Scotland Bill
Debate between Ian Murray and Graham Allen(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
New clause 31 allows the Scottish Parliament to top up any reserved benefit in the UK and create any benefit in devolved areas, so there would be an ability to create a system that mitigates the reduction in tax credits. As I understand it, tax credits are not a benefit in terms of the system; they are done through the income tax system, so topping up tax credits would be outwith the scope of this arrangement, but there is no reason why under new clause 31 an additional benefit could not be put in place for people who are in work and have children, for example.
I am very pleased that we have managed to get cross-party support for new clause 31 and if the Government agree it, it would give the Scottish Parliament full autonomy on the welfare state, which I think is what the Scottish people and Scottish Parliament want. If the Government are going to support any amendment, I urge them to make it new clause 31, although I also recommend our other amendments.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
This is an interesting debate and a wide range of points have been made on welfare and benefits in general. I will try to stick to the two detailed amendments I have tabled, but I cannot resist making the general point that I see this as Scotland pioneering many of the things that should be commonplace throughout the Union. I hope that, if we are successful in proposing some of these amendments and progressive ideas, they will be available to everybody else in the Union.
This is the federal Parliament; this is the Parliament of all the four nations. The success of one nation within that Union should lead to the success of all. Those who wish to do this in Wales, Northern Ireland or parts of England should have that opportunity.
I hope we can tie this to the local government and devolution Bill currently in the other place. Its proposals will enable large parts of England—many of the constituent parts are actually larger than Scotland by combined authorities—through effective devolution from the massive, over-centralised state in Whitehall, or through regionally banding together to create their own units, to deploy some of the things that many found commonplace before 2010. I well remember the work programme put forward by my local city council. It was immensely successful but was then abolished by the incoming Government in 2010. I hope very much that places around the Union will be able to use these useful precedents of freedom and liberation at the lowest possible level—in this case at a national or even a sub-national level—to ensure the good welfare of people in their areas.
I have tabled amendments 129 and 132. Exception 6 in clause 22 requires those receiving discretionary housing payments to be also receiving housing benefit at the same time. Amendment 129 removes that prior requirement; it removes that restriction so that those people can receive discretionary housing payments without having first to claim housing benefit. What that does is quite simple: it allows people in the relevant place to make a judgment on this, rather than some “superbrain” in Whitehall. In this case, the Scottish Parliament would have the chance to work out its own manifesto commitments—Labour party manifesto commitments and Scottish National party manifesto commitments to scrap the bedroom tax. [Interruption.] Forgive me, but I think the important part of that sentence was “scrap the bedroom tax”, which we can probably agree on; I hope the SNP will agree with that.
I will not make this consensus fragile by referring to all those SNP Members who voted with the Conservatives last night. That would be to do something that has been pointed in my direction in the past, so I do not want to raise that sensitive issue. We are dealing with an issue—the bedroom tax—where people of good will throughout the Committee can rattle off examples in their own constituencies about how it has been an appalling thing visited on many of our constituents, with most of them being the most vulnerable and least able to look after themselves, and where some with chronic disability have been targeted. The phraseology we always hear—we heard it a little earlier—relates to the idea that people on benefits are scroungers. Never do we hear about the fact that most people on benefits are pensioners who have worked most of their lives to get their pension or are people who have suffered from the chronic nature of their disability and need help—in any civilised society, we would all expect to help each other. Anything, even the limited change I am proposing to mitigate the worst effects of the bedroom tax, will, I hope, be welcomed by all those parties.
Mr Allen
The whole sanction regime needs a proper and thorough review, and it should be based on evidence of the sort the hon. Gentleman brings, as I can, rather than on prejudice and electoral gain. Although it may, sadly, go down well in certain leafy suburbs, those of us who have relatives who are pensioners or people with a disability, and those of us who represent people who are suffering because of the bedroom tax, have a slightly different perspective. I am trying to share it with some Government Members, but, sadly, this is with a mixed degree of success.
