Caterpillar Plant Occupation (30th Anniversary)

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 18 January 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-02865, in the name of Richard Leonard, on the 30th anniversary of the workers’ occupation of the Caterpillar plant in

Tannochside. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament celebrates what it sees as the courageous stance taken by workers at the Caterpillar Plant in Tannochside who staged a 103-day occupation in defence of jobs, beginning on 14 January 1987; recognises the support given to the occupation by the labour and trades union movement across the UK and internationally; regrets the decision of the company to seek an eviction notice from the courts; notes that this action by the workers resulted in improved pay-offs for the workforce, and believes that this occupation serves as a reminder of the value of workers standing together in the common interest against corporate greed.

Photo of Richard Leonard Richard Leonard Labour

It is a great honour to serve the people as a member of the Parliament, and I can think of no greater honour than securing my very first members’ business debate in Parliament to mark the 30th anniversary of the Caterpillar plant occupation. That is because we do not celebrate our history—labour history and working-class history—nearly enough. I hope that we can remedy that through the Parliament.

The story of the 103-day occupation that began on 14 January 1987 carries with it many important lessons. First and foremost, it reminds us that we make our own history and that history is not predetermined. Secondly, it reminds us that fundamental social, economic and political change will come about when injustice is challenged from below. That challenge comes when working people have the confidence to reject the centuries-old indoctrination that there is no alternative and start at last to believe in themselves.

I welcome to Parliament some of those working people who believed in themselves and made history in a small corner of Lanarkshire. In so doing, they lit a flame that still burns brightly and inspires and guides many of us three decades later.

I would especially like to welcome to the public gallery the convener, John Brannan—without bunnet, but still with a gleam in his eye—and John Gillen and Bob Burrows, central figures in the joint occupation committee then and the Caterpillar legacy group now. I would also like to extend a welcome on behalf of the whole Parliament to the women and men who, directly and indirectly, took part in and supported the Caterpillar occupation who have joined us this afternoon.

If members want a chapter in our history that truly shows the value of trade unionism, collective action and real solidarity, they should look no further than the actions of the brave workers who occupied the Caterpillar plant in 1987. If members want a chapter in our history that truly shows the perils of a branch-plant economy—an economy that is too dependent on foreign-owned multinationals—they should go and look at the actions of the Caterpillar corporation in 1987. The Tannochside plant was declared a PWAF—a plant with a future—yet within weeks it had no future. The company contrived a scorched-earth policy, whereby all 1,200 direct jobs were to go. It was a corporate strike of capital. There was no sign of a ballot.

The response of members of the workforce was immediate. They chose to gatecrash the company’s press conference and to padlock the gates of the factory. Most of all, they chose to fight. That was not an easy decision, given that we had had the miners’ strike and the lock-out of the print workers in Wapping and Kinning Park in the preceding years, but as my friend the late Campbell Christie said in his foreword to “Track Record: The Story of the Caterpillar Occupation”, the magnificent documentation of the occupation by Charlie Woolfson and John Foster, it was

“a forceful reminder that if workers do not fight for themselves, nobody else will.”

What solidarity was shown. The Miners Welfare Club on Old Edinburgh Road ran a free soup and bread service day after day, cash collections were held at football matches week after week, and shop stewards committees and mass meetings were addressed by John Brannan, John Gillen, Frank Kelly and others the length and breadth of the country, not just in engineering shops, shipyards and factories across Scotland but in factories in Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry and Liverpool. Bob Burrows was instrumental in persuading Motherwell District Council to invoke section 25 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 to provide rent rebates and Strathclyde Regional Council to provide assistance to mortgage payers. In addition, of course, the Caterpillar women’s support group, like the miners’ wives before them, were there not to make the tea but to make the case for the occupation, to lobby Parliament and to organise the struggle beyond the factory gates. It was real, practical, never-to-be-forgotten solidarity.

What are the enduring lessons of the occupation? In my view, they are that the balance of power between labour and capital can be tipped in favour of labour; that industrial democracy can prevail and does work; that working people are not just born wage earners but have the potential to manage and run industry themselves; and that the real division in society—the decisive division—is not between Scotland and England but between those who own the wealth and those who through their hard work and endeavour create the wealth.

For me, the real test of this Parliament is what we make of the Caterpillar occupation. Can we rise to the challenge that it throws at us? Can we learn the lessons that it sets? Make no mistake—the Caterpillar workers’ action raises fundamental questions about who controls the economy and in whose interests. I suggest that we need to put democratic socialism on the agenda once more. We need an industrial policy that is not reliant on multinational corporations. We need to start planning our economy rather than leaving it to the market. We need to start promoting industrial democracy in place of industrial vandalism, and I, for one, would like the Parliament to pass an industrial reform act that follows in the footsteps of the land reform legislation that it has passed. We should not underestimate the size of the task before us, but neither should we exaggerate it.

