The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-11161, in the name of Neil Gray, on fair work in a wellbeing economy.
14:58
Our vision is for a wellbeing economy that supports fair and green economic growth and that benefits people and communities across Scotland, providing opportunities for all. The Government has been clear that economic activity should serve a purpose—to provide good jobs, promote fair work, reduce poverty, increase living standards, boost tax revenues and sustain high-quality public services.
We want to build an economy in which our businesses and industries thrive and in which economic success works for all. A successful wellbeing economy is underpinned by our ambition to be a leading fair work nation in 2025, which is an ambition that we share with the Fair Work Convention. We want to be a country where fair work drives success, wellbeing and prosperity for individuals, businesses, organisations and society as a whole. I welcome the Fair Work Convention’s recent fair work nation 2025 research report, which is a significant and welcome step in measuring progress against our shared ambition.
We are making progress. Figures that were released last week show that median weekly earnings for full-time employees in Scotland grew by 9.7 per cent between April 2022 and April 2023. In comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole was 6.2 per cent.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will do shortly.
In 2023, the gender pay gap for all employees in Scotland was 8.7 per cent, which is lower than the comparable figure for the UK—14.3 per cent. The gender pay gap for full-time employees in Scotland was 1.7 per cent, which is also lower than the comparable figure for the UK—7.7 per cent. That continues the long-term downward trend. In April 2022, 91 per cent of employees in Scotland were paid the real living wage or more. Scotland leads the rest of the UK in paying employees the real living wage.
The Fair Work Convention’s report also highlighted a number of areas in which the Scottish Government could go further. Which of those is the most important in relation to the Scottish Government’s next steps?
As I said, I welcome the Fair Work Convention’s report. It provides a very helpful measure of where we are and the progress that we are making, but it is also challenging in saying where we need to go further.
We continue to work with the Fair Work Convention—I meet it regularly—and I support the measures that it has suggested in relation to the areas that need more work. We are already considering those areas in relation to our fair work action plans to ensure that we respond not just to the needs that the Fair Work Convention identified but to the matters that trade union organisations have raised in relation to the devolution of employment law, which the Labour Party’s amendment appears to ignore.
A report by the Living Wage Foundation that was published in August indicates that—
Will the minister give way?
Bear with me a second.
The report indicates that, in addition to Scotland having the highest levels of pay in the UK, it has the lowest levels of low-paid insecure work in the UK. The report specifically recognises the positive impact that our fair work approach is having on Scotland’s labour market.
Fair work is about promoting a more ambitious and positive agenda for Scotland’s workplaces and the wider economy. Putting fair work at the heart of Scotland’s workplaces makes economic sense. The workplace is where we apply people’s skills and talents to create value, drive innovation, raise productivity, fund our public services and, ultimately, improve living standards for all.
What will the Scottish Government do to tackle the high levels of economically inactive people in Scotland, especially those with ill health?
Levels of economic inactivity are too high in Scotland, as they are across the whole of the UK, so we need to look at what can be done to address that. This week, I met Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care, to discuss what more can be done to ensure that we use the health service and all the levers that we have at our disposal to support people with long-term health conditions or disabilities to go to work, if they can, and to continue to support the work of voluntary employability services. We are investing £108 million in those services to support just that.
A fair work approach has been proved to boost recruitment, retention and performance and to generate benefits for individuals, organisations and wider society. That evidence is mounting. Fair work balances the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers. The Scottish Government’s deliberate and sustained approach to promoting fair work across Scotland’s labour market is making a difference in increasing pay, supporting diverse workplaces, supporting our devolved employability offer, applying fair work principles and conditionality to public sector spend and exploring fair work agreements.
Let me share some of the successes to date. The Government recently welcomed the new real living wage rate of £12 an hour, and we have resolutely supported the real living wage movement in Scotland since becoming, in 2015, the first Government in the UK to be accredited as a living wage employer. Some 64,000 workers in Scotland have had a pay rise as a result of the Government’s accreditation as a living wage employer, and the movement is making a real difference for people in areas with the lowest pay.
Earlier this week, the Scottish Government announced its living hours accreditation, making it the first national Administration in the UK to be accredited as a living hours employer. That accreditation recognises the importance of workers having sufficient and reliable working hours to achieve financial security. This week, I have been able to hear about the success that that has brought to employers in both the private and third sectors during my 21 ministerial engagements for living wage week.
I understand that, in a UK cost crisis, making the choice to invest in a business’s greatest asset—its people—is harder, but, in such a difficult trading environment, that is even more of an imperative. Indeed, I am looking forward to celebrating the achievements of accredited employers across Scotland later this evening at the annual Living Wage Scotland award ceremony in Dundee.
Will Neil Gray give way?
I will, for the final time.
We are six minutes into the cabinet secretary’s speech and he has not yet mentioned the wording of his motion, in which there is a specific call for the devolution of employment law. We hear a lot about the new deal for business and the cabinet secretary’s engagement with businesses. What percentage of the businesses that he engages with have supported the call for the devolution of employment law?
Cabinet secretary, I will give you the time back for the intervention.
Thank you—I appreciate that.
I note that Murdo Fraser’s amendment to the motion contains little more than a passing mention of fair work, which shows the Conservative Party’s hesitation in engaging on the fair work agenda in this context.
I am more than happy to address the point that Murdo Fraser raised. There is a new deal for business sub-group for discussions on ensuring the wellbeing of the economy, which is one of the elements. Businesses are, of course, signed up to, and understand the need for, fair work conditionality and fair work in workplaces. There is a pretty well-recognised acceptance across Scotland, including among members of the business community, of the advantages that could come from the devolution of employment law, including the advantages for businesses themselves.
Scotland’s employability service is underpinned by our “No one left behind” approach. It delivers person-centred and responsive services that meet the needs of individuals, employers and local labour markets. We are investing up to £108 million this year in the delivery of all-age employability support. On my recent visit to All in Dundee, I heard about the positive impact that our distinctly Scottish approach to employability is having in supporting disabled people into employment.
Our distinctive approach to key relationships in Scotland is working for us. The new deal for business is heralding effective partnership working with business on the economy. The Verity house agreement is resetting how we work with local government to deliver key public services, and it recognises the contribution of workforces at local level.
The Government understands the importance of a fair work approach to unlocking the full potential of our workforce and achieving a thriving, fair, green and growing economy. Our actions show our determination to be a successful and leading fair work nation, in spite of inaction from the United Kingdom Government. However, inequalities remain and insecure work persists. Although Scotland has one of the lowest levels of insecure work in the UK, it remains a concerning feature in our economy.
The evidence is clear that comparator nations—the Nordics, Austria and Belgium, for instance—outperform the UK across a range of economic and social indicators. Those nations achieve better labour market outcomes, alongside higher gross domestic product per capita, higher productivity, higher levels of business investment and higher levels of innovation. The UK’s deregulated labour market has not supported higher productivity, growth or wages, but it has led to relatively high prevalence of both low and very high wages, resulting in higher income inequality.
The type of labour market that we support has a bearing on the overall functioning of our society. With full control over employment law, the Scottish Government could choose to balance the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers, creating a labour market in which fair work is the norm.
The changing nature of work, with the growth over the past 20 years in atypical work—for example, self-employed, part-time, agency, temporary, zero-hours contract, multijob, gig economy and platform work—means that there is a gap in worker protections. That was highlighted in the UK Government’s 2017 Taylor review of modern working practices. I understand that it is challenging to achieve the reforms that are required in such areas, but workers who have non-standard working patterns often have no entitlement to statutory sick pay, paternity leave, maternity leave or other paid leave. They are also likely to have reduced opportunities to train and progress in work.
Therefore, raising minimum standards for all our workers—not just those in standard full-time jobs—requires deliberate corrective action, but recent Westminster Government labour market policies seem to be moving us in the opposite direction. They include inadequate enforcement of minimum employment standards, including the national minimum wage; the introduction of the Trade Union Act 2016, which makes it more difficult for trade unions to take industrial action and to organise in the workplace; plans to introduce fees for employment tribunals; and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023.
Members of the Scottish Government have repeatedly voiced our opposition to the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and anti-trade union legislation. The recent strikes act is unnecessary, unwanted and ineffective. It undermines legitimate trade union activity and does not respect the Scottish Government’s fair work principles or the devolution settlement.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress agrees, as does the UK TUC, which backed a motion calling for the devolution of employment law to Scotland. As the STUC reiterates in its briefing for this debate, the devolution of employment law offers an opportunity to redesign the system to better meet the needs of workers and employers. Further measures could draw on the recommendations of recent commissions, such as the Taylor review, which I mentioned, and the Institute for Public Policy Research’s commission on economic justice.
In “Building a New Scotland: A stronger economy with independence”, we proposed several measures that could be implemented through the devolution of employment law or through independence: a fair mandatory national minimum wage that reflects the cost of living; improved access to flexible working; the repeal of the UK Trade Union Act 2016; and gender pay gap reporting for companies with fewer than 250 employees. We also continue to call for the devolution of the access to work programme, to ensure that that programme, which supports people with a health condition or disability, is delivered in a way that respects the needs of Scotland’s labour market.
We do not support the UK Government’s economic model, which actively promotes a deterioration of workers’ rights and deprioritises the global imperative of a green and just transition to net zero. Scotland has its own distinct needs and values, so, instead, we are pursuing a green transition, which will be supported by our energy sector just transition plans and our forthcoming green industrial strategy. We are pursuing fair work, good jobs and rising productivity across our workplaces and regions, and we are pursuing a wellbeing economy and social justice as key outcomes from economic growth.
However, we could move faster. Securing the full range of powers in relation to employment law will enable the Scottish Parliament to implement policies that are in favour of our ambition for a fair, green and growing economy, and we call on members of this Parliament to support the devolution of employment powers as a clear next step in that agenda.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the position of the UK Government on trade union legislation, industrial relations and employment law works against the ambitions to make Scotland a fair work nation; recognises that the current approach of the UK Government contributes to lower productivity and higher inequality than is the case in countries comparable to Scotland, and calls, therefore, for the devolution of employment powers to the Scottish Parliament, as supported by the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
We have a little bit of time in hand, so members can have the time back for any interventions that they take.
15:11
It has been a rather bizarre debate so far. [Interruption.] We have had one long speech from the cabinet secretary and various interventions. Despite the fact that the debate is entitled “Fair Work in a Wellbeing Economy”, the cabinet secretary’s motion makes no mention at all of the wellbeing economy. The motion is entirely focused on the constitutional question of the devolution of employment powers to the Scottish Parliament.
