The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-15760, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on work, wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market. I call Murdo Fraser to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.
14:21
On behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I express our gratitude for the opportunity to debate what for us has been an extensive, exciting and compelling inquiry into work, wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market.
At the outset, I thank all those who gave the committee evidence in writing or in person. I want to thank in particular the members of the public who contributed to our online survey, about which I will say a bit more, shortly. I also thank the members of the public and the employers who came to the Parliament day meeting that we held in Paisley. It was a useful means of reaching a range of opinions that might not otherwise have been available to the committee. I think that the opportunity to participate was appreciated and enjoyed by the people who attended.
I also record my thanks to our team of clerks for their assistance, our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament information centre, and my fellow committee members for their co-operative approach. As this is probably the final chance that I will have in this session to say it in the chamber as the committee’s convener, I would like to thank my fellow committee members for all their support, enthusiasm and general good behaviour over the past five years.
In introducing the debate on behalf of the committee, I will begin by explaining what we knew at the start of our inquiry, before I share how we engaged with Scotland’s workforce and some of the inquiry’s findings. We knew that Scotland was emerging from the recession that began in 2008, we knew that employment in Scotland was at its highest since before the recession, and we knew that it had continued to increase steadily since 2010. However, we knew, too, that part-time working, the use of zero-hours contracts and temporary employment were also on the increase. The inquiry that the committee carried out into underemployment in 2013 highlighted those trends. In it, we concluded that underemployment should be considered alongside unemployment as being detrimental to a productive economy. We wanted to explore what lay behind the recent promising employment figures.
In its health inequalities report, which was published just over a year ago, the Health and Sport Committee found that socioeconomic status and work quality are key contributors to health outcomes. It suggested that simply encouraging economic growth in itself might not reduce health inequalities. As a result, one of our key aims was to explore the effect of poor-quality work on health and wellbeing. First, we had to address this question: what is poor-quality work? Academics’ and professionals’ definitions varied, but members of the public, whom we invited to share their experiences using an online form, seemed to be clear that low pay, poor management and insecure hours make for poor-quality work.
Although most of the 600 people who responded described their job as good—thankfully—the majority also reported that their job had affected their health. Most people felt that their job had deteriorated in the past five years, and many people described poor progression opportunities and increased workloads.
I have already thanked all the witnesses and all the people who met us, wrote to us and contributed to the inquiry. The scale of the response illustrates how important fair work is to the people of Scotland. One person, sharing their experience of zero-hours contracts, put it quite simply:
“I can't live like this, not knowing how much money I'm earning to keep my family.”
At the Parliament day in Paisley in September, we spoke to local workers, employers and support services and heard similar stories. However, we also heard that good management, secure employment and a say in how the workplace is run can make all the difference. It is clearly not all about pay.
In informal evidence, and more recently, in work that the committee carried out on social enterprises, employee-owned businesses and co-operatives, we heard that employee engagement can bolster a happy, healthy and more productive workforce. It became clear that fair working practices could be the answer to ensuring worker wellbeing and improving labour productivity.
Professor Chris Warhurst introduced us to the concept of high-road and low-road economies: an economy can lean towards high skills and high wages or towards low skills and low wages. Evidence suggests that Scotland has a recent history of favouring the low road. The committee was struck by the need, as described by Professor Warhurst, for “paving the high road” and “blocking ... the low road”. “Taking the High Road—Work, Wages and Wellbeing in the Scottish Labour Market”, is the title of our report and highlights the message that underpins all our recommendations. Members who have long memories will recall a Scottish soap opera of a similar name—although perhaps that is something for our creative industries inquiry, instead.
We are pleased to see that the Scottish Government is already lining up the cobblestones to pave the high road. We welcome the establishment of the fair work convention and I hope that the session 5 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee—in whatever guise—will take a keen interest in both the outcomes of the convention and the future policy impacts of its work. As the cabinet secretary said in evidence to the committee, Scotland is already punching above its weight in encouraging businesses to sign up to the living wage. The public sector in particular has taken the message to heart. That is promising.
However, we heard concerns about whether private businesses that fulfil public sector contracts can meet the challenge. We heard powerful evidence from people who work in the care sector that they would like to pay more—the living wage—but cannot make the sums add up because of the amount of money that they are paid by public agencies and local authorities for care services. I know that in the recent budget the Scottish Government announced additional funding to help to promote the living wage in the care sector. I would be interested to hear more from the Scottish Government about how that agenda can be progressed and how we will square that circle for the businesses that have the ambition to pay more but currently feel that they are constrained by the amount of money that is coming from the public sector.
In general, we would like to hear more from the Scottish Government about how the living wage and other fair working practices can be passed down through the public-procurement chain. That would help to pave the high road.
The committee also welcomed the Scottish business pledge. However, we cannot ignore the fact that businesses have not been falling over themselves to sign up to it. We are concerned that the language that is used to describe the pledge is not clear. That brings us to the question of blocking the low road. We would like to see a definition of exploitative zero-hours contracts that makes it clear that such contracts are not welcome in a fair work Scotland, and that businesses that use such contracts will not gain business-pledge accreditation.
In evidence, it was obvious that the definition of an exploitative zero-hours contract is not clear. I raised the issue with the First Minister when she came to the Conveners Group meeting. She could not give me a definitive answer at that point, but subsequently wrote to me in my capacity as convener of the committee. We welcome that clarity, but there was a period before that when we were asking businesses to sign up to the business pledge when we were not clear and they could not have been clear what the definition was. It is important that such clarity is obtained and that such confusion does not arise again in any similar or related matter.
We know that the business pledge is being actively promoted by the enterprise agencies, but we have further concerns that the low road is far from being blocked there. We have all heard in recent years the negative press about alleged poor working conditions at Amazon’s Scottish sites. That firm received significant regional selective assistance grant funding through Scottish Enterprise when it was establishing itself in Scotland. The question that we must therefore ask is this: what expectation now lies on Amazon to use fair work practices? For example, do we expect it to reject the use of zero-hours contracts, with which it has become so notoriously associated?
The committee would like the Scottish Government to review the process for awarding those big-ticket grants. We want funding to go to employers that will not only create jobs, but that will create fair, appropriately paid and secure jobs.
