 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 10491, in the name of Keith Brown, on devolution of employment law. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Keith Brown to open the debate up to seven minutes, please, Mr Brown. I rise in support of the motion that calls for the devolution of employment law. That aligns, of course, with the Scottish Government's commitment to a fairer and stronger Scotland with the right to fair work at its heart. The motion is important for all of Scotland, especially those areas where the history of industrial action runs deep, like my constituency of Clutmanusher and Dumblane. Clutmanusher holds a significant place in the history of industrial action Scotland, being one of the focal points of the minor strikes of the 1970s and 80s. We must never forget those who, in their fight for fairer wages and safer working conditions, all too often found themselves to be the victims of the actions of particularly callous and uncaring UK Governments. The memory of the Clutmanusher strike serves as a stark reminder of the challenges endured by workers before the creation of the Scottish Parliament. I know that this history will resonate with many of the members in the chamber and in many communities across Scotland. For too long, it has been the case that successive UK Governments have legislated against the right of Scottish workers to take industrial action. Indeed, the motion highlights two pieces of legislation, the conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses amendment regulations of 2022, and the strikes minimum services levels act 2023, both of which pose a significant risk to the rights of workers in Scotland and across the UK. Those regulations represent yet another attempt by the UK Government to curtail the right of workers to take industrial action to protect the dignity of their labour. Trade unions are an essential part of our democracy and are absolutely necessary to ensure that the voice of working people is heard. Having served as a trade union representative, I will always speak up for the right of workers to engage in industrial action. Indeed, Scotland's history is filled with examples of successful collective action such as the UCS workings led by the indomitable Jimmy Reid. Those instances continue to stand as a testament to the power of industrial action not only in Scotland but across the world. However, the creation of the Scottish Parliament has allowed Scotland to right some of the historical wrongs perpetrated on working people by the UK Government. By implementing measures such as pardoning those convicted during the MINDERS strike, I was very proud to take that legislation through the Parliament and to have relatively unanimous support for that measure. The record of the Scottish Government collaborating with trade unions rather than working against them speaks for itself. The notable absence of any NHS strikes in Scotland over the past year, unlike in other UK nations, should not be dismissed. It is a clear indication that the Scottish Government's approach of actively engaging with trade unions works. Does he characterise the relationships between the EIS between unison, GMB and other trade unions in schools and in further and higher education in the same way as he has just characterised the relationship in other areas? I did not hear the very first part of what Pam Duncan-Glasses said. She mentioned a number of trade unions working together. I am happy to come back to that if she wants to come back in again, but I did not hear the first part of what she said. I do think that, as I have said before, the Scottish Government works collaboratively with trade unions. That has been my experience during the previous one. Mr Brown, could you please resume your seat for a second? Thank you. Mr Marat, please do not do that across the floor. Thank you very much. Mr Brown, please continue. The devolution of employment law, as called for in the motion, would allow us to take this constructive approach even further. It is for this reason that an increasing number of trade unions from across the UK now back the devolution of employment law. I am very pleased to say that the UK-wide trade union congress recently followed the Scottish trade union's congress in calling for employment law to be devolved to Scotland, as well as calling for the repeal of all anti-trade union legislation. Two measures which the Scottish Government supports but does not currently have the power to deliver. Given the fact that both the Scottish and UK TUC stand behind the devolution of employment law in their support for workers and for devolution, I would like to make known my feelings of utter disappointment and dismay at the recent announcement from the deputy leader of the UK Labour Party that they have now scrapped the Labour Party's previous commitment to devolving employment law. I have with me today a printed copy of Scottish Labour's 2021 manifesto, which the 22 Labour MSPs were elected on. On page 30 it states in no uncertain terms, we support further devolution of powers to Scotland, including borrowing and employment rights. I imagine that my shop, when the daily record broke the news last week that an email was sent around all the Labour MSPs advising them not to sign this motion, which may or may not, in fact, be in support of one of their own policies. Why would they not want to support something that absolutely reflects their own policies, unless it is the case that they do not mean it at all? It reminded me of a long time ago, when I was a councillor in Allawa and I put a motion up which congratulated Allawa Athletic, winning a promotion to a higher division. It was opposed by the Labour Party and asked him afterwards why, and he said, well, it was the SNP that proposed it. He went back to a future meeting and he agreed it and changed one word to it. It is what became known as the Bain principle. If the SNP proposes it, you cannot accept it, but in this case they are doing that flying in the face of the rights of employers and the need for better employment law in Scotland. Just days before a crucial by-elect in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, the Scottish Labour Party is back-pearling on yet another of its most fundamental principles, just to abide by the dictats of Keir Starmer's UK Labour Party. Keith Brown mentioned the TUC motion. Would he also acknowledge that there was a formal reservation lodge saying that you need to create a floor across the UK before you devolve employment law? That is the position that continues to be the position of the Scottish Labour Party. It is a very important caveat. Would he acknowledge that? I have listened over the last number of years that a number of Labour MSPs state explicitly that they wanted to see employment law devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We now have caveats and an unwillingness to support a straightforward motion that would help to defend the rights of workers and trade unions in Scotland. I have given way twice in relation to that. I am happy to give so again if you say that there is a compelling reason why you cannot support the terms of the motion that is in front of you. There is nothing that conflicts with Labour policy if you are going to do that. The motion states the immediate devolution. As Mr Johnson has just set out, the position of the Scottish Labour Party is that there has to be a floor created across the UK and then devolution, which is actually the position of the TUC. I do not know whether he thinks that those from trade unions and workers across Scotland looking at those weasel words will give any credence to the Labour Party's position any reason not to support it just because it is from the SNP. In closing, the motion calls on the UK Government not to further erode the hard-won rights of Scottish workers. Instead, we state that those rights are not just for the benefit of workers but for the betterment of society and their economy. Across the chamber, we can reaffirm the Parliament's commitment to working in partnership with trade unions and to entrench and build on those rights. Our workers deserve nothing less, and it is high time that we took control. This is nothing contentious for the Labour Party, and they have stated that they want to do this for a number of years. We can take control of our own destiny and craft a country where workers' rights are valued, where fairness is the norm and where the Scottish Parliament works in partnership with trade unions, rather than against them, to build a fairer, more just and prosperous Scotland. What we are getting from the Labour Party is an indication that it will support nothing. If it cannot do it in opposition, it will certainly not do it in government. I would ask the Parliament to support the motion in my name. Thank you. I now call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Donald Cameron. