Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Government will amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 this afternoon. That 50-year-old piece of legislation controls the shape of Scotland’s criminal justice system to punish drug addiction with the full force of the law rather than treat users, in health settings, as addicts with health conditions. What conversations has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues in the Scottish Government on introducing a safe drug consumption room pilot in Glasgow?
Mike Freer
I am not sure, based on recent reports, that that particular pilot is working well. I will happily ask colleagues to see whether that pilot is working as the hon. Gentleman says it is, but that is not what the newspapers are reporting. The UK Government’s response to it is something for the inter-ministerial group, which is meeting this afternoon.
Chris Stephens
I am a bit confused by the Minister’s response. There currently is no pilot in Glasgow, but perhaps there have been some positive discussions between the Scottish Government and the Government here. Given that there are 100 drug consumption rooms in more than 60 cities across the world, supported by mountains of evidence from NGOs, civil society groups and drug activists, alongside the Lord Advocate’s new policy not to prosecute drug users for possession offences committed within a pilot safer drugs consumption facility, can the Minister give an iron-clad commitment that the Government will not block this life-saving health measure?
Mike Freer
How that legislation is dealt with is a matter for other colleagues, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, if treating drug taking as a health issue is working as he suggests it is, we will learn from that and discuss it with our colleagues in the NHS. The broad principle of it being a health issue is being dealt with by the NHS and the Health Secretary. In terms of legislation, that is a matter for Cabinet colleagues.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
The Illegal Migration Bill will break the business model of ruthless people-smuggling gangs, deter migrants from making dangerous channel crossings, and restore fairness to our asylum system. The Bill provides a robust but fair legal framework to remove illegal migrants swiftly while ensuring the proper opportunity to appeal remains. I am working closely with colleagues on the implementation of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
No, absolutely not. Access to justice is at the heart of the Bill, and indeed we make sure that where it is necessary, people can have the legal advice to make those points. But the hon. Gentleman’s question is a little rich in circumstances where the SNP seems hellbent on getting rid of jury trials in some of the most significant cases. We are absolutely clear that juries are the lamp of our liberty. We will not be getting rid of them—why is the hon. Gentleman so keen to do so?
Chris Stephens
In relation to that answer, as Lord Reed set out clearly in the Supreme Court in 2017, the principle of “unimpeded access” to the courts is a right that can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. How will the courts be able effectively to uphold the rule of law if the UK Government use legislation to shut off legal avenues for judicial review?
Alex Chalk
Respectfully, the hon. Gentleman may not have quite read the entirety of the Bill, which makes it clear that in appropriate cases where there is an imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm, there will be the opportunity to make those points. He mentions Magna Carta; Magna Carta also includes the right to be tried by a jury of one’s peers, which he apparently wants to get rid of. I am interested to note that one of the most effective critics of that proposal was none other than the most eminent Scottish jurist Lord Hope of Craighead.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained earlier, getting offenders and ex-offenders into work has a material impact on the odds against their returning to a life of crime. There is a fantastic opportunity to maximise that because of the tightness of the labour market. My hon. Friend is right about the need to match local skills needs, and the employment advisory boards are there to ensure that that happens.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Alex Chalk
These are sensitive constitutional issues. I should be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Cammell Laird Workers Imprisoned in 1984
Chris Stephens Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. On behalf of my SNP colleagues, and indeed my constituents, I extend solidarity from Clydeside to Merseyside on this issue, because I do support a public inquiry for the Cammell Laird 37.
I will start with some of the historical background and parallels between Clydeside and Merseyside, because they are interesting, and there is a point where they diverge, which I think sums up where we are. Many people in the Glasgow South West constituency worked in the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in the early 1970s. They were proud of their work, and the term, “Clyde-built” defined their international reputation for quality.
In June 1971, Upper Clyde Shipbuilders went into receivership. It was described as being loss making, even though the yards had a full order book with a profit being forecast for 1972. The move to receivership was political, not economic. The Heath Government had announced a policy that refused further state support for what they called lame duck industries. That refusal led to a crisis of confidence among UCS creditors, which resulted in severe cash-flow problems for the company, and it was then forced to enter liquidation.
None of that needed to happen, and the trade unions and shipyard workers knew it. Under the leadership of Jimmy Reid and Jimmy Airlie, they decided to conduct the now-famous UCS work-in to complete the orders already in place. They were joined on marches by 80,000 people, and the world watched on with wonder at the demonstration of popular support for the workers of Scotland. The then-Conservative Government in 1972 had to relent to the demands of the workers, and restructured the yards around two companies.
So, what is the relevance of the UCS experience to today’s debate on Cammell Laird? Well, the first part of each experience is similar: shipyard workers were concerned about the possible closures of their yards and consequent mass unemployment with few alternatives for future livelihoods; politically motivated decisions were made to proceed with closure; and the workforce responded with industrial action, including occupation.
Sadly, that is where the stories of each begin to seriously diverge, because Margaret Thatcher was even more ruthless than Ted Heath. She had few qualms about unleashing the powers of the state, and its appendages, to undermine the human rights of workers. The use of the police to break the miners’ strike the same year as the Cammell Laird action showed a consistency of contempt for ordinary working people—“Throw them on the scrapheap; they are no longer needed by the Government!”
Some would argue—it is unfortunate that we do not have a Conservative Back Bench Member to perhaps articulate this position, but maybe they are on strike; I do not know—that the planned closure of Cammell Laird was legitimate, and that it was a political decision by a democratically elected Government. However, that is why I do not think that we should discuss the decision to close; I think we need to concentrate on the means used to implement Government decisions.
Today’s debate is not simply about political decision making regarding industrial closures; it is about the treatment of workers and the denial of their human rights, and especially about the subsequent cover-ups by those in authority, then and now. It is about the campaign to secure justice for the 37 Cammell Laird workers who were jailed after taking part in an official industrial dispute.
I welcome and endorse the position of the Labour party that, if it was to win the next election, it would
“release documents held by government relating to the Cammell Laird prosecutions and carry out a review into the jailing of striking workers.”
However, the issue is about not just the integrity of political parties and Governments but the credibility of the United Kingdom itself, which has long claimed to be a beacon of human rights. Well, as far as workers’ rights are concerned, that beacon dimmed in 1984, and, in other debates, as I have seen in the past few weeks, we may discuss whether it is dimming even still.
