilities of workers in Scotland opposes the United Kingdom Government's plans to further restrict the right to strike. If you compare that with the words in Labour's amendment, which are wishy-washy, it welcomes the wide-ranging debate that is taking place. Notes that the UK Government has indicated its intention to further restrict the ability of trade unions and individual employees to strike. It does not have any weight in its works, however. It is limp-risted, there is no punch to it and it is pretty well where the Labour Party is today. It is essential that employment law is fully devolved. How otherwise does this Parliament redress the inequalities? Are inability to tackle health and safety addressed in an issue within Neil Findlay's speech? It has a substantial impact on FAIs. How do we tackle zero hours contracts without employment law? How do we tackle inequalities now in tribunals without employment law? While Labour, on the other hand, has gone soft with the Tories on its amendment, the SNP and the S2C are hand in glove on this, because it makes common sense if you want to tackle those injustices, you have to have the powers. Labour, of course, is in this bind. It simply cannot go further because it is thrilled to UK HQ Labour in the south of England and they are playing to a different constituency. Alec Rowley has it right. Joam Lamont had it right. The only salvation of Labour in Scotland is to detach itself from Labour UK because the socialist force at once was, it could become again and could lead the way and show the rest of the UK what ought to be happening in employers' rights. It won't, of course, Labour will stay in bed with the Tories. It would rather have the Tories down south obliterating employment rights in Scotland than have those rights come here. It is continuing to add another page to one of the longest suicide notes for a political party in history. I will say this to Neil Findlay. I am no sheep. Are you? Let's see if you will vote against the Labour amendment. Let's see if the member will delete the commitment against the Labour amendment which deletes the commitment to devolve employment law. The official report at decision time will speak much more than your rhetoric in here. We'll see who will be sheepish then. Richard Baker to be followed by Mike Mackenzie Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. On this side of the chamber, we always welcome the chance to debate rights at work and access to justice. That's not only evident in the campaigns that we take to this Parliament and this chamber along with our colleagues in the trade union and labour movement, but also in the proposals that we have brought to the chamber to change the laws of Scotland to the benefit of working people, and that those proposed changes in law are in our amendment today. I wouldn't expect any member to vote against the amendment that talks about changing laws on culpable homicide, on blacklisting, on failed lack of inquiries—much of you have changed the laws to improve the rights of working people in Scotland. In my view, it's these areas that we wish to challenge ministers to do more. Of course it's right to consider where the power to legislate on these matters in the broader context best lies. It's right to do that now, as the Scotland Bill is debated. Our minds are also focused on these issues due to the further threats to erode workers' rights from the Tory Government. Unfortunately, Presiding Officer, some things never change, as we've heard in the debate today. The UK Government plans to restrict the right to strike that will only damage employee relations and working environments in our country. Not only that, but its previous actions and slashing budgets for health and safety and restricting access to tribunals have already been detrimental to workers' rights. Although, on access to justice, the Scottish Government's own record is lacking as well. Ministers here can do much more to improve access to justice for workers in Scotland. The key issue for me in this debate is that, while we consider what powers may be devolved further in terms of employment law, that must not be an excuse, as Mr Finlay has said, for Scottish ministers not to use the powers that they have now to improve workers' rights. Earlier, Neil Finlay spoke passionately and eloquently of the need for a full public inquiry into blacklisting and for ministers to stand by their pledge to ensure that companies who are involved in blacklisting or have not made full reparation for their involvement should not win public sector contracts. It is time for ministers to stand by the pledges that they have made on this issue. My colleague Patricia Ferguson has brought forward proposals for reform of the fatal accident inquiry system, which are desperately needed, and I would ask ministers to work with her to improve the law in Scotland, as she has proposed. That is an issue of great importance in my own region, the north-east. As the families of the 16 people who lost their lives in the 2009 superpuma helicopter crash had to wait five years for that fatal accident inquiry to take place, five years of them answering questions, five years of lessons not being learned about how to make these aircraft safer for the future, that is simply not acceptable and its vital reforms are made so that the families of December superpuma crash in 2013 do not have to wait five years themselves for the answers that they are seeking as well. I have also proposed changes in law with regard to culpable homicide, which would mean that this area of Scots law is fit for purpose in today's Scotland. It will ensure that where someone loses their life because of the recklessness or negligence of their employer, that employer could be held properly accountable in the courts and not merely receive a fine, but face a custodial sentence as would apply in other cases of culpable homicide. This proposal was first brought by Karen Gillan after the death of the Findlay family in a gas explosion from which the company Transco faced charges of culpable homicide, but the court found that Scots law in its current form did not allow the company to be convicted of the charge. Since then, there have been further fatalities where it has been found that employers have breached health and safety from the lives lost on the flying phantom tug to the helicopter crashes in the North Sea to which I referred earlier. In cases like these, there should be the opportunity for the Crown to pursue charges of culpable homicide where that is appropriate. The reform of the law is not only necessary to ensure that Scots criminal law can deliver justice in these cases, but also to bring a greater impetus on employers to have regard to the welfare of their workers. As the United Scottish Secretary, Pat Rafferty, has said, in 2012-13, 22 people died at work in Scotland, and a five-year average is around 20 fatalities a year. That is completely unacceptable when we have the power to do something about it. I am grateful to the justice secretary for meeting and uniting other promoters of the legislation to discuss the issues that are involved. I hope that we can continue to work with Scottish ministers to deliver the much-needed reform of our law. I am also taking forward a bill proposal to protect workers' rights to damages, which was again eroded by the previous UK Government, changes to which I believe leave us in breach of European law and that Scottish ministers therefore have a duty to rectify. The challenge to the Parliament is to contribute to the debate in and beyond this chamber and in the context of the Scotland bill about how we improve legislation around employment. However, the challenge remains to ministers to listen to the calls from trade unions and campaigners today to take the action that they can take now to improve the rights of workers in Scotland and their access to justice. Many thanks before I call Mike McKenzie, who can advise the chamber that we have a little bit of time in hand if members wish to take interventions so that they can be recompensed for that. Mike McKenzie to be followed by Alison Johnstone. The thing I find depressing about this debate, which is essentially about the balance between workers' rights versus those of the bosses and the business owners, is that we have been here before, many years ago and many times. I remember the same debates when I first began to become politically aware as a young teenager. At times, and I'll concede that these were under Labour governance, we seemed to make some progress then under the Tories we regressed. Then again, we made some progress and then we regressed. For the last 30 years, we've been regressing under both Labour and Tory Governments. This is a dismal position to be in in the 21st century, fighting these same battles over and over again. I feel as if I'm a member of Generation Groundhog. In the meantime, other countries, our economic competitors, have made real progress with a more modern approach to