Constitutional Law

Debate between Margaret Curran and Fiona O'Donnell

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Curran]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. May I be absolutely crystal clear? The way to stop devolution in Scotland, in its current form and in any further developments, is to vote for separation. That is the way to end devolution. If people want to continue devolution and have a strong element of devolution in the partnership that is the United Kingdom, they should vote against nationalist wishes in the referendum.

The referendum offers us the opportunity to settle the question decisively, once and for all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, this is a fault line in Scottish politics—people either support partnership with the United Kingdom or they support separation. We need to settle this once and for all, and then move away from the issue that keeps Alex Salmond awake at night to the concerns that keep our constituents awake at night.

Let me turn to the order. As the Secretary of State has outlined, article 3 removes the reservation of the power to hold a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the UK, and stipulates conditions relating to the date of the poll and the nature of the question. On this side of the House, we have argued consistently for a poll that would come earlier than 2014, as has been indicated. As business leaders, civil society and others have said, a vote conducted more than 18 months from now while the country continues to face some of the most testing economic circumstances in a generation, adds, at the very minimum, to the uncertainty faced by the Scottish people.

We would have sought an earlier poll. However, we understand the challenges faced by Government, the issues around the legislative timeline and the need to provide a full debate. As such, we hope that the period between now and the referendum itself will be used to full advantage. If I can make reference to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin, I hope that that timeline—the amount of time involved—will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the maximum time to debate and process this issue. It should also be used to ensure that Scots are provided with a robust and informed debate. So far, Scots are not getting the information to which they are reasonably entitled, even at this stage, by the party proposing separation. There is still much more information to be given by those who are proposing separation. As the protagonists, it is reasonable to expect them to do that.

Article 3 provides the clarity that the referendum will consist of a single question, as I made reference to in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. For a decision of this magnitude, we have always believed that this is the only way to provide absolute clarity for the Scottish people. A multi-question referendum, as some on the nationalist Benches have argued for, would not only have led to confusion but, as the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has previously pointed out, would have been out of step with international precedents. It would also have been detrimental had we included a question for which there was no clear offering, in terms of powers to the Scottish Parliament, and no group able to make the case where there was no distinct proposal and no clarity about the details of what was being proposed.

Although the issue concerning the number of questions has been resolved, the order gives the Scottish Parliament the power to set the wording of the question. In this area, we still have several concerns. First, we are not confident that the question proposed by the Scottish Government provides those voting in the referendum with sufficient clarity. Secondly, in the light of that, we are concerned that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have not committed themselves to following the recommendations of the independent, objective Electoral Commission.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

My hon. Friend is making a reasoned and reasonable contribution. Hansard has sought clarification about whether SNP Members have today been described as “big fearties” or “big fairies”. Would she like to express her opinion?

[Margaret Curran]

Oh dear, dear, dear! Both. Can I say that? Would that be okay? I do understand it, however, and perhaps I can offer clarification for people. On that basis, I would certainly say both.

The agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments sets out:

“Both Governments agree on the importance of the referendum being overseen in an impartial way by bodies that can command the confidence of both sides of the campaign.”

That is an essential element of the agreement. It is not simply the oversight of the campaign, however, but how the recommendations and views of the Electoral Commission are treated by the Scottish Government that will determine whether the process is seen as impartial by the people of Scotland. If the SNP and the Scottish Government wish to reassure all participants in the referendum that they will conduct it properly, fairly and equitably, with respect to all interests, they could easily offer that reassurance by accepting the wording of the Electoral Commission. That would take us further down the road, so I hope that we can get an offer on that today. Ministers in the SNP Government have to set aside partisan advantage and approach the process with Scotland’s best interests, not their party’s, in mind, and it would be reassuring if they could clarify the matter so as not to be open to that charge. They could easily prove that they are not open to it.

The Electoral Commission’s role has to extend beyond the wording, however. We accept that the Electoral Management Board will deal with the practical arrangements for the referendum, but, to ensure the probity of the process, the Scottish Government must accept the rulings of the Electoral Commission, not just on the wording but on the key issue of campaign funding. The commission has made known its views on funding, but the Scottish Government are at odds with it. Clearly, we cannot end up in the ridiculous situation where the future of our country is determined by campaigns that have a sum total of 1p to spend per voter over the entire regulated period. We are also concerned that the Scottish Government’s proposed limits would lead to restrictions on the ability of third-party organisations, such as trade unions and businesses, to participate fully in the campaign. As I have said, the length of the campaign offers the opportunity for a full and robust debate on Scotland’s future, and surely an informed and knowledgeable voter is worth more than a penny.