In conclusion, the committee would like fair work principles to be embedded across policies that cover employment practices, procurement and business support. We firmly believe that, in doing that, we can encourage a more productive and resilient economy for Scotland. We hope to see a commitment to those aims being reflected in the Scotland performs national performance framework.
I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response to what I hope will be a lively debate that holds the wellbeing of the Scottish workforce at its heart.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s 1st Report 2016 (Session 4), Taking the High Road—Work, Wages and Wellbeing in the Scottish Labour Market (SP Paper 874).
14:31
I, too, thank the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for the report and for inviting me to give evidence for the inquiry. I listened with interest to Murdo Fraser and noted a number of specific points, one of which sounded almost like a Conservative call for increased public expenditure. That may go down in history as the first time that I have heard that, although Murdo Fraser will no doubt say that he was speaking only in his role as committee convener.
Since my appointment as Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training, promoting fair work has been a key focus of the Scottish Government, and it is helpful that the committee has taken that up through the inquiry. Our programme for government sets out our vision for creating a fairer Scotland. We are committed to promoting a culture of fair work, and the committee’s report highlights key areas in which the Government has taken action.
One of those areas involves the living wage, which is one of the issues that Murdo Fraser raised. I am sure that many members have heard at first hand, as I have, what the living wage can offer people who work in Scotland. When I talk about the living wage, I am talking about the true living wage and not the enhanced minimum wage that the United Kingdom Government is introducing for over-25s. The living wage has made a difference to individuals, which ranges from their being able to afford to decorate a nursery, for example, to their having savings in the bank and perhaps being able to go on holiday. Those simple things would not be attainable for some people without the living wage.
It is not just employees who can benefit from the living wage. I have often spoken of the benefits that it can bring to employers and the wider economy. It is not unusual for employers to tell us that moving to the living wage has made a difference to their productivity, reduced their staff turnover and reduced absenteeism. That is part and parcel of the package of work.
As of yesterday, the Scottish living wage initiative has accredited more than 477 organisations, which means that we are on course to reach our target of 500 by the end of March. The wider picture on wages is positive, too. According to Resolution Foundation analysis that was published in January, pay in Scotland has grown faster than that in any other nation or region in the UK over the past two decades. We know that Scotland has the second highest proportion of employees who are paid the living wage or more across the countries and regions of the UK.
Last month, we made a decisive commitment to enable payment of the living wage in the social care sector. That is an important action that we believe will help to deliver fairer workplaces and better-quality care in a sector that is sometimes characterised by low pay. Some companies that operate in the care sector are signed up as accredited living wage employers, and I encourage other employers to follow that lead. This is not just about wages; fair work is about much more than that, and the results in the workplace can often be tangible.
The committee welcomed the Scottish Government’s work on procurement, which the committee convener discussed in his opening remarks. We are addressing a number of fair work issues through public contracts. Since 1 November last year, all public bodies have been required to consider how they can address fair work practices when they prepare tenders to go out to competition, and the new statutory guidance makes it clear that the Scottish Government sees payment of the living wage as a significant indicator of an employer’s commitment to fair work practices. That is one of the clearest ways in which an employer can demonstrate that it takes a positive approach to its workforce.
However, the convener was right to point out that the living wage is not the only measure. We are sending a clear message that exploitative practices such as the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts and umbrella companies are not acceptable.
The minister mentioned inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. Will she define the fair use of zero-hours contracts?
There has been quite a discussion about that. I am not quite sure, because I am not up on my football, but I think that I have seen Ann Budge from Hearts making the point that she uses zero-hours contracts about half a dozen times a year to get staff in for specific events and that she would not be able to put those staff on broader contracts. We have to be a bit careful that we do not expand the definition so far as to include things that people consider to be perfectly okay. I appreciate that there is a difficulty of definition.
The committee raised the issue of zero-hours contracts in connection with the Scottish business pledge, which we had an interesting discussion on. The programme for government makes it clear that, in 2016, we will continue to raise awareness of the Scottish business pledge. More than 200 businesses have signed up to it since May last year, but I want many more to do so. I welcome the committee’s broad endorsement of the pledge, but I also acknowledge its further advice. For example, text on zero-hours contracts has been taken from the committee’s report to be added to the pledge website.
Zero-hours contracts can in some cases—I gave an example—offer people the flexibility that they want, but too often they become exploitative, such as when employers deny staff regular or sufficient working hours or unfairly penalise them for being unavailable or not accepting offers of work. The Government is taking steps to ensure that we lead by example. We do not directly employ people on zero-hours contracts.
Presiding Officer, I am going to run out of time. I wanted to say something about pregnancy and maternity discrimination issues, which—
I can give you an extra minute.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
We do not yet have Scotland-specific figures, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has reported that, across Britain, more than one in 10 new and expectant mothers reported that they had been dismissed or made compulsorily redundant while others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly that they felt that they had to leave their jobs. Many of us assumed that that issue disappeared decades ago, but it seems that it did not. The Scottish figures are unlikely to be much at variance with that, so we have moved to take action, which I announced a few days ago. I hope that members will look at that, because it is important that we take the matter seriously as part and parcel of the fair work portfolio.
I will not say anything now about the Trade Union Bill because I want to say something—very quickly—about the fair work convention, which will report in a few short weeks. The committee’s report has been useful for the convention, as it contains a lot of material that is relevant to the work that the convention is doing. The convention’s report to us will provide a practical framework for employers, employees and others. We will go into the new session of Parliament with those recommendations in place and they will be fully considered. In the meantime, I look forward to continuing to work with all interested parties to promote fair work in Scotland.
In my dying seconds, I note that Murdo Fraser discussed Amazon. I hope that he is happy to hear that I will be visiting Amazon staff tomorrow to discuss with them directly some of the issues that have been raised about practices.
14:39
I thank the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for an important and timely report that builds on the work that the committee did previously on underemployment. Just how necessary the report is was brought home by the rather alarming extract from the cabinet secretary’s evidence. The report states:
“The Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training said that she did ‘not like’ any of the definitions she had seen of fair work, and felt it was a highly subjective area. She suggested that it is ‘much easier to see a bad job than provide a hard and fast definition of a good job or fair work’”.
The cabinet secretary for fair work admits that she is unsure what fair work is. There is a temptation to go down the rhetorical route and ask whether the cabinet secretary for education knows what education is or the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has any idea about justice. However, that would be a bit unfair, because the cabinet secretary for fair work was showing some welcome honesty about the complexities of fair work.