Labour relations. So it will be no surprise to members that I fully support the Government's motion and the STUC's proposals that we should have full devolution of powers over the minimum wage, trade union and employment law, health and safety law and much more besides. Likewise, I'm keen to see the completion of the fair work convention's work. There are many, many good lessons from elsewhere for it to draw on. It was the great economist, John Kenneth Cole-Brath, who first described the theory of countervailing power. It was this wisdom that he brought to bear when he was instrumental and influential in the rebuilding of the German economy after the war, getting the correct practical and pragmatic balance between businesses, workers, consumers, citizens and the role that Government ought to play in this. It's this that's enabled the German economy to become the powerhouse of Europe and getting this balance right is enabled in the economy with significantly higher productivity than we have. Getting this balance right has enabled a far more equal in a egalitarian society for today a bricklayer might live next door to a surgeon and he or she may not earn quite as much as a surgeon but he or she is a respected member of the community going to work smartly dressed, changing into overalls at work but here in the UK we're still afflicted by a hierarchical class structure where bosses are perceived to belong in a higher echelon than workers, where white colour is better than blue colour, where women are still considered second class members of the workforce and apart from all the other malign effects of this class structure it is not economically efficient. The First Minister is currently in the United States, perhaps surprisingly there are some lessons from there too. I first became aware of this, reading US construction press and comparing it to our own. Ours is exclusively filled with the views of company directors and finance officers. The US press has some of this but it also contains the news and the views of individual workers and owners of small and sometimes very small businesses. It is a society that in some ways but by no means all is more egalitarian than ours and it is not so in love with the collar and tie that it always puts those who wear them at the top of the hierarchy of importance. But there are lessons too, Presiding Officer, from our own Scottish history. We used to have a ladder of opportunity that saw some people work their way all the way up from the short floor to the boardroom. The boardroom decisions were greatly enhanced by the wisdom and the experience of those folk. This was a celebrated part of our culture but now economic and social mobility is declining rather than improving and that has been the case for many years. So Presiding Officer, what I find sad about the opposition amendments is their poverty of ambition, their lack of aspiration for Scotland, their lack of ambition for Scotland. They seem to be content, they seem to be complacent, they seem to be unconcerned about our lack of progress. They are so in love with this so obviously failing union that this trumps all other concerns. They were elected to serve their constituents, the people of Scotland, but nobody can ride two horses at once. Nobody can unite those two loyalties. No one can serve two masters. And when they awaken to these basic facts, the people of Scotland may well find that they can once again support those parties. I suspect, Presiding Officer, that that day may not come very soon. Presiding Officer, this is a truly important debate because employee rights are vital to protecting people in the workplace. They can protect us when things go wrong, when companies get into difficulties or in the face of unscrupulous employers. They have been hard-won by Labour and trade union campaigners over the decades. Workers' rights are human rights. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. It goes on to cover equal pay for equal work, the right to just remuneration and social protection, worthy of human dignity and the right to join trade unions. Those rights are also embedded in the EU charter of fundamental rights and, in part, in the UK Human Rights Act. Strong employee rights are vital, but they are facing a barrage of attack from the UK Government. We have heard from other MSPs this afternoon about the Conservative plan for a 40 per cent threshold for strike ballots in health, transport, fire services or schools. As the minister and other colleagues have noted, the UK Tory Government, with 37 per cent of the vote, did not quite make the grade, but it is still proposing abolition of the Human Rights Act. Employee rights are also under attack from the Government's support at UK level of TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the so-called free trade agreement that is really a corporate power grab in dangering workers' rights. TTIP proposals will give corporations influence over laws and regulatory convergence risks lowering health and safety protections. It is an affront to democracy and TTIP should be scrapped. Governments have to be free to make changes that will improve the lives of their citizens and raising the minimum wage to the living wage is exactly the sort of policy greens will continue to fight for. We argued in the general election that by 2020 the minimum wage should be £10 to ensure that nobody in work is faced with poverty. We support to the introduction of wage ratios and the rise of zero hours contracts—much discussed this afternoon—is another example where workers' rights are being eroded. They will work for a few people, but for most, those contracts exploit people who desperately need work. I support calls from the STUC for full employment protections for all workers, regardless of employment status. The Scottish Green Party supported the devolution of employment law during the Smith process and was disappointed that that progress was not made. The support was not just motivated by the desire to see them protected—it also makes sense. The STUC said in its Smith commission submission that it is easier to imagine coherent policies on economic development, tackling inequality through public service provision, welfare and active labour market intervention if the Scottish Parliament is empowered to tackle discrimination, poor employment practice, insecure employment, low minimum wages and to create healthier workplaces and promote collective bargaining. Employment protections are fully devolved to Northern Ireland, so it can be done while maintaining a single labour market. Employment services and fair access to employment tribunals are referred to in the Government motion, and devolution here is warmly welcome. Since the introduction of tribunal fees, there has been an 81 per cent drop in applications to the employment tribunal. That is a serious access to justice issue for workers. Citizens Advice Scotland, in its briefing for today, set out its advisers experience and found that fees negatively alter the power balance between workers and employers, and that the decision whether to take a claim to the tribunal is no longer based on merit but on personal finances. Can the person afford justice or not? With the fees that we have discussed this afternoon, that is no surprise, and very often those who most need to challenge employment practices are being priced out of doing so. I would support the law society's view that we heard in committee that any limitations to tribunal devolution be restricted to those that are objectively necessary. Spice produced a comparison of the Smith agreement versus the Scotland Bill, and they have marked the devolution proposals on employment programmes in red because they did not address any of the devolution committee's concerns. That has to change, and I hope that it will change. I too support those calling for a weekend allowance for all staff in the National Museum of Scotland, and I too look forward to the establishment of a much-needed Scottish Hazard Centre that will actively campaign for safer and healthier workplaces and more effective enforcement by the health and safety executive and by local authorities. Graeme Pearson, in his contribution this afternoon, spoke of his concern about different practices by trade unions in different parts of the islands. He questioned the need for two different approaches, but if the one approach that we have is regressive and truly woeful, I would support those two different approaches. Alex Johnston, in his contribution, spoke of socialist failure. Last night, I was watching the late news, and I can't remember. It was one of the major channels. I saw a dinner of bankers who were described as the elite. Is it not the case that if the losses that they had incurred hadn't been socialised, then failure may have been truly catastrophic? In closing, I would suggest that this Parliament does all it does to enhance, protect and promote employers' rights. I thank Mike McKenzie for his excellent contribution. Alex