On amendment 132, exception 6 uses the example of non-compliance, but if someone’s claim had been wrongly suspended—the point the hon. Gentleman makes and I fully support—they would be put in a worse position as they would also lose discretionary housing payments. If the rhetoric about trying to get people back into work and about making work pay is meant, making people suffer a double disbenefit flies in the face of trying to help individuals back into work. It is a catch-all and a broad brush, and it is insensitive.
One of the best ways to tackle those problems, which we all encounter in government, is to make government as close to people as is humanly possible. My suggestion in this case is that that should be within the province of the Scottish Parliament, but in other cases we may even be talking about a lower tier of government. I wish briefly to deal with the question of double devolution, which was raised from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), but just to finish on amendment 132 let me say that it would remove the provisions and the possibility I have described altogether. In summary, it would give the Scottish Parliament the ability to pay the discretionary benefit when a person cannot be paid a reserved benefit such as housing benefit. That is relatively straightforward and I hope I have put it as succinctly as possible.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important speech, and I just wanted to clarify something for him. The reason we have not signed his amendment is that we had an amendment to devolve the entirety of housing benefit, which would of course take into account all those discretionary housing benefit levels. That is why we have not supported his amendment; it is purely because we have the overarching devolution amendment.
Mr Allen
I totally understood that and I see why my hon. Friend has done what he has done. I hope we will get a broader consensus in the Committee as a result.
I wish to make one final point on this couple of detailed amendments, and it relates to double devolution. Again, I am not trying to tread on any sensitivities. I am an irregular visitor to Scotland, but when I go there, as I did over the weekend, I often hear people talk about local government in Scotland being centralised, not, for once, to Whitehall, but to Holyrood. I hope that my good friends in the Scottish National party will be clear when they speak in this debate that they reject a recentralisation of power from Whitehall to Holyrood. Such a recentralisation would fly in the face of proper devolution.
I know that the SNP’s long-term agenda is not devolution but separation of Scotland from the rest of the Union. Separation is the long-term goal of SNP Members. That time may never come, or it may come in some number of years. I do not know; none of us can predict. In the interim, I ask parties of all descriptions in Scotland to put themselves at the service of the Scottish people so that they can get the fullest possible benefit from the devolution proposals. Devolution should not merely transfer the ability to tell people what to do from Whitehall—which I resent—to a Scottish Parliament that has accumulated power. Once power has been fought for, granted from the centre and taken down to the lowest level possible, all of us who believe in devolution must avoid the temptation to look at people on the ground and say, “I wonder what we could have from them? I wonder how we can tell them what to do?”
There are some wonderful precedents in Scotland for the other nations of the Union. I hope that all my friends of different political complexions in Scotland will fight as strongly as they fought for their own Parliament to push as much power down to the local level as is humanly possible. I think that we all agree about the need to be sensitive and help people, but it must be done by people as intimately connected with them as possible. That will be another step of progress.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Ian Murray and Graham Allen(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
Absolutely, which is why we should be addressing those issues in the Beecroft report, because they influence part 3 of the Bill. Perhaps Ministers, rather than chuntering from a sedentary position, might at last answer some of these questions when they come to the Dispatch Box.
I was talking about the lack of suitable consultation. As far as I am aware, the Government have still not published an impact or cost assessment for part 3 —[Interruption.] The Minister says that they have, but it was not there at 10.30 this morning. They did publish assessments for parts 1 and 2 back in July. In fact, the equality assessment states:
“A full impact assessment will be developed after, and informed by, a period of targeted consultation and engagement of a range of experts.”
But the Committee is debating this Bill before any of that work has been either completed or formally published.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
On the question of consultation, my hon. Friend has quoted from the TUC’s evidence, which was given to my Committee in very short order indeed, because the Committee decided that the House should have some evidence. The reality is that this part of the Bill appeared eight working days ago; it appeared just before the end of July, the day before the House rose, and Second Reading was the day after the House returned, so that is three working days, and that was a week ago. If one wanted part of a Bill to not be properly scrutinised, this is precisely how one would do it. Either this House will do the scrutiny properly, or the other place will do it in due course.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, he has done some wonderful work on the Bill, and at very short notice. It is a great credit not only to him and the Committee’s staff, but to the other Members who serve on it. He has demonstrated how the Government operate. If one wanted to put something through that was ideologically driven but did not want it to be scrutinised, one would do as the Government have done with this Bill.