It would be good if the Government demonstrated the same honesty when it comes to the monthly reporting of labour market statistics. When those statistics come out, we often see hyperbolic claims about a return to pre-recession employment levels or record employment rates in particular areas, but the committee’s report makes it clear that there is rather less to that than meets the eye. It says:
“The majority of evidence suggested a deterioration in job quality. In particular, we heard of an increase in poor-quality, low-paid and insecure work, and a worrying prevalence of the use of exploitative zero-hours contracts.”
In other words, there might be more jobs, but the quality of those jobs leaves a great deal to be desired.
For a long time, we in the Labour Party have been saying that, when it comes to labour market statistics, we have to look behind the headlines. That is not just because the numbers tell us something different but because behind those headlines are the real-life lived experiences of many people who are struggling to get by in low-quality, poorly paid jobs.
I was struck by one example in the report that comes from my constituency of East Lothian. A legal secretary explained:
“I was taken on in 2008 with the promise of being trained as a paralegal, then the recession hit and 7 years later I’m still an unqualified secretary, can’t get a job elsewhere but haven’t progressed in this one. I am given too much responsibility but no reward, paid just enough to not be entitled to ANY tax credits but not enough to actually live off, or work towards a mortgage, or pay off any debt. The Company I work for takes full advantage of the fact the people are terrified to leave but there is no future in the role.”
That is the reality behind the statistics. We should not lose sight of the report’s recommendations about improving the quality of the labour market statistics. The cabinet secretary is quoted in the report as accepting that the data is broad brush and that
“it could be hard to break data down to a useful level, noting for instance that even working one or two hours a week would see someone classed as being in employment.”
I hope that Iain Gray will acknowledge that the data that comes out is UK-wide data that is broken down for Scotland. The statistics are official statistics on which all employment information is based across the UK.
I accept that, but I will make two points. First, the report makes it clear that the Scottish Government pays the Office for National Statistics to do additional work to provide more detail at the Scottish level, so the capacity is there to improve the statistics that we have. Secondly, caution needs to be applied when political points are made on the basis of the statistics because, as the report says, they do not always bear examination.
It is fair to acknowledge the work that the cabinet secretary and her colleagues have done to increase fair work, particularly through the fair work convention. I will also say what the cabinet secretary ran out of time to say: there is no doubt that the chances of work being fair and of high quality are increased in the sectors that have good trade union organisation and recognition from employers. It is therefore extremely welcome that one of the final recommendations in the committee’s report—although this is not quite how it is put—is that the Scottish Parliament should continue its opposition to the new trade union legislation. Whether we do that by changing Scottish Parliament standing orders or by addressing the human rights issues with the implementation of the legislation in Scotland and by the Scottish Government, what is done will be central to the degree to which we can promote fair work in Scotland.
14:45
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has produced a pretty comprehensive and effective report. The committee took a huge amount of evidence, with 11 panels of witnesses, by my count, a full day away in Paisley, and more than 600 responses.
The committee engaged with academic experts but, importantly, it also engaged with those who would not be considered experts and a number of people who were probably speaking to the Parliament for the first time. All that engagement should be welcomed, and it is reflected in the overall quality and substance of the report that was ultimately produced.
Some of the report’s conclusions were predictable—some of them disappointingly so. I suspect that all members across the chamber will recognise the overall deterioration in job quality since 2008; they will have seen it in their own constituencies. We should all be doing what we can to try to reverse the statistics.
However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. About a month or so after the report was published on 14 January, the most recent statistics—the February 2016 labour market statistics from the Scottish Government—had at least some elements that made us think that we might be on the right track at last.
Up until the 2008 recession, underemployment hovered at around the 10 per cent mark. Then it shot up to 13 per cent, where it broadly stayed for a five-year period. However, the most recent statistics that we have show that, last year, it appears to have dropped from 13 per cent down to 12 per cent. That does not sound a huge amount but we are talking about tens of thousands of people. From the shape of the graph, it appears that if the statistics follow in the same vein over the next year or two, we could have at least a fighting chance of getting back to the underemployment levels that we had prior to the recession. Therefore, although the statistics that the committee had were correct when the report was published, on the face of it—at least according to the most recent set of statistics—it looks as though we may be moving in the right direction.
I particularly liked Murdo Fraser’s earlier comment about “paving the high road” and “blocking ... the low road”. When he used the phrase, he did not—today, at least—try to claim credit for it himself; he quite rightly attributed it to Professor Warhurst, unlike in previous private conversations, when he gave the impression that it was his own idea. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The committee as a whole quite rightly wanted to see fair pay, security, safe conditions, respect, training and engagement.
I would be genuinely interested to hear in the closing speech from the Government just a bit of the detail on the Government response to some of the report’s specific recommendations. I am aware that there is no formal written response yet—I understand that the deadline is some two weeks hence—but given that we are debating the subject today, it would be useful for the Parliament to get a flavour of the likely Government response to some of the specific issues in the report and to other issues on which we can make progress now instead of waiting until the next parliamentary session.
Clearly, some of the issues will take until the next session to address, and some of that may well rely on the report that we get in a couple of weeks from the fair work convention. However, perhaps there are items in the committee report that the Government can respond to positively today and say quite clearly that it backs them; indeed, perhaps it can say quite specifically that there are items that it will not back.
For example, the committee report asked about how we can genuinely extend and improve the labour force data that we get. The exchange between the cabinet secretary and Mr Gray highlighted some of the difficulties. However, if we put our heads together, can we find a way of getting a more Scotland-specific workforce and job quality survey? I think that all parties would welcome that, because if we want to propose the right cures to the ills that we face, we need to ensure the accuracy of the data so that we get an accurate diagnosis. If we are getting the wrong data, or if we are not getting the right level of data that we require, it is more difficult for political parties and the Government to get the right results. I am interested in hearing the Government’s response to that point.
What is the Government’s response to the recommendation that there should be a national indicator in the national performance framework? On the face of it, the conclusion that we ought to have some form of fair work index as one of the national indicators seems pretty sensible and fair. We have 50 national indicators, so can we have 51, if the Government sees fit, or do we have to remove one of the current indicators because the number is capped at 50? I am not sure what the answer is to that, but what is the Government’s response to that recommendation in principle?