Through the snippets of information currently available to us, we believe that key shop stewards were victimised during the redundancy process. Apparently, Michael Heseltine boasted about that by referring to a
“step change in attitude and motivation arising within the new balance of the workforce following selective compulsory redundancies”.
Having continued their occupation of two new vessels, 37 workers were ordered to abandon that occupation to attend a court hearing and were then threatened with contempt of court. That was a novel form of attempted strike-breaking by the state, escalating into the notorious imprisonment of those 37 men. The climax of it all for the 37 was their subsequent blacklisting and financial hardship. Those are not the hallmarks of some beacon of workers’ rights and industrial harmony. They look much more like what we see in oppressive regimes: the use of false imprisonment of dissenters and other human rights violations, which we would all condemn in other countries as being part of a brutal abuse of power. We have seen the abuse of power closer to home, as in Northern Ireland, and have had the courage to investigate it. We must do that for the Cammell Laird 37.
It was good that in April 2017, the then Justice Minister Phillip Lee agreed to look into the case if re-elected in the forthcoming June election, but we are still waiting. Perhaps the Minister here today can tell us what actions the Government have taken since April 2017 to look into this specific case. Almost no records that relate to the policing of the dispute, British Shipbuilders’ handling of industrial relations or the Government’s response have been published, and it is now time for that to happen.
Following subject access and Freedom of Information Act requests, we have heard claims from numerous Departments that they do not hold unpublished papers. We heard the cop-out in 2010 from the Metropolitan police, who refused a subject access request from one of the striking workers and responded by saying that the Met
“neither confirms nor denies that it holds the information you requested.”
Internationally, we have heard the opinion of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, as other hon. Members have said, and it is worth my quoting, in closing, the statement in the petition to the European Parliament:
“There have been consistent attempts since 1984 to obtain information, answers and justice…regarding the contravention of basic human rights of the people involved under established European and international laws, Treaties and conventions. Yet…their stated rights of respect for the principle of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law under Art. 6 of the Treaty of the European Union…have been denied.”
That beacon of human rights is only barely flickering, and the world sees it. Let us have that justice for the Cammell Laird 37.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
Thank you very much, Sir Christopher—I think you are the only Member of this House in the Chamber today who was also a Member back in 1984.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) on securing this important debate. He and I have exchanged views across the Dispatch Box in this Chamber on a number of issues in the past, when I have been in different roles, and I have always sought to be constructive; I will endeavour to be so again in responding to him and other hon. Members today.
I also recognise, as other hon. Members have done, the campaigning work of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). I know he would have wished to be here, but following his covid test, he is not able to be. I hope he is okay, and if he has any symptoms, I hope he recovers very quickly and is back with us soon—tabling questions to me on this matter, I suspect, or raising the issue in the Chamber. I wish him a speedy recovery.
As we have heard, in 1984 37 workers were involved in an occupation of the Cammell Laird shipyard at Birkenhead in a bid to stop compulsory redundancies. I recognise the huge value of the work undertaken by those working in shipbuilding and the huge pride that was, and continues to be, felt by people in shipbuilding and a whole range of important industrial sectors. A number of hon. Members have highlighted that, and it is important that we put it on the record.
The 37 were sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment for contempt of court after refusing to comply with a judge’s orders to leave the partially built gas rig, as we have also heard. I do not propose to recount all the circumstances—the hon. Member for Harrow West set them out very clearly, as did a number of other Members, particularly the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). He gave a passionate and moving speech, not only showing the depths of his feelings on the issue, but highlighting through individual examples the impact that it has had.
Hon. Members often listen to each other carefully in this place—all the time, I hope—but it is perhaps a little rarer for hon. Members to learn something, or to hear a speech that causes them to reflect further. The speech made by the hon. Member for Harrow West achieved that, and I pay tribute to him for it; it was genuinely interesting and thoughtful. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) is always passionate. I hope not to damage his political career by saying that I have huge respect for him, but he knows of what he speaks, and he speaks with not only knowledge but experience. Again, it may damage his political career if I say that I do not believe I have ever called him a militant—he may wish I had—but none the less, in the spirit of this debate, let me say that he makes his points fairly and passionately.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) had the dubious privilege of being my shadow for almost three years. He and I debated a number of issues in the context of health. He always does his research, and speaks with moderation but also with a clear view of these matters; I pay tribute to him. I was going to say the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) shadowed me in a previous role, but he was actually far more elevated—he was shadowing the Lord Chancellor. While we do not often share the same political perspective, I could never—and I do not think anyone could ever—doubt the sincerity with which he holds and propounds the views and positions he does on behalf of his constituents.
The 37 were imprisoned for 30 days in HMP Walton. It is important to highlight that they were imprisoned for contempt. They were subsequently dismissed from their jobs and lost the right to redundancy and their pensions. As hon. Members will know, sentencing in that case, as in others, is a matter for our judiciary; we cannot comment on the decisions made by the judiciary in that respect.
Before turning to the details, I will say a little about contempt. If a party, when summoned to appear, admits the contempt and complies with the instructions regarding the contempt, often no further action will be taken. But if not, upon proof of the contempt the court has to impose penalties. That is a matter for the independent judge. I understand that in this case the official solicitor put forward various arguments against the duration and nature of the penalty. That independent judge rejected those arguments.
I highlight at the outset that I recognise that this is an incredibly difficult case for all those concerned, and for the local community at the time more broadly, with far-reaching and long-lasting impacts. There are understandably strong feelings about the case. I may not always agree with everything it propounds, but I highlight the work that the GMB—at the time, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union—has done, and the tenacity with which it has pursued the matter. I am not unsympathetic to the case, and in particular to the impact it has had on individuals. I recognise that due to the passage of time a number of those individuals have sadly passed away in the intervening years.
I also take this opportunity to highlight that this Government do recognise the ability to strike as an important part of industrial relations in the UK, rightly protected by law. We understand and recognise that an element of disruption is a key part of that. I do not think that is in anyway incompatible with the necessary legislation currently going through Parliament in respect of minimum service levels.
I should also state that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) sat on a Bill Committee with me looking at some of these issues back in 2015-16, when we were first elected to this place. As I said then, I recognise the important role that trade unions play in our economy and society.
Chris Stephens
The Minister refers to the new Bill. If that Bill had applied to the Cammell Laird 37, they would have been dismissed with no right to a tribunal. Does the Minister seriously think that is fair? That is what the new Bill says.