Johnston raised the issue of employment law being devolved to Northern Ireland, which is something that people should remember when we are talking in this particular debate about employment law. I want to start off with what the Scottish Government is doing at the moment. Obviously, there are lots and lots, but I do not have time to say everything. However, some of the areas that I have picked up on, in particular, I think is most helpful is the partnership working that the Scottish Government has entered into, not just with trade unions, with businesses and the third sector, promoting the fair work and the living wage. As I mentioned before, the establishment of the fair work convention was mentioned by Mike McKenzie. When you look into the fair work convention, it is absolutely wonderful that something should be welcomed by everyone by providing independent advice to the Scottish Government on industrial relations to help to reduce the equality of some of the matters there and promote equality and diversity among the framework for Scotland. I want to mention that positive note in my contribution at the very beginning. Obviously, in my contribution, I want to mention some of the issues that have been raised by the Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. I welcome this debate in the present climate of austerity zero contracts and the tax on workers' rights being put forward by the Westminster Government. It is really important that we have the debate, not just that we can debate it, but that the workers in Scotland and the rest of the UK can see that the Scottish Parliament takes this very seriously. As a former shop steward, I, like many others, are deeply concerned about the retrograde step to workers' rights, which many people fought for. Many people who were in trade unions, many people who were belonging to a number of political parties. At the time, I was a shop steward, I was a member of the SNP, I had never been a member of any other party, but I took my responsibilities very much to my heart and represented my workers no matter what political party. It pains me deeply to see exactly what is happening in the Westminster Government and what is going to be visited upon people throughout the UK and Scotland in other areas by the retrograde step that they are putting forward. What can I say about the Labour and Tory amendments and their contributions? Annabelle Ewing got in before me in regards to one of the Tory amendments about the rights of hard-working taxpayers. I was going to intervene as well. Annabelle was absolutely right to say that the Tory party did not think that trade unions are hard-working taxpayers. I was quite shocked at that part, but I thank Annabelle for raising that as well. Alex Johnson also went on to say that employment laws should remain reserved to Westminster. It was really quite strange, because, just after that, that is exactly what the Labour Party said and the sole Lib Dem said as well. It makes me think that better together is alive and kicking in those other benches. It is really rather sad when you think of the general election that they are still having it over that fact better together rather than putting forward their constituents and their country's interests as well. The position of some of those parties regarding employment law, particularly as Alison Johnson has mentioned, is devolved to Northern Ireland. You often wonder what it is that you will not do. Why will you devolve those very important laws, as the SNP and others have asked for to the Scottish Parliament to protect our own workers? The only reason that I can think of is because, in the SNP Government and also in the SNP you see, it basically says that if we get that devolved, employment law devolved, we will protect and promote the rights of workers in Scotland. I do not understand, particularly from the Labour benches. No, you will not take one from me, sorry. I just do not understand, particularly the Labour Party will not want to protect the workers in Scotland. Alison Johnson did some up as well. It is a retrograde step, it is a negative step. Why will you support a positive step forward? Surely we can lead the way in Scotland if we put forward. No, I am sorry, I will not take an intervention. Surely we can lead the way in a positive step. That is why I cannot understand for the life of me why the Labour Party in particular will not see this as a positive impact on not just in Scotland but the rest of the UK. Perhaps if the Labour Party had listened to the people, they may be in power in Westminster instead of letting the Tories in Westminster. Perhaps you should have listened to the people and really it pains me. Lots of other people as well that you pretend to be the party of the working people, you will not even support. No, I will not take an intervention. You will not even support employment law being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. As I said before, we can actually lead the way in employment law. Surely it is better to have a positive aspect than a negative aspect. I ask you to think carefully. You mentioned the fact about the Tories and the records that they have been. I have to say that I will pick up on Mike Mackenzie as well about the Blair years, the clause 4, what happened to the workers' rights under the Labour Party. Please do not come here in the piousness that the Labour Party are the ones—no, I will not take an intervention—the piousness of the Labour Party who pretends to stick up for the working people. The working people have spoken. You had a chance to be elected as a Government in Westminster and you would not listen to the people and you let the Tories in. Ms White, do you want to close the extra time that I have to reimburse interventions? Thank you. I am drawn to close. Thank you. I now call Elaine Murray to be followed by Richard Lyle, but I let the chamber know that I can reimburse interventions once again. I make that point. Elaine Murray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like others, I welcome the opportunity to debate workers' rights this afternoon. I can understand why the Government wants to seek and others will get parliamentary support for full and swift devolution of powers over employment law, given the discussions on going at Westminster on the Scotland Bill. As a Labour amendment technologist, there are differences of opinion regarding which parts of employment legislation should be devolved and which parts should be reserved. Differences between individual trade unions, between the TUC and the STUC, and between individual members of trade unions, and indeed between individual members of the Labour Party. I think that we have heard some of those discussions here already. I suspect that if the cabinet secretary had really wanted to have a consensual debate, she would not have used full devolution of powers if she wanted to have a consensual debate, because she knew that that would not attract full support from the Labour Party. Of course, on the benches, we aspired to a very different result to the general election last month. We hoped that, across the UK, we could bring the minimum wage up to the living wage, that we could ban exploitative zero-hour contracts in all the constituent nations, that no firm anywhere would be able to exploit agency workers to undercut the wages of its permanent staff. We looked forward to being able to reward businesses who signed up to the living wage with tax rebates in the first year of our Government, and we were determined to abolish the employment tribunal fee system, along with a package of wider reforms that would give employees proper access to justice, along with a quicker resolution of cases, because we know that those cases can drag out for years and years. However, as we know, instead we have a Tory Government, which has the nerve, in my view, to describe itself as the party that represents working people, but which proposes an out-and-out assault on the ability of working people to protect their rights by applying the ultimate sanction of withdrawing their Labour. Having won the general election with a little more than one-third of the vote's cast, the Conservative Government proposed to insist that trade unions must receive the votes of at least 50 per cent of their membership before they can call a strike. Even the SNP last month did not achieve the support from 50 per cent of the Scottish electorate. Those proposals, as the STUC has pointed out, will make it extremely difficult for a trade union to organise a legal strike. The benefits will accrue to bad employers. Those who use exploitative zero-hour contracts where workers don't know from one day to another whether they will have paid employment or how much. Those employers who grudgingly pay the minimum wage but no more. Those employers who bring in agency staff to undercut the wages of their regular staff. Employers like these will benefit from the enormous barriers that are erected by the UK Government