Although the order will formally pass the relevant powers to the Scottish Parliament, much of the detail about how the referendum will proceed is contained in the memorandum of agreement. The status of this agreement has been the subject of some debate, however, so will the Secretary of State or the Minister confirm the status of the agreement? Does it legally bind the parties concerned? If not, what legal advice have they received regarding its status? We would have preferred the order to contain the level of detail in the memorandum, but we understand the practical considerations involved, and, as I said at the outset, the agreement and order, if taken together and if followed in the spirit and the letter, provide the basis for a fair, legal and decisive referendum. People in Scotland will not look kindly on any attempt to ignore or wilfully reinterpret the agreement or on any party playing party politics with that. Understandably, that would be seen as cynical and disingenuous.

With this order, we come one step closer to the 2014 referendum and an historic decision for the people of Scotland. The tone and tenor of our debate have to match the aspirations we have for it, so we have to move away from the confusion and muddle that have characterised too much of the discussion so far, grasp the nettle and deal with the difficult and challenging issues facing Scotland. That is what the Labour party is doing and will continue to do. The debate cannot simply be an accountancy exercise; it must be a debate where we lay out our alternative visions for the future of Scotland and its people; and a debate that meets the aspirations of generations of Labour advocates of devolution.

If I may make further reference to Donald Dewar, let me say that introspection will not solve our problems, and nor will a preoccupation with constitutional points scoring. Responding to the needs of the Scottish people is what matters. In passing the order, we will pass another milestone towards a referendum in which the Scottish people will have their say on whether to break with a partnership of 300 years or continue in the family of nations that is the United Kingdom. “Section 30” is a technical term and will not grab the imagination of too many Scots, but it will usher in a debate of enormous magnitude in which the future of families, industries, services and much else will be at stake. Today is the clarion call to get on with the substance of the issues and to determine the arguments that look to the future of that great country of Scotland.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Margaret Curran and Fiona O'Donnell

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Curran]

We have reached a vital stage in our consideration of the Bill. Government proposals for the reform of benefits for disabled people have been mired in controversy and bogged down by issues that the Government have failed to address, and they have alienated many organisations of and for disabled people. Sadly, instead of listening to and attempting to understand those concerns, the Government have dismissed them and undermined the traction that they command throughout the country. So much for the new politics! Instead of continuing the previous policy and the new approach of co-production practised with care and consideration by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) when she was the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the Under-Secretary has been steadfast in her refusal to appreciate the issues brought to her, which I will detail. I fear that her approach has alienated the voices for reform in the disability movement and in this House. As a result, we are debating a huge missed opportunity for meaningful reform. However, we are where we are, and we will debate the proposals before us and our amendments to improve them.

Let me say a few words to provide some context. Although disability living allowance is a much respected and much valued benefit, it was designed in a different time, well before measures such as the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2010, which were introduced by the last Labour Government and which have profoundly changed the way in which disabled people participate and are recognised in society today. I acknowledge that the application procedure to make a new DLA claim—the process of self-assessment whereby somebody has to fill out a long, and at times complicated, form—is not one that many people believe to be suitable in a modern welfare state. We therefore believe, and have said consistently throughout our deliberations, that it is right to reform DLA. We welcome the Government’s decision to keep DLA as a non-means-tested, in-work benefit, and we think it is right to introduce a new, objective gateway.

Notwithstanding that, we feel that this Government have made profound mistakes and have missed opportunities in their approach to DLA reform. The whole process was kick-started by a rushed consultation. Apparently, according to the DWP website, it was one of the biggest of its kind, yet despite all those representations it yielded very few changes following the introduction of the Bill. The consultation was carried out over the Christmas and new period and was cut short. Perhaps most disappointingly of all, the Government chose to publish their proposals before it had even closed. No wonder this Minister, in particular, has a reputation for not listening. She will know that charities and the disabled people whom they represent have been highly critical of the process of reform. It did not have to be like that, and it is very disappointing that the Government did not undertake more groundwork to ensure that key stakeholders were a key part of the reform process.

