 The next item of business is a member's debate on motion number 246, the name of Claire Hockey, on the increase in trade union membership in Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Would those members who wish to speak in the debate please press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible? I call on Claire Hockey to open the debate. Seven minutes, please, Ms Hockey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As an active trade union and formerly a divisional convener with Unison, it is particularly satisfying to open this debate welcoming the recent increase in trade union membership in Scotland. The trade union movement has a proud history of protecting workers' rights, born out of a desire to combat exploitation and to ensure a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. The rapid growth in mass industrial workplaces in the 19th century provided great wealth to those who sought to develop the new industries of the industrial revolution, be that textiles, iron, coal, steel and the onset of mass manufacturing. These new industries were labour intensive and being mostly based in larger towns and cities drew much of their labour from a changing agricultural population. All over Europe and Britain people were moving, towns and cities were growing and goods were being manufactured to feed the expansion of empires. However, while great wealth was being created for some, life was often cheap, poor working conditions prevailed and injury and death in factories and mines were commonplace, who could forget accidents on the scale of the Blantyre explosion in 1877 in my constituency, where at least 215 men and boys perished? Indeed, the scale and frequency of mining and other industrial accidents across Scotland and Britain during that era was horrific. It was from this background of poor pay, poor conditions and disregard for the value of workers' lives that the first workers cooperatives and unions grew. However, every stage of the trade union movement's development was to prove a struggle. As the number of trade-based unions grew, supporting members who exercised their right to withdraw their labour for fair treatment, so gradually pay terms and conditions improved. The legacy of those hard-won benefits remain with us. Trade unions and collective bargaining have given us many of the benefits that are now so often taken for granted—a standard working day with paid breaks, the minimum wage, pay for overtime, paid holidays and public holidays, sick pay, paid maternity leave and recently paid paternity leave, the right to withdraw your labour when in dispute and the right to representation. One of the greatest achievements of the trade union movement was ensuring the basic right of a safe place to work. Health and safety at work legislation would not be as rigorous as it is today without the work and sacrifice of trade union members over the past 130 years. Of course, terrible accidents can still occur, and I would in particular ask Parliament to be mindful of the approaching 28th anniversary of the paper, Alfa Disaster, on July 6. The member listed a whole range of benefits that have been introduced, but through pressure from the trade unions, will she take the opportunity to congratulate the Labour Governments who have brought in almost all of those things? I think that I will move on from that point, Mr Finlay. At its peak in 1979, trade union membership in the UK stood in excess of £13 million, double the current figures. Of course, the industrial landscape has changed, and those traditional industries that I have mentioned have sadly declined, a decline that was outrageously mismanaged by the Thatcher Government in the 1980s, with the underlying objective of undermining the trade union movement. The shift to more service-based economies has given us new high turnover workplaces. There are also challenges there with the increase in part-time work in zero-hour contracts. Those modern workplaces are more difficult to organise in and are notoriously resistant to trade union recognition. Nonetheless, employees in these workplaces also benefit from the entitlements that are won by historic trade union pressure. So, while overall trade union membership is down significantly since 1979, it is pleasing to see the recent increase, particularly in Scotland. The recently published statistical bulletin from the UK Department of Business, Industry and Skills on trade union membership shows the rise of 42,000 members in Scotland from 688,000 to 730,000. That is just over 6 per cent rise between 2014 and 2015. There are some interesting and welcoming points in its key findings, that women are more likely to be trade union members than men, that, in the teeth of Tory cuts, public sector membership is up, private sector membership has increased for the fifth successive year, a trade union presence in the workplace is higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, and employees in Scotland and Wales are more likely to be trade union members than workers in England. However, there are also some points of concern. Older workers account for a higher proportion of members with 39 per cent of membership over the age of 50. Full-time employees are more likely to be members than part-time ones, and middle-income earners are more likely to be members than lower-paid earners. Trade union membership in post-industrial Scotland is as relevant and beneficial today as it was in the past. However, all the achievements that I have listed are now under the threat from the current Tory Government UK—the current Tory UK Government's proposed trade union legislation, which I am proud to say this SNP Government and our SNP MPs in Westminster, with the support of this Parliament and the STUC have