and the anti-trade union legislation. Working people will not benefit. Our amendment recognises the dilemma that faces many of us who support devolution but are deeply concerned about the direction of travel of the current UK Government with regard to workers' rights and fair employment. On the one hand, I do not want to see workers anywhere in the UK being subject to worsening conditions of employment or being denied the right to take legitimate industrial action. I strongly believe in solidarity. There are some matters that very clearly should be devolved. We should be pressing, for example, for the devolution of employment tribunals. We have reformed our tribunal system in Scotland and it would make sense for employment tribunals to be fully integrated into the Scottish courts and tribunal service. That would, of course, enable this Parliament to describe the employment tribunals' fees system. On the other hand, things have changed since a Smith agreement was made. It was not, unfortunately, David Cameron, who was locked out of Downing Street. It was the rest of us. We have different views, I am sure, as to why that happened, but none of that changes the result. So, maybe there is a case in these changed circumstances for consideration of greater devolution of employment law and the opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of better and fairer law, for example. That debate, that recognition that we ought perhaps to go further than was originally argued, should not, however, obscure the fact that we can do better, even with the powers that we have at the present time. There are, as others have said in justices, we can tackle now, even as we argue, for further devolved powers. Both Siobhan McMahon and Neil Findlay have spoken about the porters at Nine Mills and Royal Victoria hospital in Dundee, who have been taking industrial action over their pay grade since March. They have been graded at band 1, while other porters working at other hospitals in the same health board have been graded as band 2. They have offered to go to ACAS and other forms of arbitration, but NHS Tayside has refused and have brought in volunteers—a different name for Blackleg, possibly volunteers—and agency workers to cover their action. This is happening in the Scottish NHS. It is happening in health, which is totally devolved to this Parliament, so there is no reason for us to hide behind powers that we do not have. We could be looking at that here. Others have mentioned Neil, I think, mentioned the National Museum strike. That is a strike that is happening within this Government's responsibilities. We could instigate a thorough inquiry into blacklisting in Scotland. We could call to account the construction firms that denied employment to workers for highlighting health and safety issues or joining a trade union. Those employments should not be eligible for public sector contracts. We know that that will not happen in England, but we can set the example here through the powers that we have. We could promote health and safety in Scotland, even without the devolution of legislative power through the creation of the Scottish Hazard Centre to reduce work related to illness, injury and death through the provision of information support and training. That would be a particular assistance to workers who do not benefit from being members of a trade union, but the centre would also promote the benefit of trade union membership. We could bring in things like legislation proposed by my colleague Hugh Henry on the protection of shop workers. There are many things that we could do. We could investigate the historic injustices imposed on striking miners during the strike 30 years ago and ensure that those who actually commanded the police officers are held to account, not just the police officers themselves. Let us not hide behind the powers that we do not have. Let us debate, correctly debating the arguments for further devolution, and let us also make use of our present powers. That is the lesson that we need to take forward. Let us have the debate. I am interested in hearing what people have to say, and I am interested in hearing from all sides what further powers should come here, but do not let us use that as an excuse for inaction on the things on which we already have power. I thank Mr Lyle for his contribution since his request to speak, but it seems to have gone off. Thank you very much. Richard Lyle to be followed by John Finnie. I apologise, Presiding Officer. I did not notice that. Thank you very much. I begin by complimenting Stewart Stevenson MSP on his historic 600th speech on the chamber today. The protection and promotion of the rights and responsibilities of workers in Scotland should be a priority for all across the chamber. That is why I believe that we should, like the Scottish Government and the STUC, share the view that, as a priority, the UK Government should agree to the full devolution of powers over the minimum wage, trade union and employment law, health and safety law and equalities legislation, as well as further devolution of powers over social security. I am sure that we all want to see the Scottish Parliament have as many powers as we need to enable the Scottish Government to work effectively in partnership with trade unions, the third sector and business, in order to boost economic growth, increase investment and support employment to deliver better jobs. On the topic of trade unions, let me say clearly that I and those SNP benches oppose any Tory plans to restrict the right to strike and support trade unions with their proposals to modernise the way strike ballots are undertaken. Trade unions are a key social partner playing an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, particularly at the workplace. The existence of good employment practices are key to economic competitiveness and ultimately social justice. In recognition of that, the First Minister and the STUC have signed a new memorandum of understanding that recognises their shared priorities, including opposition to continued austerity and on further devolution. To that effect, the First Minister held her first biannual meeting with the STUC Congress on 13 May. The STUC, the First Minister and all those benches, shared the serious concerns over the impact on the people of Scotland of the UK Government's commitment to continued austerity, the additional £12 billion of cuts to social security spending and any further erosion of trade union and employment rights. We should, through the actions that I mentioned in my remarks today, seek to present an alternative and a voice that defends the rights of trade unions and those of employees across Scotland. Unlike the Conservative UK Government, the SNP Government led by example. Since this year, 2011-12, the SNP Government has paid all the staff covered by the Scottish Government pay policy, a living wage, including a very hard-working NHS staff. On that topic, the Scottish living wage has increased and benefitting people covered by the Scottish Government's pay policy. That amounts to an increase of around £390 per year. Another essential aspect of employment and access to justice is the minimum wage. We back a minimum wage of £870 by 2020 and will support extending the measures to extend the living wage across the United Kingdom. We back an increase in the minimum wage for under 21s and remove the apprentice rate and paying apprentices a fair wage. We call on and vote for the UK Government to pay all its employees the living wage, just as the SNP Government has done so. I personally believe—this is my personal view—that the minimum wage should be increased well before 2020 and put to a point the higher we pay people the more disposable income they have to spend, which contributes to their economy. That would also reduce—I wonder why the Tories do not realise that—some families' dependency on certain benefits. A fair wage for a fair day's work is what I believe we should all be striving for and working to make that happen. The Scottish Government is committed to working in partnership with trade unions to promote fair work, the living wage, and have established a fair work convention to take it forward. That was also announced by the First Minister on 15 October 2014 and aims to draw on and promote best practice while making easier to work effectively with partners across the business community, third sector and trade unions. The fair work convention will provide independent advice to the Scottish Government on matters relating to innovation, productivity workplaces and industrial relations, fair work and the living wage in Scotland to support our objectives to reduce inequality, promote diversity and equality. That demonstrates the SNP Government's commitment to delivering change in working in partnership with trade unions. I do want to mention, however, that I know that our SNP MPs will support action to make work fair, including ending unfair and exploitative zero-hours contracts. We