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue today and pay tribute to Mr Brown for bringing this debate to the chamber. I certainly do not pay tribute to the Labour Party for their stance on this, failing to sign what was a motion that I thought they would be running to sign. Now it seems that we have heard of a flip-flop from Labour about the devolution of employment law. In this chamber, not so long ago, in an exchange with Pauline McNeill, she said that we would devolve it now. That is exactly what Mr Brown has called for in his motion. There was no word then—this is the first that I have heard it today—about the creation of a floor before the devolution of employment law could be devolved. I think that this is yet another storm or flip-flop that Scottish Labour has decided to count out to. They have taken their orders from Keir, do not rock the boat and we will deal with this later. I appreciate the member giving way. Does he not recognise that it is lauding the position rightly of the TUC? The TUC has made clear that there has to be an agreement across the UK to create that floor, and we believe that devolution can then further secure those rights for the long-term. The TUC has been any caveats that I have heard from the STUC, and this is the first time that I have heard of this caveat from Labour. No, I have taken your intervention, Mr Marra, and I do not want to hear about your further flip-flopping. With draconian legislation such as the EU retained law bill and the anti-strike bill passed through the UK Parliament earlier this year, it is clear that protecting workers' rights are more important than ever. Tory crackdowns on worker protections and the rights of unions has seen the UK's global rating on workers' rights fall. What are those global ratings? The UK has dropped in the international trade union confederations annual report on workers' rights falling from a rating of three countries where the ITUC considers there to be a regular violation of rights to level four, where that confederation says that there is systemic violations. That means that the UK joins countries with that level four rating, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, despotic regimes, where freedoms, as we know, are not as great as they should be. We are now in the same league as them. Scotland is already missing out on Europe's enhancement of workers' rights thanks to Westminster's hard Brexit. That is the same UK Government that ensures that the UK sick pay is one of the worst in Europe and where workers have been subjected to years of neglect by the Tories. It seems to me—and today confirms my belief—that Labour offers no difference whatsoever. The only way to protect workers in Scotland is to devolve employment law to this Parliament. Devolution of workers' rights is backed by some of the biggest trade unions in the country and, of course, the STUC. It is astonishing that not one Labour MSP has agreed with a motion that calls out Westminster's anti-trade union legislation and is, again, workers' rights. It is time for that devolution to take place. It is time for us to treat our workers much more fairly. It is time for us to rise up those world rankings once again. I now call Donald Cameron to be followed by Cookabster. I begin by saying that it is, I think, sadder to take part in another highly politicised member's debate. I do not aim that at any individual because I know that all parties have done this in the past. I just think that it is regrettable and not in the spirit of this chamber that those debates should be a rare moment to build consensus, and I feel that those opportunities are being eroded. Turning to the substance of Keith Brown's motion, I want to make some specific points. The politics of this debate is quite clear. It is about the differences between the SNP and Labour on the limits of devolution with a bar election coming up next week. I should say that I spent much of my professional career as an employment lawyer, and I should refer to my register of interests at this moment as an advocate. However, I spent that time in the Employment Tribunals of Scotland in Aberdeen, in Dundee, Glasgow and here in Edinburgh, representing both workers, employers, trade unions, acting cases of dismissal, redundancy and discrimination. It is something that I know a little about and have seen at the sharp end when disputes sadly end up in litigation. However, I did learn one thing above all, and that is the importance of a UK-wide system of employment law and a corresponding UK-wide tribunal structure to support and police it. What has been lost in this debate so far and needs restating today is the rationale behind why employment law has not been devolved and why these benches support the status quo. The reason for that is essentially economic. Keith Brown? I just would ask whether Donald Cameron is aware that the one part of employment law that has been devolved or has been agreed to be devolved under the Smith convention is actually employment tribunals in many forms. Is he aware of that? I am aware of that, and I am aware of the upgrade to the employment system, the tribunals, the upper tribunal and the lower tribunal that has happened in the last 10 years. However, returning to the point that I was making, the reason for that is essentially an economic one. It is clear that two separate systems of employment law between Scotland and England would create a headache for both workers and businesses that operate on a cross-border basis, particularly small and medium-sized business. You could have, for instance, two different contracts of employment for those working between Scotland and England, businesses having to monitor different sets of laws and employees having to adhere to different systems of regulation. That leads to cost, logistical difficulties and complexity for both workers and businesses and the suppression of the free flow of labour between Scotland and England. Just as we need a UK-wide approach to the goods and services market, so too do we need a UK-wide approach to employment. The former UK minister for Labour Markets, Jane Hunt, said that ONS data estimates that around 68,000 people work in Scotland and live in England or vice versa, and devolving employment rights could be highly disruptive for workers who work across the border. Therefore, creating that divergence from an existing UK-wide employment law would have significant ramifications. Stating those points does not mean that the rights of workers are somehow diminished by maintaining the status quo. You can still support fair work, you can still support the right to strike, you can still support equality rights, you can still pass legislation such as the pardoning of striking miners, you can still respect and support all of Scotland's workers, you can still ensure that when any dispute arises over pay and conditions, the Government engages with workers and their representatives to ensure that a fair deal is struck. Those benches support the rights of all Scotland's workers, and we want to continue to see a UK-wide approach to the labour market. We want to ensure that there can continue to be that free flow of labour, and unlike others in the chamber, we will always work with business and employees to achieve that, rather than work against them. