I thank both Neil Findlay and Jayne Baxter for lodging their amendments. I hope that it is accepted that if there is a difference of opinion on the amendments, it is about means rather than ends. Regardless of the decisions that the committee takes on the amendments, I will consider any amendments that are lodged at stage 3. I signal a clear intention on the Government’s part to work with members, other parties, trade unions and other interested organisations to ensure that we eradicate tax avoidance, blacklisting and the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. I hope that we all unite around that aim.
Sections 22 and 23 of the bill contain provisions that will allow the Government to make regulations that specify the circumstances in which economic operators should be excluded from competition. I have already made it clear—I make it clear again today—that I intend to make regulations on blacklisting, and when the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill becomes law we will also look at what the regulations can say to maximise our actions to eliminate tax avoidance.
Section 23 of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, as introduced, makes provision for those regulations. I reiterate that the Government will take whatever steps we believe are necessary and appropriate to ensure that tax avoidance will not succeed in Scotland. I agree with Neil Findlay’s points about the implications and consequences of tax avoidance, which hits everybody in the country, particularly those who rely on our public services, and we should not tolerate it. We have made our position on the issue clear over a prolonged period of time and we will continue to do so.
We have also been clear that we are opposed to the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. I reiterate again today that we will use the guidance on workforce matters that is provided for by section 24 of the bill to address the issue in the way that we deem appropriate.
11:15
I will outline the reasons for my concerns more fully. They relate to the limitations that, perhaps counterintuitively, we would place upon ourselves by agreeing to the amendments, particularly Neil Findlay’s amendments 56 and 57. We need the flexibility that regulations provide to be able to adapt the approach that we take in the event that there are changes in employment legislation or related matters. Those areas are currently outwith the responsibility and control of this Parliament.
I draw the committee’s attention to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee report on blacklisting, which was published last Friday. I was very pleased to see that the report acknowledges that the Scottish Government has already gone further than the Welsh Assembly Government in tackling blacklisting, specifically through procurement policy. However, the report also noted:
“Representatives for UCATT, GMB and Unite agreed that blacklisting would continue to be a problem until legal sanctions against it were strengthened.”
We need to continue to put pressure on the UK Government to respond. The legislation on blacklisting is employment legislation, which is reserved to the UK Government. That is not something that I am happy with, but that is the situation. I have written to the chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee—I copied the convener of this committee in to the letter—pointing out that, although I think that the House of Commons committee is right to recognise the influence that purchasing power can bring to bear on these issues, it is also important to understand that a purchaser’s ability to take action depends on other legislation, which is currently reserved to Westminster. I have urged the House of Commons committee—and I hope that this committee can provide support on this—not to lose sight, in its future consideration, of those concerns that have been expressed by the unions. If the UK Government decides to strengthen its legislation in this area, as I hope it does, we would need to be able to adapt our approach quickly to bring it into line with a changed legislative framework.
This is where the counterintuitive bit comes in. The amendments in this group would make it more difficult for us to do that, because we would have to change primary legislation, as opposed to secondary legislation. This is an area in which policy and law are developing and we need the additional flexibility that regulations provide. I want nobody to be in any doubt, however, that we regard the practice of blacklisting as totally abhorrent. We are continuing and will continue to work with the Scottish Trades Union Congress and individual trade unions, including Unite, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the GMB and Unison—to which I pay tribute—to develop our policy on this issue with a view to ensuring that we can eradicate the practice in Scotland once and for all.
I have already indicated that we intend to deal with the position on zero-hours contracts through workforce-related guidance. I think that that is the appropriate approach, but I am happy to give an undertaking to Jayne Baxter to consider any amendments that are lodged for stage 3.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask committee members not to support the amendments in this group but, in rejecting them, to be under no illusion about our determination to deal with these issues and to work with the committee and others in doing so.