Edward Argar
The new Bill refers to very specific areas of service in specific sectors, subject to further delegated legislation where such minimum service levels could be required. I do not think the parallel he draws is directly analogous.
It is important to note that the world has changed since the 1980s. Back then, unions tended to protect their members through collective action and did not rely on the courts to the same extent that they do today. Individual employment rights were less common than they are now. Since the 1980s, the industrial relations landscape has significantly changed, with a greater emphasis on individual rights. Nowadays, when they are recruiting, employers cannot discriminate on the grounds of trade union membership or activity. Similarly, an employer cannot dismiss a worker for being a member of, or active in, a trade union. Workers benefit from legal protections when taking lawful industrial action.
Today, blacklisting is, rightly, completely unacceptable and has no place in modern employment relations. Any individual or trade union who believes they have been a victim of this practice can enforce their rights under the regulations, through an employment tribunal or the county court. The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 are further reinforced by powers in the Data Protection Act 2018 protecting the use of personal data, including information on trade union membership and sensitive personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office regulates the use of personal data and investigates breaches of the Data Protection Act. It has the power to take enforcement action, including searching premises, issuing enforcement notices and imposing fines for serious breaches. Anyone with evidence of offences in that area should present it to the Information Commissioner’s office.
The specific question posed by this debate relates to the potential merit of holding a public inquiry into the Cammell Laird workers imprisoned in 1984. As I have alluded to in reference to the hon. Member for Harrow West, I do recognise that this is an issue of abiding parliamentary interest, and the number of hon. Members in the Chamber today reflects that. Although debates in this Chamber are often about important subjects, it is not always as well populated with hon. Members.
Public inquiries are independent investigations into matters of significant public concern. They can be established by the Government and led by an independent chair. They are usually asked to establish the facts surrounding a particular serious issue and consider the lessons to be learned from what has happened, as well as to make recommendations intended to help correct the deficiencies for the future. For example, an inquiry might be established to determine the cause of a major disaster or accident.
When the Government determine that a matter is sufficiently serious to meet the bar to warrant an inquiry, there are number of options for the form that might take, including the establishment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. As the right hon. Member for Knowsley highlighted, that is not the only option in this space. Unfortunately, by the vagaries of how debates are allocated, although the Ministry of Justice owns the Inquiries Act 2005 and Inquiry Rules 2006, Justice Ministers do not have any power to decide whether to set up such an inquiry. That would fall to the Department with the policy or operational responsibility for the issue under consideration. Therefore, as a Justice Minister, I have no power to agree to the request for a public inquiry. However, industrial relations and how they were historically dealt with, although not a matter for the Ministry of Justice, do fall under other Government Departments. Although I cannot comment on the merits of an inquiry in this instance, other Departments would have an interest. I will turn to that in a moment.
Document disclosure is a vital part of an inquiry, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West highlighted. As the Government have previously set out, this Department has conducted extensive searches of its records and those in the court and prison systems. I understand that nothing has been found in relation to the Cammell Laird strike action or the strikers themselves. Other Departments—the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as it was until a few hours ago today—have likewise confirmed that they do not believe they hold potentially relevant material.
This is an area of legal complexity. In the spirit of constructiveness, I want to try to address some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Harrow West and the shadow Minister about previous answers on this and explore other routes that might be available—notwithstanding that I cannot opine on the merits of a public inquiry.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Naturally, I do not disclose the details of my private conversations with Cabinet colleagues, but they and everybody else should be in no doubt that I am, and will continue to be, a very active Lord Chancellor in supporting the rule of law. I use the authority of my office to advise, to warn and to encourage. I am absolutely committed, under the oath I took, to my constitutional duty to respect the rule of law.
Draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2019
Chris Stephens Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. The Minister will appreciate that our exchanges today will be less adversarial than those on the Trade Union Bill Committee, on which he served. I will support the statutory instrument today. I understand that, as the Minister says, there have been quite intense discussions with Humza Yousaf MSP, the Justice Secretary of the Scottish Government, with whom I share a parliamentary office.
As has been outlined, the order makes provision in connection with the proposed victim surcharge fund. It is important in this debate to recognise that it is about supporting the victims of crime. The order will provide for sums to be deducted direct from offenders’ benefits, as takes place in England and Wales. It is estimated that the measure will add £1 million to the fund available to victims. It will make offenders accountable for any harm or damage caused by their actions and will support the needs of victims.
Examples of what that might mean include financial assistance for funeral costs, increasing the security of a victim’s home and the replacement of essential furnishings that have been damaged during an offence. I will support the statutory instrument today. I do not think it is very controversial and there have been discussions in the Scottish Parliament about it. I am sure that any debates about implementation or concerns about the funds can take place at that level. I thank you, Mr Hanson, for allowing me to make some remarks.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords]
Chris Stephens ExcerptsTuesday 23rd October 2018
(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Civil Liability Act 2018 View all Civil Liability Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 October 2018 - (23 Oct 2018)
Chris Philp
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has tried several times to intervene, so I must give him an opportunity to make his point.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has been generous. May I put a different scenario to him, because this aspect of what he is saying is confusing me? If, in the course of his employment, a resident of Glasgow South West were injured in Croydon South, why would he be treated less favourably because the injury was sustained in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency than he would be in the constituency of Glasgow South West? In Scotland personal injury claims are exempt from the small claims limit, and civil legal aid is available to claimants.
Chris Philp
I infer from the hon. Gentleman’s question that these matters are devolved in Scotland. Is that the case?
Chris Philp
The two cases are treated differently because there is an entirely different legal system in Scotland, and there is a devolved Government there. It is perfectly within the competence of that devolved Government to take a different view. Clearly the Government in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament, have taken a different view, as they are entitled to do so, but I, as an English MP—as a London MP—take my own view, and it is the one that I have been expressing here today.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but does he realise that the Bill affects 407,000 people—Scottish residents who are employed in England and Wales?
Chris Philp
It may well affect residents of Scotland. Of course, it also affects residents of France, Germany, the United States and Kazakhstan who may choose to visit my constituency. I strongly encourage all of them to do that, by the way. If, heaven forbid, they were to suffer an injury in Croydon South, they would be equivalently affected. The mere fact that there are different rules in different jurisdictions is no reason not to change the rules in this one. Which jurisdiction is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we align ourselves with? Scotland? France?