I will leave the final word to John Brannan, who said at the conclusion of the occupation:

“There was never any guarantee at the start we were going to win. Maybe we aren’t successful. But we proved a stand can be made. Workers could unite. I think the tremendous support of the public wasn’t on a judgement whether they thought we could win or lose. It was supporting guys who’d decided to have a go.”

Today, we do not look back with resignation, but look forward with hope. Let us keep that fighting spirit alive—that ray of hope that things can be different—and use this Parliament to forge the real change that working people need. [

Applause

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I request our visitors in the public gallery to hold off their show of appreciation until the end, and I will allow time for that, if they do not mind. Thank you.

Photo of Richard Lyle Richard Lyle Scottish National Party

I thank Richard Leonard for bringing this important issue to the chamber and congratulate him on his tremendous speech.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate about this significant event, which took place in my Uddingston and Bellshill constituency, although it was known then as Motherwell North. I also welcome those ex-Caterpillar workers who are in the gallery and pay tribute to them and to all who took part in the Caterpillar sit-in.

The Caterpillar plant in Tannochside in my constituency enjoyed a successful heyday from its opening in 1956 to its peak employment of 2,700 people. The site was well known in our communities. Indeed, it was one that enjoyed royal approval—I recall Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh visiting the site in July 1962 during their visit to Lanarkshire.

As Mr Leonard stated, on 14 January 1987, the Caterpillar factory sit-in began, with managers at the site being locked out by the hard-working and committed workers. The action, as he said, was supported by all in the community, including a little girl who broke her piggybank and handed in £5 in loose coins for the fund, to support the workers and those who made the tea and worked in the soup kitchens.

When the company’s executives announced the change of plan—that the plant would be closed and that the promised investment was not going to take place—that was not taken lightly. The workers sat in for 103 days before their occupation ended on Sunday 26 April, after Caterpillar had obtained an eviction order. However, that was not before the world had looked on as workers fought back against the executives who had treated them with disdain. Indeed, from the sit-in came the building of the famous Pink Panther, the workers’ campaign tractor, which was taken to George Square. It truly captured the public’s imagination and became a symbol of the workers’ struggle.

Many characters were involved in the Caterpillar sit-in. I remember Jimmy Hamilton MP, who represented Motherwell North at the time, not only for the contribution that he made during the sit-in, when he told the House of Commons that he was “absolutely flabbergasted” at the news, but because I stood against him for the Scottish National Party in the 1983 general election and became the first Scottish National Party general election candidate in North Lanarkshire to retain their deposit. I came fourth out of four candidates. I hope that members do not mind me indulging in political nostalgia in the debate.

Let me escape nostalgia and come on to recent years. Work has been done to recognise the Caterpillar workers’ contribution in our community, including the 25th anniversary reunion, which planted in the minds of the former workers who attended it the seed of the idea to build a memorial to the factory and the occupation, which has subsequently come to fruition. Now, every time that I drive from my surgery in Viewpark to other surgery venues, I pass by the memorial to the workers, and am proud to represent a constituency that has such a story to tell.

That the workers at the Caterpillar site are a true testament to the effectiveness of workers employing direct action to highlight their issue cannot be overstated; nor can the fact that, by standing up together, they showed that they could not only galvanise their colleagues’ support but instil the same desire to stand up for what is right in so many in the community who joined them in their action for fairness.

Due to long-standing commitments, I will be able to attend Richard Leonard’s reception for only a short time. I conclude by saying that I recognise the efforts that were made by the workers of the Caterpillar factory, to whom we rightly pay tribute in this debate. Every one of them deserves that today.

Photo of James Kelly James Kelly Labour

I start by congratulating my colleague Richard Leonard on securing this very important debate commemorating the 30-year anniversary of the lock-in at Caterpillar. I also congratulate Mr Leonard on a very strong and passionate speech, which I am sure will have been welcomed by the representatives of that lock-in who are in the gallery.

I remember the event well, having grown up in Halfway, just a couple of miles from Tannochside. It is true that it resonated throughout not only Lanarkshire—the workers took their case throughout Scotland. In fact, I remember, as a young Labour Party activist, attending a fringe meeting that the Caterpillar workers had organised at the Scottish Labour Party conference in Perth. I was very impressed by the commitment and the passion that were shown by the speakers from that workforce.