pledged to resist. This totally unnecessary legislation is a threat to the fundamental rights of workers and threats to undermine Scotland's approach to industrial relations. There is no evidence to support the need for this legislation, and the UK Government has made no attempt to consider its impact in Scotland, and in particular on our public services. Although the Tories have been forced into various concessions as the bill has progressed, due to strong opposition from SNP MPs and the Scottish Government, this is still a regressive and vindictive piece of legislation that will undermine the positive employee-employer relationships that we currently enjoy in Scotland. The achievements of the trade unions are also endangered by the threat of a leave vote in next week's EU referendum. Many of the employment benefits that we currently enjoy were enhanced and underpinned by EU legislation. I would therefore urge trade union members across Scotland and the UK to vote remain to ensure that those benefits are not eroded by current and future Tory Governments. I am proud of the relationship that this Government has fostered with the unions and the STUC to ensure that we deliver a fairer deal for the workers in Scotland. Unlike the Tories and Westminster, this Government does not see trade unions as the opposition or the enemy, but rather our partners in delivering a fair work agenda. Scotland's proud trade union heritage is no longer the preserve of any one party that belongs to all of us, regardless of the sector or demographic. The benefits of trade union membership have helped to lead the foundation for us to work together to take Scotland forward. I believe that we should encourage employees in all workplaces to join a union, especially younger employees. Strong constructive trade unions are an essential element of a successful nation. They play a vital role in protecting workers' rights, fighting for fair pay and building a better society, and that is why I very much welcome that increase in the trend in union membership. I will reflect on what was said during that, and I will come back to you on that case. Yes, we are in Perda, but I did not notice anything in the speech that breached that, but I will reflect on it with the other Presiding Officers. I call Jackie Baillie to be followed by David Torrance. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I congratulate Claire Hawkey on securing this debate on trade union membership? Let me declare my interests as a member of the GMB and unison. I am, of course, wholeheartedly in favour of trade unions and the important role that they play in advancing rights in the workplace and delivering social and economic change across the country. Whether it is defending the rights of an individual or collective bargaining for a workplace, or influencing civic society, or indeed influencing government policy and action, trade unions contribute hugely to the wellbeing of our country. I am pleased, therefore, to see that trade union membership has increased by 42,000, taking that total up to 730,000 in Scotland. We have also noted similar increases in the east and west Midlands, as well as the southeast of England. Unions are as important now as they ever were. People join trade unions for a whole myriad of reasons. They are likely to be paid 8 per cent more if they are in a union than not for comparable jobs. They are twice as likely to be low paid if they are not in a trade union. Their job security is better. Non-union firms are two and a half times as likely to sack workers. You get fair treatment and representation should things go wrong. Although their primary focus is, of course, on their members and their workplaces, unions are about so much more than that. Yes, it is a voice at the workplace, but it is also about improving lives for the families, their communities and the country, too. In every part of life, trade unions make a difference. They are, I think, at their best when they are organisations that are campaigning for economic and social justice. You only need to look at the better-than-zero campaign, organised by young trade unionists, supported by the STUC to see the truth in that, because those young trade unionists are taking on the issues of insecure work and low pay for young people across Scotland, and I commend their work to the Parliament. Of course, we cannot forget the role that trade unions played in shaping this Parliament through the constitutional convention, and we are grateful to them for that, too. I want to pick up on two issues raised in the STUC comment about the debate that we are having this evening. They are right to challenge us to do more than simply offer warm words. There are issues with procurement where time after time the Scottish Government rejected amendments to the procurement bill from the Labour benches about issues such as companies that blacklisted employees, about paying the living wage, about equal pay and more besides. Here was an opportunity to make a practical difference to workers across Scotland engaged in delivering £10 billion of public contracts each year, but I regret to say that it was an opportunity missed. The STUC points to employers who actively prevent trade unions from recruiting. Surely we should not be awarding huge public sector contracts to those companies who are anti-union, and I would be very grateful if the minister would take that away to consider. I regret the mustangs from some of his colleagues behind him, but, finally, I am aware of the restrictions placed on members when commenting about the EU referendum, but let me make the following observation. Trade unions working across Europe have with member governments fought for and secured a package of workplace rights that have improved