My time is running out, so I will close by saying simply that the report is excellent, and the more details we get from the Government today, the better informed the debate will be.
We turn to the open debate. I am afraid that there is not much time in hand, and speeches should be of four minutes.
14:50
The overall employment situation in Scotland continues to improve. The latest figures highlight that we have record levels of employment and that those levels are higher than those in the UK; that average weekly wages are higher than those in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, with more than 80 per cent of employees paid at least the living wage; and that we have more graduates per head of population than any other nation in the UK.
The committee heard in evidence that
“governments opt to either support a high-skill, high-wage economy, or propagate a low-skill, low-pay economy.”
I believe that the Scottish Government is opting for the high road, but it appears that the UK Government is aiming for the low road. The difficulty for Scottish workers who are in poor-quality low-paid work or who are employed using exploitative zero-hours contracts is that employment law, health and safety and industrial relations are all reserved to Westminster. Legislation in the area is in the hands of a UK Government that focuses on restricting trade unions rather than tackling bad employers.
As a witness from the University of Warwick stated in evidence,
“poor quality cleaning jobs in hotels can get worse when workers are shifted into temporary work agency employment or retail workers put onto zero hours contracts.”
The Poverty Alliance highlighted the impact that that has on employees, stating:
“Those on zero hours contracts can also face confusion about their rights to holiday, sickness and maternity pay, and fluctuating hours can make it difficult to access benefits.”
Will the member give way?
No—I have only four minutes.
The Poverty Alliance continued:
“It is also difficult to imagine how anyone is meant to manage their finances week to week with no idea of what their earnings will actually be.”
Despite the fact that employment law is reserved to Westminster, the Scottish Government is promoting fair work practices. Last autumn, it issued statutory guidance that requires public authorities to consider how they can address fair work practices and discourage the use of inappropriate zero-hours contracts. The business pledge encourages employers to pay the living wage, and Scotland now has the lowest proportion of employees who are paid below the current level of £7.85 per hour of any of the UK nations. It was announced in the Scottish budget that £250 million is to be invested in social care, to allow councils to commission adult social care from the independent and voluntary sectors on the basis that care workers are paid the new living wage of £8.25 an hour.
We have to focus not just on pay and insecure work. Devolution of the work programme will provide an opportunity to improve the existing scheme, creating a simpler and more efficient service for those who are out of work. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states:
“half of men and a third of women who claim Job Seekers Allowance do so within six months of a previous claim ending. A significant section of these individuals will have moved into and then out of work during this time”.
The committee was concerned about the lack of clarity in Department for Work and Pensions policy in relation to offering jobseekers zero-hours contract posts and the sanctions regime. We are concerned that some people may be forced into accepting unsuitable work with exploitative employers. Any new programme must take into consideration individuals and their circumstances because, otherwise, some of the poorest paid in the country will continue to face the revolving door of short-term employment. As Professor Chris Warhurst said in evidence,
“We should laud the good employers and set them up as exemplars of what can be done; we should provide support for the willing employers; we should educate the indifferent employers; and we should regulate for the bad employers.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 30 September 2015; c 14.]
14:54
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on an important report. Regardless of the previous speaker’s characterisation of it, the report was marked by the way in which committee members came together, listened to the testimony of people’s experience and tried to respond to that. It covers important issues and makes important recommendations. I urge those who will be in the Scottish Parliament after the next election to revisit this important report because we were all united in wanting not only to describe the scale of the problem but to influence the finding of solutions to the problems.
At the heart of the report there is a central truth: low pay, job insecurity, zero-hours contracts and lack of involvement in decision making in the workplace matter not just because they are bad for the health of individuals and their ability to plan for and support their families but because poor working practices are bad for the economy and its capacity to be strengthened and to create opportunity and a better life for all. Nothing in the report causes more despair than its recognition that there are people who work unbelievably hard every day doing their very best in very important jobs without significant reward or even a guarantee that they will be able to meet their families’ needs. That must surely be a spur to us all.
I will highlight a number of issues. The first is flexible working. That sounds like a nice term, but the report includes a description of one woman’s experience that is worth reflecting on. She has worked in the supermarket all her life and now has responsibility for the care of her mother. She needs to be available at around 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock at night to ensure that her mother is put to bed and is comfortable. However, her employer advised her that she had to be available from 6 o’clock in the morning until midnight even though she might be working only 15 or 16 hours in the week. The irony is that, unable to respond to that lack of flexibility, she could end up having to give up her work, which would mean that she would not only be less productive and unable to support her family but face the risk of sanction. That surely cannot be just. As Karen Whitefield from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers said, it seems that flexibility is now too often all on the side of the workforce and not on the side of the employer. We need to reflect on that.
The lack of involvement of employees in the workplace has a direct consequence for health and safety, for employees’ protection in the workplace and for the work that they do. That is most obvious in the oil and gas industry. We heard evidence that people in that industry were reluctant to complain in case that put their job on the line at a time when jobs are at risk anyway. We must recognise the importance of participation and the critical role of trade unions in relation to wages and conditions and, as importantly, in giving a voice to the people in the workforce who can improve the quality of the work that is done if attention is paid to them.
It is not an accident that we linked pay and conditions in the report and acknowledged the issue of low pay. We recognise the potential of the use of the living wage, but we must also acknowledge that it is not sufficient to pay the living wage if the people who are on it become more and more overstretched, doing more and more work filling in for people who have lost their jobs. That is happening in the care sector more generally but, with cuts to local government, the living wage badge will not be sufficient to give people security and good-quality work if they have to do more in the time that they have been given.
It is important that the DWP does not direct people to employers with bad working practices and then sanction them for not taking those jobs.
I say to the Scottish Government that I understand the need for the business pledge to be voluntary at this stage but, if the pledge is to matter, it must ensure that businesses that want to be good employers and take the high road are not undercut by the ones that cynically choose the low road. The business pledge and Government and local government decisions on contracts are significant in rewarding people who aspire to provide the good-quality jobs that the report identifies. That is where Scottish Government action in particular is critical. The Government must recognise its power to reward employers who want to do the right thing.
14:59
I wanted to congratulate the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and its convener on their choice of title for their report, but Gavin Brown has prevented me from doing that, because it seems that the title did not come from them. “Taking the High Road” is a fantastic title. It is very much a Scottish title and it tells us about the kind of society that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government want.