While we take issue with the process of reform, we also have major concerns about its substance, and that will be the focus of my remarks. We now know that universal credit will halve support for disabled children and take away the severe disability premium for disabled people who live alone without a carer, yet put nothing appropriate in its place. Furthermore, part 4 outlines details of the new personal independence payment, with proposals to make disabled people wait half a year before they receive support and to take away the right of automatic entitlement for those with severely disabling conditions. The proposals are plainly chaotic and confused as regards the future of DLA mobility component for those in residential care homes.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has referred to the Government not listening and not understanding. Does she share my utter dismay at what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, when, on at least four occasions, he failed to acknowledge and understand what the Bill means, or even to see the difference between those who are terminally ill and those with cancer?

[Margaret Curran]

I could not agree more. It was staggering how ill-informed the Prime Minister seemed to be about the impact that the Bill will have on cancer patients. I will make reference to further experiences that cancer victims will have as a result of these proposals. There is worse news for them, as we will find out.

Our amendments seek to put right the wrongs in the Bill. They would make the personal independence payment a fairer, more effective and more workable component of welfare reform. That is incredibly important given the scale of the reform, with 1.8 million working-age people being assessed in just three short years. Let me begin with one of the most controversial elements of the Government’s proposals and explain the key arguments behind our amendments to clause 83, which deals with the mobility component for those in residential care homes. That policy has attracted much attention and has been the subject of much debate inside and outside the House, yet the Government’s position remains, I am sorry to say, far from clear.

The blanket cut to those living in residential care was first announced by the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review: it is there on page 12 of the documentation that I have here beside me. For the record, that position has not changed. The cut was in the first Budget document, and it remains in today’s Budget document. Granted, it has been delayed by six months, but it is still there. The proposal was met with an outcry from disabled people, disability organisations and the Opposition. Where was the Government’s much vaunted compassionate welfare reform? Why single out this particular group? Why select perhaps one of the most vulnerable sections of society? We have heard much talk of reviews and overlaps, but let there be no mistake—unless clause 83 is amended, people living in residential care homes can have their DLA mobility taken away from them.

Let me draw to the attention of Members who may be thinking about how they will vote a briefing submitted by several charitable organisations, which says that while the Government are no longer planning to remove DLA mobility from people living in residential care, they are planning to remove PIP mobility. Members should be careful to remember that if the Government say they are not removing DLA mobility, the Bill as it stands will remove PIP mobility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very strong point. The Macmillan cancer charity, which has already had an airing in the Chamber today, makes strong representations about the impact that financial worries can have on health, including leading to a deterioration in health. It is therefore especially pernicious that the Government have come forward with this policy. Cancer and stroke victims will suffer severely from this, because they can have major changes in costs very early in their conditions. Cancer and stroke victims may not be terminal, but they can still have great needs and society needs to support them in working through the terrible and difficult circumstances they are experiencing.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about more than the entitlement to DLA or PIP: it is about all the other benefits that that triggers, including carer’s allowance so that a whole family can be supported through that difficult time?

[Margaret Curran]

Indeed, and for those of us who have experience of how families struggle through family illness on lower incomes, we know how important that is. We do not want to have a society in which people who are struggling with major illnesses have to worry about how they will meet their family bills.

Cancer and stroke victims usually require help early in their conditions. As of August 2010, some 195,000 people were receiving DLA for a malignant disease or a stroke-related condition. Many in this group who are of working age may well be the very individuals who will be affected by clause 79 and the decision to lengthen the qualifying period to six months.

The extra costs will vary from individual to individual, but we can safely assume that they include key criteria such as extra fuel costs, costs associated with aids, adaptations and special diets, and extra costs of washing clothes and such like.

Disability Allowance

Debate between Margaret Curran and Fiona O'Donnell

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Curran]

Thank you. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has said, actually this measure has an impact on thousands of lives and it could radically alter thousands of lives. He put it well. However, although £135 million is a huge amount of money, it none the less represents a small percentage of the cuts being proposed by this Government.

As we have heard, there are concerns about the impact of the cut. We have heard dramatic examples of how real-life circumstances have been altered. I have observed in the past few months that the issue has energised many in the disability, voluntary and charitable sector who are deeply concerned. To quote Mencap:

“Without this vital lifeline, many disabled people in care will lose much of their independence, be unable to take part in many community activities they enjoy and have fewer opportunities to meet with friends and family.”

Fear of the cuts’ implications has become widespread and has now captured a wider audience for this debate.