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Keith Brown for bringing this debate to the chamber. I think that it's fair to say that the situation faced by workers up and down the UK today is quite bleak. For most people, wages increases are struggling to make up for the massive decrease in the value of money in their bank accounts and the role of trade unions, the role that they can play is under attack. Meanwhile, practices such as unpaid work trials and exploitative zero-hours contracts remain the norm in some sectors. Thirteen years of Tory policy making has certainly made a difference, and I don't think that there would be any that would claim that it would be for the better. Where the situation remains bleak is with the Labour Party. If Keir Starmer really is Prime Minister in waiting, what difference would it make? The past few months have revealed Labour's hand that they are engaged in a race to the bottom on issues such as immigration, welfare and Brexit. Is she aware that we have promised to legislate within 100 days on a new deal for working people, which would transform—we are not my words, but the TUC General Secretary's workers rights up and down the UK? Is she aware of that fact? I am aware that Labour makes many policy suggestions, which they then go on to flip-flop and you turn on on a regular basis. There remains no suggestion that Labour would hold true to any promises that they make in improving the lives and conditions of workers across the UK. However, the question over whether Scotland should have the ability to take different decisions when it comes to employment is what we are discussing today. I would like to bring the chamber's focus on one specific area that I take a deep interest in—the ability of asylum seekers to work while they are applying to remain in the UK. That cuts across two areas that are reserved—employment as well as immigration. Flatly speaking, asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK while their application is being processed. As members are likely aware, that process is a long one. Most applications take more than six months. There are very limited circumstances where Home Office says that asylum seekers can seek employment. If a person has been waiting for more than 12 months for a decision, for instance, and the Home Office deems that the delay is not the applicant's fault, they can seek employment, but only from the UK Government's restrictive shortage occupation list. That said, the Home Office will not provide data on the number of asylum seekers granted permission to work, so there is no way for us to scrutinise that system that makes no sense. The financial support given to asylum seekers by the UK Government is extremely low—less than £50 a week. If they were able to work, they would be able to pay taxes. It would be easy to conclude, therefore, that the reason that the system exists, that it must be done to ideology and not pragmatism. To be clear here, it was Labour who restricted asylum seekers being able to apply for work in 2002. The ability to apply after 12 months was introduced in 2005, but it was only done in order to comply with EU law. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats further restricted what work asylum seekers could do by limiting it to shortage occupation list in 2010. UK Governments of every hue have let down asylum seekers and the communities that they reside in. Those are people from a range of backgrounds and professions that they want to be able to contribute. Their inability to do so is to are a detriment as much as it is to theirs. Sadly, we live in a UK system that imposes a hostile environment on those who come here—a hostile environment that was introduced by the Labour Government under Tony Blair in 2007 and then continued and enhanced by the Conservatives. Asylum seekers just want to provide for their families. They just want a bit of dignity as they navigate and often demoralising an elongated application system. They deserve to do that, Presiding Officer, safe in the knowledge that they will be treated equally and in compliance with fair work principles. In closing, Presiding Officer, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which I convene, has recently concluded an inquiry into the lived experience of asylum seekers in Scotland. The report will be published soon and it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on its contents. However, I hope that the committee's work on this will help to inform Government policy on asylum seekers and their ability to integrate and contribute. The current system provides a perpetual stream of missed opportunities. I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would make better choices—better choices on employment and how we treat workers—better choices on how we treat those who come here. Short of independence, the UK should devolve to Scotland our ability to make policy on those who come here. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me begin with where we absolutely unequivocally agree. I agree that we strengthen the economy by improving workers' rights, and that is exactly what a Labour Government would seek to do, for the whole of the UK, not just for parts of the UK. Labour's new deal for working people is a commitment to legislate within 100 days and would ban compulsory zero-hours contracts. It would outlaw, fire and rehire. It would give workers day-one rights on sick pay, parental leave, protection from unfair dismissal. It would provide workers' status for people regardless of the type of employment, tackling directly the many issues that people face when they are working in the so-called gig economy. However, most importantly, what we would do is to raise the minimum wage so that it was our real living wage. That is exactly why Paul Novak, the TUC General Secretary, said that the new deal for working people represents the biggest upgrade in workers' rights in a decade. That is a direct quote. The reality is that— I thank the member for taking an intervention. Does he accept that workers in Scotland could have had all of that nine years ago? Let me be very clear that what we need to do is ensure that we have high standards for all workers throughout the UK. What we do not want to do is create a situation where there is a race to the bottom, which is precisely why—just in a moment, Mr McKee—we have made our calls for devolution of employment law. It has been very clear that, within a regime that creates a floor, a minimum set of standards—that is what we have said in both 2019 and 2021—what is more. I am sorry that Mr Brown thinks that those are weasel-wrote words, but to quote Liz Foyer from the STUC, which he said, that a guaranteed minimum floor of workers' rights across the UK is a prudent first step towards achieving devolution of employment law. Her words are not mine, issued in September, and a direct result of that TUC motion. I am very happy to give— Ivan McKee? Thanks to Daniel Johnson for taking an intervention. Does Daniel Johnson think that having higher standards and higher employment rights in Scotland makes it more or less likely that standards will increase across the rest of the UK? Daniel Johnson? What is important is that we have guaranteed minimum standards across the UK. If you had an open framework, which is what would be created with an immediate devolution, you would create a scenario, a situation where you invite a race to the bottom, which is absolutely not in anyone's interest—certainly not in workers' interests. Let's be clear. Every time Labour has been in government, we have made a difference to workers' rights, whether that is protection from unfair dismissal, health and safety at work, equal pay legislation, minimum wage, the Equalities Act, every single Labour Government every time making change and not just change, change that no Government has been able to reverse, no Government has dared to unpick them. That is the difference that a Labour Government has made in the past. It's a difference that the Labour Government will make again. Frankly, and in closing, just to reflect something that Donald Cameron said, it is something of a sorry sight to see the SNP deputy leader reduce to using a member's debate to making such naked party political attacks. What is also clear is the sign of the SNP desperation, scared of what an improved and strengthening Labour Party represents, because they prefer the status quo. They prefer having a Tory Government, so rather than fighting a Tory Government, they prefer to attack Labour. Rather than delivering, they prefer the politics of division. We are here to deliver for the whole of the UK rather than creating division, which is all the SNP are ultimately interested in. I think back to the Leith docker strike in 1913 and when those campaigners and individuals and trade unionists took to the streets of Leith and pushed for better conditions for their workers, they lived in a time of deep income inequality, as we do now. I want to speak today on behalf of my constituents, too many of whom are living in in-work poverty. We committed, as a Parliament, several years ago in 2017, to addressing child poverty. 