conditions across Europe—maternity rights, paternity rights, right-for-part-time workers and much more besides. Let's remember that when we consider what we do on 23 June. I apologise to you and the chamber for leaving early, as I have a cross-party group to chair, but let me finish by again congratulating Clare Hockey on bringing this debate to Parliament, but, unlike her, I will pay tribute to successive Labour Governments who, in partnership with trade unions, have delivered rights for workers across the country in the past and will do so in the future. I thank Clare Hockey for bringing up this motion in the chamber today to welcome an increase in the trade union membership in Scotland and the support of its continued growth. Throughout history, trade unions have played an important part in employees' rights and have successfully adapted to immense political and social changes. For decades, trade unions have served as arenas for open communication and bargaining to promote development, not only in the economic sphere through industrial organisation and vaginal negotiation, but especially in the social sphere with the promotion of workers' rights and responsibilities. I would like to congratulate the immense progress that trade unions have made in recent years in achieving a significant increase in membership from 608,000 in 2014 to 730,000 in 2015. I would also like to recognise that salaries for trade union members are eight per cent higher than non-members, and I encourage us progress to continue in the future, despite some economic hardships that Scotland may face. Most of my working life was spent in manufacturing as an engineer, so it was only natural that you became a member of the G&B trade union. Many of the changes to working practices and conditions within the sector over the last 20 years have been attributed to the constant pressure from trade unions, especially the G&B. In my last 10 years in manufacturing, I had the privilege to become a shop steward in the G&B. I say pride, Presiding Officer. It was one of the most rewarding experiences that I have been able to assist and help my fellow members. There is a lot at stake for trade union members on 23 June. I commend the support that the European Union has given workers in initiating legislation as enhanced employment protection, especially for a part-time, temporary and migrant workers. I cannot stress enough that, as migration has increased, unemployment in Scotland has decreased. The EU has played a crucial role in implementing legislation on paid annual holidays, improving health and safety protection, right to unpaid, paying to relieve, and right to equal treatment to protect working people from exploitation and discrimination. The future of workers in the EU lies partly in a positive development in EU employment law. I encourage the UK trade unions to continue work hand in hand with their European partners to build alliances to advance their social and political objectives. We also need to take economic consequences into consideration. The EU membership ensures us to the European Court of Justice and other human rights institutions. Without the protection of the EU, the security of workers' rights of thousands of UK citizens could be eroded. We live in a society where there are more working women, yet they are more likely to be paid less and often without the guarantee that their job is secure. Therefore, I praise the work trade unions have carried out to recognise the extremely important part that we have played to ensure equal opportunities, not only in the workplace, but also ensuring that women have access to work. Women now make up the majority of trade union membership, and the gap between male and female employment is at its lowest ever, especially in comparison to the rest of the UK. I also commend offshore unions Unite, RMT, GMB and that list for creating the offshore co-ordinating group as a quick response to collapse of oil prices since 2014, which has had a devastating consequences for oil and gas workforce. Since its establishment, the OCG has been extremely successful in co-ordinating campaigns for safety conditions, policy development and job security to ensure that trade unions make a positive contribution to achieving the UK and Scottish Government's objective of maximising economic recovery. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I would once again like to thank Claire for securing this debate in Parliament today. The voice of the trade unions should not be ignored and I encourage the Scottish and UK Government, employers, regulators and agencies to listen. The existence and strength of the trade union is vital for society in stimulating communication between workers and management and providing advice and support to avoid major conflict, and most of all in representing employees who do not, as individuals, have a voice. Thank you very much, I call Liam Kerr, before by Richard Leonard. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me also begin by thanking Claire Hockey for putting down this motion. I am sure that she will forgive me for focusing on supporting the motion laid down rather than the wider debate that was brought in on UK proposals. I appreciate that Claire Hockey may be feeling rather uncomfortable at the moment hearing that the Scottish Conservatives are supporting her motion on trade union membership. My reasons for supporting the motion are a response to misconceptions about both the political leanings and end games of both the union movement and the Scottish Conservatives. The commonly held caricature of trade unionists is not one that I recognise nor have I really seen in my extensive dealings with them in over a decade practising employment law in the oil and gas sector. I do not accept that most people join a union because they are particularly political or indeed of the hard left. On the contrary, I agree that the union movement is built on and was built by the workers, hardworking people who believed and still believe that there must be a floor of job security and workers' rights, the counterbalance to the unfettered ability of an employer to source labour at the lowest price, and the modern union movement is so much more. Not only does it campaign for workers' rights but it plays a vital role defending health and safety in the workplace, ensuring vital representation for employees at discipline and grievances and training their members to be more productive, better at what they do, providing advice on everything from safety, pensions and CPD. That training is considerable and I can say from personal experience that some, if not most, of my most formidable and impressive opponents down the years have been the regional organisers. Let us not forget that the motion talked of membership increasing in specific areas. 55 per cent of the union members in 2015 were women, up from 45 per cent some 20 years ago. The proportion aged above 50 is increasing and around 30 per cent of union members are professionals. As always, those who have the least voice are being given one by this movement, and that I think we can all celebrate. Hardworking people, encouraging trade opportunities, people working together in communities and groups to represent themselves and give people a voice. Those are Scottish Conservative values. It was Mrs Thatcher who cut the basic rate of tax from 33 per cent to 25 per cent to ensure that all workers could keep a higher proportion of wages. It was today's Conservative party with its long-term economic plan, which is brought in the national living wage, a mandatory rise that will reach over £9 per hour that has lifted those learning less than £11,000 a year out of income tax altogether. Not on four minutes, I'm sorry. All this while increasing childcare provision south of the border, encouraging a renewed focus on apprenticeships and slashing unemployment to its lowest level ever. Now there are many who would claim the union movement as a labour creation, but people often forget that it was the original one nation Tory, Benjamin Disraeli, who initially gave workers the right to sue companies if they broke employment contracts and allowed picketing. It was he who so memorably said, Power has only one duty, to improve the social welfare of the people. Mrs Thatcher herself held her first political office within Conservative trade unionists and created 250 branches across the country. In Scotland in 2015, it was the Scottish Conservatives who called for the Scottish Government to use the business rate system to incentivise firms prepared to pay a living wage. So yes, we support Clare Hock's motion. The Scottish Conservatives welcome the increase in membership. We agree that the trade unions play and have played an invaluable role in Scottish society, and we look forward to them continuing to do so. Thank you very much. I call Richard Leonard, followed by Patrick Harvie and Neil Findlay, who will be the last speaker. I also want to congratulate Clare Hocky for placing this motion before us. Clare Hocky is a member of the SNP and a unison activist and a member of the Labour Party. In light of her comments, I was reflecting on the fact that, when I first joined the transport and general workers union in 1985, the Tory MP Peter Bottomley was often in the union's publicity, reminding us that he could be a Tory and a trade union member even during the Thatcher era. Although to Liam Kerr I say, I am not quite sure that the workers at GCHQ or the National Union of Mine Workers would recognise his description of Margaret Thatcher as being trade union friendly. I also recall that Walter Osborne, who was a Liberal Party member, took his union, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, to court, leading to the infamous Osborne judgment by the House of Lords in 1909, which gagged the trade union movement for three years, leading James Kear-Hardie to reflect with the trade unions gagged. One class can make the law, the other cannot, which leads me to make this point. Anyone who believes that trade unions don't need a political voice just needs to look at the trade union act 2016. Politics is a legitimate concern of trade unions because places like this Parliament determine the social and economic framework in which unions function. The trade union act is a shadow of its original form but still carries with it profound questions. Is it right for the Government of the day to deploy the whole apparatus of the state, the UK Parliament, the judiciary and the courts, a certification officer with new powers of inspection, even the police, to wage an attack on working people's ability to organise both to defend themselves and to advance their interests? For the avoidance of doubt, this legislation is not, in my view, anti-Scottish. It is anti-working class, which is why I hold the view that we should stop separating people on the basis of nationality and start uniting them on the basis of class. The imposition of a 50 per cent turnout rule and an additional 40 per cent support requirement for workers in health, education, fire, transport, nuclear decommissioning and border security stays to. That is not a matter of trade union administration or procedure, it is an attack on the basic universal human right to withdraw your labour. So it is a moral question at its root about what kind of society we live in. Many of the concessions around notice for industrial action, extensions to ballot mandates and even the check-off facility still require agreement from an employer. My question