lead by example as the Scottish Government does not directly employ people on zero-hours contracts. The Scottish Government has published guidance that it is practical for public purchasers in how they promote fair employment practices. That is in stark contrast, and that will wind them up to the Labour Party who do not fulfil their wants. We only need to look at Glasgow City Council to see examples of that to conclude, Presiding Officer, so much is the SNP's commitment to ensuring. Yes, I might as well. Neil Findlay is right that there are councils of all persuasions who are employing people on zero-hours contracts, just as there are thousands of workers employed in the NHS that is directly the responsibility of the Scottish Government. That is a problem that is endemic throughout working life in Scotland. That is the issue that we have to get to grips with. Please do not take a holier-than-now attitude about anyone because it is endemic throughout our working system. At the end of the day, we have to ensure that people, as I said earlier in my speech, people get a fair day's wage for a fair day's working, and I have always tried to ensure that anyone who works for me or under me has always had that situation. To conclude, Presiding Officer, so much is the SNP's commitment to ensuring the protection of employees' rights and access to justice. The SNP's trade union group alone has more members than the Scottish Labour Party. The SNP's trade union group has increased to more than 15,000 members. That goes in hand with the huge growth of the SNP as more and more people realise that we are the party of the working people in Scotland, and no longer the Labour Party represents people working people in Scotland. Those voices, along with the well over 100,000 SNP members, will campaign and work tirelessly along with Scotland's 56 new SNP MPs to deliver the powers promise to Scotland, and I very much look forward to the powers over employment law coming to this Parliament in order for us in this place to deliver for Scotland's workers. The last open debate speaker is John Finnie, and I can give you some extra time if you care to take interventions, Mr Finnie. I had the great pleasure last Friday of addressing the PCS, AGM and Glasgow and a fine bunch of people. An extra pleasure was being asked to present an award to Louise McBain. Louise works for Gordon Gallach at Great Glen House in Inverness, and she was given her award as a young trade unionist for the level of recruitment she had done in the 70s per cent. At the good fortune at the end of that to have a talk with Louise, a wee bit in Gallach, a wee bit in English, and it transpires that that figure was wrong. She has actually recruited up to 90 per cent of the staff at Great Glen House. The significance of that is that I pick up on the points that Gordon McDonnell made in his speech, and that is about the collaborative nature of the workforce that that will bring about, and that will bring about good relations. It does not buy the very nature of people being engaged in trade unionism and suggest fractious workplace, quite the reverse. Matters can be resolved, and a number of members have made mention of the museum staff. Of course, as PCS members are the museum staff and PCS have been representing them very ably, and I hope that we do see a resolution in that, and I would urge the Scottish Government to redouble their efforts for intervening there. Likewise, people have mentioned the porters on Dundee, and I am inherently suspicious of any employer who has got an unwillingness to engage with ACAS. Indeed, employees will not be allowed access to our people without having exhausted all internal mechanisms. It is very important that we are not in any way complacent here. Our basis for discussing and indeed welcoming trade union rights is the very foundation laid out by my colleague Alison Johnstone, who talked about the relationship between all the various human rights. I think that that should be the basis of our approach to everything in our policymaking. I support the Scottish Government motion. I support the devolution of powers, not simply employment powers, but a whole range of powers. Why do I support that? Because I actually think that we can do things better. I like the wording of the motion. I like the word protection, and what is that protection? It is protection of hard fought for rights. A lot of people put a great deal of effort into winning those rights, many brave individuals. I like the word promotion, because there are not many people who seem very keen in promoting workers' rights. I think that that is a very positive word to associate with that particular subject. I hope that the devolution of employment rights would not just bring about the protection. I want to see an enhancement. I think that there is an opportunity to improve workers' terms and conditions, and I think that the debates that are on-going are very important. The minimum threshold for strikes has been covered by many speakers. There are a number of issues when you get to this stage of the debate, of course. There seems to be some rank of hypocrisy in the part of the UK Prime Minister. There is nothing new in relation to that, of course. I am drawn to the words of Graham Smith, the general secretary of the STUC, who talks in relation to the proposal that says, effectively banning the right to take industrial action in the UK. What a retrograde step that is. He goes on to say that, indeed, that is some of the weakest legal protections in the developed world for workers. A damning indictment in where we have got to in terms. I would ask who's interests are served by this, and it is certainly not the people of Scotland's interests who are served by this, and it is certainly not wider workers' interests. As I have said, I really believe that trade union staffer stations play a positive role in the workplace. It is a preventative rather than a cure that it is there. Good working relationships are good for business and productivity. Events reach employment tribunals because there has been a failure to operate those systems. The role of ACAS is very important. The word disincentive is used in relation to the change that has been taken place in relation to employment tribunals and who in their right mind is going to spend a sum of money, a fee, in an attempt to recoup half that sum of money in holiday pay, for instance. It is ridiculous. On one level, if we had been debating different subjects and I had seen that there was an 85 per cent drop in sex discrimination cases, a 50 per cent drop in race cases, and a 47 per cent drop in disability cases, that would be a cause for rejoicing, but, as has been said, that is brought about by the situation that people are having to weigh up whether their moral and legal position is worth the expenditure. Clearly, it is in the interests of people who have bad work practices that those fees continue. The term access to justice is frequently banded about in the chamber, not just in relation to this debate but in relation to a lot of other matters, too. It is clear that workers are not gaining access to justice as a result of those changes. Citizens Advice have been mentioned and we know that those are the very people who will pick up many of the issues as we all do in our workplace area. Alex Johnson mentioned EU-wide benefits. Of course, the UK Government is supportive of TTIP. My colleague Alison Johnson referred to that. That will be a race to the bottom, not simply in workers' rights but in terms of environmental rights. The free trade seems to be the rationale that is used to align support to that. Of course, it will be a race to the bottom, as we have seen in experiences elsewhere, so we watch that one with alarm. With trade unions, the term unity of strength is often used. Of course, there is unity among the multinational corporations and those who subscribe to this neoliberal agenda. Stuart Stevenson touched on that when he talked about a human rights approach involving carers. I think that carers are an important part of our community. Health and safety. The Westminster Prime Minister referred to that as the monster. It is a monster that he wants to slay. The tactic of ridicule and misrepresentation is terribly important. A number of people have talked on workplace deaths. I saw the 25th anniversary of Piper Alpha disaster commemorated in many ways, but the most shameful way it was commemorated was by the change to the offshore regime that was put in place by the UK Government. What that is, is a green light for dangerous workplace activities. Workplace activities that will not just simply impact on the workforce, but will impact on the wider community as well. The health and safety executive has been removed of any opportunity for a degree of proactivity. I am sure that devolution of that would go a long way because of the priorities. Politics is about priorities, and we would make a priority to ensure that our workers and our