21 per cent of working age adults living in poverty are doing so after housing costs. In that group, 69 per cent of children living in poverty are in working households. That is the figures from 2019 to 2022. That is, of course, in a situation in which 24 per cent of children are living in relative poverty after housing costs. That is something that should concern all of us, because, although this Parliament and our devolved Government have the capacity to make changes in terms of public sector wage differentials—and, of course, it has done—that is why it has successfully avoided strike action in a number of areas and provided a situation where workers here in Scotland in the public sector are better paid than elsewhere in the UK. That makes an impact on reducing poverty. For the four-fifths of the working population in the private sector, the Scottish Government can do a lot in terms of persuasion and pushing employers to do the right thing, and the drive towards the real living wage has made an important difference. However, it is binding in the law a real living wage that makes sure that private employers pay enough. That is the problem of the situation that we have here in Scotland. So many of my constituents who come to me in real difficulty are in households where there are working-age adults and they are working in the private sector. We are absolutely right to push, as a Parliament, for those powers to do fair work in particular to come to this Parliament. Whatever your thoughts on the final destination in terms of Scotland's constitution and its institution, it is clear that, if this Parliament is to protect our people from decisions elsewhere in the UK that have a negative impact on Scotland and are against the social democratic governance that Scotland consistently has voted for throughout my lifetime, then employment powers, along with, I would argue, more financial powers and more social security powers, need to come to this Parliament to deliver social justice. It is not enough for Labour Party colleagues to say, if and when we get a UK Labour Government, they will be able to do X, Y, Z. What about the years in between? What about the years in between where all of our constituents suffer from a lack of good working conditions and fair pay? That is not acceptable to me and it should not be acceptable to all of us on the centre left. We need employment powers to come to this Parliament. Yes, they will need to be careful considerations about cross-border issues and any Scottish Government with the powers over employment law will need to be thoughtful and responsible in how it exercises them. However, it is absolutely right that the control over employment law should come to this Scottish Parliament and any UK Government should be forthcoming and bringing a Scotland act in the next UK Parliament that delivers that. It is the right thing for social justice. It is the right thing for making sure that this Parliament has the suite of powers to protect our constituents, who too often and in too many numbers have been living in work poverty. It is not right, and it needs to change. Thank you to Keith Brown, MSP, for affording Parliament the chance to debate on enhancing workers' rights. I refer members to my register of interests as a member of both community of the union and the GMB as a lifelong trade unionist. There are two principal means by which the lives of ordinary Scots have been improved since the start of the 20th century. The first is organised trade unionism, based on collective solidarity and the struggle for our fundamental human right to withhold our labour. The second is Labour Governments, committed to a more equal country investing in public services in the public protection through the law and crucially in enhancing trade union rights. The next Labour Government will introduce legislation on a new deal for working people within its first 100 days in office. The general secretary of the TUC, as cited by Mr Brown, has described Labour's plans as transformative. I quote, the biggest upgrade in workers' rights in a generation. Thank you, I thank you, Michael Marra, for taking intervention and maybe mentioning the £4 billion pillaging of the miners pension fund, the fact that there was no pardons given to miners and there was no end to blacklisting under the last Labour Government. Crucially, in 2015-17-19, we are told that those things must wait until we are a Labour Government elected. Is it the case if Labour does not win the election that Scottish workers are going to have to continue to wait and be deprived of the enhanced rights possible to them if we do not devolve employment law? Michael Marra? I agree with Mr Brown's call to defeat this Tory Government and get them out. There is one way to do that, I would say. There is one way to deliver it. I am also not really entirely sure that I follow the member's logic, Presiding Officer, as to how he might see those powers being devolved given the position of the Conservative Party. The best way for the SNP to act in his deputy leader—perhaps Mr Brown can take some of that—is to act in concert and co-operation with the Labour Party to deliver those powers to Scotland once we establish that floor across the UK. Labour's new deal for working people will repeal the 2016 trade union act, it will repeal the minimum services bill, it will repeal strike-baking legislations, it will overhaul the laws that have restricted the fair operation of trade unions for working people in the UK, it will ban zero-hour contracts, it will outlaw fire and rehire, it will guarantee day 1 rights to sick pay, parental leave and protection from unfair dismissal, and we will ensure that minimum wage is a livable wage. So when was the last transformative upgrade in workers' rights a generation ago to which the general secretary of the TUC refers? It was, of course, the Labour Government elected in 1997, which started by guaranteeing the legal right to join a trade union, service rights, holiday rights, paternity rights, it moved to outlaw much of blacklisting across the UK, it introduced a minimum wage for the first time in the history of these nations, and of course this isn't just history, Presiding Officer. All of these rights are measures which improve the lives of Scots today every single day. As this record, this record that we stand on, that tells us the new deal for working people will be delivered by a Labour Government. And once that new common basis for rights has been placed, Scottish Labour will seek to secure it against future Tory attacks through the devolution of employment law with the maintenance of that UK-wide floor so that it cannot be removed, and devolution acting as a protection of progress to ensure that there's no race to the bottom on employment rights as seen by so many in countries across the world. I would say of what I've closed, Presiding Officer, talking about the conspicuous absence from Mr Brown's motion of zero-hour contracts today. Scotland has the highest rate of zero-hour contracts among people of employment in any part of the UK. Worse still, in SNP Scotland, a zero-hour contract is counted as a positive destination for school leavers. They could do something about that today. On what planet is insecure per chaos work a positive destination? Only last week it was reported that the SNP was using workers on zero-hours contracts to distribute leaflets in Rutherglen and Hamilton West for the by-election. They don't even have a zero-tolerance policy in their own party, let alone in the country. So, while the SNP will equivocate and provaricate, Labour is clear that we will end that scourge and we will deliver on our new deal for working people. Thank you, Mr Marra. I now