It is worth recognising what a remarkable story it is. When we think back, it was a real kick in the teeth for the workforce. Initially they had been told that there was going to be a £62.5 million investment in the plant. That had given the community great hope. For the company to change its mind, commit such a U-turn and close the plant was a real hammer blow. As Richard Leonard pointed out, that came at a time when retrograde actions were being taken against trade unions on the back of legislation that was introduced by the Thatcher Government. That made it more difficult for trade unions to stand up and take action. Bear it in mind that, despite all those circumstances, they embarked on that 103-day lock-in with great dedication, commitment and dignity.

We would all do well to recognise and celebrate the solidarity that they showed. On a day that unemployment has risen in Scotland, what it also shows is the importance of work. A lot of those 1,200 men and women had been used to the dignity of work—how important it was to their lives and in their community. They were taking a stand, not only to save the plant, but to say that they recognised the importance of that employment.

It is important to celebrate the history of the event but also, as Richard Leonard says, to look at its lessons for today. One of the key points is that trade unions matter. We need that collective organisation that brings workers together, because if we stand together as one force, we are stronger. As was shown back in 1987, that strong, united, committed voice made such a case that it reverberated throughout Scotland and beyond.

It also shows the importance of having an industrial strategy. When I reflect on Lanarkshire in the 1980s, one of the sad things was the closures, not only in Tannochside but in places such as Cambuslang, where the Hoover plant was. There was also a reduction in the number of people working in the steelworks.

In Scotland, we still have a proud industrial heritage. We have many graduates leaving universities who are skilled in engineering. We need to reconnect to that industrial strategy, not only to show that we can have the cutting edge to produce an economy that is fit for the 21st century, but to give meaningful work to the men and women of this country and to ensure that the dignity that was exemplified in the Caterpillar workforce can be brought forward in Scotland in 2017.

Photo of Margaret Mitchell Margaret Mitchell Conservative

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the 30th anniversary of the Caterpillar occupation. I thank Richard Leonard for lodging the motion and congratulate him on securing his first members’ business debate.

The then Conservative MP for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, Michael Hirst, when he spoke in the House of Commons debate on 28 January 1987 on the Caterpillar tractor factory closure, said:

“Any factory closure is usually a matter of great sadness, for the management, the work force, suppliers and the local community. When news of a closure is preceded by an announcement of a substantial new investment programme, which is started and then abruptly cancelled, that must surely be a matter of more than sadness. It is a matter of outrage involving justifiable accusations of rank bad faith. That is, in essence, the experience of the Caterpillar factory at Tannochside, Uddingston.”—[

Official Report

,

House of Commons

, 28 January 1987; Vol 109, c 461.]

The House of Commons debate was held in response to the following developments. In January 1987, the workforce of 1,200 at the Caterpillar plant in Tannochside came back from the Christmas break to discover that not only was the £62.5 million proposed investment and expansion, which had been announced only months earlier, being abandoned, but the plant was to close. That was despite the management and workforce having co-operated and responded positively to the many challenges that the automotive industry had faced, including competition from the Japanese, technological advances and world economic and market conditions.

The US company’s explanation for the decision was that the losses that it was experiencing worldwide due to Japanese competition and a contracting market meant that the plant at Tannochside was no longer sustainable. The explanation of the closure was, with justification, questioned, as it came so soon after the planned major investment programme for the factory. The closure was a huge blow to the loyal and co-operative workforce, the company’s suppliers and subcontractors, the local community and the UK Government, which had pledged substantial assistance.

The response from the workers was to stage a sit-in. Although legally they were prevented from continuing to make tractors and bulldozers, the workers kept the plant open by occupying it for 103 days. During that time, they succeeded in raising awareness of their plight around the world. As a consequence, a deal was secured that ensured that no compulsory redundancies would be made and that enhanced severance packages would be awarded.

Today, the site of the former Caterpillar factory is occupied by housing and Tannochside business park. Sadly, closures of businesses that are located there still happen, the latest being the closure of the branch of Kwik-Fit Insurance Services, which has 521 employees. However, the difference is that, when that closure was first announced, a huge effort was made to try to secure a takeover of the Kwik-Fit call centre by another company as a going concern. Now that that has proved not possible, Ageas, the parent company, has had to take the difficult decision to close the site and is now concentrating on doing everything in its power to help the workforce find new employment and/or to reskill. It is encouraging that more than 1,800 job vacancies with local and national companies have been identified.

The debate is testament to the fact that lessons can be learned from the past, including on the value of open lines of communication between workers and management and on the need for maximum support for the affected workforce when closures are announced, as will inevitably continue to happen.