Chris Philp
While I admire the hon. Gentleman’s patriotism in inviting us to follow the Scottish example, I am afraid that this Parliament will form its own view on what is appropriate, and I do not think that he can be in any doubt about what I think the right view is on the question before us today.
Draft Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016
Chris Stephens Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Vara
The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question, but he will be aware that running the courts and tribunals system costs a lot of money. Given the economic difficulties that the country is in, we have found it necessary to impose fees that will contribute towards the cost of keeping Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service operating.
As I was saying, the order will uplift a number of fees charged in the civil and magistrates courts by 10%. That will include all the fees that are currently at full cost recovery levels including, for example, the fees for judicial review proceedings, but the uplift will not apply to fees in civil proceedings that are already set above cost. The uplift will also apply to judicial review proceedings heard in the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal to ensure that the fees in judicial review proceedings are consistent across jurisdictions.
The order also introduces a new, consistent fee-charging approach across the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal. The current structure that operates in the tribunal is complex and inconsistent, with a range of different fees charged for some application types and no fees charged for others. Our changes will simplify and standardise the approach, reducing the burden on the general taxpayer by raising the overall recovery rate in the tribunal from about 4% to about 10% and sharing that burden more equally between all those who use the tribunal.
As we announced in our consultation response last December, the target is to recover about 25% of cost from fees in the property chamber. Achieving that aim will require us to revisit our specific proposals relating to leasehold enfranchisement cases, and we will make an announcement on our plans for fees in those proceedings in due course.
Finally, the order will change the default classification of two new appeal rights that have been created in the employment tribunals from a type B claim, which attracts the higher fee, to a type A claim, for which the fee is lower. The normal rule is that when those who use a public service are charged a fee to access them, the fee should be set at a level designed to cover the full costs of the service. The civil and family courts have operated on that basis for a number of years.
Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides the Lord Chancellor with the power to prescribe fees above cost, but requires that those fees are used to
“finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals”.
That power was used for the first time in March last year to increase the fees for money claims, and again earlier this year to increase the fees for possession claims, general applications in civil proceedings and applications for a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. The power will be exercised again in this order to increase the fees in a range of civil proceedings by 10%, which will take those fees above cost recovery levels.
The fee changes that affect the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal and employment tribunals will be made under section 42 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, given that even after these changes, the fees will remain well below cost recovery levels.
The case for revisiting the fees that we charge in courts and tribunals is based firmly on the need to ensure that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is properly funded to protect the vital principle of access to justice.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Can the Minister confirm that the fees recovered in the last year were about 12.5% of Ministry of Justice income?
Mr Vara
I am not familiar with the precise figure and I am keen to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets it, so I am happy to write to him with the details of whether the figure is 12.5% or more or less than that.
A fully functioning and properly funded justice system is the cornerstone of our democratic society. It should provide everyone with the ability to redress their problems in an efficient and effective forum, and it should also underpin our economy. The Government have committed to an historic, once-in-a-generation investment of more than £700 million to transform our courts and tribunals system. The scale of that investment and the ambition of our reform plan will enable us to build a justice system that is simpler, swifter and more efficient, using modern technology.
In a tough financial climate, there is only so much that can be delivered through spending cuts and efficiencies. That is why we have had to look again at the balance between what users pay towards the overall cost of court and tribunal services and the financial burden that falls on the taxpayer. We estimate that the measures set out in the order will generate about £6 million per annum in additional income, with every pound collected being spent on providing our system of courts and tribunals. I recognise that no one will ever welcome an increase in fees, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that increases are required so that we can ensure that the courts and tribunals are properly funded and access to justice is protected.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East on his appointment as shadow Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice? I look forward to having debates with him on many occasions, and I hope that the debates will be constructive for the benefit of all those who need access to justice.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks, and I look forward to having many a constructive conversation and debate with him and his colleagues.
This is our second opportunity this week to debate court and tribunal fees, following the debate on Monday in the Chamber, during which we had the opportunity to discuss the Select Committee on Justice’s recent report on the issue. Hon. Members will recall that although it was an estimates vote on Monday night, Labour decided to treat it as a vote on tribunal fees in order to make clear our opposition to the Government’s policy on employment tribunal fees, so strong is our belief that they are a barrier to justice. Today we have an opportunity to make another clear statement on barriers to access to justice, as we discuss the proposed increases in court and tribunal fees set out in the order.
On Monday, I made it clear that I see it as my priority in my new role as shadow Justice Secretary to speak up for all those whose access to justice has been deliberately obstructed by this Government and the coalition Government who preceded them. We will assess the order on two grounds: affordability in providing access to justice and the Government’s evidence base for the proposals.
In principle, we can be in no doubt whatever that civil litigation fees discourage claims, particularly from those least well placed to afford them, such as people in receipt of benefits, whether unemployed or on low pay, women, black or minority ethnic individuals, the disabled and those seeking asylum. The introduction of fees in employment tribunals has coincided with an enormous fall of 70% or thereabouts in claims being brought, particularly those relating to sex discrimination, pregnancy or maternity rights, race discrimination and disability discrimination.
Chris Stephens
Is the shadow Secretary of State aware that there has also been a 70% drop in workers pursuing claims for non-payment of the national minimum wage?
Richard Burgon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important and alarming point. The reason for the drop in claims, whether those for enforcement of the national minimum wage or the other claims that I have outlined, is not that bad employment practices have suddenly become much rarer since the introduction of employment tribunal fees; it is that the fees are deterring people from making claims. That is not good for anybody, because employment tribunals deter bad employers from following bad practices and even protect employees who would never dream of making a claim themselves.
Today, the Government are proposing a 10% increase in civil litigation fees across the board. When did anyone who has to pay those fees have a 10% pay rise? I know from my previous brief as shadow City Minister that there are some people who might expect a 10% pay rise, but which council worker, health worker or factory worker—which of our constituents—last received a 10% pay increase? We need to be clear: this inflation-busting increase will lift access to justice further out of the reach of ordinary people on ordinary pay who receive ordinary pay awards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East put that point well in his intervention.
Today’s debate is also about the principle of court fees and how the legal system is increasingly used, in the words of the Law Society, as “a profit centre”. On Monday, I highlighted in the Chamber how concerned I was that litigants are increasingly treated as customers. As I said, I remember the first time, as an employment lawyer, I assisted a claimant to make a claim following the introduction of employment tribunal fees. I was sickened to see the following words on the Employment Tribunals Service website: “Customer, please enter your credit card details”. I was shocked and saddened to see that we are not treating people as citizens trying to assert their statutory rights; we are increasingly seeing them as consumers or customers. That shows the wrong priorities on the Government’s part.