Professor Chris Warhurst, the director of the Warwick institute for employment research, talked to the committee about the choices that Governments make—because this choice is one for Government much more than it is for employers. He said that there is a clear choice before us: taking the option of high road economies, which focus on high skills; or taking option of low road economies, which focus on low skills and low wages. We know that the SNP Government wants us to be on the high road with many of our European neighbours.
I listened to what Gordon MacDonald said and I will say something along the same lines. I have lived in Scotland for 30 years, and it is clear to me that successive Westminster Governments have taken us down the low road of low wages and low skills. The debates that we had in 2014 and the debates that we will have this year in the Scottish election campaign and thereafter in the European Union referendum campaign concern the road that we want to take for our economy and our wellbeing: is it the high road or the low road?
Something that we worked a lot on when I was a member of the committee was the idea that productivity is key to promoting the benefits of a higher wage society, for workers as much as for employers. Patricia Findlay, professor of work and employment relations at the University of Strathclyde, said to the committee that there is indeed an increased interest among policy makers and academics in linking job quality and productivity. I agree that the discussion around job quality and wellbeing at work must focus on job quality, productivity, innovation and competitiveness.
The committee report talks about EU data identifying that there are relatively low numbers of workplaces in the UK where staff engage in problem solving activities. That is true, and our continental neighbours are a lot better at giving employees and employers the space to engage and work collaboratively.
In the north-east, many international energy and subsea firms are engaging with their employees like never before. At a recent meeting of the cross-party group on oil and gas, we heard about the approach of Nexen, which gives us a great example of how to achieve better productivity by engaging employees. Nexen had a 30 per cent improvement in productivity in just six months. Engagement was the key, and the offshore workforce found the solutions to better productivity.
We were told that Nexen adapted the marginal gains theory, a system that was created by the British Olympic cycling team—one that the French Olympic cycling team must have missed, somehow. Nexen encouraged staff to break down routine work activities in a bid to identify small gains. The move will see an additional 140 million barrels of oil for Nexen—I am delighted that Patrick Harvie is not here to hear that.
It seems that everyone agreed on certain points when giving evidence for this report. Stephen Boyd from the Scottish Trades Union Congress said that industrial democracy is weaker in the UK than across the EU. I agree with the trade union movement about the importance of effective partnership between trade unions, businesses and Government. It is key to the future of our economy as much as it is to our wellbeing.
I will conclude with a quote from the departing chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Professor Alan Miller, that I read in Holyrood magazine. He said:
“Scotland has withstood extremely well the toxicity of the Westminster debate”.
Reading the committee report, it is clear that Scotland has what it takes. We must keep a positive debate that focuses on taking the high road.
15:04
In general, I welcome the recommendations of this report, which back up many of the things that Scottish Labour has been saying for some time. The Scottish Government has also made supportive noises but has not always taken opportunities when they are presented. I hope that this report will be a spur to move beyond lip service in such areas.
Having said that, I acknowledge that the big obstacle to the report’s first recommendation—which is for better research and improved data that can be used to establish a fair work index—is not the Scottish Government but the UK-wide Office for National Statistics. As the Scottish Trades Union Congress noted,
“the Scottish Government plays the weak hand dealt by ONS very well; it presents ONS data in an accessible and up to date fashion”.
Serious pressure needs to be applied at UK level to improve the quality of labour force statistics and enable the Scottish dimension to be properly explored.
The Scottish Government needs to have a clear idea about how research and analysis should be extended. Perhaps, then, it is just as well that the next recommendation—to ask the chief economic adviser for advice on what research would be useful, and to ask the Scottish Government what it would do with such research—gives the Scottish Government a steer on that.
I am glad that the committee
“believes that scope exists to place stronger emphasis on the Living Wage and fair work practices through the public procurement process”.
It is just a pity that the opportunity was missed in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill. If that opportunity had been taken, we might now be in a stronger position and not merely encouraging public bodies to explore options.
Mental health needs much greater support. Unfortunately, that is an area where the Scottish Government’s progress is disappointing in several respects, including funding, waiting times, young people, and workers in high-stress employment such as in the national health service. Better support for mental health services is not just the right thing to do; it is an important factor in other respects. We need monitoring of mental health in the workplace to become more effective. Otherwise, we are more likely to suffer economic and organisational failures as a consequence of not addressing the problems of mental health in the workplace. Temporary contracts, zero-hours contracts and lack of job security contribute to the stress of employment. Secure and stable working arrangements should be the default, not the exception.
I welcome the approach to the Department for Work and Pensions but, again, it is a pity that the opportunity of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill was allowed to pass by.
The action against and clarification of “exploitative” zero-hours or short-hours contracts is both welcome and overdue. As a trade unionist, I oppose the Tory attack on workers’ rights in the Trade Union Bill and I regret that the Scottish Parliament was not allowed to take a stronger stand against it.
l believe that good industrial relations are in the best interests of workers and employers, so any help that can be given to get employers to see the light is very welcome. Like others, I look forward to the minister’s response to the recommendations in the report.
15:07
As a member of the Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I am delighted to speak in this debate on work, wages and wellbeing in the Scottish labour market, and I compliment the convener on his balanced speech.
It is important that all workers are entitled to a living wage—in fact, I would suggest a living weekly wage—safe working conditions and secure employment. I support the Scottish Government’s actions to improve employment standards in Scotland, including the promotion of the living wage, which is currently £8.25 an hour. Since this Government introduced the requirement to pay the living wage as part of its public sector pay policy, it has invested more than £1.5 million a year in the living wage rate throughout the relevant parts of the public sector, which has directly benefited around 3,000 workers.
Through the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, the Government has promoted fair working practices. Its statutory guidance on fair work practices goes further than any other Administration. It makes it clear that paying the living wage is an indicator of an employer’s commitment to fair work practices and that doing so can have a positive impact on the quality of work. The act also requires public bodies to consider whether any procurement exercise can include a question on fair work practices.
I note that the Government has taken action to eradicate unfair working practices. Since the introduction of the Scottish business pledge, numerous companies have signed up. Those companies have pledged to pay the living wage, abstain from using exploitative zero-hours contracts, encourage diversity in the workforce and adopt progressive workplace policies. Additionally, the Government does not make use of zero-hours contracts and seeks to eradicate exploitative ones.