this afternoon to the minister is what is your instruction to those parts of that state apparatus for which you have responsibility, including Police Scotland and the judiciary? Secondly, in those devolved parts of the public sector for which you have responsibility as an employer, how will you stand up against any move to crack down on trade union facility time? How will you stand up to maintain check-off arrangements? Because if we are to see the growth and flourishing of trade unions in Scotland in future years, we need to know the answer to those questions. Finally, it was an iron bevan who said that the job of a Labour MP is not, and I quote, to plead mercy for the poor but to get political power for the masses. So I firmly believe that real democracy will not be won. Radical inequalities will not be ended. The good society will not be built without strong trade unions and a major redistribution of power from the owners of wealth to the creators of it. I hope that we can agree. Thank you very much Mr Leonard. I call Patrick Harvie to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you very much. I draw members' attention to my register of interests, which notes that I am an associate member of the NUJ. While it is not a registerable interest, I should also just put on record the fact that my party is very happily a tenant of the STUC at their building in Glasgow. I want to recognise not only the historic, but also the continuing role of trade unions as many other members have. It is very clear from the evidence, not just in this country but around the world, that at periods of high levels of trade union membership and in a framework of strong trade union rights, we see greater economic equality in society. We see a smaller proportion of the national wealth hoarded by those who need it the least and a greater proportion of it coming into the pay packets of people on ordinary salaries and ordinary incomes. That is what we should be seeking to achieve and we should be under no illusion. We will not be able to build that more equal society without an important role being played by the trade union movement. Unlike others, I will give recognition and credit where it is due to the actions of previous UK Labour Governments, as Neil Findlay suggested, in building the Labour movement. I hope that he would agree with me that it would have been desirable also if the Labour Government in the 1990s had revest some of the anti-trade union legislation of the Thatcher era. I think that is perhaps something that we might also agree on. That agenda of undermining those trade union rights still continues. The trade union act, as Mr Lennon just mentioned, passed by the UK Parliament this year, betrayed the desire of the Conservative Party to continue undermining the rights of people to organise together. I was dismayed, but not at all surprised to have to say to hear Mr Kerr use this debate, use this debate to defend the UK Government's divisive policies such as the sham living wage, which will only increase labour exploitation of younger workers and which I have never heard defended by any trade union. Whatever the result next week, I do not intend to stray over the line, but whatever the result next week, those are still the people in power at UK level, and those of us who want a strong trade union movement and to defend the rights of trade unions to act collectively, we must act together, overcoming the distrust that exists too often between political parties in Scotland if we want to act together on that. There are other actions that we can take in Scotland as well. SNP members know that I give credit where it is due for the fair work agenda and for the business pledge, but both need to go further. In particular, there is a need for greater conditionality in the fair work agenda, along with employers who pay poverty wages or exploit their employees with zero-hour contracts, along with those who use tax havens, along with those with a poor environmental record. We should also say clearly that those employers that refuse to acknowledge and work with trade unions when their employees wish to join one should not have access to publicly funded support services, grants and loans. It is not, as a previous heckler was suggesting, rubbish to say that companies such as Amazon have enjoyed such support in the past. They should be denied it in the future. I do wish that Scotland was able to legislate for itself to restore rights that have been taken away from the trade union movement, but until then we must use every power that we have. We should do more than give speeches about the value that trade unions create in our society. We should be listening to their views on the decisions that we take here and we should be opposing in every way possible those employers who refuse to build strong and respectful relationships with the trade unions that represent their employees. I welcome the motion that has been brought to Parliament. I just wish that we would have been allowed to debate the UK Government trade union bill and that this Parliament would have had the opportunity to vote on it, but sadly and wrongly in my opinion that opportunity was denied us. Clare Haughey, I welcome the fact that she has brought this before us. She raised the issue of the SNP's opposition to the trade union bill. I welcome any opposition to that bill, which has now passed through Parliament, but the reality is that it was campaigning outside of Parliament by trade unions and others, a broad coalition of people and by Labour members in the House Awards that got rid of the worst aspects of that bill. Trade unions are a force for good in society. All of the major progressive social and economic policies that have been introduced over the last century