workplaces were safe places. I commend colleagues who have talked about a number of issues. I commend those who have talked about blacklisting. I think that it is a vile practice, and it is a very pernicious element that has gone through the United Kingdom. The umbrella company is again another very, very sad and damning indictment. The issue of corporate manslaughter is something that must be picked up on. People have talked about the Government Bill and Procedure Ferguson's members will covering fatal accidents, and I think that they are getting a lot of scrutiny at the moment. I think that it is very important that we are not complacent about the workplace in Scotland as it is. There are issues around our modern apprenticeships regarding gender and race and disability, the level of underrepresentation there. I welcome the Scottish Government and STUC's memo of understanding. I wonder if bi-annual meetings are sufficient. I think that what we need to do is see a rights-based approach to everything. The Fair Work Convention will go some way to that, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak. Many thanks. That brings us to the closing speeches, and I call on Annabelle Goldie, maximum eight minutes please. Thank you very much indeed. This has been a useful debate, which predictably, as the cabinet secretary sagely observed, has contrasted two approaches, her parties and mine, with some flourishes from the Labour Party on the benches opposite. To me, the two priorities for any Government in relation to employment are to create the economic conditions necessary to underpin and support increasing employment, and to support responsible practices and positive relationships in the workplace. That, of course, in turn places obligations on both employers and employees to ensure that the workplace is one of mutual respect. Where such good relations exist, there will be a benefit both to the workforce and to the economy. It is the case that we have over two centuries moved from a situation where workers needed protection and did not have it, to a situation in the latter part of the last century where incessant industrial action brought businesses to their knees, paralysed the economy and indeed sought to interfere with the role of democratic government. Neither extreme is either justifiable or sustainable. Reforms were enacted to attempt to rebalance rights and responsibilities. I hear echoes of returning to practices that I know have now been abandoned by most modern competitive economies. Amongst the rhetoric and passion of political debate, all of which are admirable and necessary, I hope that members will pause to look at what is working elsewhere and reflect on what might be unwise to contemplate for either Scotland or the United Kingdom. It is a fact that businesses do not have to operate in either the UK or Scotland, and an industrial relations framework does not balance the rights of trade unions with those of hard-working taxpayers. That is inclusive. Hard-working taxpayers are people who may find themselves unable to get to work, obstructed in trying to get to work because of industrial action, which, as I mentioned in a moment or two, may not have a democratic mandate from within the trade union. I am just finishing a point, Mr Stevenson. If those practices are permitted, they will present an unattractive environment to business, and it will impair the creation of jobs. That is not just the observation of me as a politician. That is the actual fact. In a highly competitive global economy, businesses are mobile, so if that balance and if that test of reason with us are not in evidence, businesses will not be encouraged to stay. I have to say, Presiding Officer, when strikes are possible—not at the moment—when, in one case, 16 per cent of the trade union membership voted of whom 11 per cent wanted to strike them, frankly, I think that it is difficult to argue against some form of change. Introducing a threshold for strikes, introducing a threshold for strike decisions in key public services and a 50 per cent turnout threshold for strike ballots to ensure that there is a real mandate, I think, is necessary. Just give me a moment, please. It means that there will be less disruption from strikes where union leaders have not even persuaded a majority of their own members to vote. I am happy to give way—I think that Mr Stevenson was first and then—to pick up the democratic mandate point. I will pick a reference that I made in my speech to the human rights convention, which the UK signed up to in the 1950s. That is an international treaty. Do you think that that should be subject to leaving that at the same basis that there is on the proposals for affecting trade union rights and ballots, or should some other number prevail, or is it just trade unions that are being singled out for a very special mandate wholly at odds with any other mandate that there is? I expected an intervention, not a treatise on international law. I do not think that the member is quite in point with what I am trying to argue for on the whole threshold of human rights. Contrary to what may have been represented in the chamber, my party does not propose to and would have no intention of abolishing human rights. It simply wants to recodify the very strong basis of our human rights, which we are already bound by, under international law, but which is in need of reform. The argument that she makes about business moving around creates a race to the bottom around the world. On the specific point about trade union ballots, we would all want to see more people engaged in any form of ballot, but why do not the UK Government then bring forward measures that would make it easier for people to take part in participating in industrial democracy, such as online voting, rather than putting further barriers in the way of industrial democracy? It may surprise the member, but I am not, in fact, totally unsympathetic to the point that he is making. However, I think that there are secret issues of what the legal framework should be for industrial action and what may be very welcome, legitimate and innovative practices for unions to pursue to facilitate their member's taking part in ballots. I think that there are two separate issues there. On devolution of employment law, there was no compelling case made to the Smith commission in support of such a move. It was not part of the all-party Smith commission agreement. If my recollection is correct, there were many troubling observations made about what the effect of devolution of employment law—the creation of different employment regimes—could mean for both the stability of business and the stability of the employment base within Scotland, so it will not surprise the cabinet secretary that my party does not support her view on that. The cabinet secretary's motion hardly reads like a charter of business strength and job creation, because it restricts itself to the rights of employees and the obligations of employers, a theme echoed by many contributors to the debate. However, having been an employer myself and responsible for staff issues, I know that it is mutual respect and regular dialogue in the workplace that creates the most stable platform for good relations, a partnership between employer and employee. I think that trade unions have a very important role to play in that function, a role that extends beyond industrial relations. Trade unions can be an invaluable source of advice, they can be an invaluable source of information about training or how to improve practices in the workplace, and that is all to be welcomed. Very few members alluded to some interesting models already existing on other forms of employee engagement, whether that is through staff or work councils, whether it is through other models such as co-operative and workers trust, or whether it is through employee ownership trust, or for example, the recently constructed employee sharehold is where employees are encouraged to have a financial interest in the business. I am a very strong advocate of all that. I think that it makes for a strong business entity. Can I say in conclusion that I think that there are many positive initiatives taking place, and I wish that the Fair Work Convention well in its endeavours to build on all of that. It has an opportunity to think outside the box, but one word of caution should remember that business operates against a razor edge of global competition, and we must leave businesses free to make essential commercial decisions. I support the amendment in my colleague's name. Thank you very much, and I now call in Hugh Henry. Maximum 10 minutes, please. Richard Lyleini's contribution probably rightly made the point about why so many working people, not just in Scotland but across the UK, have turned their backs on the Labour party and decided to vote for other parties. It is an entirely reasonable point, and it points to a failure of the Labour party and one in which those of us who are members of the