The cabinet secretary seemed remarkably coy about that subject. He was nine minutes into a 12-minute speech before he even mentioned—in response to my intervention—the question of the devolution of employment law. Maybe he is a bit embarrassed about bringing the issue to the chamber.
The question that many people outside the chamber will be asking themselves, having heard everything that the cabinet secretary had to say, is, “What happened to the new deal for business that we’ve heard so much about?” There was nothing in the cabinet secretary’s speech that gave any comfort to people in the business community who are looking for a new approach from the Scottish Government.
The rhetoric that we have heard from the Government over the past few weeks has been encouraging. The cabinet secretary and his colleagues have said that the Government wants to reset its relationship with the business community, and we have heard that the Government now believes in economic growth. Such a belief was absent for many years; its return is a very welcome development. When the First Minister delivered his programme for government a few months back, he said:
“When businesses succeed, Scotland succeeds. It is on the back of the success of businesses, large and small, that we will deliver a wellbeing economy where good, well-paying, sustainable jobs are created and innovation flourishes”.
That is a tremendous sentiment. What a pity it is that we did not hear much of that in the cabinet secretary’s speech.
I hoped that, in a debate on the wellbeing economy, we would hear more from the Government about how it would take forward its new deal for business and about how it was listening to what business was telling it. I am sure that business is telling the Government what it is telling us. Businesses have said that taxation, excessive regulation and the need to properly consult before bringing in new laws are the issues that need to be addressed. What did we get instead from the cabinet secretary? We got the same tired old message on the constitution.
Will the member give way?
Yes, I will give way to Mr McKee—a member of the Government in exile.
Does Murdo Fraser not recognise that international data clearly shows that countries and economies that prioritise fair work and that have high standards of protection and high wages for employees are also economies that have high levels of productivity and ones where business thrives?
I know that Mr McKee has a record in business, so he should be listening to what business voices are saying about what the Scottish Government should be focusing on right now.
We should be talking about how we can help to grow the economy and about the role of businesses in doing that. Instead, we are talking about yet another Scottish National Party demand for more powers to be passed down from Westminster to this place, completely ignoring the fact that this Government has made a total mess with the powers that it holds already.
Does Mr Fraser expect us to take seriously the notion of a Conservative member of the Scottish Parliament talking about the need for economic growth when his party, with its disastrous Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget, crashed the economy?
That is nonsense. I do not know whether the minister has looked at what has happened to economies elsewhere in the world. The UK is performing better than many competitor countries in the G7, is performing far better than Germany and is expected to perform better than France and Italy.
Even if, as the minister says, the UK economy is not performing well, let us look at how the Scottish economy is doing in relative terms. Since 2014, under the watch of the minister and his colleagues, the Scottish economy has grown at half the rate of the UK economy. We cannot ignore that simple fact.
I return to what I was trying to say. Let us try to unpick exactly what the motion is about and what the Government is trying to achieve, beyond the weary constitutional points that it is so keen to make—unless it is all about laying a trap for the Labour Party, which I suspect is what the debate is really about.
There is no point in devolving employment law to the Scottish Parliament if the Government intends to leave it as it is, so the Government is going to make the law either more liberal or more restrictive. I think what we have heard shows that there is no intention to make our employment laws more liberal, so let us assume that they are going to be more restrictive than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That flies in the face of everything that we have heard from the business community in recent weeks and months.
There is already major concern in the business community that were a seeing tax divergence between Scotland and the rest of the UK and that that divergence is having an impact on business. That point is being made in the budget submissions that are currently being published by the likes of the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, among others. Every time I meet businesses, one of their major asks is for the Scottish Government to tackle that tax differential, which is now an active barrier to encouraging people to move to take up jobs in Scotland. If the cabinet secretary has not heard that message loud and clear from the business community, he has not been listening.
Would Murdo Fraser accept that there is quite a lot of variety in the business community and that, although some businesses need more support, others are making huge profits and could, and should, pay more tax?
I can give you the time back, Mr Fraser.
Mr Mason needs to engage with major figures in the business community, particularly in sectors such as finance, which has a very fluid and flexible workforce of people who can work in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle, Leeds or London, to find out what they are saying about the impact of differential tax rates.
Will the member give way?
No, I have given away about four or five times and really need to make some progress.
Three times.
Rather than learn from that experience, this Government wants to go further and to create a different employment law regime here in Scotland. That will not attract investment to Scotland in comparison with other parts of the UK. I imagine that the people who are in charge of economic development in cities such as Bristol, Manchester or Newcastle are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect.
Will the member accept an intervention?
I have already taken a number of interventions, and I need to make some progress.
That would cause real and practical issues for large, cross-border employers. A member of staff in Scotland would have different employment rights to one working elsewhere in the UK. A member of staff who moved from Manchester to Glasgow might benefit from greater employment rights, while the opposite would be the case for one moving in the other direction. That would be an administrative nightmare.
That tells us the SNP-Green Government’s true priorities for the economy. It does not want to deliver faster growth, help businesses to expand, improve our woeful start-up rate or increase the number of secure, well-paid jobs. This debate is about creating a constitutional fight with Westminster, because that is what this Government is obsessed with, to the exclusion of everything else.
There are real issues in the Scottish economy and the Government should be addressing those. That is why we should be looking at the real problems in the Scottish economy and at what we can do to address them.
This week, I read CBI Scotland’s budget submission, which made some excellent suggestions on realising Scotland’s net zero opportunities, developing infrastructure, improving transport, enhancing skills and fostering a competitive business environment. Other business organisations’ submissions are available, but they all have a very similar theme. They want to see the Government creating an environment where businesses can grow, expand their workforce and, therefore, pay better wages. They will do that with the right framework of support, not with further regulations and additional burdens, which is the direction that this Government is going in.
Already, and in contrast to what the cabinet secretary had to say, the UK Government has delivered significant progress in supporting workers. It is the UK Government that introduced the national living wage, which is now £10.42 per hour. In addition, the rise in income tax thresholds means that many lower-paid workers pay next to no income tax on what they earn.
The Scottish Government needs to focus on delivering faster growth here in Scotland. If we could at least match UK economic growth over a 10-year period, that would give us an extra £7 billion in tax revenues that we could spend, which would go a long way towards addressing many of the budgetary challenges that the Scottish Government faces today.
Rather than having a Government that is focused on that objective of delivering economic growth, what we have is one that is obsessed with the constitution, picking fights with Westminster and playing silly political games in the chamber. Businesses that are looking in, hoping for a change in direction from this Government and hoping that the new deal for business will mean something other than empty words, will be sorely disappointed.
I move amendment S6M-11161.2, to leave out from “agrees” to end and insert:
“acknowledges that the Scottish Government’s own economic record is characterised by sluggish growth and a lack of competitiveness; notes that progress in fair work and economic prosperity can only be achieved through a collaborative approach with the UK Government, rather than by advocating for further devolution of employment powers, which is not supported by the business community, and urges the Scottish Government to change tack and focus on effective, pro-market policies and measures to improve Scotland's economic situation and job prospects, as outlined in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party’s paper, Grasping the Thistle.”
There is a bit of time in hand, so members will get the time back if they take interventions. That should underscore the fact that people should not be making sedentary interventions. If you want to say something, get on your feet and ask for an intervention. With that, I call Daniel Johnson to speak to and move amendment S6M-11161.3 for around six minutes.
15:22
I begin with a declaration. When it comes to fair work, I think that deeds matter much more than posture. I am very clear about my record as a person who ran my own business. My business was the first independent retailer in Edinburgh to become an accredited living wage employer. I stand by that, and I stand by the deeds of past Labour Governments. There is much that we can agree with in the Government’s motion, but ultimately it comes down to deeds rather than simply stated intent.
Let us also be very clear that the UK Conservative Party has a wretched record on workers’ rights. It has presided over an explosion in insecure work and the longest pay squeeze in history.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will in a moment.
Working people are facing the largest fall in living standards in a generation and, despite what Mr Fraser says, there is a ticking time bomb of mortgage payments because of the disastrous consequences of the mini-budget, which he so eagerly seeks to dismiss.
Daniel Johnson sets out that there is much that he can agree with in the Government motion, but he seeks to edit out the critical element, which is the call for the devolution of employment law. He says that we should just be thinking about it. He says, “We might do it”, and in the meantime he asks us to trust the Labour Government to deliver. After a summer of flip-flops that has seen the new deal for workers absolutely torn to shreds, how on earth can we trust Labour to deliver on its promises?
Daniel Johnson, I can give you the time back.
The cabinet secretary really must learn patience, because—[Interruption.] I was just coming to that very point. It is very straightforward and quite simple. We support the devolution of employment law. We agree with the statement made by the STUC, and we agreed with it when it said that it must be done within the framework of a UK floor. When the motion was passed at the STUC, Roz Foyer said:
“A guaranteed minimum floor of workers’ rights across the UK is a prudent first step”,
so that
“every worker in every workplace”
has
“a guaranteed standard of rights from day one of any future UK Labour Government.”
That is the full position that the STUC has set out and that is the full position that the Labour Party supports. It is just a shame that the SNP is so eager to edit out that full position.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will just make a little more progress. I will give way in a moment.
What is critical is perhaps summed up in Mr Fraser’s comments. He invited us to entertain what the full devolution of employment law might mean. Could we have improved work standards or be more liberal? That is exactly the point. We must have an absolute guarantee for all workers across the UK, because, as much as we might like to, we cannot control what future Scottish Administrations might look like, and we cannot afford a race to the bottom. Unqualified devolution of employment law would do just that, which is why the STUC takes the position that we have to take the prudent first step of having a floor, which is what Roz Foyer said.
I am happy to give way to the minister.
If the Labour Party supports the STUC’s position, why does it want to remove any reference to it in the motion? Why, instead of saying that the Labour Party supports the devolution of employment law, does it merely say that the UK Government should “explore” how those rights could be devolved?
If there was any ambiguity, I hope that I have cleared it up and made myself clear. Let us just see what happens with the votes this afternoon.
I want to be clear about this Government’s record on the fair work agenda. Despite the Scottish Government committing to making Scotland a leading fair work nation by 2025, the Fair Work Convention last month described its performance as “mixed”. It said:
“Out of the 46 indicators, 20 have improved, 10 have worsened, and 14 have fluctuated or remained broadly stable.”
The international comparisons are even worse. Scotland ranks fifth out of nine competitor small countries. Our disability employment gap is 31 percentage points, which is second from bottom, and 29 per cent of our workers are in non-permanent work and not there by choice. That figure is 4 per cent in Austria and 7 per cent in Iceland. Most shocking of all, 32 per cent of Scottish workers say that they are overqualified for the role that they perform, and that is higher than in every other competitor nation.