and more have been supported and more often they are not driven by the Labour and trade union movement. Early trade unions campaigned to end the combination acts that that ban and collective organisation promoted the people's charter, the original people's charter, the right to universal male suffrage at that point and then later votes for women. They achieved reductions in the working week, factories legislation, pensions sick pay, holiday pay, weekends, time off, maternity pay, health and safety at work and all the rest of it. I have played a key role in fighting fascism and supporting anti-racism campaigns, whether that be in Cable Street or Barking and Dagonham or Chile or Apartheid South Africa. That and more was achieved and driven, all of that, by the Labour and trade union movement. Almost all of those key progressive workplace policies were introduced by Labour Governments, advancing the cause and rights of my class. Patrick Harvie asked me to condemn or comment at least on the Labour Government in the 1990s and that it should have done more. Of course, it should have done more. I said it then and I have said it many times since, but would it not be novel if anyone on the Government benches in this place gave any critique of any policy of the Scottish Government? Let's see if it happens in this Parliament because it most certainly did not in the last one. We can see in so many ways that we have all benefited from trade union campaign and actions and victories. People have mentioned that trade unions earn more, women earn more and private sector unions earn more than non-members. That is all to the good. However, if the Government truly believes that unionised workplaces are safer, happier and more productive, then we have to see concrete action to increase union membership. If they do that, they will have our absolute support. We welcome the fair work agenda, but it has to be real, with real commitment and action on the ground to bring about change. What practical initiatives are we seeing to help trade union recruit members? Do we see, for example, Scottish Government departments actively and proactively encouraging regular trade union recruitment initiatives, going out of their way to facilitate them? Does the Scottish Government make it clear to agencies and public-funded bodies that they should be helping to facilitate that recruitment process? Do we put conditions on the award of business grants, such as Patrick Harvie mentioned, that would promote collective bargaining or unionisation? I checked today that Richard Leonard mentioned that earlier in the debate, 272 businesses out of over 300,000 have signed the business pledge, a tiny, tiny proportion. The vast majority of those businesses are not unionised. I welcome that they have signed it, but it is a drop in the ocean. I can say that employee forums, staff associations, toolbox talks, team meetings and intranet sites are no replacement for trade union representation or free collective bargaining. I welcome the increase in trade union membership. I would caveat that by saying that density in Wales and Northern Ireland are higher than in Scotland. We should all be doing what we can to increase membership in Scotland and across the UK. As an internationalist, I would say across the world, too. Thank you very much, Mr Findlay. I now call on Jamie Hepburn to wind up, please. Minister, seven minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking Claire Hawke, joining other members and thanking Claire Hawke for bringing forward this. Her first member's debate to highlight the valued and important role that trade unions have in making our workplaces fairer, more innovative, more productive and better places to work. We have heard today many examples of where unions have not only changed the lives of individual workers who have been treated unfairly, but also where they have been instrumental in protecting the pay in pupils' pockets, where they have made strides and improvements to work safety. Claire Hawke referred to the blantyr explosion of 1877 as a representative of a former mining area. I know how deep the scars still run of such industrial accidents. We have, of course, seen massive improvements to health and safety in the workplace in the intervening period, largely because of the pressure applied by trade unions. Of course, tragedies still occur, but they are, thankfully, much rarer than they once were. Neil Findlay also rightly spoke of the international reach of the trade union movement. We have seen that here in Scotland in the past. He referred to the situation in Chile in the 1970s. Of course, we can think of the action that was taken by workers at Rolls Royce in East Kilbride reaching out to those who are facing repression in Latin America. Unions have shown real leadership to work to protect jobs when the economic climate has brought to the horizon of closures or redundancies. We have seen recent examples of that activity bearing fruit. When Ferguson's shipyard was threatened with closure many, it gave it a little chance of survival. This Government set up a task force with trade unions playing a pivotal role two years on. Ferguson's has not only survived but is now winning orders, including public contracts, and there are plans for the workforce to increase tenfold. The shipyard has also taken on new apprentices and investment both in the future of the yard and in our young people and unions played a critical role in allowing that to happen. More recently, the Scottish Steel Task Force has succeeded—I know that this will have real relevance to Clare Haughey because it affects her constituency—but it succeeded in finding a buyer for the two threatened steel plants at Diel and Clyde Bridge. Out of that process, the Government