Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 11 November 2020
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I agree with a number of things in Labour’s motion. Labour is right to describe the balance that we all face if we want to protect people from Covid but not damage the economy. It seems to be like steering a ship in a storm through rocks: if we go too far one way, we hit the rocks of increased infections, swamped hospitals and potentially more deaths; if we go too far the other way, jobs and entire businesses could be lost.
I also agree that we should work with the trade unions, with the primary aim of protecting jobs. Terms and conditions should be maintained, too, although I fear that some reduction in hours is almost inevitable in some organisations. We should not lose sight of the need to improve terms and conditions, especially for the poorest paid and the people with the worst terms and conditions.
It is worth remembering that although some businesses, especially in tourism and hospitality, have been seriously affected by the pandemic, others have done relatively well and should not be using Covid as an excuse to push down their staff costs. Online suppliers, for example, are seeing an upturn in profit and have a chance to treat their workers better than before.
I have problems with some parts of the Labour motion. The suggestion that
“no hospitality or tourism business faces closure”
is unrealistic, sadly. We absolutely should seek to minimise closures, but I fear that some businesses will not survive the pandemic. The suggestion that there should be no job losses is also—sadly—unrealistic. Some jobs have already gone. However, I agree that we should seek to minimise job losses.
The next problem that I have with the motion is the call for
“the Scottish Government to provide additional support”.
I do not believe that the Scottish Government is sitting on a pot of available, uncommitted money. [Interruption.] No one is asking to intervene, although Conservative members are shouting.