The Government will say that that is the fault of the UK Government, but the lesson is clear. Yes, we need enhanced employment standards but they must be enmeshed within a system of enhanced skills and education. That is the lesson from Austria and the Nordic countries, but the Scottish Government seeks to dismiss those points to make the constitutional points that it prefers to make.
Let me be clear about what the Government could do today to affect the situation. First, the recent review of the Government’s education and skills policy conducted by James Withers concluded that it lacked leadership and direction. There is no more important resource than our people and the Government urgently needs to make recommendations on how it can put flexibility and responsiveness at the heart of the skills system.
Secondly, on helping families with children, it is vital that we support parents and care givers in the workplace. The Government can and should do much more to provide flexible, all-age, all-year, wraparound and affordable early years care.
The STUC agrees. It says that there are a number of areas in which the Scottish Government could go further to support fair work but, instead of finding practical ways or actions within the devolution settlement to further improve the lives of working people, it is intent on furthering constitutional grievance.
Will the member give way?
I have to close.
That is why we need a UK Labour Government to enact Labour’s new deal for working people, which will ban zero-hours contracts, give workers predictable contracts, outlaw fire and rehire, give day 1 rights to every worker, and give workers the right to switch off. That is the difference that we need and why the TUC general secretary, Paul Nowak, said that
“the New Deal would be the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation.”
That is also why we need a Labour Government.
15:28
According to the latest figures from “The CBI/KPMG Scottish Productivity Index 2022-2023”, productivity grew in the UK in 2021 by 1.2 per cent, but it remained unchanged in Scotland. According to the latest Office for National Statistics figures, productivity in Scotland was 2.4 per cent lower in 2021 than it was in 2019, and Scotland was the second-worst performing part of the UK on that measure.
Again, according to that CBI Scottish productivity index, business investment was lower in Scotland in 2021 than it was in the UK—at 8 per cent versus 9 per cent. Even though the UK’s productivity levels are low compared with other countries, Scotland is even further behind.
Will the member give way?
In a second.
For GDP, the most recent figures for 2023, quarter two, show GDP growth at 0.2 per cent in the UK but negative 0.3 per cent in Scotland. Growth over the past five years was 1.6 per cent in Scotland but 2.6 per cent across the UK. Over the past 10 years, there has been an even larger gap: 9.8 per cent in Scotland compared with 15.5 per cent across the UK.
Will the member give way?
I think that the minister knows that it is not a convincing argument that his Government should get more powers over employment law and the economy when its track record is so poor.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I will take the intervention from John Swinney.
It is typical of the contribution that Mr Rennie makes to the debate that he does not give a broad range of indicators. He omitted the fact that the Scottish economy has outclassed every part of the United Kingdom, apart from London and the south-east, for inward investment for as many years as I can remember. Why does Mr Rennie have to come here with such a depressing tone for the debate?
I can give you the time back, Mr Rennie.
Mr Swinney is making a naive and optimistic presentation of an equally narrow set of figures. He made no reference to the figures that I mentioned. He chose only his own narrow perspective. We need to have a broad perspective. I will come on to the wellbeing monitor in a while. It is important that we look at it.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
No, not just now.
We will look at the wellbeing monitor, which has a broader view of the issues. However, Mr Swinney does himself no favours by focusing on a narrow set of indicators himself.
Will the member give way?
No, not just now.
The minister knows that. He knows that he cannot dwell on the productivity issues that we have talked about in the debate, because he does not even mention Scottish productivity in his motion. He refers to other Governments in other parts of the world, because the productivity levels in Scotland are so lamentable.
Despite that lamentable performance in Scotland, I am not going to make the case today that there should be a transfer of powers from this Parliament to Westminster. I am not going to do that. I am not going to argue that we should suddenly get ferries built by the UK Government just because this Government cannot build any ferries on the Clyde, or because it seems incapable of delivering the adult disability payment, even at the levels of the personal independence payments at UK level. I am not going to argue that there should be a transfer of powers back to the Westminster Government because the Government is so incompetent on those things. That would be wrong.
What is right is that we get the powers in the right place so that they best serve Scotland and the United Kingdom, for the people who live here. The performance in relation to the NHS, for instance, is shocking. Of course, nobody is going to argue about the transfer of powers back to Westminster on that, or to the Crown Estate, because this Government bungled the ScotWind contract.
Will the member give way?
I am not going to make any of those arguments today. Equally, I am not going to make the argument that we should have a transfer of employment and economic powers to this Parliament just because we have a UK Government that is—admittedly—hopeless, temporarily.
Will the member give way?
No, not just now. I have to get through a big part of this speech.
I am not going to argue for that transfer of power because we have had several Prime Ministers who seem incompetent. I am arguing for change across the UK so that we can get the right Government in the right places. That applies equally here as it does in Westminster. I am not going to argue for all those measures. I want employment law and economic powers to be part of the single market of the United Kingdom, because I want businesses that work here to be able to trade freely across the United Kingdom with as few barriers as possible.
I want to make sure that people who live and work here can equally live and work in other parts of the United Kingdom. That single market is the strength of the UK. It is what Lord Menzies Campbell of Pittenweem set out in his home rule report back in 2012 for a modern Scottish Parliament in a federal United Kingdom. It is about making sure that we build into the new constitutional structure a compulsion for the two Governments to work in partnership together, rather than what we have now, where they are in competition with each other.
I talked about the wellbeing monitor. The Scottish Government is, rightly, proud of the wellbeing monitor, but I have previously challenged that by saying that it should stop marking its own homework. For instance, the Government claims that it is making progress on educational attainment, but the poverty-related attainment gap is as wide as it has ever been. At best, it is stagnant in some areas, but it is definitely wider at secondary 3 level. However, the Government claims that it is somehow making progress in that area, and equally on GDP and business investment. The position has fallen back since 2017, so we need an independent assessment of the wellbeing monitor.
It is important that people live in a good healthy environment—not one that is filled with sewage that they can see when they go out for a walk—and with a good NHS and schools that they can be proud to send their children to. All those things are important, but they need to be measured in an authentic way. The current system is clearly not working.
Murdo Fraser made a good point earlier. The minister’s contribution was in quite striking contrast to the ones that I have heard from him before. It was supposed to be about a new deal for business, but I am not sure that businesses will have gained an awful lot of confidence from what he said. Our approach should be about achieving a balance, wellbeing and a strong economy.
You need to conclude, Mr Rennie.
If we do not have a strong economy, we will not have jobs and opportunities for people. We need to have a stronger economy and a fairer society. The Government is well off track, and it needs to get back on.
We move to the open debate.
15:36
I am delighted to speak in the Government’s debate on the fair work agenda and the importance of powers in that area being transferred to the Scottish Parliament.
The fair work agenda is broad and covers worker conditions, protections, recognitions and many other critical aspects. I will focus my remarks primarily on the setting of the minimum wage and the importance of the power over that being transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The area has been confused by the UK Government’s taking the minimum wage that was in place and responding to the real living wage by creating what it called the living wage—which is not the real living wage and not the same as the minimum wage, just to confuse the whole picture. We need the Scottish Parliament to be in control of the Scottish minimum wage and to set it at a level that meets the needs and aspirations not only of Scotland’s workers but of our economy.
As I go through my speech I will come on to address members’ remarks on how we might take that approach forward. First, some mention has been made of data. The cabinet secretary has spoken about several areas in which Scotland’s economy has been performing well. If we consider the minimum wage or the real living wage performance in Scotland, the percentage of employees not earning the level of the real living wage has, thankfully, been trending down. That percentage is still too high, in that it is in the mid-teens, but it is significantly lower than it has been. Those employees are typically concentrated in specific sectors where challenges still need to be addressed. However, it is worth recognising that, across vast swathes of the economy, the majority of employees are already earning at, or significantly above, that level. In many sectors we are pushing at an open door as a consequence.
Setting a minimum wage is a key economic lever. It is also absolutely critical to addressing the Government’s priority on the poverty agenda. Welfare and social security payments can only do so much; the heavy lifting needs to be done by the broader economy. Having control over such a lever is therefore absolutely critical.
As I have highlighted in my interventions, and as the Government has also highlighted, having higher employment standards and the setting of a higher minimum wage correlate very closely with levels of productivity across a range of international economies, particularly as we focus on the growth sectors of the future. In Scotland, we want to see a high-wage, high-productivity, high-innovation and high-growth economy. All those factors are closely interrelated, as the data shows; the link between productivity and such wellbeing measures is absolutely borne out by the facts.
It is worth mentioning the impact on businesses. At the moment, many businesses that are trying to do the right thing by seeking real living wage accreditation and paying a fair wage to their employees are faced with a dilemma, as they are competing against other businesses that are not doing that. The creation of a level playing field by legally removing the opportunity of other businesses to undercut them by not paying the real living wage would be hugely welcomed by those businesses. It would also create a situation in which Scotland can continue to attract more employees from the rest of the UK to come and live and work here—the number of people who move to Scotland from the rest of the UK each year currently outstrips the number that move in the opposite direction, which is often forgotten in this conversation.
I have a question on an issue that has always perplexed me. How do we deal with the issue of international trade, where we are importing goods from countries where people are paid much less than they are in this country, which means that their goods are much cheaper?
That was raised as an issue back in the day, when the minimum wage was introduced at a UK level, which must be 25 years or more ago. Clearly, those concerns have absolutely not been borne out by the evidence and by the performance of the UK economy. In particular, the situation with regard to Scotland’s economy, where we have low unemployment levels and a demand for workers, gives the lie to the claim that paying a fair wage would somehow damage international competitiveness. In fact, the evidence shows that economies that pay their workers more are more productive, have higher standards of living and higher technological innovation.
Having those powers to set the minimum wage in Scotland would mean that we do not need to use inefficient and indirect levers, as we have to do at the moment, tiptoeing around reserved powers and seeking to find routes through the use of conditionality and other mechanisms to help to drive employers to do the right thing and pay the real living wage as a minimum. We would be able to do that directly by setting those rates, which would help to drive up wage rates across the rest of the UK—there would be not a race to the bottom, as Labour inaccurately claims, but a climb to the top.
I would like to address Labour’s position on the issue, as I think that its interpretation of the situation is absolutely incorrect. Clearly, it is seeking to big up the prospect of a Labour Government and give it something that it can announce if and when it ever takes power at UK level. It wants to prevent Scotland from having those powers because it wants to claim that it is all down to its work. The reality is that there is absolutely no reason why a floor cannot be set at UK level while, in parallel with that, the Scottish Parliament has the powers from day 1 to set standards in the Scottish context at a higher level. That gives the lie to Labour’s claim that there is perhaps a risk of a race to the bottom. I would be interested to get Labour’s perspective on that. We should demand devolution of those powers to the Scottish Parliament now, and, if a future UK Labour Government wants to put a floor in place below which Scottish standards cannot fall, the Scottish Government would be absolutely comfortable with that.