worked closely with the community union. That shows that, when the Government, industry and trade unions work together, we can achieve real results. Our shared values and goals are set out in a memorandum of understanding with the SCUC, which captures our commitment to partnership and working on strategic issues. I thought that it was— I am grateful. I am sure that we can all welcome that general sentiment, but I am keen to understand the position of the Government on a point of principle. Does the minister agree that it should not be up to employers to decide whether or not to recognise a trade union? It should be up to the employees there to decide whether they choose to organise in that way. Does the minister accept that employers should have a responsibility to recognise and work with unions if their employees wish to form one or join one? I think that the point that I was making is that it is much better when we have that environment and clearly employers have a critical role to play in that regard in allowing trade unions to have the full capacity to organise on the basis of allowing workers to freely associate with one another. Clearly—I was going to make the point later, and I might emphasise that point in slightly different contexts—I very much agree with the point that Patrick Harvie made that it would be rather better if the legislature had significant more leeway and discretion in exercising legislative competence than we do. We might be able to influence those things rather better than we do, but in the general sense of the terms that he has laid out, I am very happy to say that through our partnership working with trade unions it is very important that workers are allowed the capacity to come together on a collective basis. I was going to turn to the comments of Liam Kerr because we do operate a partnership approach, and I thought that it was very telling to hear him, and it is maybe slightly unfair to do it, but I will do it nonetheless anyway, Presiding Officer, because I am picking up on a brief remark by Mr Kerr, but he said that many of his most formidable opponents have been trade unions. I do not doubt that that is probably true, but I think that it does speak somewhat of a certain mindset. This administration does not view our trade unions colleagues as opponents but as valued partners. Of course, having named the one party to give way to Mr Kerr. As an employment lawyer principally acting for companies, the regional organisers were typically my opponents, so I meant no slight by the wording that I used. I am happy to have facilitated the opportunity for Mr Kerr to clarify his remarks, but he might forgive my previous cynicism on the general outlook that many of us hold in relation to the general conservative position in relation to trade unions and trade unionists. As an administration, we recognise that the STUC and trade unions are vital partners in taking forward our vision for a wealthier and fairer Scotland. Graham Smith set out a statement today welcoming the approach that we take here as a Government to trade unions. I believe that it is this spirit of co-operation that has, in some way, contributed to the increase in trade union membership in Scotland over the years 2014 to 2015. I thought that it was interesting to see that increase in membership, but it was rare in stark contrast to the context. The figures of the overall decline over the last four decades. I am coming up against time, but I am sure that I have a little bit of room for yourself. If you want to, Mr Kerr, I will give you a little time. John Lennon. If you regard yourself as opposing the trade unions when your Government resisted the idea that people benefiting from public contracts should pay the living wage, or indeed that organisations that exploit their workforce like Amazon should not be given Government grants, is that opposing or supporting the position of the trade unions? What I was, because this has been picked up by a number of members, and perhaps there are a little behind the times, because what we have done is set out statutory guidance in the selection of tenders and award contracts addressing fair work practices, including the living wage in procurement. We have also laid down regulations in relation to the concerns. I know that Mr Finlay is sitting right next to me. Ms Lamont has done a lot of work in raising concerns around blacklisting. We have laid down regulations in relation to how companies that have been found to have been guilty of the practice of blacklisting can be prohibited from public contracts. I think that I must allow the minister to wind up. Under way. I think that I will be told to wind up. Mr Finlay is, of course, be happy to speak to you at any time about any of those matters. I want to finish by referring to the trade union bill. I am delighted that the opposition of this administration, others in other legislatures and, primarily, of course, the trade union movement itself has led to some concessions by the UK Government. I do not think that they go far enough. I have to say again, with respect to Mr Kerr, that we do not perhaps have misconceptions of the Conservative party in relation to trade unions out of nowhere. When we see a trade union bill that is nothing short of an attack on the right of Labour to organise itself, those misconceptions do not come from anywhere. We have set out our opposition to that bill. I think that it would be better, of course, if the legislature had greater control on a legislative basis over those matters. Sadly, we do not. Short of that circumstance, I look forward to Scotland's unions continuing their role in representing the member's interests and their continued partnership working with the Government to advance the fair work agenda.