We also need to be clear that the fee remission system in employment tribunals often requires people to provide a humiliating level of detail. I remember receiving remission forms requiring bank statements, and on one claimant’s remission form the Employment Tribunals Service had highlighted the fact that in December they had received a bank transfer of £12 from a relative. They were asked to explain what that £12 was for and why it was sent to them. If I remember correctly, it was money relating to a Christmas present, but that is the kind of intrusion that people are subjected to. It is almost as though the service did not want people to apply for fee remissions. Of those who do apply, only about 3.7% get any joy.
So why are the Government doing this? On Monday we discussed employment tribunal fees, which contribute something like £7 million of the £70 million-plus that it costs to run the Employment Tribunals Service. Today we are discussing a measure that the Government’s impact assessment says will bring in £5.9 million, but which will see fees leap up in a way that will make individuals think twice before applying. Some of those increases are as follows. A request to reconsider at a hearing a decision on permission in the immigration and asylum chamber will increase from £350 to £385; the High Court fee will increase from £480 to £528; and the fee for a contested hearing in the magistrates court will increase from £515 to £567. In the civil court, the fee for permission to proceed with a judicial review will increase from £700 to £770. Those increases are simply unfair and will deny access to justice.
The Government are clearly concerned enough by the fall in applications to employment tribunals that they have agreed, correctly, to initiate a review of the impact of employment tribunal fees. They are yet to produce or publish that report, five months after it was given to the Minister. Now they wish to push ahead with increasing civil litigation fees in a number of areas—including the property chamber, the immigration and asylum chamber and others—without publishing their review of employment tribunal fees or carrying out a further review of the affordability of civil court fees and the fee remission system. Such a review should take place, and it is not just those on the Labour Benches saying that. A number of stakeholders advocated that approach in response to the Government’s consultation. I am sad to say that the Government do not seem to be listening to those stakeholders.
The Government conducted a consultation on the increases in court and tribunal fees, following which they concluded that they still wished to impose a general 10% increase in civil litigation fees. That decision flies in the face of the submitted evidence. I would argue that the key question in that consultation was the one that asked:
“Do you agree with the proposal to uplift all civil fees not affected by one of the other specific proposals by 10%?”
The Government’s response noted that of 82 responses to that question, four agreed and 78 disagreed, and stated:
“Those who disagreed raised a number of opposing arguments,”
including that
“it would deter people from bringing claims”
and
“prevent people from accessing justice”.
There were 46 responses to the question:
“Do you agree with Government’s proposal to increase the fees charged for proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)?”
Some 37 of those responses disagreed with that proposal, saying that
“people seeking asylum in many cases were vulnerable and would be unable to afford the fees”,
and that
“the fees would prevent access to justice”.
The Justice Committee report, the words of which should weigh heavily on Members from all parts of the House, highlighted considerable concern at the Government’s proposals to set immigration fees at a cost recovery level.
I wish to highlight some of the arguments that the Law Society set out in opposition to the increase in fees in its submissions to the Government consultation and the Select Committee inquiry. I will quote the Law Society at some length, because it is worth listening to. It said:
“It is wrong in principle for the court service to be treated as a profit centre—the courts have a vital social function which it is for the State to provide, and should not be treated as a commercial activity to subsidise other work…The Government’s decision will discourage people from bringing legitimate cases, thus reducing access to justice…The proposals are not supported by any evidence or concrete proposals to indicate how the Government will use the money gained to improve the court service ... The research on which the decision was based is inadequate.”
The submission says that there is limited evidence of the impact on the poor in society, particularly in the immigration field.
The submission continues to say that
“fee increases will shift the burden of responsibility and costs onto innocent parties, deterring individuals from seeking redress and creating another barrier to access to justice…The income level at which fee remissions is available is far too low to be of any assistance to the majority of individuals—it is below the threshold for eligibility for civil legal aid…Increased fees could lead to the prospect of clients having to take out loans to fund court fees. This will only serve to create a further barrier to justice as many clients will not want to take out a loan or will not meet banks’ lending criteria. Those who do take out loans will have to pay interest…The process of applying for the remission of court fees is also highly complicated, designed seemingly to deter ordinary people from applying and in urgent need of simplification.”
I apologise for quoting at such length, but it is important that the Law Society’s comments are heard, heeded and put on record. They are damning words from a respected body of professionals who keep our legal system running.
I will also take a moment to highlight the concerns of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. It highlighted the fact that the Immigration Act 2014 dramatically reduced rights of appeal in immigration and asylum cases. It said to me that in many cases, access to judicial review
“will provide the only remedy to challenge the certification of a case as one in which the appeal may be conducted from outside the UK without leading to a breach of human rights including serious and irreversible harm”.
It said that access to judicial review
“will therefore be an essential safeguard against poor quality decision-making in this context and the risk of removal leading to breaches of human rights breaches.”
It concluded that in many cases, applicants
“will be facing imminent removal. Finding the funds to pay court fees or completing complicated applications for remission of the fees”
is complicated by the urgency of their cases. It also blames the Home Office for creating those court costs through
“poor decisions with (high overturn rates on appeal), to create delays in immigration proceedings and to fail consistently and timeously to give effect to the decisions of the courts.”
On the back of those concerns, we also have the latest proposal to increase immigration and asylum chamber fees, but I will leave that point there.
The one positive item in the order is the proposal to reclassify posted workers’ claims against employers in the employment tribunal as type A rather than type B claims, meaning that a lower fee will be payable. But one swallow does not make a summer, and in any event we remain committed to the abolition of employment tribunal fees under a Labour Government.
The Law Society has advised me that
“in light of the damning report from the Justice Select Committee on the impact of fee increases, the Law Society believes that any further increases should not be implemented until at the very least the MoJ has responded to that report, and preferably until a proper review has been carried out of the impact.”
I agree. I therefore ask the Minister the following. Will he listen to stakeholders from across the legal profession and conduct a review of the impact of civil litigation fees? Since it is three days since our last debate, is there any news on when he will publish the review of employment tribunal fees?