In order to create access to justice for all workers, the Government has committed to abolishing fees for employment tribunals. Under the Smith commission proposals, the UK Government is set to devolve employment tribunals to Scotland. However, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee believed the UK Government’s draft legislative clauses fell short of fully implementing the recommendations of the Smith commission.
As a member of the Health and Sport Committee, I commend the Scottish Government’s efforts to improve health and wellbeing by improving the quality of work and employment. Research shows that there is a socioeconomic gradient of health in employment, with many of those in low-skilled jobs suffering from poor health. Employers can take steps to improve workplace health by paying a living wage, involving workers in management, offering flexible working opportunities and providing opportunities for advancement.
Furthermore, I note that the Government is taking action to improve working conditions for those in the health and social care sector by promoting the living wage and fair work practices. During the past year, the SNP Government has provided £12.5 million towards those ends. This year’s draft budget sets out plans to invest a further £250 million per year through health and social care partnerships to protect and grow social care services. The SNP Government has also provided resources to local authorities to ensure that they have been able to commission care services that pay workers the full living wage.
The fact that employment legislation remains reserved to the UK Government provides a challenge for this Government and the EET Committee. The UK Government’s national living wage is well below the real living wage that was calculated by the Scottish Government to address the basic cost of living. In addition, the UK Government’s Trade Union Bill threatens Scotland’s positive relationship with trade unions. The number of working days that are lost per 1,000 employees to industrial disputes is lower in Scotland than in all the other regions in the UK. Therefore, if Westminster does not withdraw the bill, Scotland should be exempt.
The SNP Government has established a fair work convention that will produce a framework for implementing fair work. The framework will support the Government’s objectives of economic growth and inequality reduction. I welcome the publication of the fair work convention’s framework so that the SNP Scottish Government can continue to work to improve the standard of living for workers throughout Scotland.
I call John Wilson. I ask you to keep to your four minutes please, Mr Wilson.
15:12
First, I declare an interest as a member of Unite the union and as a former director of the Scottish Low Pay Unit. I commend the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and its members for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is important that we continue to keep this issue at the forefront of everything that we do.
As has been mentioned today and as is covered in the report, the committee’s findings show that it is important that we continue to ensure that people across Scotland are in high-quality work that pays well; that is rewarding and has good working conditions; and in which individuals feel respected and well treated.
Employment numbers alone are not enough to measure the success of the jobs market in Scotland. There is no point in having high numbers of people registered as employed if their work does not provide them with adequate pay, gives them too few or too many hours or does not provide them with secure and dignified work.
The work, wages and wellbeing online questionnaire found that 68 per cent of respondents stated that the quality of their work had deteriorated over the past five years, while 14 per cent felt that it had stayed the same and only 18 per cent said that the quality of their work had improved. The results are clear: even if the employment rate is up, the quality and standards of work are not. What good is it to provide jobs if those jobs do not offer the dignity, security and finances that employment should guarantee?
No one who works full time should find themselves in in-work poverty. The current national minimum wage is simply not enough. The UK Government’s so-called living wage is not adequate, and I make a distinction between the UK’s living wage and Scotland’s living wage in that context. Although the pay boost is welcome, the UK living wage still falls short of the minimum amount that is required to pay an appropriate living wage. Coupled with the Westminster Government’s attack on the welfare state, the so-called living wage fails to provide a decent rate of pay for the average worker. That is why the campaign for a £10 minimum wage by 2020 should be supported.
The UK Government has further attacked the rights of workers through the introduction of the Trade Union Bill. Workers’ rights are being attacked at every opportunity, and that is still the case. The right to collective action and bargaining is crucial for continued employment rights and welfare. Individuals have a right to be secure and confident in their employment, and employers should have to work with trade unions to secure good working conditions. The use of casual and agency staff and short-term contracts is no excuse to ignore employment rights. Employers should be challenged to show that contracts are justified and that working conditions are fair.
Employment has the ability to offer people both financial and personal rewards, but unfortunately it does not always do that, as we see from the report and every day in the press. In modern-day Scotland, no one should be a wage slave or a serf. We must ensure that work is decent, honest and fair, and that it provides a good wage and good working conditions. In a country such as ours, that is not too much to ask.
I look forward to seeing the report’s impact in future parliamentary sessions. I hope that the Parliament will ask employers to consider seriously the issues that have been raised and the recommendations that have been made. I look forward to the Scottish Government responding positively to the report, to ensure that we root out all the bad employment practices that unfortunately continue to exist in Scotland today.
We turn to closing speeches. I remind members who participated in the debate that they should be here for closing speeches.
15:16
This has been an interesting debate. I will return to some of the excellent contributions that were made, but before I do that I will pick up on two points. The first is the Scottish Government’s criticism that the UK Government’s national living wage is not the same as the living wage. Of course, today that is correct, but by the end of the Westminster parliamentary term I suspect that it will not be. I also point out that the UK Government’s national minimum wage is higher than what the SNP proposed at the general election and is higher, too, than what was in the white paper, which detailed what it would have been if we had become independent. The Scottish Government is correct to point out the facts, but a little bit of context is necessary.
Gordon MacDonald and Christian Allard raised the second point, which was absurd and, in some ways, lessened the quality of the debate. They said that, over a 30-year period, the UK Government has intentionally taken the low road while the Scottish Government has taken the high road. No Government wants to take the low road—there is not a political party in this place that wants to go down that track. Of course, Governments have got things wrong over the years, but if what those members said was true, the Scottish share of income tax receipts would be far higher, in percentage terms, than the UK share. We all know that that simply is not true.
I was talking about taxation and the high road and the low road, and I gave some European Union examples. Does Gavin Brown not agree that whereas France has given Google a bill for £1.3 billion for unpaid taxes, the UK Government has settled for a fraction of that: £130 million for the same period? That is exactly why we are talking about a low road and a high road.
In all honesty, I genuinely do not understand the point that Christian Allard is making. I point out a host of areas in which successive UK Governments of different political stripes have pushed hard to bring in high-quality jobs, whether through inward investment or through what they have done for science, engineering or medicine. Governments of all shapes and sizes want to bring in the best high-quality jobs that they can. They do not always succeed, but to suggest that they do not want those jobs and that they do not succeed intentionally is an absurd proposition.