Finally, I ask the Scottish Government to do some more work to define what the process would be to calculate the Scottish minimum wage when we have those powers, and to calculate what its value would be in the present economic circumstances—bearing in mind, of course, that the value would increase over time—and then carry out an analysis of the economic benefits of that and publicise that rate, so that people understand the benefits of the devolution of those powers.
You need to conclude, Mr McKee.
That would also be a stepping stone towards full independence for Scotland.
15:43
It is a pleasure to follow Mr McKee. My colleague Murdo Fraser described him as the Government in exile, but I think that the journalists are saying that he is actually the Government in waiting, along with his two colleagues, Michelle Thomson and Kate Forbes. I raise that because I want to compliment the paper that the trio wrote earlier this year, which I think was written with the intention of breathing some new life into SNP policy making after the bruising battle of the leadership election. It talked sensibly about developing a wellbeing economy, but it also recognised that that would never come about unless there was a strong focus on growth and widening the tax base. That is something that all of those members have returned to in the chamber in recent months.
Their paper also said:
“Steering the economy requires clarity on destination alongside an approach built on that understanding of … all parts of the complex mechanism”
and how those
“best work together”.
The Finance and Public Administration Committee, Audit Scotland and the Scottish Fiscal Commission agree—so do I, even if those SNP members’ politics on the constitution are profoundly different from mine. Here is why: the pursuit of wellbeing is dependent on the delivery of economic growth in its most traditional form. When people talk about the development of the wellbeing economy, I understand very well the feel-good factor. That should be at the forefront of people’s minds—common sense tells us that delivering better opportunities for everyone results in better social and economic outcomes. We know that the feel-good factor matters, but we also know that it is very subjective and—as the Scottish Government has found out—quite hard to measure.
The 100 or so leaders from civic society and faith groups who, in 2022, signed a letter to the Scottish Government about the importance of wellbeing recognise that very point. They made it clear that they think that the current national economic performance framework does not do nearly enough to put in place the basic building blocks on which Scotland can improve societal and environment outcomes.
That view is shared by the Finance and Public Administration Committee of this Parliament. However, the committee was also critical—as are, we know, several members in the chamber—of there being too much of a central focus on gross domestic product as a measure of economic success. The trouble is not with the aspiration for a wellbeing economy, but with the means to achieve it. Wellbeing depends on our success in creating growth and on improving productivity and widening the tax base—exactly what Kate Forbes said should be the Scottish Government’s urgent priority. That point was echoed, at the time when she said it, by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and by several other economic bodies.
She was also absolutely correct to say that the status quo just will not cut it. She recognises only too well that, for a long time now, the Scottish Government’s focus has been elsewhere. She also knows that being tied to the Bute house agreement, when the Greens wholly reject the concept of economic growth, is a major problem for the SNP and, more importantly, for Scotland.
Murdo Fraser, in his opening remarks, set out exactly why economic growth is important and provided the evidence that backs up that point. Back in April 2017, and in June 2019, we debated that importance in the chamber, via Conservative motions about how we should deliver economic growth. How we wish that the Scottish Government had been listening on those occasions, because it might have saved it—
Will the member give way?
Yes, of course.
This is a debate about the contribution that fair work makes to a wellbeing economy. I whole-heartedly agree with the points that Ivan McKee made, which I have also made, about the contribution to economic growth that it can make.
The international examples are there. Our comparator countries in Europe are wealthier, fairer and have higher productivity, and they also have better results in terms of lower poverty, higher social mobility, a smaller gender pay gap. They also have higher spend on research and development, and business investment is higher. Critically, however, they have higher average wages and a lower proportion of low-wage workers, and fewer people are at risk of poverty in work.
Why is it that those countries can focus on the fair work elements and still be more economically successful, whereas the UK is lagging so far behind?
I can give you the time back, Ms Smith.
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
The Scottish Fiscal Commission has spelled out in very stark detail why, given the position that we are starting from, it is so important, in order to get to the fair work and wellbeing agenda, that we improve our economy in Scotland. The minister should be asking—just as Mr Rennie did—why it is that, even when the UK has relatively poor growth in relation to some of those other countries, Scotland is doing even less well. That is the point, and we must address it. I will not go into the detail of what the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said, because we have rehearsed it many times—as did John Swinney, to be fair to him, when he attended the Finance and Public Administration Committee before he demitted office.
The debate is also about preventative spend. What is currently challenging the Finance and Public Administration Committee is how we can make decisions that will improve our financial contributions in the future by ensuring that we do the right things now in order to improve economic and social benefit.
Finally, I will sum up on the importance of concentrating on sorting out that problem for the Scottish economy. We will not be able to deliver what we want to by way of wellbeing and improving our societal and environmental outcomes unless we do that. That is the focus that we should have, not the constitutional warmongering that has always been going on with the SNP. If we do not focus on that, we will not provide for the generations of the future.
15:50
I am pleased to take part in today’s debate. The title of the debate is “Fair Work in a Wellbeing Economy”, and we should remind ourselves of some of the key principles of a wellbeing economy and of where we are trying to get to. After all, the devolution of employment law and powers is not an end in itself; the purpose is to build a better society.
The Wellbeing Economy Alliance and others promote a number of key principles, including social equity, which covers reducing income and wealth inequality, promoting social inclusion and ensuring that the benefits of economic activities are distributed more equitably; inclusivity, which entails encouraging citizen participation in decision making and the design of economic policies to ensure that diverse perspectives and needs are considered; long-term thinking, which represents a shift away from short-term profit maximisation towards long-term planning and resilience; measuring success differently, which means using alternative indicators of progress beyond GDP, such as the genuine progress indicator or the human development index, to gauge the wellbeing and sustainability of an economy; public and private sector co-operation, which encourages collaboration between government, businesses, civil society and communities to achieve shared wellbeing objectives; and ethical business practices, which involves promoting ethical and socially responsible business practices that take into account the impact of business activities on people and the planet.
Taking social equity to start with, how is the UK doing? We have the ninth most unequal incomes of the 38 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and we are above average in terms of wealth inequality. While the top fifth in the UK have 36 per cent ?of the country’s income and 63 per cent of the country’s wealth, the bottom fifth have only 8 per cent of the income and 0.5 per cent of the wealth.?In 2022, the incomes of the poorest 14 million people fell by 7.5 per cent, while those of the richest fifth gained 7.8 per cent. Clearly, the UK is not in a good place when it comes to employment, in a whole range of ways. Income inequality is possibly the biggest issue for me, but restrictions on the right to strike, longer working hours, job insecurity, flexible working and lower sick pay are key issues, too.
I understand that Labour might like to improve employment law right across UK, and that is obviously a good aim. However, I was intrigued by the wording of the Labour amendment. It if were to be agreed to, the motion would say that we should
“improve workers’ rights ... across the UK ... before”
exploring
“how these rights can be entrenched through the devolution of employment powers”.
That kind of implies that, at UK level, those improved workers’ rights will not be entrenched. Perhaps I misunderstand, but I just wonder how solid those UK rights would be under Labour.
That still leaves the question why, if Scotland wants to go further and achieve something better than Labour’s “UK-wide floor”, that is such a bad idea. If Labour in England wants to settle for something less down south, why should ordinary working people here be held back?
The motion calls for the devolution of employment powers, and I certainly fully support that. To start with, we should be able to make the real living wage a statutory requirement, as I think that Ivan McKee was suggesting, rather than the lower level of the UK’s national living wage.
I think that it was Labour’s Ian Murray who said that the
“Scottish Government needs to use the powers that it’s got.”
On minimum wages, that means that we can only encourage and cajole employers to pay a proper living wage. We do not have the powers to actually make that happen across the board. What does it mean, then, to say that we should use the powers that we have got?
If we control employment law in the future, we still need to be aware of what is happening across the border. Both employers and workers will have freedom of movement and, as we have found with the partial devolution of income tax, we have to be wary of not being too divergent from England.
However, we can and should create an overall environment here in which employment conditions, education, health services and the whole package that is on offer are more attractive than that elsewhere. That should also include employment taxation, which means full control of income tax and devolution of national insurance. It is hard to talk about having fair work in a wellbeing economy without considering the interaction between income tax and national insurance. National insurance is such a regressive system; it starts at 12 per cent for those who earn more than £12,576 but falls to 2 per cent for those who earn more than £49,368.
The gender pay gap is another area where we could do more if we had the powers to do so. I fully accept that even a comparable, independent country such as Sweden still has a significant gender pay gap. No one is saying that transferring powers means that problems will be solved overnight, but perhaps the question is more about the direction that we are going in and how fast we hope to get there. There seems to be more desire in Scotland—possibly across all parties—to tackle the gender pay gap.
On the subject of a wellbeing economy, it is worth mentioning the cross-party group on international development’s meeting on Tuesday. Part of the focus was on a report by Oxfam and ActionAid, and a range of interesting and relevant points were made, including the point that a wellbeing economy must not be about Scotland and the UK exporting their problems to the developing world. There was criticism of GDP as a measure of growth or success when 65 per cent of women’s work is excluded from it. There were also calls for a more feminist wellbeing economy. In particular, care is not included in the national outcomes, and there are pretty strong arguments that it should be.
I urge members to support this simple and straightforward Government motion. We know where the Tories want to go, and we reject that.
You need to conclude, Mr Mason.
We do not know where Labour is going, what Labour believes in or whether it has any principles, so I suggest that we reject its amendment.
We are getting close to exhausting the time that we had available earlier in the debate. I will try to give latitude for interventions, but I would be grateful if members stuck to their speaking time allocation.
15:57
I will do my best to stick to the time, Deputy Presiding Officer.
The Labour Party is and always has been the party that is on the side of work, workers and opportunity for all. The principles of fair work are ones that we not only embrace, will always stand up for and have legislated for, but are in our DNA.
That is why I am pleased to speak for Scottish Labour today. I will draw attention to an on-going situation in my region—Glasgow—where the principles of fair work are on the line, where workers face job losses, uncertainty and their voices drowned out, and where they are left feeling disrespected and disempowered.
Next Tuesday will see the beginning of a further 20 days of strike action at City of Glasgow College, following 11 weeks of industrial action by the Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association. The dispute has been rumbling on since February, when the college first announced that it would increase lecturers’ workloads, reduce face-to-face contact time for students, reduce the number of learning support lecturers and impose two rounds of redundancy, one of which is compulsory.