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

I, too, thank Richard Leonard for bringing this important anniversary to our attention with an excellent speech. I add my welcome to the veterans of the industrial action who are here with us today, and I remember those who are no longer with us.

As we have heard, Caterpillar came to Tannochside in 1956, and the jobs that it brought were vitally important to local people. I am sure that those of us who live in Lanarkshire will all have friends, family or neighbours who worked at Caterpillar.

North Lanarkshire Labour councillor Bob Burrows is one such worker. Bob was a shop steward, and he is one of the former workers who also organised a memorial at the site, as was mentioned by my colleague Richard Leonard. It is awful that that memorial was vandalised. Perhaps that is testament to the fact that there are people in our community who no longer remember or have not been told this story of local solidarity.

Bob Burrows retrained as a debt counsellor, and he went on to become an elected member. He said:

The Caterpillar occupation changed everyone’s life”.

All the men and women who took part in that 103-day occupation to save jobs 30 years ago are examples of the power of workers’ struggle, the importance of solidarity and the need for a labour and trade union movement. They did not keep the plant open but, as we have heard, they did win a better settlement.

It is vital to remember their struggle and that of all workers who withdraw their labour or take action in other sometimes innovative ways for a greater cause. Workers’ ultimate bargaining power is their ability to withdraw their labour and stop production. To do that, workers must fight as a class. Other historic examples of class solidarity like the Caterpillar occupation are the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders work-in and the Lee jeans occupation.

The women of Lee jeans won their fight, and Helen Monaghan, who was at the forefront, said about the start:

“We didn’t know when we occupied the factory where the help would come from, but we hadn’t long to find out. Without the support of trade unionists we wouldn’t have lasted this long and with your continued support we’ll keep fighting.”

My old friend and comrade Jimmy Reid, former shop steward at UCS, in his most famous address, said:

“Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement. This is how it starts and before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat-pack. The price is too high. It entails the loss of your dignity and human spirit. Or as Christ put it, ‘What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?’”

The Caterpillar workers might not have won, but they are an inspiration in the way that they fought for their jobs, their community and their very dignity. That spirit of resistance, solidarity and community is the spirit that helped to create democracy itself in this country, to advance workers’ rights and to build the very party that I am a member of.

Many councillors, MSPs and MPs owe their opportunity to be heard over the years to the efforts of those who campaigned and battled against unfair practices and an unequal society. We stand on the shoulders of men and women such as those in the public gallery today, and we must never forget that.

Unfortunately, however, many people in Lanarkshire are still fighting for their very existence, facing unemployment, working on zero-hours contracts with inadequate benefits and no secure home and depending on food banks. That is not the legacy that our working-class trade union ancestors wanted for our area.

We must look to examples such as the Caterpillar struggle to push us on for a new struggle, although it is much same as the one that we have always fought: standing up to the injustice and greed of those at the top and demanding equality and fairness for ordinary working people. That is the cause of Labour.

Once again, I applaud Richard Leonard for bringing this issue to the Scottish Parliament’s attention.

Photo of Ross Greer Ross Greer Green

I thank

Richard Leonard for giving us the opportunity this evening to remember the Caterpillar plant occupation of 30 years ago, and to celebrate the history of workers in Scotland and around the world who organise and fight together as a movement. It is fantastic that we have veterans of the occupation here with us in Parliament today.

Preserving and promoting the history of the labour movement is essential if we are to be capable of winning the fights that are yet to come. The 103-day occupation at the Tannochside plant symbolises a generation of workers who were unwilling to stand aside as their jobs and their communities were destroyed by deindustrialisation—in Scotland and across these islands.

The stories of what Caterpillar management said to the shop stewards when they announced the closure show starkly what a cruel and dysfunctional capitalist system we were subject to then, as we are now. The plant manager said to the union committee:

“The company has a problem ... and you are a victim of the remedy.”

I only know about that, though, because I read it in the

Daily Record

, and I only know about the occupation because I am a trade unionist and active in left-wing politics. The story is not the history that I was taught at school—but why not? If we expect our young people to grow up with an understanding of the society that they live in—of its history and its defining moments—then why do young people in Scotland, and in west and central Scotland, in particular, not learn about the radical history of the labour movement in our communities?

I do not object to having learned about the wars of independence, the second world war or the Jacobite rebellion. However, surely I, and other young people, would have understood just as much, if not more, of the Scotland that we live in today if we had been told about red Clydeside; about Maxton, Maclean and Gallacher; about the battle of George Square, the centenary of which we will soon celebrate; or about the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders workers’ work-in. It has taken Herculean effort just to have erected a statue for Mary Barbour and her rent strikers. Those things are the history of a nation and a class, and are things that all our young people should know.