call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Monica Lennon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Keith Brown for securing this important debate. This is an issue that I have taken a keen interest in for many years. I am an active trade unionist and I refer colleagues to my register of interests. I am a member of Unite the Union. Back in 2014, devolution of employment legislation was something that featured regularly in debates and discussions about the kind of future Scotland's people wanted to see. I and many others argued that, whilst we didn't necessarily need independence to progress workers' rights, to improve their conditions and secure better democracy in our workplaces, it would certainly make those things easier. Thirteen years of a UK Labour Government had not overturned the anti-trade union legislation in its entirety that Thatcher brought in decades before, and we certainly weren't going to get progress under successive Tory Governments. But I digress. The Smith commission conversations were interesting. I learned a lot about a range of things in those concentrated, sometimes heated meetings. I learned how different people did politics. I learned about political negotiation. I learned about tribalism. I learned about the intransigence that tribalism breeds. And I learned about the lowest common denominator politics that it seemed the Labour representatives on that commission were willing to promote. When we, Greens and the SNP members of that commission proposed the devolution of employment law, the Labour representatives simply said no. There were no arguments made about solidarity across borders, although those had been made before the referendum vote itself. It was just no. No discussion, no nothing. It was almost as if it was no as punishment. Punishment of Scotland for daring to suggest that we could do better. Punishment of all of us who dared to imagine a better world. Punishment of hope. As time has moved on, it really does seem like it was punishment of hope. Despite calls from the trade union movement and others on the left for something better, aligning with a Conservative Government, putting the fate of our workers in the hands of a Conservative Government seemed to be more appealing than working to create something better. Because we know that there is no intrinsic reason why employment law could not be devolved, it might be complicated, yes. But, as Northern Ireland shows, it is possible. There is considerable divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Regressive changes in Great Britain are not mirrored in the north of Ireland, and that might be of interest to those who have been going on about a UK-wide system. It doesn't exist at the moment. If Labour had not vetoed the devolution of employment law by collaborating with the Tories, we could now have a real living wage, a total ban on zero-hours contracts on fire and rehire, as well as the reinstatement of employment and trade union rights removed by the Tories. Those powers would make our efforts to bring children out of poverty or to ensure a just transition to communities that are sustainable in every sense so much easier. Stronger trade unions could be at the forefront of creating cohesive, co-operative societies of standing up against exploitation. The vague possibilities that a new Labour Government in London might repeal the worst of Tory anti-work legislation is not a good enough reason to oppose the devolution of those powers now, and it certainly is not a good enough prospect for our workers and communities. Let's remember that we are governed by a Tory Government whose employment regulations last year were quashed by a court that found the Secretary of State's failure to carry out mandatory consultation to be, and I quote, so unfair as to be unlawful and, indeed, irrational. In conclusion, our workers and our communities are paying a heavy price for the tribal lowest common denominator politics that sought nine years ago to punish hope. I wish we had instead the option of building on that hope. That day cannot come soon enough. Thank you, Ms Chapman. Before I call the next speaker, I would advise members that, due to the number of members who would wish to speak in this debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I now invite Keith Brown to move a motion without notice. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I now call Monica Lennon to be followed by Ivan McKee, Ms Lennon. I start by referring to my register of interest as a member of Unite, the GMB, a member of the RMT parliamentary group and a convener of the Scottish Labour trade union group. I thank Keith Brown for bringing this debate to the chamber. It is good to see so many members taking an interest. What we can agree on is that anti-trade union legislation is harmful to members in Keith Brown's constituency in Central Scotland, my region and to workers right across the UK. What has been made about the scourge of in-work poverty? I believe that most people in the chamber care about those issues. The Labour movement, of course, believes in more protection for workers. That is what informed my political thinking. I grew up as a girl in Blantyre, in Lanarkshire, the daughter of a health and safety officer, shaped by what was happening to working-class communities like mine. The wellbeing of workers has shaped my early political thinking. Today, more than ever, we have heard from members across the chamber about the epidemic of fire and rehire, zero-hours contracts, precarious work and people in my neighbourhood who are working three jobs and often more just to make ends meet. I was listening carefully to Keith Brown, who spoke passionately about the industrial history of his area of click manager and in Blane, and his important work in pardoning the miners. That brings people together across the chamber. Neil Findlay and Richard Leonard on our bed and she's, Mr Brown and Michael Matheson to name, but a few for the SNP. What is probably uncomfortable about this debate for some people is that there is more agreement than many of us want to admit. I see a majority in this Parliament to repeal the anti-trade union law that we know is letting people down. It may be sticking in the throat of some to recognise that what Labour is trying to do at a UK level with the new deal for working people is about being transformative, it is about being progressive. Yes, of course, we're not at the election yet. We don't know what the outcome will be. However, let's focus on the things that we agree on, because Scottish Labour has been very clear. As Arwar has said, it's about a race to the top and not about a race to the bottom. I acknowledge the sincerity with which she speaks on the issues that she's done in the past. In fact, she was very explicit in 2021 in saying that Scottish Labour is supportive of the devolution of employment law, so we agree. However, the terms of my motion were explicitly put together so that we could crystallise that. There's nothing in my motion that should dissuade Monica Lennon, who's got a proud track record in relation to this, from supporting the motion. Can I ask why it is that she hasn't supported the motion and does she believe that Scottish workers in Scotland should always wait on something happening elsewhere before they can get access to full employment rights? Monica Lennon. I think that it's a very important question. I'm speaking in the debate because I care deeply about those issues. I haven't signed a motion, but I haven't signed an amendment either, because what I wanted to do was stand aside from some of the politics that's going on. I think that it's a very good motion from Mr Brown. At the very end, I've underlined a word immediately because I'm not sure what that means. There isn't a big button we can press today to devolve employment law immediately, but, of course, the Scottish Labour manifesto from 2021, which we stood on, sets out a clear position. That's been reinforced by the Scottish leader Anas Sarwar, and there isn't a bit of paper between what we're saying in terms of the STUC and the TUC, who represent 5.5 million workers across the UK. There is a lot of agreement there. I know that I've probably eaten until a lot of my own time, but, yes, to Kevin Stewart, let's rise up the world