There were a number of highlights in the debate, one of which was Johann Lamont’s thoughtful contribution. She very eloquently made the point that poor working practices are not just bad for the individuals concerned but, ultimately, bad for the economy as a whole. I would go a step further and say that in the medium to longer term, they are bad for employers as well. There might be a short-term boost to the bottom line as a result of paying workers less and not treating them well, but that sets a terrible precedent, and doing that does not do a business any good in the medium term, in terms of its potential and its sustainability. Johann Lamont made that point well.
In my final minute, I will return to the point that I made earlier. I hope that the minister, in her summation, will respond specifically to a number of the issues that were raised in the report. I talked about the new national indicator and improving labour force data. There were other excellent suggestions—the commissioning of specific research from the office of the chief economic adviser was a good idea. Can things be done in the public procurement processes? Although there are challenges, there are further angles that we can consider, particularly those looking at the supply chain and not just the individual main contractor. A specific conclusion was on mental wellbeing monitoring and performance indicators across the workplace. There was a whole host of good ideas. Obviously, we will get a full written response, but anything that we can get from the Government today would be welcome.
15:20
As members have said, work, wages and wellbeing matter to us all. What people do when they get to work, how much and how they are paid, how they are treated and what work does to their lives are all pretty fundamental questions. They are of fundamental importance most of all to working people and their trade unions but, as we have heard from all sides of the chamber, they have a wider significance beyond the workplace, too.
Poverty wages, exploitation, insecurity, a reckless disregard for workplace safety and the victimisation of workers who demand rights tell us about a bit more than just the bad practice of a few rogue employers. All those things happen in Scotland today, so while a consensus on most of the report’s recommendations is to be welcomed, there are no grounds for complacency.
The Scottish Government says that it places a high value on good employment practice, and saying so is a step in the right direction, just as it is for companies that sign the Scottish business pledge. However, saying so is not enough in itself.
It is not enough for the First Minister to appoint a cabinet secretary with “fair work” in her job title unless the Government can reach a shared view on what is acceptable employment practice by companies that seek Scottish Government endorsement. That shared view came in the end, but only after considerable confusion. As the committee report says there was an
“initial failure to make explicit”
that companies using exploitative zero-hours contracts could not sign up to the Scottish business pledge, and the committee rightly calls for the Government to adopt much clearer definitions in that area.
Furthermore, it is not enough to have a cabinet secretary for fair work if she is not in the loop when it comes to decisions—or even discussions—about the award of Government funding to inward investors when some of those companies, as we have heard, flout the most basic expectations about fair treatment of employees. Ministers telling us that those are decisions for public servants and not for them is also not good enough. Stewardship of public money is the job of ministers who are directly accountable to Parliament, and the larger the sum the more important the accountability.
In pursuit of consensus, the committee asks very politely that ministers should look again at the process of making high-value awards of regional selective assistance to consider whether changes may be required. That review should not take long, given what we know already. If companies take Government money without respecting even the spirit of Government policy, there can surely be no doubt that changes are required—and the sooner the better.
On the question of the living wage, the committee has also chosen its words with care; nonetheless, it reaches a strong conclusion:
“scope exists to place stronger emphasis on the Living Wage and fair work practices through the public procurement process”.
We have heard a number of speakers echo that view in the debate.
It is perhaps a pity that the Scottish Government has not been more ambitious before now in exploring what further scope might be available. If the next Government follows the committee’s advice to explore the “options to the full”, it could make a real difference to many low-paid workers in contracting companies.
Last but not least, the report lays out the case against the Tories’ Trade Union Bill. The evidence reflected in the report clearly points to the conclusion that workers who are organised in trade unions are much less vulnerable to exploitation than those who are not. Fair work conventions, business pledges and living wage policies are all to be welcomed, but the biggest defence of all for decent work, wages and wellbeing is the ability of working people to organise in support of their rights at work. That is why stopping the Trade Union Bill is so important, why this side of the chamber welcomes the report and why we look forward to the Government’s responses to the whole range of recommendations in it in the near future.
15:24
I thank the committee again for its valuable piece of work, and I thank all the people who took the time to give evidence. I will send the committee my response to the report’s main recommendations later this week.
The report and today’s debate reinforce my belief in the importance of looking at fair work. The increasing recognition that how people are treated in the workplace has an impact on their health, their wellbeing and their productivity is welcome and is something on which we need to build.
As I said in my opening speech, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has been able to take action to promote fair work in a number of areas. I gently say to Lewis Macdonald that there has been a lot more than just talk over the past year and a half; a great deal has been done. I am happy that the committee acknowledged the importance of the work that the Government has undertaken, and I appreciate the support for improving working practice that has been in evidence during the debate.
I think that we all agree that more needs to be done to spread the message and to support employers, employees and their representatives to improve conditions in workplaces. In the coming weeks, the fair work convention will publish its framework, which will set out the views of employers and trade unions, working together in partnership, on what “fair work” means. I expect the framework to demonstrate the flexibility and aspiration that the committee requested.
It is important that the committee’s report and recent studies from the Resolution Foundation and others give us a strong evidence base, which we will be able to take to employers throughout the country, to promote the benefits of a fair approach. Many of the benefits have been clearly articulated today.
I want to respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate, although I do not have enough time to go through every speech. I concur with Iain Gray’s comments on trade unions and the Trade Union Bill, which were echoed by a number of members from more than one party.
Iain Gray also talked about the labour market stats. There are indeed issues with the stats. One such issue is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how the statistical analysis is derived from the raw numbers. It was of some interest to me to discover that there are people who think that the labour market stats are a total headcount, as opposed to a sample survey. I do not want to get too bogged down in the detail of how the stats are compiled, but I gently suggest that Iain Gray’s remarks about hyperbole might also be directed to his colleagues in his own party, because negative comment can be equally misleading.
Murdo Fraser mentioned Amazon, which I was able to mention only briefly in my opening speech, when I indicated that I will meet Amazon tomorrow. I have to point out that the organisation that Willie Rennie described in the Parliament as “terrible”, and which he said that Fife would be far better off without, was in fact welcomed by Mr Rennie’s party in 2004, when Jim Wallace, who was enterprise minister at the time, described Amazon’s arrival as excellent news for Scotland. I also have copies of press comments from Duncan McNeil, welcoming Amazon investment in Gourock. The point of repeating that is to remind members that when jobs are the issue, there is more than one driver behind comments that are made.