I have been inspired by the work of the Caterpillar workers legacy project, and I hope that its exhibition will make it to communities in my region, West Scotland. We must get the message across to new generations of workers that fighting together is far better than being exploited alone. The trade union movement in Scotland has a proud history, but we must be determined to build a winning future. As the nature of work changes, so must the tactics of the trade union movement.

With more people than ever, in particular young people, being exploited by zero-hours contracts and shocking conditions—most notably in the hospitality sector and by large employers such as Amazon, JJB Sports and Sports Direct—the better than zero campaign, which was launched by the Scottish Trades Union Congress youth committee, has shown that union campaigning can not only be fun but gets results. After a series of direct actions and consistent pressure on the G1 Group, followed by negotiations with campaigners, the better than zero campaign has won an end to zero-hours contracts, an end to charging for uniforms and training, a new and fairer tips policy, and a number of other improvements. It is now G1’s management’s responsibility to live up to their promises. They know that if they do not, their venues will once again be shut down by workers demanding respect.

There is a new generation of activism within the trade union movement—young workers fighting for their rights because the generations who came before, including the Caterpillar workers, showed them, and showed us, that it is a fight that is worth having. I thank them for that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Just before I call Liam Kerr, I say that due to the number of members still wishing to speak in the debate, I am happy to accept, under rule 8.14.3, a motion without notice that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. I invite Richard Leonard to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[

Richard Leonard

]

Motion agreed to.

Photo of Liam Kerr Liam Kerr Conservative

First, I would like to congratulate Richard Leonard on securing this members’ business debate today. I, too, welcome the many Caterpillar workers to the chamber.

There are periods and events in history that are indelibly seared in our collective subconscious: famous battles, dates, places and events that make us the nation that we are. However, it is right that we remind ourselves of perhaps less widely recalled events that are of equal importance in our nation’s story. I echo Richard Leonard’s comments from the outset of this debate in that regard. Dare I say that Ross Greer made a very important and valid point about history? That will not happen too often, will it?

We remind ourselves today as we look back 30 years and recall the workers’ occupation at the Caterpillar plant in Tannochside. The workers’ sit-in there represented a seminal moment for those involved, their families and the community in which they lived. It is right to pay tribute to the courageous stance of the workers, but also to recognise the support of the union movement at the time and the people who supported the workers including—famously—the schoolchildren who donated their pocket money to pay for bus fares.

The decision of Caterpillar to announce the closure of the plant, just months after announcing a £62.5 million investment in new equipment, does seem to show, in the words of the then Conservative MP for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, Michael Hirst:

“gross incompetence in the planning of their corporate strategic objectives”.—[

Official Report

,

House of Commons

, 28 January 1987; Vol 109, c 462.]

James, or—as Richard Lyle will perhaps tell me—Jimmy Hamilton, the then Labour MP for Motherwell North, was so disbelieving that he said of the shop steward who had told him the news that he must have been “going stark raving bonkers”. Unfortunately—incompetent or not, bonkers or not—the plant at Tannochside eventually closed some 103 days after being occupied by the workers.

As the motion says, the anniversary also

“serves as a reminder of the value of workers standing together in the common interest”.

When there are genuine concerns about jobs, health and safety and the general public, it is right that the Government listens to the trade unions when they raise those issues.

Richard Leonard asked what we have learned. I hope that the Scottish Government learns to listen—and to listen hard—to the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, which warned just last week that merging the British Transport Police and Police Scotland would be a folly that would potentially cause big delays for travellers, lasting damage—

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Given that Mr Kerr is expressing such care for working people, will he now put on the record an apology for his Government at Westminster bringing in the pernicious Trade Union Act 2016?

Photo of Liam Kerr Liam Kerr Conservative

I think that, in the spirit of what I am trying to put forward here, that intervention is a little bit “pernicious”. The Trade Union Act 2016 is not really relevant to what we are trying to do today. Richard Leonard’s motion is very important and I wanted to speak on it. However, the 2016 act aims to rebalance the interests of all with freedom to strike. It is a sensible move and it is reasonable. That is what that democratically elected Government has put forward.

I want the Scottish Government to listen to the TSSA, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives and not to go ahead with merging the British Transport Police in Scotland with Police Scotland. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the TSSA and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen publicly opposed the merger when it was first mooted. The TSSA’s general secretary, Manuel Cortes, said:

The SNP leadership know nothing about the practicalities”—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Will you come to a close, please, Mr Kerr?