Those decisions have left many baffled. I remind colleagues that, since reclassification in 2011, colleges have been considered to be public sector bodies. The Government talks proudly of its commitment to no compulsory redundancies in the public sector, so the college’s decision seems entirely at odds. Even if we accept the college’s claim that it had no other option—I am far from convinced of that—the handling of the situation has still been deeply concerning.
There are two unfolding crises—one of governance and one of unfair work. I make it clear that I understand the considerable financial constraints that colleges across the country face. They have faced years of real-terms cuts from the Government. Colleges watched as the Parliament agreed to a budget that gave them additional resource, and they were helpless when the Scottish Government whipped away that resource mere months later.
Colleges have struggled to make ends meet within the limited flexibility that they have to generate income. I also make it clear that colleges need their staff and that their jobs matter. In these unprecedented times, protecting jobs is vital, and decisions that put any jobs at risk must be taken only as a last resort and must be well informed and based on the best available evidence. I am deeply concerned that neither of those aspects applies here and that the college’s action has been taken before all other avenues were exhausted.
I know that EIS-FELA has worked tirelessly to try to avert the crisis for its members, and I commend it for that. It presented an alternative business case, but that was rejected by the principal with very little scrutiny from the college board. It has also said that it feels that trade union members have been targeted, threatened and ridiculed and that attempts to rebuild industrial relations have been undermined. One example was when the union tried to meet the board separately from the principal—a reasonable request, given what is going on—and that was blocked.
Another example of the disrespect for workers and industrial relations is seen in the language that was used in the staff update of 3 November, entitled, “Cuts done, moving on”. That is people’s jobs and their livelihoods—they cannot simply move on. To talk so flippantly about job losses and course cuts, especially when some staff who have been selected for redundancy are still at work there, either because they have not yet served their notice or because they have lodged appeals, flies in the face of the principles of fair work that we are talking about in this debate. It leaves people feeling that there is no going back and that they have no opportunity to save their jobs.
The Scottish Government’s vision for employment in Scotland says that it must embody a culture of fair work and reward workers with the security that they need to develop and plan for their and their families’ futures. The failure of the college to meaningfully engage and consider all other options openly and the way that it has disrespected its employees have led to fair work practice being thrown out the window, which is indicative of poor governance.
Earlier in the year, the Minister for Higher and Further Education confirmed to me that the Scottish Funding Council could intervene in the decision to pursue compulsory redundancies. I have since written to it and the Scottish Government asking for that to happen—but it is yet to happen. The principal also refused a request to instigate that action himself. So far, the Government has behaved largely like a bystander, not the people with whom the buck stops. Someone has to step in.
This debate is about fair work. We need to make sure that, in corporate governance terms, public bodies in Scotland, including the City of Glasgow College, have proper, transparent mechanisms in place to secure the fair work agenda. I am not quite sure that those mechanisms are robust and in place, and I am a bit concerned about the relationship between the Scottish Funding Council, the regional board and the City of Glasgow College. Does the member share that concern?
I will give you the time back, Ms Duncan-Glancy.
I absolutely do share that concern. The member will be aware that we are looking to work together to write to all those parties to ask them to intervene, because someone really has to. As an elected representative of many of those workers and students, I am doing all that I can to bring transparency and openness to the situation and to protect the principles of fair work and good governance. I acknowledge that colleagues on other benches, such as the colleague who has just spoken, have been doing the same.
However, we are exhausting all options. Workers could be out of their jobs in a matter of days. I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on what is happening in Scotland’s biggest college, to consider whether he is satisfied that it is upholding the standards that he has said that he believes in and that the Parliament expects, and to step in. I ask that his Government investigates whether there has been mismanagement at the college. If it concludes that duties have not been discharged properly, it should give strong consideration to exercising its powers to intervene under section 24 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992.
If nothing is done, there is a real risk of setting a poor precedent that has the potential to ripple through the sector, which could also result in a failure to meet fair work principles elsewhere. The fact that the Government has secured a debate on fair work in the chamber highlights that it recognises how important those principles are, which I welcome.
However, staff at the college need deeds, not words. Jobs and livelihoods are on the line. Those people need their Government to step in, and I hope that the cabinet secretary can see how serious the matter is. In his closing remarks, I invite him to take the opportunity to set out what he and his Government will do, because staff and students at Scotland’s largest college are watching—and they are running out of time.
16:04
Fair work is a Scottish Government commitment to ensuring that everyone benefits from opportunity, security, fulfilment and respect in the workplace. Fair work and fair pay make sense for workers and employers across all sectors, helping to improve staff retention and productivity, reduce recruitment costs and contribute to a skilled and motivated workforce. Embedding those principles into Scottish policy making is also central to economic growth and it means that we can better tackle social inequalities, poverty and the cost of living.
Although employment powers are reserved to the UK Government, the Scottish Government is using and promoting fair work principles to make workplaces fairer and more inclusive. One such way is through promoting the employer accreditation schemes, including payment of the real living wage. In Scotland, 91 per cent of all jobs pay at least the real living wage—that figure is higher than that of any other UK nation—and more than 3,400 employers in Scotland have real living wage accreditation. I am proud to be one of those employers.
I will mention a number of businesses in my Rutherglen constituency that are real living wage accredited and which I have had the pleasure of visiting. They include but are not limited to ACE Place nursery and out-of-school care, Bardykes farm nursery school, Evolution Fasteners and Thistle Credit Union. Despite the challenges in the UK economy with rampant inflation, those employers know the value of investing in their workforce. That helps to improve staff morale, reduce absenteeism and support their efforts to retain and attract staff.
Considerable challenges have impacted on Scotland’s fair work ambitions in recent years. In my first parliamentary speech in 2016, I criticised the Tory Government’s ill-thought-out and unnecessary Trade Union Act 2016, which attacks workers’ fundamental rights to organise, bargain collectively and withdraw their labour. Seven years on, the Tories continue to attack trade unions through their minimum service levels legislation. I welcome the comments earlier this week from the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy, who said that the Scottish Government will continue to do all that it can to oppose that legislation and that it will not co-operate with establishing any minimum service orders here.
It is not only Westminster’s anti-worker policies that impact on Scotland’s fair work agenda. The UK’s hard Brexit—which, let us not forget, Labour has fully signed up to—has long threatened a race to the bottom on workers’ rights, and it has driven low growth, stagnant wages and the highest inequality in comparison with neighbouring countries. Additionally, the Westminster cost of living crisis has seen energy bills skyrocket and food prices soar, and mortgage rates have ballooned. Those have all hit workers’ take-home pay.
It is abundantly clear that workers in Scotland will get the employment protections that they need only when the levers of change are placed in the hands of the Scottish people. An independent Scotland could go much further in improving pay and workers’ conditions. The Scottish Government has already set out that independence will allow us to deliver higher minimum standards for statutory sick pay and parental leave; stronger access to flexible working; a repeal of the UK’s draconian anti-trade union laws; the banning of cruel fire-and-rehire practices; the provision of full employment rights from day 1 of employment; and the enshrining of workers’ rights in constitutional law.
I know that not everyone in the chamber shares our ambition for Scotland to be an independent country, but everyone in the chamber should back our calls for Scotland to have full powers over employment law. Of course, it is not only the SNP that is asking for that; some of the biggest trade unions in the country are. I remind members that I am a member of Unison.
Roz Foyer, the general secretary of the STUC, was quoted earlier. She wrote in The Herald that the STUC welcomed the TUC’s
“now-shared policy between”
their organisations
“on devolving employment law.”
The SNP has long campaigned for the devolution of employment powers to Scotland, but the Labour Party worked hand in glove with the Tories to block that during the Smith commission in 2014. More recently, Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, and the shadow Scottish secretary ruled out devolving employment law. Only last month, Labour MPs, including the new member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, dodged a vote on an SNP bill to devolve employment law. Labour’s newest MP failed to stand up for his Rutherglen constituents at the very first hurdle. Instead, he fell in line behind his London bosses by abstaining and proving that he really is Starmer’s man in Scotland. Labour would rather leave Scotland under Westminster control and at the mercy of Tory attacks on workers’ rights than give Scotland’s national Parliament powers.
I am deeply disappointed that, despite Anas Sarwar’s protestations only this week that he would “love” Holyrood to have control over workers’ rights in the first session of a Labour Government, there is no mention of that in Labour’s amendment. Could it be that the UK Labour bosses down in Westminster have pulled the branch office back into line? With Labour failing to join us—not only us in the SNP but the trade union movement itself—in calling for much-needed devolution in the face of the Tory cost of living crisis and draconian anti-strike legislation, we once again find ourselves asking, what is the point of Scottish Labour?
I am a proud trade unionist; I have been a trade union member all my working life. Before entering Parliament, I was a divisional convener for Unison.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member must conclude.
Protecting workers’ rights against unpaid and exploitative contracts, supporting their democratic right to industrial action and championing safe workplaces have long been priorities of mine, which priorities are fundamental components of Scotland’s fair work ambition. Although the Scottish Parliament—
Thank you, Ms Haughey; you must conclude.
—does not hold the legislative powers over employment law, I know that this Government—
Thank you, Ms Haughey.
16:10
I, too, am proud, to refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of Unite the union. I am also pleased to be a member of the Living Wage Foundation accreditation scheme, a no zero employer, a disability confident employer and a Carer Positive employer. I encourage colleagues to find out more about those important schemes if they do not already know about them.
We are accustomed to UK Governments that want to curtail human rights—to limit them and to restrict them. However, it seems that the current occupants of the Westminster merry-go-round will not be content until fundamental rights are dismantled altogether, including the right to protest, the right to escape persecution, children’s right to life and workers’ right to strike.
The Overton window of acceptable views is, with every week, moving further rightwards, with Sir Keir Starmer rushing after it as fast as his legs will carry him, it seems. However, we have a different perspective in Scotland; a different tradition that we share as trade unionists, whether or not we are unionists of other kinds. Fair work is central to that vision of Scotland as a fair work nation, sustained by a wellbeing economy.
The Fair Work Convention’s recent report highlights some key aspects in relation to the essential dimensions of fair work. On opportunity, the report is clear: the Tory obsession with an exclusionary and marginalising Brexit has constrained our labour market. Powers on employment would help to ease that, if only just a bit, and allow us to make Scotland a more desirable and attractive place to live and work in.
The report has important reflections on respect, security and fulfilment, too. There are clear messages about needing to value more than just the financial metrics of work; about needing a step change to address inequalities across our labour force; and about ensuring that workers are supported to develop their skills, expertise and knowledge while in work, as John Mason and others have already highlighted.
