(Glasgow) (Green):
On behalf of the Scottish Green Party, I add our thanks to those
people who are keeping Scotland safe and working to make sure
that our transport infrastructure, emergency services and
services throughout our communities respond to the current
weather situation.
The First Minister said that
employers have serious responsibilities not to put pressure on
people to travel unsafely. Does she agree that such pressure
comes not only from employers asking people to go to work? No
employee should have to choose whether to travel unsafely or
lose pay by staying at home and staying safe. Given the
prevalence of casualised work, zero-hours contracts and the gig
economy, does the Fist Minister agree that no employer should
put an employee in the position of losing pay in order to stay
safe?
The First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon): I strongly
agree with that point. I take this opportunity, as I did earlier,
to urge and call on employers to be flexible and, above all else,
to make sure that they put the safety of their workers first,
above anything else.
It is really important to point out,
for the benefit of not just employers but the wider general
public, that red or amber weather warnings such as those that
have been issued in recent days are issued not for the sake of
convenience but for the safety of the public—particularly the
travelling public. We all have a responsibility to do what we
can to ensure that the warnings are heeded—and that very
definitely includes employers.
Of course there are parts of the
workforce—I mention the health workforce in particular—whom we
want to support to get to work, and those workers experience
the same challenges that anyone else experiences. There are
lots of health board staff and volunteers across the country
right now who are deploying 4x4 vehicles, for example, to get
nurses, doctors and other healthcare workers into hospitals and
health centres.
Employers must make sure that they
act in a way that prioritises the safety of their staff at all
times. I hope that that is a message that goes out loudly and
clearly today.
: I am grateful for
the First Minister’s comments. As with previous similar
situations, I hope very much that public sector employers will be
exemplary in their treatment not only of directly employed staff
but agency and contractor staff.
My second question is on the issues
that we will discuss today in relation to the UK Withdrawal
from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. We
believe that the introduction of the bill—the alternative
Brexit bill, which the Scottish Government has introduced in
this Parliament—is a necessary response to the Brexit
crisis.
One of the criticisms that the
Scottish National Party has rightly levelled at the United
Kingdom Government is about the UK Government’s inflexibility
and unwillingness to amend the European Union (Withdrawal)
Bill. Will the First Minister give the Parliament an assurance
that when Opposition members propose changes to the Scottish
bill, to improve it and to strengthen scrutiny and
accountability, the Government will work with members who
propose amendments, rather than against them?
The First Minister: I am happy to give that
assurance. As knows, following First
Minister’s question time, the Parliament will debate the
timetable for the continuity bill. I do not want to pre-empt the
debate that we will have, but, clearly, we are not in control of
the overall timetable for Brexit and we have to act in a way that
protects the interests of the Parliament—hence the proposed
emergency timetable for the bill.
Even within the emergency timetable, we want to work with
other members across Parliament and to listen to concerns and
suggestions for how the bill can be improved, if it needs to be
improved. I am happy to give that open assurance.
I repeat that we introduced the
continuity bill this week because that was something that we
required to do to protect the interests of the Parliament; it
does not mean that we have given up on seeking an agreement
with the UK Government. We will continue to do that.
However, at the heart of the
discussions with the UK Government is an important principle:
do we allow a situation in which a UK Government can impose
situations on this Parliament in devolved matters, or do we
insist that, in devolved matters, that cannot be done without
the consent of this Parliament? That is a really important
issue of principle, and this Government will not recommend that
the Parliament consent to any legislation that undermines the
fundamental basis of devolution in that way.