I should make my party’s position clear, although it has been mentioned. Labour supports welfare reform; I quote the Government as saying that they are continuing our work of welfare reform. However, we cannot support these crude cuts. They are ill thought out and, as has been said, they go against the central principle of personalised support for disabled people by actively undermining their empowerment to choose how they live their lives.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely ridiculous to expect local authorities to fill the gap? Will buses run around care homes? Will people be stuck on buses for hours, waiting to be dropped off? How far in advance will they have to book their transport? The issue is about independence and choice, and the cuts will adversely affect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Margaret Curran]

I will come to that central argument of the Government’s, as we must address it head-on, but I will do so later in my comments if that is okay. I am grateful to have this opportunity to correct on the record the view put forward by the Prime Minister about Labour’s position on the issue, because it is important to clarify it.

I repeat that Labour does not support the cut proposed by this Government; the Prime Minister implied that it did. Perhaps I am not as honourable as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, but I am obliged to say that it is not the first time that the Prime Minister has made a mistake after listening to a whisper from the Chancellor. I think that that explains what happened last week. It is deeply troubling that the Government are about to cut a vital lifeline affecting about 60,000 people living in residential care. They will be £2,500 worse off as a result, and the Prime Minister is not being exactly clear about the details of the proposal, which is of concern.

The issue of double funding lies at the heart of the Government’s case; we have been told that that is their argument. The logic seems to be that transport costs are currently funded by local authorities and therefore should not be funded again by Government. However, as many charities have rightly pointed out, local authorities’ assessments of care needs cover only what they consider core or essential needs. They do not always cover aspects of an individual’s life and social interactions, so social trips such as those to friends and family are unlikely to be included within the current service arrangements.

Furthermore, if that is funded already, why is there so little mention of it in existing community care plans? Surely we should be able to track and identify such funding. If it is funded already, why do so many people use their mobility payments to buy scooters, to take children out of residential homes at weekends and to use adapted taxis to go to the shops? Why do they pool payments to buy or lease an adapted car? Those services are important. The change represents a cut.

We are also told that the £2 billion that the Government are investing in social care could provide the resources to make up that loss. Some hon. Members have argued that the Government should be made to make up the loss. However, the claim of an extra £2 billion for social care has been rejected by the Conservative-led Local Government Association in England, which warns of a 4% increase in the need for social care in coming years and expects that even with the most optimistic efficiency savings, the shortfall will be at least £4 billion by the end of the comprehensive spending review. Even with the so-called extra £2 billion, there will still be a shortfall of £2 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) said, local authorities cannot reasonably be expected to make up that extra gap.

There is no guarantee that the money will be effective in meeting existing demands, let alone in filling future gaps. I know that some people have said that the Minister should direct local authorities to make up the gap, but that runs completely counter to the decision not to ring-fence. If services are not ring-fenced, the Government cannot direct what they should do.

The Government’s approach, I argue with great sincerity, does not address the fundamental issues. How will it address the individual difficulties cited in this debate? It will fall on local authorities to find the resources to replace what the mobility component pays for, but the argument is that local authorities already fund the mobility component. Does the Minister think that it is realistic or likely that local authorities, which are set to lose one third of their funding, will step in to provide those essential services? I repeat the question I asked her last week at the Dispatch Box: do the Government believe, and can they guarantee, that there will be no losers as a result of the policy?

This has been an important and good debate. I call on the Government to listen to the strength of feeling involved and the range of issues selected. I note a degree of sympathy on the coalition Benches with the argument made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. This is an opportunity for the Government to think again.

In my kinder moments, I honestly think the Government have made a mistake and that the plan was dreamt up by some young spark in the Treasury who had a quick look at the tables and thought, “There’s a quick saving. It looks as if it’s already double-funded.” However, they were not in the secret garden and did not think through the consequences. At worst, it is a callous cut for which the Government will be held to account for many years if they proceed without thinking it through. I leave it to the Minister to tell us which is true.

As it stands, it is a crude, cruel cut that undermines moves towards personalisation, the Minister’s own efforts at welfare reform, quality of life and opportunity. For such a small saving, it will have an enormous impact on the quality of life of the people in greatest need. It cannot be accepted. This is the anniversary of the passage of legislation empowering disabled people, and Friday is the international day of disabled people throughout the world. I call on the Government to take this opportunity to show solidarity with disabled people and announce that they will not proceed with the cuts.