rankings, but you've heard that, in terms of zero hours, Scotland is the zero-ear capital of the UK. Let's do something about that. I started today at a picket line at Royal Primary School. Tomorrow, I'll be at a picket line in Hamilton near where I live with unison workers. We've got, as Pam Duncan-Glandy was alluding to, people working in higher education and further education, who hear about fair work but don't feel that it's happening for them. We've had people at City of Glasgow College made redundant under the guise of fair work. Let's work together to get a just transition. Let's get justice for all workers. We can have debates in and around by-elections to make points, but it backfires on all of us. I will continue to find common agreement, common cause, because workers right now don't need debates like this. They need money in their bank accounts. I will thank Keith Brown, and I think that if we can have these debates more often, great, but let's not do it as a stunt, let's do it because we actually believe in progressive politics. Many apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer. I neglected to refer the chamber to my register of interests and I'm a member of the trade unions, both community and us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Johnson and Pam Duncan-Glandy. I, too, neglected to refer to my register of interests and I'm a member of community, GMB and unison unions. I thank Keith Brown for bringing this very important motion for debate this evening and highlighting the key issues, not just about the importance of workers' rights and fair pay and fair work that we mostly agree on around the chamber, but on the very important aspects around devolution and drawing some lines between those who believe that Scotland should have the right to legislate in this area and protect and enhance the rights of Scottish workers and those who clearly don't, because I want to start by addressing the Labour position. It's been described as flip-flopping, which it absolutely is, to present this as a position where we allegedly need a floor across the rest of the UK. It's misguided in a number of ways. First of all, the point that I asked Daniel Johnson, in reality, if we have the ability to raise standards in Scotland, how does that constitute a race to the bottom? Monica Lennon very rightly said that it actually constitutes a race to the top, but I allow Scotland to set the standard for the rest of the UK to follow. That should be something that Scottish Labour should welcome. What we've seen is a positioning here that puts the desire, as Keith Brown said, for Labour to have a go at the SNP's position, to differentiate themselves in some way from the SNP ahead of both their concern for workers' rights in Scotland and their concern in support of the devolution setting. I want to give a way to Michael Marra. I appreciate the member giving way. Does he not recognise that both the TUC and the STUC have said that this is the right approach, that we should make sure that there is a common flow across the UK, and that we can devolve it to make sure that there will be a lot closer into the long term? The reality is that, if Scotland has the ability to raise the standards, that will drag the rest of the UK upwards, not the opposite. That's the important point to recognise. It's absolutely clear for anyone to see, so it shows up not just the inability of Labour to grasp and support those ideas, but, frankly, the inability to grasp basic economic principles as well. I'm going to focus on the brief time that I have. There are many aspects that are very important, but focus on the minimum wage and the ability that we should have within Scotland to be able to address and legislate for that. It's hugely important to tackling poverty, to create those good jobs, and it's hugely central to the vision of the wellbeing economy with fair work at its heart. We have seen a gradual reduction in the percentage of people learning less in the real living wage in Scotland, but that's been hard work. It's been had to be done by all kinds of pulling, all kinds of other unrelated levers and trying to have a second impact on that through conditionality and other aspects that are being deployed to help to deliver that. It's an inefficient way to do it, but it's not the most effective way to do it. Legislating to allow the Scottish Parliament to make the decisions on setting that floor in Scotland on minimum wage to at least a level of the real living wage is absolutely essential to help us to raise standards and to tackle that poverty challenge that we have because social security measures and other measures won't on their own deliver what needs to happen to make sure that we'll have people in Scotland out of poverty. I understand why political parties would critique the words and promises of other political parties. I think that there's an important issue here about the zero hour contracts because we can do more in Scotland right now. I'm looking at a quote from Neil Gray, the wellbeing economy secretary, who in the 15th of August of this year said, the Scottish Government firmly opposes the inappropriate use of zero hour contracts. Don't we need more clarity around the position in Scotland because, as well as all the power, we need to make sure that we're going to use them inappropriately? The cabinet secretary has got the question and Mr Recky can now respond, should he wish to. The cabinet secretary said to Neil Gray that it's been very clear that we oppose the inappropriate use of zero hour contracts. Moving on briefly to finish up, this is part of our vision for Scotland's economy, that wellbeing economy, using those levers to drive up wages, using those levers to increase standards, that high-wage, high-technology innovation economy that's good not just for workers in Scotland, not just for tackling poverty in Scotland but also frankly for Scotland's economy and Scotland's businesses. That's why the motion that Keith Brown has brought here this evening is so hugely important and that's what everybody in this chamber should be supporting up. Thank you, Mr Recky. I now call Katie Clark to be followed by Marie McLeary. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I refer to my entry in the register of members' interests relating to my involvement in the trade union movement. I congratulate Keith Brown on securing this debate and welcome the opportunity to discuss the devolution of employment law powers. It may be that Keith Brown wishes to devolve employment law as a matter of principle. For many, this will be a strategic issue as to whether devolution of employment law is likely to lead to stronger rights for workers. We know that many of the employment protections that were created in the UK such as equal pay protections, troopy regulations and discrimination law were derived from European legislation, the social chapter and a membership of the European Union, which embedded and entrenched those rights in domestic law. I welcome the mention in his motion as to how we embed, entrenched and build on rights and how we do this in a Scottish context. Both Daniel Johnson and Michael Marra spoke about Labour's new deal for working people, and the transformational potential it has to strengthen rights at work and make work pay. As Michael Marra says, there is a commitment that a UK Labour Government will repeal the anti-trade union and anti-worker legislation, introduce legislation to ban zero-hours contracts, outlaw, fire and rehire, strengthen sick pay and parental leave rights, create unfair dismissal rights from day 1 of employment and introduce a living wage as a national minimum wage within the first 100 days of government. I think that all that are currently in this chamber would agree that that would represent a fundamental shift in power to working people and positively impact on the lives of millions of people across the UK. Scottish Labour has supported the devolution of employment rights and a UK-wide floor that cannot be removed. We support the UK new deal for working people and recognise that it is unlikely that the current UK Tory Government will devolve any aspect of employment law. The speech that we have heard from Donald Cameron today confirms that. There is a very important debate about