Labour party need to reflect on. He rightly pointed out that many working people in Scotland are now supporting the SNP because they seem to think that what the SNP has to say on many issues chimes at the moment with what they feel. If you are going to talk about history and pedigree and what is in the DNA of political parties, yes, it is right to chastise that, in many respects, over the years we have moved away from our roots, we might have neglected some of the people who we should have been working for. Beryqually, I suppose, so that was in our DNA and that has been our history, our tradition, our heritage and our roots. Beryqually, I would then suggest that, maybe at some point, we need to reflect on the history, DNA, heritage and pedigree of the SNP, because the SNP has not always been a party that has stood up for workers' rights and for the interests of ordinary working people. That was not what drove Gordon Wilson, it was not what drove William Wilson, it was not what drove Arthur Donaldson, because they had a different tradition, a different outlook in life and different aims. At the moment, yes, it so happens that much of what the SNP is saying coincides with what many ordinary working people are saying, but that is not an end all for the SNP, because we know that its ultimate aim is not the rights of working people, but it is about independence. That is a fair enough point to make. I thought that Elaine Murray's speech was probably the best speech of the afternoon, because she actually posed a number of challenges and raised a number of issues. I think that she put it in the correct context, that the debate about whether or not we devolve employment law or more powers has got to be taken from a perspective of what will improve the lot of ordinary men, women and children in Scotland. It is not powers for power's sake. There is an argument to be made that, if we can demonstrate the additional powers on some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon, if that argument can be made, then it is one that is worthy of some detailed consideration. Yes, as many speakers have pointed out this afternoon, starting with the cabinet secretary and right through the debate, that what is happening in relation to employment tribunals is a disgrace because a function and a facility that was established to help ordinary people to exercise their rights has now been turned into an impenetrable barrier for those ordinary people when they seek to exercise their rights. I cannot remember who it was, but someone used a very opposite phrase that it was actually getting to the situation, effectively, that people couldn't afford to be able to exercise the rights that they have been granted. Yes, I think that we should look at that carefully. The issue has been made by Elaine, Murray and others about the right to strike, and it is a democratic absurdity that you can have a Government elected to affect the lives of each and every one of us on the basis of a third or less of the total electorate, but yet they seem to want to demand that, when it comes to trade unions, that trade unions should have 50 per cent of their members voting for action. There are inconsistencies, there are contradictions and, frankly, it is hypocrisy, but we actually know that it is there for a reason and for a purpose. It is not there by accident, certainly. Anabelle Goldie in her speech mentioned democratic mandate. I wonder if Mr Henry can help me in establishing what democratic mandate Barones Goldie of Bishopton has for sitting in a legislature. Anabelle Goldie has the same right to sit here as Neil Findlay does, so I do not think that we should necessarily go down that route. There are issues such as the right to strike that need to be addressed. Siobhan MacMahon and others spoke about the hazard centre and aspects of life in which people need the support of legislatures, whether they are here, Westminster or indeed in Europe. A number of speakers also pointed to the difference between demanding more powers for the sake of them and turning their backs on the use of powers that we already had. Mike Mackenzie in his contribution talked about aspiration and lack of ambition. Do you know something about poverty of ambition? There is a poverty of ambition and a lack of aspiration when it comes to refusing to use the powers that we have to do something about the blacklisting inquiry that Neil Findlay has been campaigning for. There is a poverty of ambition and aspiration when, on behalf of many trade unions, I bring forward legislation to give protection in the workplace to those who are assaulted and the Scottish Government decides not to act. There is a poverty of ambition when it comes to using the powers that we have in purchasing to insist that contractors pay the living wage. To do what Renfrewshire Council or my own council does, using its funds to insist that those who contract with the council pay the living wage, the Scottish Government could do that just now. There is a poverty of ambition when it comes to dealing with some of the issues, for example, that Richard Baker has been addressing. There is a poverty of ambition when it comes to looking at using our powers to have an inquiry into the conviction of miners who were taking strike action all those years ago in 1984. There are things that we could and we should be doing. So let's not sneer at others about a poverty of ambition when we often display that same poverty of ambition here. That also comes on very practical and immediate issues, like the porters in NHS Tayside. Do not tell me—no, thank you, Mr Mackenzie—that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, who represents a dindig constituency, will not be listened to by the chief executive of NHS Tayside and by the senior managers there. She has power, influence but there is a poverty of ambition doing anything to help those porters who are taking strike action. They will not even allow them to go to ACAS. The other point that Elaine Murray raised in looking at some of those things is how appropriate it is and what we could do with powers. There is not much of what Alex Johnson says that I would agree with, but he did make the point about wanting to avoid a race to the bottom. One of the things that we need to be careful about is in demanding powers and taking decisions that could have unintended consequences. For example, if we have the power to legislate things such as the living wage, the minimum wage and other things, do we encourage some ruthless employers to move their business from Scotland to England if there are lower-wage employment rights and if there are less legal protection? I will finish in this. We need to avoid unintended consequences, and that is why we need a debate with the STUC and the TUC and trade unions across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom to make sure that whatever we do is in the best interest of working people wherever they are. I thank you, Presiding Officer, and this has been an important debate this afternoon because it has focused on what I think are really key issues that concern the fairness, dignity and equality for those seeking work and for those in work. I think that it has been referred to already this afternoon. The most recent research finds growing evidence that inequality is harmful for long-term economic growth. Indeed, the latest publication by the OECD entitled, In It Together, Why Less Inequality Benefits All, presents evidence on the malign economic consequences of inequality. Of course, it should be recognised that income inequality is not just a UK problem, but the report highlights that the problem of inequality is regrettably worse in the UK than in most other OECD member states. The report also recommends pursuing policies that are both growth and equality friendly, including the establishment of good working practices, employment promotion and the creation of good quality jobs. I suggest that it is a scandal that the UK Government plans to introduce measures that will only make the situation worse. As Graham Smith, the general secretary of the STUC, has said, the attack on employment and trade union rights will further undermine workplace democracy and leave Scottish workers with some of the weakest legal protections in the developed world. I agree with the general secretary of the STUC. In this debate, what we need to do is to call quite clearly for the UK Government to address the issues raised rather than attacking the rights of workers in a second to devolve power over employment law and wages and health and safety to allow this Parliament to improve the rights of workers and improve their protections, and to listen to the people of Scotland who have made it quite clear that it is not to be business, as usual, in Westminster following the Westminster general election. With almost as few as one in four of Britain's workers now a member of a trade union, is the minister correct to conflate trade union membership with workers' rights