Photo of Liam Kerr Liam Kerr Conservative

Yes, Presiding Officer.

As we remember the actions of the past, let us not be blind to the present. The SNP should listen to the unions, the Scottish Conservatives, the BTP, Scottish Labour and—above all—the public, and stop meddling with the British Transport Police.

May I continue for 30 seconds, please, Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

No. I am sorry, Mr Kerr. I remind members that the spirit of members’ business debates is that members stick to the terms of the motion.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

I begin by congratulating Richard Leonard on his first members’ business debate, but also by thanking him, because this is an important point in history at which to congratulate the Caterpillar workers and their community on their achievements, which are relevant to the current day. They did not fight only for their jobs; they fought for their community and, as other members have said, they did so passionately.

The action mobilised the community—probably in a way that none of us had ever seen before. My father-in-law, Patrick Cahill, was a worker at the Caterpillar plant, and it always amused me that he thought that it was unbelievable that, post the occupation, people were wearing Caterpillar fashion. He said, “I used to wear those boots to my work. I don’t know why it’s a fashion.”

It was the ingenuity of the campaign that struck me. I remember that, at a Labour Party conference when I was a student, a friend of mine came dressed as the Pink Panther. That is my first recollection of the dispute. When I asked him why he was dressed like that, he said that he was drawing attention to the pink tractor. I do not underestimate the significance at the time of a mainly male workforce painting a tractor pink. It was really quite ingenious.

I am proud to say that there was an important connection to Glasgow, as there was to other cities—and not just in Scotland; the occupation was recognised internationally. People raised funds to support the workers who were in occupation.

Margaret Mitchell and many others quoted Michael Hirst, who said at the time not only that there had been

“gross incompetence” but that it was

“At worst ... corporate treachery.”—[

Official Report

,

House of Commons

, 28 January 1987; Vol 109, c 462.]

I never thought that I would hear that from a Tory. What that shows is that, at the time, the whole country felt the devastation of a corporate power reneging on its promise of investment.

This members’ business debate is also an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of workers, organised labour and trade unions, and their right to resist. There is relevance to the current day. As Elaine Smith said, the occupation campaign achieved many things, including enhanced redundancy packages. In employment law now, many workers do not have basic employment rights when they are made redundant—and that is not to mention poor redundancy packages. The living wage, the minimum wage, the right to be in a union and the right to be represented are things that we benefit from as a result of the trade union movement’s achievements.

The voice of an organised workforce is absolutely legitimate not just in an industrial setting but in influencing decisions on public service. I make this point to Liam Kerr: if he believes in challenging power wherever it comes from, he must believe in the legitimacy of a trade union’s voice to do that.

The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has a difficult fight on its hands now, and there are 49 Tory MPs who want to restrict the right of people who work in public services to strike. That is a dangerous route to go down. There should be conditions that trade unions must meet in order to go on strike—although they do not do it lightly—but I would ask those MPs whether they trust only the executive powers to decide whether our railways are safe or our public services are good. People who believe in democracy know that the voices of everyone are important.

We have a lot to thank the community around the Caterpillar occupation for: what they achieved then and what we have now. I am pleased to support Richard Leonard’s motion. I know that there will be some celebration after the debate, at which I will perhaps have the chance to talk to John Brannan and others about their achievements.

Photo of Clare Haughey Clare Haughey Scottish National Party

I thank Richard Leonard for lodging his motion and giving us the opportunity to mark the 30th anniversary of what is a notable event in recent Scottish trade union history, which is a history that, as Richard Leonard noted in his speech, we do not celebrate enough.

The Caterpillar plant in Uddingston drew its workforce from across Glasgow, Lanarkshire and beyond, and its closure would have had a significant effect on workers from my constituency. Although the aim of the Caterpillar workers to save their plant and jobs was ultimately not realised, their action in occupying their place of work, in the face of global corporate disdain for them, was a lesson in solidarity and determination. Like the workers at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders 15 years earlier, they were determined that their right to work would not be prised from them easily or without a fight. Although they were ultimately unsuccessful, there is much to admire in the spirit that was shown by the Caterpillar workers in refusing to be ignored and disrespected. I welcome them to the public gallery today.

By 1987, the industrial and manufacturing base of Scotland and the UK, including my community, was being systematically eroded under the supervision of a Tory Government that was dismissive of the concerns of the communities involved. As with the miners’ strike earlier in the decade, which members have referenced, little or no consideration was given to what would replace long-standing industries that faced forced reorganisation or technical restructuring, which took food out of the mouths of children I went to school with.