Given the evidence that court fees are a barrier to justice and given that the Government have refused to conduct or publish sufficient reviews of the impact of court fees, I confirm that we will divide the Committee to demonstrate the Opposition’s commitment to access to justice and to oppose the across-the-board, inflation-busting increase of 10% that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East so eloquently described.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds East and congratulate him on his new role and responsibilities.
At a time when maternity discrimination and the number of workers being made redundant are on the increase and, according to the National Audit Office, 209,000 workers were not paid the minimum wage last year and a further 56,000 are awaiting payment of national minimum wage arrears, an above-inflation increase will price low-paid workers out of justice. That is exactly what has taken place since employment tribunal fees were introduced.
The Trades Union Congress report “At what price justice?” shows that the introduction of fees in July 2013 has led to a 79% fall in the overall number of claims being taken to employment tribunals. Women are already the biggest losers: there has been an 80% fall in the number of women pursuing sex discrimination cases. Just 1,222 women made such claims between January and March 2014, compared with 6,017 in the same period in 2013. In addition, race discrimination and sexual orientation claims both fell by 60% in that timeframe, and there was a 46% year-on-year reduction in disability claims.
The TUC also argues that workers are being cheated out of wages. There has been a 70% drop in the number of workers pursuing claims for non-payment of the national minimum wage, and in many cases claims for unpaid wages are lower than the fees themselves. That is another barrier to workers pursuing justice. Working time directive claims are down 78%; unfair dismissal claims are down 72%; equal pay claims are down 58%; breach of contract claims are down 75%; and as I said earlier, sex discrimination claims are down 68%.
I think I misspoke slightly when I asked the Minister about the Ministry of Justice accounts. I understand from a Unison report that the introduction of fees has contributed a net 12.5% gain in revenue: income from fees is £9 million, compared with the Employment Tribunals Service’s total budget of £71.4 million.
On tribunal fees, as has been said, the order adds claims under the new Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2016, but there is evidence in the Justice Committee’s recent report on access to employment tribunals that there has been a drop in access to justice in that regard. The Committee agreed with that evidence. The fact that there is sometimes no automatic financial award for successful tribunal claims also does not seem to have been taken into account. Some claims that are lodged—for example, those relating to written pay statements and written statements of reasons for dismissal—do not attract such a monetary award.
Statutory employment rights exist to ensure minimum standards of treatment in the workplace. Rights such as the minimum wage, paid annual leave and paid time off for maternity, paternity or parental reasons, and the rights not to be discriminated against or unfairly dismissed, are important and have social and economic benefits. If observed, they help to ensure decent standards of living, stability of income, job security and equality of opportunity. They can also contribute to the creation of a committed and engaged workforce, help to reduce sickness absence and support the retention of skilled workers—all things that boost productivity.
We are also concerned about the proposed increase in fees for the immigration and asylum chamber. As the hon. Member for Leeds East pointed out, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association has consistently argued that there should be a “polluter pays” approach, and in its view, the Home Office
“continues to make poor decisions (with high overturn rates on appeal), to create delays in immigration proceedings and to fail consistently and timeously to give effect to the decisions of the courts. If the Home Office were to bear the costs of these myriad failings, not only would court costs (and legal aid payments) be reduced but there would be a strong incentive for immigration and asylum decision-making to improve, and thus for savings in all cases.”
The cases that we are talking about are challenges to the lawfulness of detention; challenges to the validity of legislation, including incompatibility with the Human Rights Act; and challenges relating to the inclusion of sponsors on the register of sponsors for the points-based system and to nationality law and citizenship.
The Scottish Government will be removing employment tribunal fees in Scotland. I agree with that, and the trade union movement, the citizens advice service and many other organisations share that view. It is our view that the order will have an impact on the most vulnerable in our society and therefore does not deserve our support.
Mr Vara
I start by thanking the hon. Members for Leeds East, for Glasgow South West and for Bassetlaw for their contributions. Much of what was said is not relevant to the debate, because the order is about the narrow confines of the order, but I will take a moment or two to reply to some points that have been raised, for the sake of balance in Hansard.
On the need for fees, which the shadow Lord Chancellor raised, I reiterate that we live in difficult times and it is necessary to take measures to deal with the economic and financial climate in which we are living. The total cost of the courts and tribunals system in 2014-15 was £1.8 billion and the fee income was £700 million, leaving a net cost to the taxpayer of about £1.1 billion. I hear loud and clear the criticisms that have been made about fees, but there is a deafening silence on Opposition Members’ alternative for getting the money to meet the £1.1 billion shortfall. I suppose that the luxury of opposition is the ability to make grand promises and be critical without having to take the tough decisions that government requires.
Chris Stephens
The Minister would surely concede that the Scottish Government have taken a more enlightened approach, and have indicated that they will abolish employment tribunal fees. At least one part of the United Kingdom is taking a different approach, and the Scottish Government will find that in their budget.
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Scottish Government have taken a different approach. However, there has been a distinct lack of any mention of where they will get the money from. From which other budget will they take it? Until that response is given, the promise of scrapping one set of fees is somewhat hollow, commendable though it is. There is an element of balancing budgets here.
It is not unreasonable to charge people who use the courts and tribunals system so that they make a contribution for that use. The order is not about profit—it is simply wrong to say that it is. In fact, it shows a complete lack of understanding of how the courts and tribunals system operates. It is abundantly clear that the fees will be used to help run the courts and tribunals system and will go towards the additional £700 million that the Chancellor has made available to ensure that we have a 21st-century, first-class courts system that is the envy of the world. There is simply not a bottomless pit of money, and we must remember that we are talking about taxpayers’ money.
The issue of employment tribunal fees is not relevant to this debate, but I will briefly make one or two comments to rebut some points that have been made. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said, the latest figure for the cost of employment tribunals was £71 million a year. It is therefore not unreasonable that the public should contribute towards the use of those tribunals. What has not been taken note of, however, is that some 83,000 people have used the ACAS early conciliation scheme, which is free.
It is ironic that some Members here claim to represent the public, given what they have said today. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that we are not in touch with the public. He is the one who is not in touch with the public, because he is seeking to scrap fees. We are instead encouraging people to use a system that is absolutely free, with no lawyers’ fees, no court fees—no anything. We have the irony that these people are standing up and advocating a system of people going to employment tribunals, which would necessitate cost.