On effective voice, the report is clear: things have not yet got significantly worse but, despite Scotland’s best and on-going efforts to push the envelope in relation to worker representation, Tory suppression of collective bargaining pans out in real life. Those essential dimensions of fair work—effective voice, opportunity, security, fulfilment and respect—all require workers to have agency, choice, dignity and the right to act collectively, including by taking industrial action. We cannot do that by aspiration alone. We need the right tools to create, shape and hone the structures that support fair work and wellbeing.
We can do a little with encouragement and guidance, and with conditionality in contracts and investment but, without access to reserved powers and without legislative levers, our ability to act on our principles is much more difficult.
Scottish trade unionists recognise that reality, so why, among political actors, is there suddenly so much resistance? I have been around long enough to have heard it before, as a member of the Smith commission and here, just a few weeks ago, during Keith Brown’s members’ business debate. That inexplicable “No” in response to the ask for employment law to be devolved is expressed in two different ways. The Tories talk about the convenience of employers and Labour about the need for that so-called floor, somehow failing to see that the floor is already crumbling away beneath our feet. Neither story really makes that much sense. It is quite literally the height of insularity to imagine that people across the world do not routinely live in one jurisdiction and work in another.
Within the UK, we already have substantially different employment law between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Meanwhile, more and more people are employed by multinational corporations, which cope with not just two employment law jurisdictions but many.
It would no doubt be handy for some employers that do not yet recognise the shared benefits of fair work to keep Scotland tied down by Westminster’s anti-worker legislation. That is only because the Westminster laws are aggressive; it is not because corporate systems that thrive on jurisdictional complexity will somehow collapse if things are slightly different in Dundee and Derby.
The way to avoid a race to the bottom is to turn round and start racing, or at least start climbing, towards the top. To give up resisting at all, while clinging to the biggest bully as he drags you down, really does not help. As you fall, you might squeal, “This wasn’t my idea”, but the bottom is still where you end up.
That is not where the Scottish people want to be. Whether they vote Green or Labour, SNP or Liberal Democrat, they want robust and realised workers’ rights. Even the Scottish Tories—I mean this as a compliment—are refreshingly wet in comparison to their Westminster counterparts on the issue. We want fair work. We want a wellbeing economy. We have a remarkable degree of consensus about the kind of country we want to be, and that is not a hollowed-out homogeneous land of silent streets and silenced unions.
To create something different is to challenge the inevitability of that future; it is to show what is possible and how we can reach it. We will not refuse the tools to create it on the off chance that Sir Keir discovers his conscience after winning an election. We need to have those tools now, and we need to use them now.
16:16
I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, to the chamber and to the cabinet secretary for missing a chunk of his speech due to my late arrival in the chamber. I was facilitating a meeting of the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health with mothers of premature babies, who were putting forward powerful contributions to her. I felt that I could not curtail that discussion, and I hope that the chamber understands.
Earlier today, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee started taking evidence on my bill, which would establish an employment injuries advisory council for Scotland. The bill would put workers at the heart of our new industrial injuries benefit, because the council would be an expert panel made up of those who best know their workplaces and the dangers that they face. The bill is key to embedding fair work principles in our social security system.
It is also key that the bill would do something that we should be doing with the powers that Parliament already has—delivering on the shared ambition to, as the Government’s motion says,
“make Scotland a fair work nation”.
That has not yet happened.
The Fair Work Convention, in its support of the bill, agrees that it would ensure that
“the principles of fair work including effective voice are underpinned in the delivery of this benefit”.
Although the Department for Work and Pensions is still delivering the UK benefit and has not kept pace with the world that we now live in, the convention went on to say that the new Scottish benefit,
“at its most basic, recognises the health, safety and well-being of others in the workplace”
and that it
“aligns with the fair work principle of Respect”.
The fact that my bill would give workers their effective voice through that role in the new benefit is why it is backed by the STUC and 16 trade unions, as well as a range of organisations including Close the Gap, Action on Asbestos, Scottish Hazards and Long Covid Scotland.
Key workers with long Covid—care workers wrestling with back and joint problems; firefighters, who are more likely to get cancer from toxic contaminants; and women workers—are outright ignored by the current UK benefit. They all want answers as to how Scotland’s new industrial injuries benefit can help them, but they have no voice in the current process and no seat at the table in what the Government says it is setting up.
This is an area where the Government could be using its powers now to extend our ambitions to be a fair work nation. It is one of the final pieces of the jigsaw required to fully establish Scotland’s new social security system. Earlier in the week, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice confirmed that not enough progress has been made on delivering that system. The committee had asked for a timescale but did not get it. Timing and the need for yet more consultation is the key reason why the Government says that it will vote down a bill that would secure an effective voice for Scotland’s workers.
Truth be told, although current stock responses contemplate it, asking whether a council is needed at all, I do not think for a second that the cabinet secretary or the Government would create a workers’ benefit without giving workers a seat at the table. I also do not believe that the Government would consider it possibly being the right solution to leave that task to the UK council, which has no Scottish voices on it and which this Government is not allowed to ask for information.
The Government has left until last the benefit that it considers to be the most complex. Promises of consultations have been and gone, and workers are still no wiser about when they will get their voice heard and their seat at the table.
The Government is short of an opinion on whether there should be a council at all, but Government-established organisations—the Fair Work Convention and the disability and carers benefits expert advisory group—and responses to my consultation and the committee’s call for views all concluded that there absolutely should be one. In addition, the Government’s consultation, which led to the recently introduced Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, said that there was a preference for splitting off advice and scrutiny, and, in an independent review, the Scottish Commission on Social Security said that it is very clear that it “would not be appropriate” for it to have an advisory role. There is a risk that the Government will run out of time to include workers and, from the outset, give them an effective voice and their place around the table with regard to the new benefit.
In its legal agreement with the UK Government, the Scottish Government has agreed that it will deliver a business transition plan and a case transfer plan a year ahead of the contract running out and a year ahead of agency agreements coming to an end. Given that ministers now have just short of 17 months in which to set out something that they have failed to set out in the past five years, the Government should urgently set out to workers how their voice will be embedded in the design, advice and scrutiny of the new injury benefit.
The industrial injuries benefit was built on the backs of workers before us who were lost, injured and disabled. This Parliament owes it to them to ensure that workers who are injured or made ill at work can continue to turn to a no-blame social security scheme and have an effective voice in shaping its future.
16:22
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I will support the amendment in the name of my colleague Murdo Fraser.
The Government’s motion speaks about how the UK Government’s approach to workers
“works against the ambitions to make Scotland a fair work nation”.
In his opening comments, the cabinet secretary tried to paint a picture of a UK Government that could not care less about fair work. It is not the first time that the SNP Government has used valuable debate time to create constitutional grievance, and the truth of the matter is somewhat different. Not only is fair work a priority for the UK Government, but the UK has one of the best records on workers’ rights in the world.
Will Pam Gosal give way?
I would like to make some progress.
The UK already has a national living wage that is higher than those of most European Union member states, having increased it in April to £10.42 for people aged over 23. The chancellor has announced that, from April 2024, the national living wage will be increased to “two-thirds of average earnings”. That is in line with recommendations from the Low Pay Commission and is a move that will result in a pay increase of more than £1,000 per year for more than 2 million low-paid workers, including more than 180,000 workers in Scotland. I find it interesting that, despite the Scottish Government’s willingness to talk about fair work, it cannot at least bring itself to welcome that increase.
Will Pam Gosal give way?
I would like to make some progress.
We should not forget that, in the UK, we have 52 weeks of statutory maternity leave, of which up to 39 weeks can be taken as paid leave. That is nearly three times the EU equivalent.
However, fair work is not a finished project, and the UK Government is continuing to do more in the area. The maximum fine for employers who mistreat workers has been quadrupled, and the recommendations from the Taylor review of modern working practices continue to be implemented.
Far from working against the Scottish Government’s ambitions on fair work, Scotland’s place in the UK provides a fantastic starting point for Scotland as a fair work nation, but, as our amendment sets out, progress on fair work depends on the Scottish Government changing direction on the issue and focusing on effective pro-market policies to improve job prospects across the country. Our amendment highlights that the Scottish Government’s economic record is one of
“sluggish growth and a lack of competitiveness”.
For example, wage growth in Scotland has fallen compared with wage growth in the rest of the UK, and Scottish businesses are struggling, with just 9 per cent of companies in Scotland believing that the SNP understands business. In addition, one in six shops in Scotland lies empty, which is a higher rate than the UK average.
That all shows that there is plenty more that the Scottish Government could be doing on the issue. The SNP’s strategy of repeatedly attacking the UK Government on workers’ rights and the economy is nothing more than a deflection tactic. Instead of deflection, it is time for action from the SNP Government. As we say in “Grasping the Thistle: Our plan for economic growth”, that action should include measures such as developing a new skills strategy with an emphasis on colleges, apprenticeships and lifelong learning. That would allow the Government to deliver a national workforce plan to ensure that our labour market has the skills that businesses and employers will need in the coming years.
However, that will involve the SNP Government putting some of its recent talk into action and ensuring that long-term growth is a key economic priority for the Government. I would be happy to share our “Grasping the Thistle” report on economic growth, which proposes real actions that would make a difference in Scotland, with the SNP Government.
The UK already has one of the best packages of workers’ rights in the world, and the UK Government is continuing to play its part to ensure that the principle of fair work can sit alongside a competitive, flexible labour market. Meanwhile, the SNP Government is failing to acknowledge its failures in the area. Instead—as today’s debate shows—it is once again trying to fight constitutional battles. The onus is now on the Scottish Government to use the powers at its disposal to improve productivity and employment levels in Scotland and to work constructively with the UK Government to achieve an effective fair work approach for employees and the economy, to allow Scotland to continue to be one of the best places in the world to live and work in.
I call Kevin Stewart, who will be the final speaker in the open debate.
16:28
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a member of Unison.
I welcome the opportunity to again discuss fair work in a wellbeing economy. I will start off by saying that the picture that Ms Gosal has just painted is not what workers and trade unions in Scotland and the UK see from the Tory UK Government. There has been no improvement in fair work in the UK. In fact, Tory crackdowns on worker protections and the rights of unions have resulted in a dramatic fall in the UK’s global rating on workers’ rights. With draconian legislation such as the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and the anti-strike bill that the UK Parliament passed earlier this year, it is very clear that protecting workers’ rights is not on the Tories’ agenda and that it is more important than ever that we fight them on the issue.
I will sneak in while we can still rescue some consensus, because I am guessing that something might be coming down the line. Will the member equally condemn the minimum service levels that have just been introduced and which, in effect, deprive people of the ability to withdraw their labour?