the devolution of employment law and what rights could make a difference. There is already a discussion about sexual collective bargaining in relation to the creation of the national care service and that could be extended to other services and sectors. Keith Brown rightly pointed to the pardon for minors as a good example of how this Parliament can make a difference. I understand that, with effect from 1 July, the cabinet secretary made a requirement that all organisations seeking public sector grants pay the living wage. I believe that that is already having an impact. We think that this Parliament will be kept updated on the impact of such measures. We have to recognise that, for example, despite the fact that, effectively, the Scottish Government banned zero-hours contracts five years ago, for example, recently it was brought to light that there are zero-hours contracts operating in the courts and tribunal services. I suspect that no politician was aware of that, but I think that it shows the role of this Parliament to be vigilant. We know that employment law and equality law are highly technical. Therefore, in some ways, I regret the political knockabout involved in the debate, because I think that it is a very important discussion that we need to have in all the political parties. This is a debate about the devolution of employment law. It is not a debate about independence. We need to make sure that we find ways to get the strongest possible employment protections for workers in Scotland, ideally across the UK, but we also find mechanisms to embed them so that they cannot be taken away. In contributing to the debate, I bring members' attention to my register of interests as a member of the trade union unison. I congratulate Keith Brown for securing the debate and acknowledging his long-standing commitment to workers' rights and fair employment policy. The devolution of employment law would give this Parliament the ability to protect workers' rights increase the living wage, end age discrimination of the statutory living wage, give us the powers to act on the companies using fire and rehire policies, tackle the gender pay gap, support parental leave, better trade union recognition policies, and so much more. The Tories' anti-trade union policies, which were never repealed by the Labour Party, have undermined workers' rights and allowed for an employment landscape where the needs of workers can be placed last. The trade union act 2016 and Brexit legislation show that they only care about continuing in the same direction. Scotland needs a different path that will be helped by the full devolution of employment law. The Labour Party arrogantly claimed to be the party of trade union but then turned up here showing that they do not care about the pinions of trade unions who are clear that they want employment law devolved. Ross Foyer of the STC is clear that devolution gives, and I quote, the chance to draw a line in the sand and ensure that no worker in Scotland should ever be subject to any pernicious attack again from a Tory Government hell-bent on undermining working people. Despite the views of all trade union unions and the TUC and the Labour Party, they have dropped the ball, another screeching U-turn in policy. The campaign for socialism, that some of the laps carbonistas purport to be members of, said this. This move puts the Scottish PLP at odds with the STC, the TUC and Scottish Labour members. MSPs must pick a side and abide by their manifesto commitment. We can see that what side they have picked really because, effectively, clearly the memberships have been lapsed. Instead, we are expected to put our trust in Westminster Labour to deliver, even though the record on keeping promises is a shoddy one. The party that now backs Brexit in the rape clause cannot be trusted on workers' rights. Professor Keith Ewing, of King's Colleagues London, has pointed out that an omission to commit to single status of a worker from Sir Keir Stammer recently, and I quote, would render completely pointless the commitments relating to zero-hour contracts, fire and rehire and flexible working arrangements. On the issue of fire and rehire, Labour has question principles there. When it comes to its own staff, the independence newspaper alleges that Labour uses fire and rehire. With one senior MP quoted as saying, to learn that our party is now using fire and rehire tactics, appalls me. It's everything we as a party should be aggressively opposing. Sacking individuals and hiring others on worse wages and terms and conditions are the actions of the very worst employers. When asked to rebut this, a Labour Party spokesman said, we don't comment on staffing. We also know about their shameful record on eco-pay, so we won't trust Labour on workers' rights. Instead, I stand with the trade unions and call for the full devolution of employment law to give this Parliament the power that we need. I think the member should be concluding very soon, Mr Stammer. I think the member should be concluding very soon, Mr Stammer. If I have fair work, decent pay and conditions, I preside, officer, let's have an ambition to go further to support workers with independence powers over health and safety. Law means that we can do much more to keep our workplaces safe. Power over social security policies means that we can do much more to support low-paid workers. Crumbs off the table isn't for us, from Westminster. It's not enough for Scottish workers, and a better path is in independent Scotland. I now call Mercedes Villalba, who will be the last speaker in the open debate before I ask the minister to respond. I refer members to my register of interests as a proud trade unionist. I requested to speak in tonight's debate for three reasons. Firstly, because I support the devolution of employment law to Scotland. Secondly, because Scotland's trade union Congress supports the devolution of employment law to Scotland. Thirdly, because the Scottish Labour party supports the devolution of employment law to Scotland. Presiding Officer, unlike the member and his party, I do not believe in Scottish exceptionalism. I believe in the common endeavour of the people who, united in purpose, can remake our economic system to work in all our favour. So my support for the devolution of employment law stems from my principles of democratic socialism. That power should be held as close to the people as possible. That power should be used in the interests of the people. And that power should be accountable to the people that it serves. So, like the member, I welcome the trade union Congress's backing of a motion calling for the devolution of employment law to Scotland, as well as a repeal of all current anti-trade union legislation. Because this call comes from workers themselves. But that's not all workers are calling for. And that's why the next Labour Government has committed to a new deal for workers. No more zero hours contracts. No more fire and rehire. Employment rights from day one. Union rights to access the workplace. New fair pay agreements. Repealing the attack on the right to strike. And where is the SNP's new deal for workers? And what are the SNP offering workers other than zero hour contracts? So Keith Brown will not be surprised to hear that the General Secretary of the Trade Union Congress has called Labour's new deal for working people, quote, the biggest expansion of workers' rights in a generation. And that's not all he said. He also said, and I quote, that will be the choice at the next election. We want that first 100 days employment bill through in one piece onto the statute books and into the workplaces. And that's why when the time comes, I will tell anyone who asks, vote for working people. Vote for change. Vote for the party we named for our movement. Vote Labour. Thank you, Mr Yabba. I now call on Minister Richard Lochhead to respond to the debate around seven minutes, please, Minister. Can I begin by saying I'm very grateful to Keith Brown for proposing this debate and bringing this very important matter before Parliament? And there have been many heartfelt contributions from across most of the chamber. And, of course, many, many speakers have participated, which I think shows the importance that members attach to workers' rights in