The aim of the Thatcher Government and its global corporate friends was to erode the influence of trade unions and their ability to organise. By the time of the Caterpillar occupation, mainly as a result of the Tories’ policies, trade union membership had fallen by 28 per cent from its postwar peak of 12.2 million to 8.8 million, and it was to decline further.

Despite the onslaught on workers’ rights, the actions of the Caterpillar workers and other groups of workers who fought for their jobs throughout the period were certainly an inspiration to young socially aware teenagers, such as me, who were entering the world of work at a time of great change. Unfortunately, the Caterpillar workers did not change the company’s decision to pull out, but they achieved a redundancy package that was well above what was being proposed.

A lot has changed in the 30 years since then, but it is right that we should never give up on the concepts of fair work and workers’ rights that were at the core of the Caterpillar action.

Since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, we have had an opportunity to progress a fair work agenda. The Scottish Government considers trade unions to be partners, and my own experience as a divisional convener for Unison in the national health service was of working in partnership, not as opponents. That is a much more productive relationship for all those involved. The Scottish Government also opposed the Trade Union Bill, which threatens the fundamental rights of workers to organise and bargain collectively and, if necessary, withdraw their labour.

We should work to deliver responsible foreign investment to bring employers to the country and to further develop employee rights, which devolution of employment law would allow us to do. We have repeatedly called for the devolution of employment law in order to ensure that workers’ rights are protected. However, that is something that Labour has, until now, refused to support. In the light of the current threat to those rights from an ultra-right-wing Tory Brexiteer Government, I hope that Labour can alter its stance and support our call for those powers. That would be a fitting tribute to those who have stood up for hard-won trade union rights over the years.

I wish the Caterpillar workers legacy project well with its planned exhibition and the other events that are planned this year to coincide with the anniversary of the occupation and commemorate the determination and solidarity of the Caterpillar workers.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

I thank Richard Leonard for lodging the motion and securing this important members’ business debate in Parliament. I also commend him for his speech. The occupation—just like the action at British Leyland, UCS and Timex, and like the miners’ strike—is ingrained in the DNA of the labour and trade union movement. Those actions by workers who struggled not for higher pay but for the right to work, as well as many more industrial struggles, are not just our history and heritage but relevant to the times in which we live, in which corporate power and, all too often, corporate greed have much more clout than the people or their democratically elected representatives.

As the Brexit debate rages, I hear people mouth platitudes about the apparent benefits that we all derive from so-called free trade and the free movement of capital. Well, Caterpillar is but one example of the consequences of such policies. Time and again, we have witnessed multinational companies with production plants in Scotland—and, indeed, across the United Kingdom, the European Union and the globe—taking their production wherever they can maximise profit through low-tax inducements or ever-cheaper labour. The workforce is left behind, discarded like a fitter’s oily rag by corporate power brokers, financiers and demanding shareholders. Only last week, Tesco announced closures and job losses, and what happened? The company’s share price shot up. What a brutal system capitalism is.

In the circumstances in which the Caterpillar workers found themselves, the only tool left in the locker—it is the only tool left in the locker of all working people—was solidarity: unity and organising together with loyalty to one another, to their community and to their class. A lot of us have mentioned people we know. My friend Alex Cunningham, who is sadly no longer with us, was one of the young Caterpillar workers at the time and he spoke with great pride about the occupation, the construction of the Pink Panther and the comradeship and solidarity of the occupation. The debate is a tribute to him and all his fellow workers who are still alive or no longer with us.

Ultimately, the Caterpillar plant closed when the employers resorted to the courts to bring about the end of the occupation, but it was not a failure. As members have mentioned, enhanced packages were secured. Its success was also in the international support—the finance and solidarity—that was received from trade unions and working people around the world coming together in a community that was united in support of those men and women.

A socialist icon once said that it is better to die standing than to live on your knees. The Caterpillar workers refused to live on their knees, and the current generation has much to learn from their action and other such struggles. I pay tribute to, and express my solidarity with, the shop stewards and others who are in the public gallery today. Let the Caterpillar workers’ struggle be our generation’s inspiration. Debates such as this are not some dewy-eyed nostalgia trip; they are about the lessons of yesterday inspiring the actions of today. Ultimately, the aim is to bring about social, political and industrial change—that is the lesson to learn from those events.

Photo of Jamie Hepburn Jamie Hepburn Scottish National Party

I thank Richard Leonard for bringing the debate to the Parliament. I admit that I was a little surprised to learn that it is his first members’ business debate, given the frequency with which he participates in such debates. I think that I regularly come up against him—or rather, debate with him—in members’ business debates. At any rate, this is a worthwhile and fitting subject for his first such debate.