I condemn every aspect of what the Tory Government has put forward, which is why I find it very bizarre that any Conservative member would stand here today and say that the UK is a fair work nation, because it certainly is not—it is moving backwards.
Many things have been discussed today, but I want to raise an important issue that has been overlooked and is not covered in the Labour amendment, which covers a lot of ground—the issue of young workers.
The Labour amendment refers to the TUC. In the TUC’s own words,
“Young workers are most likely to be in insecure work, in low paid jobs and without opportunities to progress at work than any other age group.”
That opinion is backed by Unison, which says:
“Young people may experience age discrimination by being belittled, passed over for jobs or being paid poor wages just because they are young”.
It is not only trade unions that say that. According to Sharon Raj of the London School of Economics,
“Younger employees can be perceived as lazy, less reliable, less conscientious, less organised, selfish and poorly motivated simply because of their age”,
none of which is true.
As a result, young people can be overlooked for training opportunities, increased responsibility and promotion. That results in younger workers receiving lower pay and workplace benefits, relative to similarly experienced older workers, and being at greater risk of being laid off during a downturn.
Where one discrimination starts, others follow soon after. Discrimination against marginalised groups begins as soon as young people join the workforce. Two thirds of young women have experienced sexual harassment at work, and almost six in 10 ethnic minority young workers have experienced racism at work.
With employment law under the control of this Parliament, we could strengthen protections against discrimination to ensure that young workers are treated fairly in the workplace. I hope that Labour members support the concept of equal pay for equal work, although British employment law enshrines the exact opposite and the Labour amendment does not bother mentioning that. The national minimum wage is tapered for young workers: at the moment, it is £10.42 an hour for over-23s, but it goes down to £10.18 for 21-year-olds, £7.49 for 18-year-olds and only £5.28 for 17-year-olds.
It is often argued that young people deserve poorer wages because they get training on the job, but there is nothing to ensure that that actually happens. The reality is that many young workers are employed to do work that requires little or no additional training or experience and that British employment law is used as an excuse to pay them less, simply because they are young. With the powers in the hands of this Parliament, we could ensure that young workers receive either the full living wage or high-quality and career-improving on-the-job training to make the difference that is required.
Today’s young workers are tomorrow’s entrepreneurs and industry leaders, and they are the backbone of Scotland’s future prosperity. We should be helping to facilitate their future growth and development by improving on-the-job vocational training programmes to provide young workers with valuable skills and experience, increasing their employability and earning potential and making it easier for them to take time off for training and education without fear of being penalised. We could do all that if employment law was devolved to this Parliament.
We have heard great things from Labour, in this debate and in others, about what it intends to do in government, but we have seen a lot of Labour flip-flopping of late and the Labour Party is in a guddle because of that flip-flopping. The reason why Labour has a problem with employment law being devolved to Scotland is becoming clearer by the day.
Thank you, Mr Stewart. Could you conclude, please?
Simply put, if Scotland were to improve workers’ rights and deliver fair work for all, Labour in London would have to follow suit. That would require Keir Starmer to find his socialist soul, and it is getting clearer by the day that he does not—
Thank you, Mr Stewart. We move to winding-up speeches.
16:35
What a note to pick up on! Let us begin with a bit of reflection. Fair work is a really important topic, but let us not pretend that it is simple to deliver and—[Interruption.] Just a moment, cabinet secretary. If you want to intervene, you will have plenty of opportunities to do so.
Let us not pretend that fair work is simple or that control over employment law is the magic bullet that will deliver it. We need to develop a broad range of macroeconomic and microeconomic policies, but, unfortunately, we have not heard much about that. We have not heard much about employability, education and skills, or removing zero-hours contracts as a definition of a positive destination. There are lots of things that we could have focused on, but we have focused on the devolution of employment law. It seems to me, having listened to many speakers, including Kevin Stewart, that the SNP is more interested in attacking the Labour Party than it is in making progress on this important matter.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will in a moment.
Let us be clear about what our amendment does and does not do. The operative words are “leave out”, not “leave out to end”. Our amendment would not remove reference to the devolution of employment law; it would simply insert what we propose to do within 100 working days to bring forward legislation to enhance employment law.
Will the member give way?
I will in a moment.
As Maggie Chapman rightly pointed out, we have seen a “crumbling” floor under the Conservatives. The new deal for working people would repair that floor, and it sets out a framework in which the devolution of employment law could occur.
Will the member give way?
I believe that someone else wanted to intervene first. Was it Clare Haughey?
I thank Daniel Johnson for taking the intervention. I hear what he says about the various subjects that have not been discussed in the debate, but does he not think that his arguments might carry a bit more weight if more Labour members were here to discuss fair work and workers’ rights? Only three have been in the chamber this afternoon.
They are all listening intently online. As every member knows, this is a hybrid chamber.
Critically, Ivan McKee acknowledged that a floor would be useful, and John Mason said that we need to be careful of divergence. That is precisely why we need to be very careful about how we set out the devolution of employment law. John Mason said that that could not be done instantaneously and that we would want to create a framework. That is exactly what we are doing.
Therefore, if SNP members think that the devolution of employment law is important and that we need to take care of it, why would they vote against our amendment, which would improve workers’ rights not just in Scotland but across the UK?
Will the member take an intervention?
I think that Liz Smith was first, so just give me a moment.
Critically, I ask this. Ivan McKee begged the question why we thought that a Labour Government might be able to take power. I know that we cannot rely on opinion polls, but there is at least the suggestion that it is possible. If it is not going to be the Labour Party that legislates to devolve employment law, who will it be? I do not see the Tories doing it any time soon.
There is a very simple choice. Do people want to vote for a Labour Government that will bring forward legislation within 100 working days to improve workers’ rights, or do they want to vote for another Conservative Government? That is the choice that people face at the next election.
I am happy to give way to Liz Smith.
I am grateful to Mr Johnson. He is usually very assiduous in his analysis of what businesses want, so has he done any analysis whatsoever of how many businesses in Scotland want the devolution of employment laws? I cannot find very many.
What I will say to Liz Smith reflects another point that is relevant to this debate: we need to understand that we must improve employment and fair work practices in conjunction with business. Bringing forward such proposals absolutely requires that sort of interrogation.
There was a very interesting dialogue between the Scottish National Party and Conservative front benches—between Neil Gray and Murdo Fraser—in which an artificial and binary choice seemed to be presented between fair work or a new deal for business. This is a genuine reflection. As somebody who has been through the steps of introducing the real living wage, I know that it is not straightforward. It took our business three years to deliver and implement it, and it took careful planning. It is not a question of browbeating people or telling them to do it. If the Scottish Government was really serious about the issue, it would look at how it could help businesses to go down that road. I do not think that it is an either/or situation.
Will the member give way?
I will come to the cabinet secretary in a moment.
Equally, it is about providing assistance, but I say to the Conservatives that most businesses want to do the right thing. They want to do right by their people and to ensure that they are paid well for the valuable work that they do. The reality is somewhere in the middle. We need to provide assistance towards fair work, and there should be a recognition that businesses want to do it.
I am happy to give way.
I challenge Daniel Johnson’s assertion that I suggested, in any way, that we get either economic growth or social progress. The two happen together; they must happen in tandem. We need a good society and a good economy; they are mutually dependent.
I agree with Daniel Johnson about the challenges that businesses face in choosing to invest in their people, particularly in a UK cost crisis. I ask him to applaud the Scottish Government’s efforts to invest in the Poverty Alliance and the real living wage campaign, which has resulted in five times the proportion of employers in Scotland paying the real living wage because of the work that we have done. That means that 91 per cent of employees over the age of 18 receive the real living wage. That is success, is it not?
In conclusion, Mr Johnson.
Of course I applaud that, because I was one of those employers before I entered this Parliament.
There is a very simple choice. The previous Labour Government introduced the minimum wage, enhanced trade union recognition rights and introduced the Equality Act 2010. The next Labour Government will get rid of zero-hours contracts, ban fire and rehire practices and give day 1 employment rights. The choice that faces the Scottish Government is more of the same or a Labour Government that will make a difference to fair work and workers’ rights.
16:41
I rise to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. When the debate was first mooted, it filled me with so much hope that we would finally see a Scottish Government that is prepared to accept its poor record of supporting Scottish business and begin to repair that relationship. I hoped that we would see a Scottish Government that is finally prepared to accept that economic growth was, in fact, important in delivering capital to support our public services, especially in light of the fact that, since 2014, Scotland’s economic growth has lagged behind that of the rest of the UK. As highlighted by my colleague Murdo Fraser, had Scotland’s economy just matched that of the rest of the UK, the Scottish budget would have benefited to the tune of £7 billion. However, my hope was dashed on the rocks of Scottish Government grievance.
Will the member give way?
Let me make a wee bit of progress.
As Murdo Fraser went on to say, this Scottish Government debate has followed every other Scottish Government debate, and the SNP is not willing to take responsibility for any subject. There is no subject that the SNP is not prepared to twist into a constitutional grievance. In its obsessive drive for divergence from any UK policy, it seems that the SNP does not care about the impact on the ground for our businesses and our workforce, be it higher taxation or different and more restrictive employment law. As Murdo Fraser pointed out, the SNP lent a deaf ear to major industry bodies such as the Scottish Retail Consortium or the Confederation of British Industry when they warned the Scottish Government about the harm that such divergence would place on Scottish business. There is no price that the Scottish Government will not pay, and there is no Scottish business or potential Scottish revenue that it will not sacrifice at the feet of the constitutional altar.
Two of Brian Whittle’s assertions need to be challenged. First, in the very first line of my opening paragraph, I said:
“Our vision is for a wellbeing economy that supports fair and green economic growth”.
His second assertion is that business somehow does not want to see fair work progress. In Scotland, five times the number of employers, proportionately, are paying the real living wage. They want to see fair work and they are implementing it. Why can the member not accept that?
I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention, because it allows me once again to highlight to him how many of those businesses want devolution of the law. There is no recognition from the cabinet secretary that the higher inequality and lower productivity in Scotland’s economy that he talks about in the motion rest squarely at the feet of the tired, one-trick pony of an SNP-Green Government that has no understanding of the real world of business.
Sixteen years of the SNP, with its delusions of adequacy, have left Scotland’s business community in no doubt that their needs have been a distant afterthought in the SNP world of constitutional grievance.
I highlight what I thought was an excellent speech from my colleague Liz Smith, who took the opportunity to examine where we should be going when we discuss fair work linked to the wellbeing economy. If we had followed that suit, we could be discussing the drag on the economy that is the result of economic inactivity, especially with the greater proportion of Scotland’s inactivity being attributable to a persistent poor health record.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I will finish this point and then give way.