Ian Murray
If the hon. Gentleman wants to bring forward a general review of any legislation, he is more than welcome to do so. Perhaps in my haste I forgot to use the word “consolidated”. I was referring to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, because of course it consolidated lots of legislation from the mid-1980s.
It is self-evident that trade unions want to have good membership records; I cannot see why anyone would argue that they do not. It is in trade unions’ own interests to engage with members just as any voluntary organisation wishes to maximise membership fees and ensure that people want to remain as members. Unions are nothing without their members; they exist to represent their members. They invest in a wide array of ways of communicating with them—from printed magazines, leaflets and posters, to websites, social media and e-newsletters.
Let us look at what clause 36 proposes for unions with more than 10,000 members. Should political parties have to account for their members? On Second Reading, the Leader of the House said:
“Trade unions are influential participants in public life. They have an important role representing members’ interests both with specific employers and in wider public debate.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 184.]
Who would argue with that? On the certification of trade union membership details, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills discussion paper says on page 4:
“Trade union activity has the potential to affect the daily lives of members and non- members.”
Surely those definitions apply as much to political parties as to trade unions. Political parties represent their members’ interests, influence wider public debate and can affect the lives of members and non-members. Trade union members represent a very wide and varied section of the general public.
The House of Commons Library brief shows that there are 7.2 million trade unionists. They represent a cross-section of ages, are split evenly in terms of gender and are well represented in terms of race, disability and types of work. Surely trade unions are in a good position to influence and share public opinion. In sharp contrast, there is an organisation that is the complete opposite and totally unrepresentative—the aforementioned Conservative party, which refuses to say how many members it has.
Mr Allen
On a point of order, Ms Primarolo. My Committee looked at the White Paper on the lobbying Bill about 18 months ago. It made no mention of anything to do with the trade unions. The trade union provisions appeared in July, one day before the House rose—a bit about trade unions was bolted on to a Bill that all of us in the House had already dealt with as a lobbying Bill. Is it in order for those provisions to have been added when the House has been under the misapprehension that the Bill is about lobbying? Is this not a hybrid Bill and therefore disqualified from discussion in the House?
The Second Deputy Chairman
The hon. Gentleman is very experienced and has been a Member for a long time. As he knows, what he has asked is not a point of order. The House has given the Bill a Second Reading, and his points are for debate, if necessary, on the Floor of the House. They are certainly not a matter of order for the consideration of the Chair today.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I am so concerned that clause 36 has been added to this part of the Bill without discussion or proper consultation. There are already strict legislative mechanisms to look after trade union membership, but none at all to regulate shareholders or indeed members of the Conservative party. The fact that that party will not say how many members it has shows that we need regulation for that issue as well.
Mr Allen
Could not the shadow Minister answer our hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) in this way? If on a lobbying Bill we are allowed to add in stuff about charities and trade unions, could not our hon. Friend produce another part to the Bill that addressed the issue he raises about shareholders? Obviously, that would be in order—anything can be added. Hon. Members from across the House could add stuff on child care, foreign policy or the Government’s war-making powers. Bringing forward a Bill and bolting on a part such as this at a very late stage is an abuse. It is surely not in order.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I will decide what is in order. If a Bill has unrelated purposes in it, that does not necessarily make it a hybrid Bill in procedural terms. It would be as well for us to concentrate on the points before us now.
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and compelling speech. I am tempted, as the organiser of the highly successful 1985 political fund ballots, to venture into all our yesterdays, but I will limit myself to one question. He is telling us that there have been no complaints whatsoever, yet the lobbying Bill has a big part on trade unions. Has he noticed that, although complaints have been made over and over again about lobbying, big business, money and sleaze, they do not appear in a Bill that is called the lobbying Bill, and that something about which there have been no complaints has a big section in it? Is he able to explain that to me?
