Hansard

I thank the committee again for its valuable piece of work, and I thank all the people who took the time to give evidence. I will send the committee my response to the report’s main recommendations later this week.

The report and today’s debate reinforce my belief in the importance of looking at fair work. The increasing recognition that how people are treated in the workplace has an impact on their health, their wellbeing and their productivity is welcome and is something on which we need to build.

As I said in my opening speech, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has been able to take action to promote fair work in a number of areas. I gently say to Lewis Macdonald that there has been a lot more than just talk over the past year and a half; a great deal has been done. I am happy that the committee acknowledged the importance of the work that the Government has undertaken, and I appreciate the support for improving working practice that has been in evidence during the debate.

I think that we all agree that more needs to be done to spread the message and to support employers, employees and their representatives to improve conditions in workplaces. In the coming weeks, the fair work convention will publish its framework, which will set out the views of employers and trade unions, working together in partnership, on what “fair work” means. I expect the framework to demonstrate the flexibility and aspiration that the committee requested.

It is important that the committee’s report and recent studies from the Resolution Foundation and others give us a strong evidence base, which we will be able to take to employers throughout the country, to promote the benefits of a fair approach. Many of the benefits have been clearly articulated today.

I want to respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate, although I do not have enough time to go through every speech. I concur with Iain Gray’s comments on trade unions and the Trade Union Bill, which were echoed by a number of members from more than one party.

Iain Gray also talked about the labour market stats. There are indeed issues with the stats. One such issue is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how the statistical analysis is derived from the raw numbers. It was of some interest to me to discover that there are people who think that the labour market stats are a total headcount, as opposed to a sample survey. I do not want to get too bogged down in the detail of how the stats are compiled, but I gently suggest that Iain Gray’s remarks about hyperbole might also be directed to his colleagues in his own party, because negative comment can be equally misleading.

Murdo Fraser mentioned Amazon, which I was able to mention only briefly in my opening speech, when I indicated that I will meet Amazon tomorrow. I have to point out that the organisation that Willie Rennie described in the Parliament as “terrible”, and which he said that Fife would be far better off without, was in fact welcomed by Mr Rennie’s party in 2004, when Jim Wallace, who was enterprise minister at the time, described Amazon’s arrival as excellent news for Scotland. I also have copies of press comments from Duncan McNeil, welcoming Amazon investment in Gourock. The point of repeating that is to remind members that when jobs are the issue, there is more than one driver behind comments that are made.

Gavin Brown wanted more detailed responses from Government. In a five-minute speech, that is impossible. At the outset I gave him a detailed response on the business pledge; we have already taken action on the matter. I hope that he will manage to hold on for a couple more days until he gets the considered and full response.

Gavin Brown also asked about a Scotland-specific job quality survey and fair work index. A review of the national performance framework is reaching its conclusion, and I understand that we can expect new indicators that relate directly to fair work. No doubt Gavin Brown will want to have a look at those, if that is the case.

On the broader research question, which I think that John Pentland raised, I reassure members that a lot of specific research is under way and will be published when the pieces of work are complete. We contribute funding to help to build capacity for research among academic and other stakeholders. For example, we contribute to the University of Strathclyde’s innovating works project and research by Oxfam and the Poverty Alliance. There is an on-going programme of research.

Johann Lamont correctly reminded us that the living wage, as important as it is, is not the sole indicator of fair work, as I said in my opening speech. The living wage can become an iconic factor in the fair work debate, but it is not the only one.

On the matter of definitions, which was raised by Iain Gray and by Lewis Macdonald, I agree that it can be difficult to specifically define concepts. Lawyers sometimes make an entire living out of such definitions, but one of the reasons that we set up the fair work convention was to help that process. Definitions, by definition, leave out or include things about which there will be endless debate.

I welcome the committee’s helpful report, its recognition that much work has happened and its call to do more to promote fair work. I believe that this Government has led the way, and I am personally committed to further action with the powers that we have at our disposal, but we really cannot get away from the fundamental fact that we could do far more in this area if we had the full set of powers around employment law devolved to Scotland.