Gavin Brown wanted more detailed responses from Government. In a five-minute speech, that is impossible. At the outset I gave him a detailed response on the business pledge; we have already taken action on the matter. I hope that he will manage to hold on for a couple more days until he gets the considered and full response.
Gavin Brown also asked about a Scotland-specific job quality survey and fair work index. A review of the national performance framework is reaching its conclusion, and I understand that we can expect new indicators that relate directly to fair work. No doubt Gavin Brown will want to have a look at those, if that is the case.
On the broader research question, which I think that John Pentland raised, I reassure members that a lot of specific research is under way and will be published when the pieces of work are complete. We contribute funding to help to build capacity for research among academic and other stakeholders. For example, we contribute to the University of Strathclyde’s innovating works project and research by Oxfam and the Poverty Alliance. There is an on-going programme of research.
Johann Lamont correctly reminded us that the living wage, as important as it is, is not the sole indicator of fair work, as I said in my opening speech. The living wage can become an iconic factor in the fair work debate, but it is not the only one.
On the matter of definitions, which was raised by Iain Gray and by Lewis Macdonald, I agree that it can be difficult to specifically define concepts. Lawyers sometimes make an entire living out of such definitions, but one of the reasons that we set up the fair work convention was to help that process. Definitions, by definition, leave out or include things about which there will be endless debate.
I welcome the committee’s helpful report, its recognition that much work has happened and its call to do more to promote fair work. I believe that this Government has led the way, and I am personally committed to further action with the powers that we have at our disposal, but we really cannot get away from the fundamental fact that we could do far more in this area if we had the full set of powers around employment law devolved to Scotland.
I call Joan McAlpine to wind up the debate on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.
15:30
This has been a worthwhile debate on a worthwhile committee report, and that is important given the issues at stake and the level of engagement that the committee had. We need to do right by the 600 people who responded to our questionnaire and engaged with the committee. The convener mentioned some of the difficulties that we had in defining what was good or bad work, given that most people whom we spoke to felt that they had a good job.
In the conclusions to the report, the committee came up with a number of aspects that we believe workers should be offered as standard in any good-quality employment. They were:
“regular and sufficient pay which allows for a decent standard of living ... secure employment ... safe working conditions ... working hours known and mutually agreed in advance of shifts ... a culture of mutual respect ... training opportunities and routes for advancement; and ... employee engagement in company/organisational decisions.”
I think that that is a good framework to be moving forward with. We agreed that list in the executive summary, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comment that she will send out a clear message on good employment practices saying that exploitative contracts and working practices are unacceptable.
Iain Gray highlighted examples of the human cost and the need for better data on the subject. As the cabinet secretary and others have pointed out, the data that we use comes from the ONS. As I recall, the same point was made in oral evidence to the committee by the STUC, which was very disparaging of the ONS data and its ability to adequately break down Scottish labour markets, notwithstanding the additional funds that Scotland pays for that breakdown. On data, Gavin Brown mentioned something that may be a little more encouraging, in that there was light at the end of the tunnel with the Scottish labour market statistics showing a slight drop in underemployment, albeit a small one, that may indicate an encouraging trend over the past year. That was an important point to make.
Paragraph 203 of the committee report states:
“We welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to the Living Wage”,
while in paragraph 204 the committee welcomes
“the new procurement guidance on the Living Wage and fair work”.
That guidance was highlighted by Richard Lyle during the debate. Gordon MacDonald spoke of it being an indication that the Scottish Government was following the high road in that regard—that came up repeatedly in the debate—but that it was hindered by the UK Government’s control of employment legislation. That differentiation was made in the report and it is important to state that, even though we are not going down party-political lines.
Mr MacDonald and others also highlighted the measures in the Scottish budget to pay home care workers the living wage. Home care workers were a subject of great interest to the inquiry, with several organisations representing the sector and its workers highlighting the rapid staff turnover in the sector, which must have an effect on patient care and which I hope the introduction of a living wage will address.
Johann Lamont highlighted a difficulty that carers experience. One witness gave very powerful written evidence on her inability to plan the care of her elderly mother, because the supermarket that she worked for was not flexible—the flexibility was all on the side of the employer. That situation, which faces far too many workers, is obviously unacceptable, and the committee hopes that the fair work convention will pay attention to it. In its conclusions, the committee said that it appreciated the joint chairs’ comment
“that the current Committee inquiry will feed into the Convention’s deliberations and outputs.”
That was very welcome.
I note that the cabinet secretary told the committee that the fair work convention is independent of Government, but that it will work with Government in a constructive manner. I am sure that the convention’s independence from Government is also an opportunity for it.
John Pentland talked about the need for better research, which the committee also called for. As regards purely practical recommendations, the committee praised the work of Oxfam Scotland as it builds its humankind index and recommended that the fair work convention should consider carefully Oxfam’s conclusions.
There has been a lot of discussion of the business pledge and of whether help should be given to companies in certain circumstances. I agree with the committee’s call for a target to be set for the number of companies that sign up to the business pledge, and I welcome the news that 200 have already done so. The committee recommends that all account managed companies be encouraged to sign up to the pledge, and I think that we could probably do more to publicise it.
I recently visited the company of DS Smith in Lockerbie in my area, which has taken on four apprentices this year and has a great apprenticeship programme planned. It pays its apprentices double the normal apprentice wage and has increased training remarkably from 100 hours to more than 1,000 hours. It is obviously paying the living wage, has no zero-hours contracts and has a great gender balance in its operation. However, when I asked whether it knew about the business pledge, it was not aware of it, even though it ticked all the boxes for it. I am now encouraging the company to sign up to the pledge. It is important that we all encourage companies that are doing a great job in promoting fair work in their communities to sign up to the pledge so that they can be held up as examples. There are many good examples out there. One way to move forward is to praise the good examples as well as to attack the bad practice, of which there are too many examples.
The cabinet secretary acknowledged the consensual aspects of the debate and said that she looks forward to the work of the fair work convention, whose framework will respond to the committee and to what has been said in today’s debate. I am sure that we all welcome that. I for one am looking forward to the publication of the convention’s framework, which will take place in the next few weeks, and I believe that we can all look forward to it with great anticipation.
Previous
Topical Question TimeNext
Social Security