I welcome the people who have come to the Parliament to watch the debate and to attend the reception that Richard Leonard has organised.

It is absolutely right that we recognise the 30th anniversary of the workers’ occupation of the Caterpillar plant, which is an important part of the history of industrial action in Scotland, as many members said. Neil Findlay said that the occupation is woven into the DNA of the labour and trade union movement in Scotland—his phrase was apposite, and I would go further and say that the occupation is woven into the DNA of our country’s history.

Elaine Smith and other members talked about other industrial action that led up to and followed the action at Tannochside, such as the UCS work-in, the miners’ strike—I represent a former mining community, as do other members who are here, so it behoves me to mention that—and the occupation of the Lee jeans factory in Inverclyde. In another example, which had an impact on the wider world, workers in East Kilbride refused to work on engines that were to be sent to Pinochet’s Chile. All those seminal events deserve their places in our country’s history, as Mr Greer said.

Members talked about the devastating impact of the Caterpillar decision. I think that all members can understand and sympathise with the sense of betrayal that prompted the occupation. The actions of Caterpillar in 1987 dramatically changed the lives of not just the people in the workforce in Uddingston, who embarked on a 103-day fight for their jobs, but their families and people in the wider community.

As we heard, there was widespread anger about a decision that displayed scant regard for the impact on individuals. The plant was not failing; it was profitable and it had an exemplary and highly skilled workforce. What happened was not dissimilar to the dismantling of British Steel’s presence in Lanarkshire around the same time. As Richard Leonard said, Caterpillar had not only designated its plant a PWAF—a plant with a future—but backed that up with an announcement of significant investment of some £62.5 million to secure the plant’s future. The company even persuaded the UK Government to line up with it to make the announcement, only for the decision to be quickly swept away.

As we look back 30 years later, the rationale for the decision to close a productive and profitable plant remains unclear. The workers’ hopes had been raised by the company’s positive public announcements but were swept away by the company’s subsequent actions. The hopes of the workers and their families might have been dashed, but those people’s dignity and defiance must always be recognised. We must also recognise the difference that they made. As Neil Findlay and others said, although the occupation’s aim of keeping the plant open was not realised, the action led to enhanced packages for the workforce.

We must learn from the experiences of the workers at Caterpillar and from other industrial disputes down the years, which must inform our thinking today. The Government does not accept that such negative outcomes are inevitable and it will always support and protect workers’ rights. We will seek to intervene where we can if a particular employer is in danger of ceasing operation and causing job losses, as happened at Ferguson’s. We have worked in partnership with trade unions to safeguard jobs at Dalzell and Clydebridge, Rio Tinto and Penman Engineering. Those are positive examples of collaboration between the Government, trade unions and industry to achieve results.

All that indicates the value of trade unions and why James Kelly was correct to say that trade unions matter. The debate is a good opportunity to discuss the Government’s valued relationship with trade unions, which is underlined by our memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Trade union membership of our fair work convention was also crucial to delivering the fair work framework, which was published last year.

The framework defines fair work as offering an effective voice, opportunity, security, fulfilment and respect. Fair work balances the rights and responsibilities of employers and workers and generates benefits for individuals, organisations and our society. The vision not only challenges businesses, employers and the public and third sectors but has clear actions for the unions and the Government. Such partnership working is fundamental, and we have committed £500,000 this year to support the convention’s work.

As an Administration, we repeatedly opposed the draconian measures in the Tories’ Trade Union Bill, which is now the Trade Union Act 2016, unlike Mr Kerr, who made a misjudged contribution. I hate to stray from the usual consensus that we have in members’ business debates, but it is apposite and appropriate for us to mention the act. We will continue to raise our voice against it. We have committed £500,000 of support for the further rolling out of the fair work framework, £2.26 million this year to support Scottish union learning and £100,000 for equality and leadership projects, as well as having created and invested in a trade union modernisation fund to support trade unions to mitigate the effect of and be able to respond better to the impact of the act. I hope that that demonstrates—among other activities that, inevitably, I do not have the time to set out today—the great value that the Scottish Government places on our relationship with trade unions.

I will bring my comments back to the 30th anniversary. The Caterpillar occupation in 1987 is a marker in time. We must continue to seek to learn from that period, when profitable manufacturing in Uddingston was cruelly brought to an abrupt end.

I commend the efforts of those who were involved in the occupation—and I again welcome those who have come to the Scottish Parliament—and reassure the chamber that we, as a Government, will continue to work tirelessly to promote fair work and to secure jobs for workers here in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I close the meeting. Any appreciation can now be shown. [

Applause

.]

Meeting closed at 18:37.