Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I thank the minister, the committee and its convener, Clare Haughey, for their contributions to the debate. As Murdo Fraser rightly pointed out, the purpose of the Employment Rights Bill is to put into legislation the Labour UK Government’s plan to make work pay—a fascinating principle that underlies the suggestion that, by working, people can afford to live.

I thank Murdo Fraser for articulating many elements of the bill. I would add to his list the work to prevent fire and rehire, sectoral collective bargaining, which has been mentioned, introducing rights for trade unions for access to workplaces, repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and some of the provisions from the Trade Union Act 2016, and bringing together the powers of existing labour market enforcement bodies along with other powers under the secretary of state and enforcement officers. I welcome all those elements of the bill.

I also welcome the approach that the Scottish Government has taken with regard to discussions with the UK Government. If the economy is to grow across the whole of the UK, with the greatest respect to Murdo Fraser’s contributions, it will be through the workers of this country. We will support the LCM this evening.

I will speak on behalf of Scottish Labour to various elements of the LCM. I compliment both committees that were involved in this matter—I appreciate the challenge in being able to scrutinise legislative consent memorandums.

Without repeating what I said, I refer to my earlier comments about how LCMs are dealt with in the Parliament and the obligations on Governments in dealing with and facilitating the matter between them. I suggest that the Parliament could help with that, most probably in the next session.

What fundamentally underpins the bill to which the legislative consent memorandum relates—the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—is an attempt to break the link between a young person’s background and their future success, which is a goal that we share in Scotland and in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. There are two processes here—one relates to employment and the other, which I would like to spend a few moments discussing, relates to secure care.

I echo what Roz McCall said about the current state of secure accommodation in Scotland. As of today, there is one vacant bed. No doubt we will, sadly, return to that issue after the recess. Will the minister intervene in relation to the question that has been raised by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland about ensuring that cross-border placements are only ever used for a young person in appropriate and exceptional circumstances?

Further to the answers that the cabinet secretary has already given, which I am grateful for, would not national guidance on the definition of “appropriate” in section 27 of the 1995 act resolve some of the challenges, because, in essence, there is a postcode lottery as to what “appropriate” means?

I will pick up on one of the phrases that the member used in that intervention—the “human story”. We are talking about human beings and their travel and the situation that leads them to decide that they can no longer stay in the country of their birth or where they live. That is a truly appalling decision for individuals to have to take.

What frightens, scares and annoys me is those other humans who see these people as a way to profit. Very complex financial arrangements can be made, in which families in effect borrow money from moneylenders at exorbitant interest rates, with the expectation that, if the individual makes the journey safely, they will reimburse the family. We have an entire dark economy working on that model.

I am not going to make categorical assumptions about what groups of people choose this route—

This has been a fascinating debate on the legislative consent motion because, in quite amicable terms, it has highlighted one of the challenges that this Parliament and the Scottish Government have faced regarding legislative consent motions. By common custom, the matter is one for Governments to discuss between themselves, but, following discussions earlier in this session about legislative consent motions, Parliament is now taking the opportunity to look at the issue and to see whether we might do what I could call “assisting” a more generous and even discussion between Governments about how legislative consent should be dealt with.

To pick up on Murdo Fraser’s comments, there are concerns about framework bills. Those concerns have been expressed in this chamber and the chambers of other devolved Parliaments and, of course, at Westminster. There is also always the challenge of the interestingly named Henry VIII powers that can follow on from such framework bills. As we go forward, there is a question for Parliament about how to deal with that matter.

I turn to the legislative consent motion in front of us today. I omitted to do this in the previous debate, so I will put the record straight by thanking the committees that have provided information to members about the LCMs that are before us today.

We have here a bill that seeks to protect people. I thank Richard Lochhead for bringing some reality to a bill that may seem, to the millions watching us from the outside, to be strangely worded. We are talking about the world of e-scooters and other potentially challenging products that can put our citizens at risk, and the bill is a way of protecting them.

I also thank Richard Lochhead for the articulate way in which he described what I imagine may, behind the scenes, have been slightly more challenging discussions during the process of moving from the earlier legislative consent memorandums to the one that we have today. I welcome the amendment at UK level that has given the Scottish Government confidence to back the request for legislative consent.

I will leave it there except to say that this may be another part of the footpath that will lead this Parliament and others to look again at legislative consent at the right time.

I thank the minister for his intervention. Unlike Roz McCall, I am reassured by that, because I think that, when the Government gives such assurances, we should be able to rely on them. I thank the minister, who I know is stepping in today for the debate on the LCM.

I am grateful for Mr Balfour’s intervention. Of course, no Parliament or Government can bind future Governments. On his underlying point, of course there should be concerns about differences that might occur in the future, whether at a Government or a parliamentary level. I have raised that issue in a number of debates during this parliamentary session. I am less in agreement on whether this is the point at which to draw the line in the sand. I understand from Roz McCall’s contribution that the Scottish Conservatives will not oppose the motion but will merely abstain.

As with our previous discussion about framework bills, a large number of questions has arisen in recent years, from both Governments and from both Parliaments, and we need to seek answers to them, because people outside the chamber are looking for them.

Given the minister’s reassurance about cross-border placements, for which I thank him, I will leave my contribution at that.

It is always a pleasure to follow Stephen Kerr, even when his oration—we might call it a salad of linguistic excitement—on the bill that is ploughing its way through the Westminster houses might lead to both entertainment and concern. However, members across the chamber, and politicians across the whole of the United Kingdom, often talk about taking care in the use of language when something, on the surface, offends, and I think that care should also be taken with language used when one can see an opportunity—rightly or wrongly—to stir people up or incite ideas that others might then use as false information.

It is correct to say that the bill on which we are being invited to agree to the legislative consent motion contains repeal provisions relating to the Rwanda plan that Stephen Kerr talked about and to the Illegal Migration Act 2023. It is right to repeal that legislation. I am more than content to discuss the matter with the member—perhaps it would be more beneficial to do so outside the chamber—as we have done in the past. I had understood that we had reached a conclusion, but perhaps times have changed.

I welcome the bill, but I also welcome the minister’s approach in moving the motion. This matter requires all those who represent constituents across the United Kingdom to work together. There is an interesting discrepancy between the language used about those who are fleeing appalling circumstances in their home country and their legitimate right to travel through safe countries to seek refuge elsewhere, as identified by the United Nations, and those—