Refugees (Family Reunion) (No.2) Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Jo Stevens

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Absolutely. This is also a loss for the host countries from which these people have had to flee, often in the most desperate of circumstances.

As well as pop stars and celebrities, it is mostly decent members of the public who have been writing to us, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) pointed out. They can conceive of the enormity of what refugees, or people fleeing to safety, have had to go through, and in their droves they have been very supportive.

Often as Members of Parliament, we have to consider issues that require us to put ourselves in the shoes of those whose experiences are dissimilar to our own, which puts our ability to empathise to great test. At first glance, the subject of the Bill may seem as though it is going to ask us to go to similar lengths. How can we, sitting here in this old royal palace in the heart of London, begin to know what it is like to be a refugee who has fled the guns of Assad, crossed dangerous seas with their life in the hands of unscrupulous smugglers and then faced a gruelling, adversarial asylum system? How can we know what it is like to be a 17-year-old from Eritrea who has escaped his homeland because he did not want to end up like his older brother—murdered because he did not want to be forcibly conscripted, indefinitely, into the army? I do not know, but I know that I do not want to know and I certainly do not want many other people to know in future.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I am here to support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill wholeheartedly, on behalf of many of my constituents—of all political persuasions—in Cardiff Central, a city of sanctuary, who have written to me about it. I do not have any concerns about the Bill, but if any Members do, I hope they will leave them until Committee and support the Bill today.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Lady makes a fantastic point. It is to Committee that people should take their concerns, because the concerns will be minor. If concerns are in any way major, they will be able to be addressed properly in Committee.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Jo Stevens

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that I am a member of the GMB and Unison.

This Bill is illegal, illiberal and illiterate: illegal because it contravenes international standards; illiberal because it takes a hatchet to civil liberties; and illiterate because it is badly drafted and will leave the law in a mess, creating uncertainty and cost not only for trade unions, but for employers. The reason it is so badly drafted is that it is a crudely partisan measure that the Conservative party is seeking to rush through for purely political ends.

Why are we debating the Bill today? Is there any urgency for these provisions, or any demand resulting from the parliamentary timetable? No, there is not. We all know why we are here today. We are here today because the Government deliberately timetabled the Bill’s Second Reading to coincide with the first full day of the Trades Union Congress, when those MPs who are proud trade unionists, as I am, would have been in Brighton talking with working people about the issues that really matter, such as low pay, zero-hours contracts, inequality and insecurity at work. Instead, we are here to discuss this shabby, shameful Bill. That shows the Government’s contempt not only for trade unions, but for democracy.

The Bill was published on 16 July. Consultations were scheduled to take place over the summer recess and closed only five days ago. This debate was scheduled for today even though the Bill is incomplete and the Government have accepted that it will require many amendments. The clearest example of that is on the deduction of union subscriptions. On 6 August the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General announced the Government’s intention

“to abolish the practice of checkoff across all public sector organisations”.

He announced that those changes would be in the Bill, so where are they? Where are the proposals and the draft clauses? They are nowhere to be seen. There is neither a timetable for publication of those clauses, nor a commitment to any period of consultation. The Bill is a disgraceful attack on the right of employers and unions to freely negotiate arrangements that best secure constructive industrial relations.

Before being elected to this House, I was a director of a significant private sector employer, responsible for industrial relations with around 1,000 members of staff. We recognised a trade union to represent our staff, to collectively bargain on their behalf, to represent their interests and to ensure that we could discuss with them any changes necessary for the continued success of the business in the best interests of staff. To do that, we had check-off and facility time in place. As we have heard from many Members today, deductions from payroll are a common way for employers to help employees with regular payments. Many Members make payments to charity through our payroll and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It is good enough for them, but it seems that it will not be good enough for trade union members. Check-off arrangements worked for us as an employer and for our staff, and it was freely agreed. Many employers in both the private and public sectors feel the same.

I will finish with a point about devolution and the inadequacies of the Bill. The Bill deals with public services that are devolved to Wales, including the way public sector bodies work with trade unions to ensure effective delivery of services to the public, including my constituents in Cardiff Central. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to heed the warning from my Labour colleague, the First Minister of Wales, that there are necessary and critically important changes that must be made to the Bill. But I would go further. It is an unnecessary, dangerous and flawed Bill.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jo Stevens]

I will not give way.

I urge the Government to listen not only to me and to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but to the business community, civil liberties organisations, respected academics, trade unions and, most importantly, the public—