Ian Murray
I am delighted that this Committee sitting has allowed the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee a little walk down memory lane with regard to his organisation of ballots in the mid-’80s. He is right that there is no compelling evidence. Of the hundreds and hundreds of e-mails I have received from constituents about the Bill, not one has mentioned part 3, because the public are concerned with lobbying, which is what this Bill was supposed to address.
As I was saying, only 10 complaints had gone to a decision since 1987. As my hon. Friends have suggested in their interventions, we must wonder whether the certification officer needs any of these powers, given the level of activity there is on membership lists. Indeed, the certification officer has less work to do in this particular area than the Leader of the House has in counting support for the Bill. People will be asking themselves whether the powers are unnecessary and disproportionate, and the answer is clearly yes.
Let us reflect again on what the Leader of the House said on Second Reading:
“All we are doing is asking unions to provide an annual assurance that they are doing everything that they can to ensure that they know who their members are and how to contact them.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 185.]
That is almost a one-paragraph description of the current legislation that trade unions abide by, including the Data Protection Act and their responsibilities to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The current law prescribes exactly that. It says that trade unions should ensure that they do all that is—we will come back to this terminology again—“reasonably practicable” to maintain their membership lists.
While the Government trumpet the slashing of red tape for business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said—and for “slashing red tape” read “demolishing workers’ rights back to what they were in Victorian times”—they are imposing a completely unnecessary burden on trade unions to resolve a problem that does not exist. Indeed, officials at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills cannot tell us what the problem is.
Amendment 103, with consequential amendment 121, would result in part 3 of the Bill coming into force only if a complaint was received and verified by the certification officer as a valid compliant, and if the certification officer felt that a membership certificate process was required. That goes back to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). The trade unions have absolutely nothing to hide. The amendment would mean that part 3 would come into force only if a verifiable and non-vexatious claim came forward.
Ian Murray
Problems of communication are not the responsibility of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, the staff in my office in Edinburgh and the office of the shadow Business Secretary have been searching for the impact assessment. I think that the Minister might be referring to the equality assessment, not the impact assessment. We will wait for it to be photocopied and handed round.
Mr Allen
Given that my hon. Friend has been so busy drafting his amendments, he might not have heard all the proceedings over the past two days. I advise him to be very careful about offering to draft amendments for the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), because he may end up becoming a lobbyist under the definition in the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said the other day, he could end up with the IPSA of lobbying looking at what he is doing. I therefore advise him to tread carefully.
Ian Murray
I am delighted that my hon. Friend intervened, because it allowed me to look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Huntingdon cannot draft his own amendments and would like a crash course from me, given that he received a £21,406 donation from a legal firm only a few years ago. Perhaps it is lobbying him about the Bill. Perhaps he would like to stand up and correct the record.
I forget where we were, but I will go back to discussing amendment 103 and consequential amendment 121. Amendment 103 would prevent vexatious claims. The Lib Dem Minister should think about that carefully. The principle behind introducing the draconian fee of £1,250 for people who want to seek justice through an employment tribunal was that it would prevent vexatious claims. A Bill that deals with trade union membership lists should therefore deal with the fact that vexatious claims might be made to the certification officer. The amendment would resolve that by giving the certification officer the power to consider whether vexatious claims had been made.
Secondly, the amendment would prevent third parties from submitting unwarranted queries. Interestingly, third party submissions are mentioned in the consultation but not in the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister could address that point when she comes to the Dispatch Box. The amendment would reduce unnecessary costs for trade unions. The Government parties tend to forget that any additional costs for trade unions from draconian legislation—there is no evidence for the Bill and it does not resolve any identifiable problem—is merely pushed on to the 7.2 million members, whose membership fees are then increased.. Any additional costs hit ordinary workers who are already engulfed by the Government’s cost-of-living crisis.
The amendment would give the certification officer a mechanism to take complaints—he must ensure that they are verified as competent and of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant the commencement of the complicated process.