It is a health record that now sees the cost of obesity to Scotland’s economy rising to £5 billion. The cost of poor mental health now stands at £4.5 billion, and diabetes and related conditions cost 10 per cent of the NHS budget—not to mention our frightening levels of drug and alcohol abuse. Liz Smith eloquently stated that the pursuit of wellbeing is dependent on the delivery of economic growth—which the SNP’s partners in government, the Greens, do not believe in. She went on to say that wellbeing depends on our success in creating growth, improving productivity and widening the tax base. That is hitting a very big nail with a very big hammer.
We need sustained economic growth to pay for the efforts to tackle increasing inequality of opportunity and to create the reality of a wellbeing economy for Scotland. In that vein, I reiterate the point about economic inactivity in Scotland and the concerning proportion of Scotland’s inactivity that is attributable to health problems, some of which I have already mentioned. That includes an increase in flows into early retirement, because of that poor health record.
Brian Whittle mentioned economic inactivity. Forty per cent of people on universal credit are part-time workers and still claim universal credit. Is it part of the fair work agenda for the UK Government to sanction people who are in work? That is what the UK Government is doing right now.
As part of the fair work agenda, does the member think that sanctions for those who are in work and on universal credit should end? I certainly do.
I am sorry, but I do not recognise what Bob Doris is describing. I recently did some work with the DWP, which is doing phenomenal work around universal credit and making sure that the uptake is correct. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Whittle.
If a person is in part-time work, it is important that their salary is augmented by universal credit. I do not see where the problem is in that.
Will the member give way?
I do not have a lot of time left.
I have always said that education was the solution to health and welfare. If the Scottish Government tackled the crisis in our healthcare from a preventative perspective, it would allow the spend on preventable conditions, for which there would be a decreasing need, to be reinvested in other areas of healthcare that so desperately need it.
The starting point for that is investment in our education system, where so many interventions could be made that would directly tackle poor health and inequality outcomes—inequalities that will currently probably follow a person throughout their life.
It is about investing in our education system, increasing access to opportunity, linking education to the huge potential that the green economy can bring to Scotland, and giving pupils access to a much broader education that includes physical activity and sport for all, as well as music, art, drama and outdoor learning. That kind of approach fosters confidence, resilience and aspiration. The inevitable outcome is improved attainment, which, in turn, feeds economic growth.
Those are just a few examples of how spending on one page of a ledger means reducing the need to spend on another. Unfortunately, the SNP and the Greens do not seem capable of joining up policy dots, and cannot think beyond their one and only obsession. Until we have a Government that considers the economy outwith the extremely narrow bandwidth of the constitution, Scotland’s economy will continue to suffer. I do wonder how long the SNP-Green Scottish Government can go on dodging responsibility for the mess that it has created. I suspect that it is dawning on many that that time has already passed.
I urge the chamber to support the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser.
I call Jamie Hepburn to wind up. If you can, take us to 5pm, minister.
16:49
I welcome the fact that we have had the debate. If nothing else, it has offered us clarity on who stands where on the question of where responsibility and power for creating a fair work society through employment law should reside.
I will take the amendments in turn, starting with the one in the name of Mr Fraser, which is what, traditionally, we might have called a wrecking amendment. The debate is supposed to focus on how we can create a fair work nation. However, much as was the case in the vein of his and other Conservative members’ contributions, in Mr Fraser’s amendment there is only a cursory reference to fair work.
Let us look at the wording of the amendment, which refers to the Scottish Conservatives’ paper entitled “Grasping the Thistle”.
You should read it.
Mr Hoy says that I should read that paper. I will come to that. We have been implored to read “Grasping the Thistle”. I reassure members that no great Government expense has been spent on securing a glossy copy such as the one that Pam Gosal is waving; we have a printout. I have, in fact, read “Grasping the Thistle”. Let us turn to what it says. [Interruption.]
Let us hear the minister.
First, I should say that the foreword contains a very nice picture of Mr Fraser leaning casually against a fence, with the countryside in the background. I can also say that the fence takes a wonderful picture. [Laughter.]
Some aspects of the paper are not objectionable in their own right. For example, it discusses achieving parity of esteem between apprenticeships and tertiary education. There is no problem with that. It also covers the need for a repopulation strategy. The Scottish Government has a population task force.
Just to to re-emphasise to Mr Hoy that I have, in fact, looked at the paper, I note that it talks about the need to incentivise international migration, which is why we look forward to next week’s debate on the “Building a New Scotland” paper on migration and independence in Scotland—a debate that the Conservatives do not want to happen.
The rest of “Grasping the Thistle” seems to be straight out of the Milton Friedman school of thought, which is unsurprising, because it is Mr Fraser’s document. That was characterised by his use of the term “restrictive” when discussing how we might use employment law. That was telling, because what he really means by that is that he does not want to see employment law being used in any fashion to support people in the labour market.
Let us look at where the labour market in the United Kingdom is currently. We have not seen its relatively deregulated labour market leading to higher wages, greater levels of worker retention or higher levels of productivity. Rather, we have a high proportion of low-wage jobs, a high level of income inequality, a broad gender wage gap—although that is improving here in Scotland more than it is in the rest of the UK—and high levels of economic insecurity. John Mason was quite right to make those points.
Similarly, as Kevin Stewart alluded to, and as was reported in June, the International Trade Union Confederation’s annual report on workers’ rights reported that the UK has dropped from a rating of 3—which is applied to countries that it considers to be in regular violation of such rights—to 4, for which rating the confederation says there are systemic violations. Putting that into context, I point out that that means that the UK now ranks alongside Qatar. We have heard many concerns about the manner in which workers there were treated in the run-up to the 2022 world cup championships. The UK is now ranked at the same level as Qatar—that is the great record that Pam Gosal spoke of, and that is the reality of the UK in 2023.
I will turn back to “Grasping the Thistle”, I have mentioned elements of the paper that could be viewed as being reasonable, on the face of them. However, the rest of it was about stuff like sacking public workers, following Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, and the race to the bottom on the tax-cutting agenda. We see how well that has landed us from where the UK economy is on inflation.
In case there is any doubt, I say that the Government will not support Mr Fraser’s amendment this evening.
I am delighted that the minister is taking such a close interest in “Grasping the Thistle”, and I look forward to discussing it with him further. On the question of public sector workers, has he completely forgotten what Kate Forbes said when she was Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy? Her evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee and others said that the headcount in the public sector in Scotland had to be reduced. Does he not accept that that is the case?
Of course, that is in the context of the reality of our having to deal with austerity measures—[Interruption.]—that are reducing the amount of resource that is available for deployment of public funds. The difference is that Mr Fraser wants to see that as a key economic objective and driver, as is set out in “Grasping the Thistle”. [Interruption.]
Let us hear the minister.
For the avoidance of doubt, I assure Mr Fraser that I have given “Grasping the Thistle” some attention, but I do not endorse it.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of Daniel Johnson. Mr Fraser, whom I have never taken for a cynic before, seemed to suggest that the purpose of this debate was to embarrass the Labour Party. I have to say that it does not require the SNP to embarrass the Labour Party. If we look at the amendment that Labour has lodged for us today, we see that it is the source of embarrassment for the party.
At the time of the Smith commission, there was an opportunity for us to secure additional powers for the Scottish Parliament and to devolve employment law, but the Labour Party opposed that. I was delighted when it seemed that Labour changed was changing its position and said that it wanted devolution of employment law to the Scottish Parliament—better the sinner who repenteth. However, now, as we head towards the United Kingdom general election, let us consider what the Labour Party is saying about devolution of employment law.
Clare Haughey already referred to Angela Rayner’s indication that she does not support devolution of employment law. Furthermore, when Ian Murray—the man who would be Secretary of State for Scotland—was asked by the Daily Record whether he was persuaded that a Labour Government should devolve more power to Holyrood, he said, “Not personally, no.”
Those are the individuals whom Labour members would have us trust to deliver devolution of employment law to the Scottish Parliament, and they are saying that they will not do it.
I note that Mr Hepburn has done anything but look at what our amendment says. It says that we will legislate and then seek to devolve employment law. It is really that simple. What is the problem that the minister has?
In responding to an intervention earlier, Mr Johnson said that he thought that he had set the record straight. I think that he needs to listen to himself and read his amendment, because it does not say that the Labour Party will devolve those powers. It is meagre, tepid and insipid. It says that the UK Government should explore devolution of employment law, not that it will devolve employment law. That is in stark contrast to the position of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which supports devolution of employment law, and that of the UK-wide Trades Union Congress, which surely believes in improving employees’ rights across the UK and can still support devolution of employment law.
Does the minister acknowledge that, when the TUC said that, it said that that would be subject to a UK floor, and does he note that, in that debate, Unite said that the SNP could not be trusted with workers’ rights?
I have no problem with considering there being a UK floor. I support independence for this country, and I think that that is a way in which we can guarantee people’s rights in Scotland. I understand that the Labour Party does not support that, but I would have expected, as a minimum, that it would support devolution of employment law. As I said, if that came with some sort of floor, of course we would have to consider it. I am quite relaxed about that prospect, but—again—that is not what Mr Johnson’s amendment says; it says that it should be explored. Frankly, that is not good enough.
A question was raised—to be fair, it is a legitimate question—about what we are doing to try to create a fair work nation with the limited powers that we have. I am pleased to say that this Government is doing plenty. If members look at our promotion of the real living wage—not the Tory con-trick living wage but the real living wage that is being celebrated this living wage week—they will see that we are supporting the accreditation scheme for the real living wage, which has seen five times the level of businesses being accredited in Scotland than are accredited in the rest of the UK, with Scotland emerging as the best-performing of all four UK nations in terms of the proportion of the workforce that is paid the real living wage.
Members will also see that we are supporting the living hours accreditation scheme to try to make sure that employers provide a guaranteed minimum of 16 hours a week, and are putting in place the fair work first guidance, which has seen the application of some £4 billion-worth of public sector funding since 2019 to implement fair work in our labour market.
That is what we can do with the powers that we have in our hands, but we are working against a system in which we have a UK Government that is putting in place something that is pulling in the opposite direction, with inadequate enforcement of minimum employment standards, the introduction of the Trade Union Act 2016, plans to introduce fees for employment tribunals and, most recently, the introduction of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023.
We can do better than that. We can do better with devolution of employment law to this place—not just for this Government to administer but for the whole Parliament to legislate for. Surely that is something that we can get behind. We should vote for the motion in the name of Neil Gray.
That concludes the debate on fair work in a wellbeing economy.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Decision Time