Scotland and the debate around who exercises legislation in relation to those rights, the UK Government or this Scottish Parliament. Now, the Scottish Government's vision is for an economy. Of course, it's a fairer economy, a more sustainable economy and a growing economy, but also a country that's offering a decent future for all workers, their families and communities underpinned by strong labour markets. And for workers, that does mean better job quality, better pay, economic security, a better work-life balance and that they should have an effective voice, opportunity, security, fulfilment and respect. Now, of course, as we've been debating today, employment rights and duties are a matter reserved to the UK Government under the Scotland Act, and the Scottish Parliament has no say over the minimum wage for workers in Scotland, nor their rights and protections or over the conduct of industrial relations. It can't legislate to shape a labour market that meets the interests of workers and employers alike to respond to the current and future needs of our economy. And this is despite the enduring support that is shown by the SDUC as mentioned by many members and others, particularly during the formative years of the campaign for the Scottish Parliament in the last few decades and the constitutional convention and so on. Nevertheless, through fair work, the Scottish Government is doing what it can within devolved competence to drive forward change. As a result of the action that we have taken, there are proportionally five times as many accredited real living wage employers in Scotland as the rest of the UK, and 91 per cent of workers in Scotland earn at least the real living wage. Just to give a couple of examples of what we are doing, given the challenges from the Labour benches who do not seem to be aware of the progress that this Parliament has made. We have also had fair work first criteria that has been applied to over £4 billion in public funding since 2019. I'm very grateful to the minister. In terms of examples, what can the Scottish Government do to hear the cries of the workers at City of Glasgow College, who are emailing MSPs tonight, to tell us about cuts to teaching time, increase in workload, ending of fixed-term contracts, targeted voluntary severance and compulsory redundancies? Is that fair work, minister? I say to the member that, to deliver good workers' rights in this country, we need employment law devolved. To escape some of the really tough times that this country has experienced just now, we also need the economic levers devolved to this Parliament so that we can create a prosperous Scotland and address some of the fundamental issues that are affecting our society at the moment, because we do not have the powers to address them properly, which we would do if this Parliament was independent or had more powers in the case of today's debate devolved to us through devolution. Our distinct approach, unlike that of the UK Government, is based on partnership working, as demonstrated through the establishment of the fair work convention and our endorsement of the fair work framework. Trade unions are key to this partnership and a progressive approach to industrial relations is at the very heart of a fair, successful economy. Keith Brown spoke, of course, about the history of strikes in Clunk Manningshire. Scotland has played a prominent international role in the evolution of the trade union movement in promoting and defending workers' rights. In 1787, the Carlton Weavers fight for better wages and conditions with Scotland's first major industrial dispute. That was 50 years before the Tall Puddle Martyrs in England, who were sentenced to transportation for forming a union. In more recent times, again as referred to by Keith Brown, the upper-clad shipbuilders led by Jimmy Reid and Jimmy Earley captured the attention and imagination of people around the world. However, recent UK Government labour market policies have pushed in the opposite direction, eroding rights and protections and undermining progressive industrial relations. Perhaps the greatest immediate threat to our hard-won employment rights is the Retained EU Law Act, which allows the UK Government to rewrite the employment protections that we have gained as members of the European Union. When I spoke, I referred to the requirement that has been made for all organisations seeking public sector grants to pay the living wage. I strongly support that the Scottish Government took that step. Are they looking at what further measures can be used through procurement and the award of grants to ensure that other ethical practices are adhered to, including trade union membership? We are always looking to advance the fair work agenda, and that is why we work closely with the fair work convention and others in this chamber to ensure that we can identify the next steps to help workers in this country. I could list a lot of the issues that we think are at risk from the Retained EU Law Act Westminster. We have had many benefits to the European Union from the maximum working week, the right to rest breaks, the paid annual leave to protection during pregnancy and for new parents and protections for agency fixed-term and part-time workers and so on. However, the uncertainty from Westminster is open-ended for workers and employers as well. As well as putting rights and protections at risk, the UK Government is set to undermining trade unions themselves with the Trade Union Act of 2016, which was the first step. Members have mentioned the conduct of employment agencies, employment businesses and amendment regulations in 2022, which made it permissible for employment agencies to supply temporary workers to employers who are facing industrial action. Of course, the Infamous Strikes Minimum Services Act under which regulations will set levels of service to be maintained during strikes is directly aimed at taking the teeth out of industrial action and circumventing dialogue. We all hopefully believe that strike busting is no substitute for partnership and negotiation with workers and their representatives. Given what we have seen with full control over employment law, the Scottish Government could make far better choices in terms of the labour market. That is why the STUC and the TUC and this Government and many people in Scotland believe in the devolution of employment law to the Scottish Parliament, the final intervention of a pretend. I thank the minister for giving way. As a minister of the Government, I know that he would want to ensure that the STUC was quoted fully. Does he recognise the words of Ross Foyer, who has said that a guaranteed minimum floor of workers rights across the UK is a prudent first step? Does he recognise those words? I welcome the support from the TUC, the STUC and the people of Scotland, the devolution of employment law to this Parliament. What I think many people listening to Labour benches today will be is confused, because on the one hand the Labour spokespeople have been saying that the election of a UK Government will solve everything, echoing the spokespeople for the UK Labour Party who say that we won't need devolution because it will all be sorted out at UK level, but on the other hand, Labour today is arguing that we need devolution for Scotland. You can't have it both ways. We need to know that this is a priority for any incoming Labour Government and your policy until today. The Scottish Government, of course, in a stronger economy with independence, which was published in October last year, proposed some specific measures like establishing a fair national minimum wage, stronger access to flexible working, tackling precarious work, legislating to ban fire and rehire and so on. The big prize also is better partnership working and stronger institutions. There are many benefits. I agree with Ivan McKee and others who say that we should not go at the UK's pace, we should set the pace and we should get on with it and get the powers devolved to this Parliament as soon as possible. We urge the Labour Party to give that commitment to the people of Scotland, stop revarigating and stick to their promise to devolve employment law to the Scottish Parliament. Thank you Minister. That concludes the debate and I close this meeting.