Chris Stephens
As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw indicated, settlement in ACAS relies on the employer also joining ACAS and playing ball. In many cases, rogue employers do not play ball. ACAS is one route, but that relies on the employer going to ACAS and joining the discussion, which does not happen often enough.
International Women’s Day 2016
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Absolutely. We stand on the broad shoulders of the giants who came before us and had to deal with so much in this Chamber and beyond. Huge strides have been made to improve the representation of women in Parliament at Westminster and Holyrood, but there is much more to do. I pay particular tribute to the significant work of the Women 50:50 campaign in Scotland.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is it the case that advances in female representation came about from positive action, and that more positive action is required?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I agree with my hon. Friend, and until we believe that there is a level playing field in how people are chosen, positive action is welcome.
It is as important to seek to modernise practices and attitudes towards women in public and political life now as it was 100 years ago. We cannot stand still. It is vital for democracy that those who make laws across the world are representative of their countries at large, and that is important in the fight against Daesh and in the debate on our continuing membership of the European Union. Last year, I was privileged to chair an event that aimed to give a platform to the female perspective in Syria. Women are so often the forgotten victims of conflicts, and the forms of terrorism that we see today greatly impact on them.
Women have been at the forefront of action in Syria to combat child recruitment to armed groups, and they have led and co-ordinated the disarmament of men in public places in some refugee camps so that children do not have to walk around and see armed men. Those initiatives also disguise the names of their community projects to keep their work hidden from Daesh networks. Only by taking such action can we prepare Syrian society for a future beyond the current conflict. Women have so much to offer, and to date the debate on the European Union seems largely to have been led by men in grey suits jockeying for position. It is time for women’s voices to be heard. We must not underestimate the part that the EU has played in protecting and promoting equality and the rights of women across our continent.
I wonder what the world might look like if more women were at the top table, heading campaigns in EU institutions, peace talks and diplomacy. I respectfully suggest that it would be a more equal world, and a better place for us all. The Scottish Government are committed to working towards gender equality, and I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), who will speak further on that matter. Everybody appears to believe in gender equality, but simply believing in it is not enough. The WASPI women, the female workforce and victims of domestic violence are waiting. We must get on with the job.
Here is to those women who championed equality before us, against greater odds and much higher obstacles. To all the girls who will follow us, we are here to support you; to the men who support us, we welcome you. Women and girls hold the key to change and progress, so let us not waste a minute in unlocking these doors and creating opportunities across the world. Equality is a fundamental human right.
The Shrewsbury 24
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The debate is timely and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who for many years has been a stalwart in trying to get justice for the Shrewsbury 24. I will say this on the record: this case is a catastrophic and deliberate miscarriage of justice deliberately organised by the state. Of that there is no doubt. If they have nothing to hide, let us see the papers. It is simple. I can see the Minister staring at me. He is a former worker, which is highly unusual among the Conservatives. He has worked in the services with distinction, so I appeal to his good side. We are not asking for anything out of the ordinary other than to see some documents. According to the Conservative Government, there is not anything in them. If there is not anything in them, why can we not see them? That is fairly straightforward.
We have discussed this case on various occasions in the Commons. The Back-Bench debate in the Chamber was one of the best debates we have had. We were solid behind the motion that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).
I am a former miner. I have been through many strikes. I have been a picket and have suffered the same as some of the representatives of the Shrewsbury 24. It is simply not right for an ordinary person, who has never had any problems and never been arrested before, to get arrested for trying to save their job and look after their family. It is just not right. It is an abuse of political power. It is an abuse of the judiciary system, an abuse of individual human rights, and an attack on the fact that someone is prepared to be part of a collective organisation in the trade union movement. That is what happened back then. This was not an industrial dispute, but a political dispute. The state wanted to show, by example, what would happen if people dared to stand up against the state.
We have seen legislation after legislation introduced since then. The recent Trade Union Bill, which should be the anti-trade union Bill, builds on what happened all those years ago in the early 1970s. These people were on strike; they were not raving, militant lunatics and revolutionaries. They were on strike because people were getting maimed and killed in the building industry. They were fighting for wages and, in the main, for health and safety on building sites. Is there any better cause for trade union members to fight for than the health and safety of the people they work with in the workplace? I think not.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
We hear much in this country about aspiration and about who represents those with aspiration. Surely, those involved in this dispute were an example of that—their aspiration was for a better life, better working conditions and better pay.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for securing the debate. His speech was informative, persuasive and, above all, powerful.
As the SNP spokesperson on trade union and workers’ rights, let me say it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. Before coming to this place, I was a Unison activist. Two years ago, in the hon. Gentleman’s city of Liverpool, Ricky Tomlinson addressed the UK Unison conference to raise awareness of the Shrewsbury 24 Campaign. It was my pleasure, as the then treasurer of Glasgow City Unison, to sign a cheque to the campaign, and I would encourage all members of the public watching the debate to consider making a contribution to it.
I want to assure the campaign that all right hon. and hon. Members of the SNP support it. It is important that justice be done. I should add that the campaign resonates with me because the arrests and charges came one month before I was born. Throughout my whole lifetime, therefore, the Shrewsbury 24 Campaign has been waiting for justice.
We know from the campaign that the National Federation of Building Trades Employers compiled a dossier. At the time, the Financial Times dismissed the dossier, saying:
“This document is itself flawed since it suggests the existence of a sinister plot without being able to substantiate the allegations. Many of the incidents that have been listed seem to be little more than the ordinary spontaneous angry behaviour that might be expected on a building site at any time (and especially during an industrial dispute)…the publication reads more like a politically motivated pamphlet than a serious study.”
That is a good way of putting it.
I want to praise the speeches we have heard so far. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) referred to the previous debate, on the Floor of the House, in January 2014, and to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). When I read the report of the debate, I noticed that that hon. Gentleman bragged about his membership of the Freedom Association—what we would consider to be the Consulting Association’s wee cousin.
The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) made a number of excellent points. I was surprised to hear that promises made in correspondence to him since 2010 have not been kept. I think he is due an explanation.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, beyond this huge injustice, something else is at stake—the reputation of this Parliament? Deceit upon deceit has been practised here, and the reputation of the word of Minister after Minister is now in the gutter. There is a deep-seated smell of corruption, which goes right to the heart of the Government, and it needs to be expunged.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He makes the valid point that members of the public outside watching this debate will be very confused that promises about the release of information keep getting made but are not kept. That is why many of them do not trust parliamentarians and Parliament. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.