and think that the two are interchangeable? I wonder if the level of the ratio of membership of trade unions in Scotland nonetheless still exceeds the membership of the Conservative Party in Scotland, and that may be something that he would wish to reflect upon in his theses. There have been a number of important themes emerging from the debate today, but before getting into the nitty gritty and trying to respond as far as I can within the time that I have two various points raised, members can always write to me afterwards if I don't get round to them. I would just say in response to Mr Henry, who never fails to disappoint in his winding up speeches, that what the SNP does recognise, Mr Henry, is at its heart politics is about people and it is about dignity. Perhaps that is why the people of Scotland put their trust in the SNP as a majority government in 2011. Maybe that is why the people of Scotland voted 56 out of 59 Westminster MPs. Maybe that is just why the recent TNS poll put support for the SNP at 60 per cent. I do not deny that. I accepted the fact that, I think, largely the Labour Party has failed ordinary working people in this country and that what the SNP was saying to them chimed more with their aspirations. I did not say anything different. Well, except that we had a wee detour around criticising particular individuals. In any event, we have important issues to deal with in trying to respond to points raised. Obviously, a number of speakers spoke about the employment tribunals and the imposition of fees for employment tribunals and the effect by the UK Government and the negative impact that has had on access to justice on the part of workers. As the Minister for Women's Employment, I am particularly concerned that the most significant drop in claims has been for those concerning sex discrimination. Indeed, it was Christina McKelvie who pointed out that the drop in the number of claims recorded since the introduction of fees with regard to such claims was in the region of 83-84 per cent. That is a shocking statistic and it has obviously had a disproportionate effect on women at work. With the devolution of employment tribunals, we will be able to engage with our stakeholders and the public to explore innovative ways to improve access to employment tribunals and to ensure that awards made at an employment tribunal are in fact enforced. Another important point has been made by many speakers this afternoon. We indeed have heard that some 49 per cent of those with successful claims do not actually get their award and that is just not on. In fact, there are many issues if we had the power to deal with employment tribunals so that we could progress at the moment. Achieving justice through the tribunal system has become something of a lottery and that is simply not acceptable. Again, in terms of what is to be devolved, there is a lack of clarity in terms of what the UK Government is proposing and we need to urgently determine what exactly it is. I would be grateful if the chatter could see so that we could hear the minister, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We need clarity as to what exactly is being devolved in terms of fees, procedure rules and so on. Another important issue, of course, was the issue of the trade union bill. Many members have spoken out quite forcibly about the unfairness at the very heart of that bill and, indeed, have compared quite rightly the issues concerning mandate and thresholds with the position that the UK Conservative Government— Just a moment, could members enter in the chamber and show some courtesy to the minister, please? I have compared the position of the UK Conservative Party with the issues of mandate and threshold because, of course, it was Gordon MacDonald who said that, at the moment, the votes secured by the Conservative Government in the UK Parliament represent 24 per cent of the electoral roll. I think that they would have a hard job in getting up to the 50 per cent that they see as necessary for trade unions. Other important issues raised, obviously, concern a number of key denuding of workers' rights in the form of blacklisting, umbrella contracts, the failures to pay the living wage. Many speakers have suggested that, somehow, we can absolutely employ law powers to do something that we can wave a magic wand and that, somehow, employment law powers are not really that important. They kind of sit to one side of this debate, whereas they are part and parcel, they are fundamental to what we can actually do. We are in the business of wanting to actually make the lives of workers better. I do not know what Labour these days are in the business of wanting to do. They have talked about complexity, they have talked about, oh well, maybe not all powers, they have talked about companies who would leave Scotland if we had proper rights for workers. I find those comments from a Labour Party particularly strange indeed. We have also talked about the inquiry for blacklisting. I think that, in a recent debate, Mr Finlay had the opportunity to make several points to the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure. I think that a meeting was offered. Mr Finlay is not listening. I do not know if that meeting has been arranged. Order. Could all members please pay attention to the closing remarks? In terms of zero hours contracts, many speakers made very important points about zero hours contracts. Those are issues that, if we had power over employment law, we could actually do something tangible about. That is what the people of Scotland want us to do. In conclusion, because I am not quite sure where I am—I have got a minute, I am told by the Cabinet Secretary—what I would say is that this has been an important debate. It has been not exactly cuddly to use that unknown word in the chamber but, nonetheless, I think that it has been important for members to hear the arguments in favour of what devolving powers of employment law would mean. That is what we want in this side of the chamber to happen, because that is the way that we can improve the lives of workers in this country. We have heard today of many successes where we have actually been able to use the levers of power that we currently have. We have secured over 200 living wage accredited employers. I would also like to say in response to Annabelle Goldie that we have pursued the business pledge, which is a shared mission between the Government and business in Scotland to promote a fair work agenda, which is good for workers' rights, but it is also good for business and good for the economy. I would like to report to the chamber that Microsoft was the latest company to sign up to the Scottish business pledge today. It shows that, if you have the will, you can make progress. In order to make the crucial difference that we want to see in the employment landscape in Scotland, we must have the necessary powers to do so. Finally, like the TUC, we want those powers here in our Parliament to protect and to promote the rights of workers. It says all really about the state of the Labour Party in Scotland today that, in the end of the day, they are content for the Tories at Westminster to have powers over employment rights rather than this democratically elected Parliament in Scotland. That concludes the debate on protecting employee rights and access to justice. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business, and I would remind members that, in relation to this afternoon's debate, if the amendment in the name of Siobhan MacMahon is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Alex Johnston falls. The first question then is that amendment 13442.2, in the name of Siobhan MacMahon, which seeks to amend motion number 13442, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, on protecting employee rights and access to justice, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now, please. The result of the vote on amendment number 13442.2, in the name of Siobhan MacMahon, is yes, 31. No 78, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That then brings us to the next question, which is the amendment 13442.3, in the name of Alex Johnston, which seeks to amend motion number 13442, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, on protecting employee rights and access to justice, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. Please cast your votes now. Order. The result of the vote on amendment number 13442.3, in the name of Alex Johnston, is yes, 13. No 96, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion 13442, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, on protecting employee rights and access to justice, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, there will be a division. Please cast your votes now. Order. The result of the vote on motion number 13442, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, is as follows. Yes, 60, no 18, there were 31 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting of Parliament.