In making his powerful address, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton got to the nub of the issue for those involved in the campaign. The eldest of these men is 90, and the youngest is 68. They should not have to wait five years for the release of these documents.
The SNP supports the decision taken in the House in January 2014. I want to emphasise the result of the vote: there were 120 votes in favour of releasing the documents, and three against. Many of us are concerned that national security is being used as a reason not to release the documents. Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, has said:
“It is time to end this 40-year conspiracy of silence and release all the government documents relating to the Shrewsbury 24. There is something deeply wrong in this country when a 21st century government uses national security to withhold documents about ordinary working people who tried to improve their working conditions four decades ago. We believe the Tories are desperately trying to hide the stench of a great miscarriage of justice and we urge fair minded MPs to back our campaign to release all the government papers on the Shrewsbury 24.”
Alex Deane, a Conservative public affairs consultant, wrote on the ConservativeHome website in January 2014,
“whilst deeply unsympathetic to their cause, I find it simply impossible to conjure up what the national security concerned might be in hiding the decisions taken by officials and elected persons relating to the prosecution of builders in Shropshire 40 years ago. What technique of surveillance or undercover work might possibly justify non-disclosure after this passage of time? Any technique will be outdated or universally known about. Any individual involved in undercover work can have his or her name redacted from the papers which might otherwise be released. Consideration of the wider disclosures rightly made in recent times of papers relating to Northern Ireland, where on any view those concerned were more dangerous, makes a mockery of any such claim to national security concerns.”
We believe a great injustice has been done, and hope that the Minister will confirm today that he will release the papers relating to the Shrewsbury 24.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I am about to call the shadow Home Secretary. Although I think there will be plenty of time for both Front-Bench spokesmen, I ask them to bear in mind the fact that Steve Rotheram has the right to a few minutes at the very end. I hope that they will make sure that he gets them.
Women and the Economy
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green
That is absolutely right. Our economy is losing out through women’s under-participation in the labour market. They are underperforming in earnings and therefore in their ability to provide the financial means to support themselves and their families and to contribute to the local economy. That leads to a drain on our public spending.
For women in work, low pay remains a significant issue. Since 2010, over half the jobs growth for women has been in low-paid sectors. In Scotland, six out of 10 jobs have been created in low-paid, more insecure sectors over the period of the majority Scottish National party Government. Seventy-eight per cent. of women work in low-paid social care, but 86% of workers in the STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—industries, which pay much better, are men. According to the Young Women’s Trust, 20% of young women have been offered jobs paying less than the minimum wage. Meanwhile, as has been noted, the overall gender pay gap stands at 19.2 %—considerably higher than the European Union average—and has been falling more slowly than under the previous Labour Governments. That reflects a downward convergence between women’s and men’s wages, not women’s earnings rising to close the gap.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
On women being paid less than the minimum wage, another factor is that the Government are making cuts to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which will stop the enforcement of the minimum wage in many sectors of the economy.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is right. These cuts are false economies. “Penny wise and pound foolish” underlies the Government’s whole economic strategy, and that is a very good example of it.
Kate Green
I will make some progress, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I hope that she will speak in the debate, because her contributions are always useful.
Overall, the Government’s strategy for women at work is simply insufficient. That is not just bad for women; as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) noted, it is bad for our economy. The Government’s own consultation report, “Closing the Gender Pay Gap”, which was published this year, states that equalising the level of women’s productivity and employment with men’s could add almost £600 billion to our economy, while equalising participation rates could add 10% to the size of the economy by 2030. Action is urgently needed.
Meanwhile, women are also seeing their rights in the workplace attacked and eroded. The introduction of tribunal fees means that few can now afford the £1,200 to pursue an equal pay claim. The number of maternity discrimination cases has nearly doubled, while the number of cases going to tribunal has fallen by 80%. So much for the Government’s commitment to economic equality.
Cuts to spending on public services also hit women hardest. There are 763 fewer Sure Start centres than in 2010. The care sector has been affected badly by the 31% cut in local council budgets. The additional £3.5 billion earmarked in the autumn statement fails to compensate for the drastic cuts that have already taken place, let alone adequately meeting future need.
Kate Green
I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
It is women who will lose out from the lack of paid-for care, as they so often have to step in to fill the gap.
Terrifyingly for women at risk of or fleeing sexual or domestic violence and abuse, there have also been substantial cuts to services and access to justice that protect women’s safety. Research for Women’s Aid in 2014 showed that a third of women were being turned away from refuges because there was no room for them. Thirty-two specialist services closed between 2010 and 2014 due to lack of funds. The Chancellor’s short-term proposal to fund domestic violence services from the unfair tampon tax makes their funding symbolically and literally the responsibility only of women. Two women a week are killed as a result of domestic violence, and that must be the responsibility of everyone in society.
Why does all this happen? Why are women hit the hardest? It happens because we are not present where decisions are taken. Our voices are not heard. The Fawcett Society has shown that 80% of stories in the media about the economy are about men or quote men. Although there has been a welcome improvement in the number of women on company boards following the Davies report, the proportion of women in executive positions on FTSE 100 boards remains lamentably low.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Equal pay day was marked this year on 9 November. On that day, women across the United Kingdom started working for free, while men continued earning. It should be a day talked about in the history books, not a 21st-century reality. Forty-five years after the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970, men still earn two months more wages a year than women.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments and his ambition to end the gender pay gap in a generation, but that must be followed by action. The reality is that unlawful maternity and pregnancy discrimination is more common in Britain’s workplaces than ever before, with 54,000 pregnant women and new mothers forced out of their job each year. Hundreds of thousands of women are employed on zero-hours contracts and in other precarious forms of employment that offer little in the way of guaranteed hours or job security. The introduction of employment tribunal fees is acting as nothing more than a barrier to female justice and a charter for rogue employers. I welcome the Government’s review of this measure and hope that they will take serious action on employment tribunal fees.
Chris Stephens
It was curious that the Minister did not mention tribunal fees in her contribution, even though they are clearly mentioned in the motion. Does my hon. Friend agree that asking women to pay £1,200 for a discrimination case is an outrage, and it explains why there has been a 91% drop in sex discrimination cases in this country?
Angela Crawley
I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, I hope the Government will take serious action on tribunal fees, because they are acting as a barrier to women taking serious action against rogue employers in the workplace.