Adult Literacy and Numeracy

Debate between Ian Murray and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A senior member of the Government party in the other place said live on television at lunchtime that he believed that Royal Mail was significantly undervalued. Given that Royal Mail will enter the stock market system tomorrow and that taxpayers are set to lose out on anything from hundreds of millions to billions of pounds, is there any mechanism by which we could bring the Minister or Secretary of State to the House to explain to the public why the undervaluing of Royal Mail could lose the taxpayer millions?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, as there is no mechanism by which the Chair can decide Government business on the Floor of the House. I hesitate to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should write to the Minister, although there are Members on the Treasury Bench who have heard his comments. I am sorry to have to disappoint him by saying that that is not within the power of the Chair.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 103, page 37, line 39, leave out

‘in relation to each reporting period’

and insert

‘if

(a) a formal complaint is received by the Certification Officer that would result in the Certification Officer requiring a membership audit in relation to the reporting period when the complaint was verified and

(b) the Certification Officer determined that a certificate was required.’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 104, page 38, line 7, at end insert

‘unless—

(a) the Trade Union is appealing the membership certificate; or

(b) the Trade Union has challenged the Certification Officer’s acceptance of a membership audit certificate and invoked paragraph (a).’.

Amendment 106, page 38, line 22, leave out from ‘certificate’ to end of line 23 and insert

‘for which the trade union may request reasonable payment as per charges for requests for access to accounting periods in section 30(6).’.

Amendment 121, in clause 37, page 38, line 42, leave out

‘in relation to each reporting period’

and insert

‘if section 24ZA(1) is invoked’.

Clause stand part.

[Ian Murray]

It is a great pleasure to get to part 3 under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo. I shall speak to clause stand part as well as to all the amendments in the group. It is totally inadequate that we are discussing part 3 of this hotch-potch of a Bill without having seen the impact assessment for part 3 or any results from the curtailed consultation that was put in place at the start of the process.

It is worth putting the amendments into context. The past three days and the hundreds of e-mails that all Members have received from their constituents show how much of a dog’s breakfast the Bill is. It is in good company, following the hotch-potch of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and the total shambles that the House witnessed during the passage of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. Part 3 of the Bill before us provides wide-ranging new powers to the certification officer on trade union membership lists, but no one, including officials of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the discussion paper, the explanatory notes, the trade unions and, I bet, even the Minister can tell the Committee what problem the Bill is trying to resolve.

The TUC stated in its evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:

“As with part two we are unable to discern the problem that this part of the Bill is meant to remedy.”

Nigel Stanley from the TUC went on to say:

“We have asked BIS, the certification officer and ACAS through freedom of information requests whether they have received or made representations that we need to amend current powers to regulate union membership . . . We cannot find any demand for part 3.”

The only justification for part 3 has been the publicly stated view that it came out of a high-level meeting between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. What a contribution and combination that is. I wonder whether Lynton Crosby was in the room at the time.

Without any rationale for the Bill coming from the Government, perhaps we have to look for our own rationale. The reason given for the Bill by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in its discussion paper is the potential for trade union activity to affect people’s daily lives. It says:

“The general public should be confident that voting papers and other communications are reaching union members so that they have the opportunity to participate”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Perhaps we could return to clause 36 and the amendments before us. General Third Reading points about the entire Bill, or any comments about the whole part, are not in order.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you, Ms Primarolo. You are absolutely right. That would have tempted me to discuss the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) producing amendments to other Bills in Committee and then not following through on the Floor of the House.

I was talking about the Government’s failure to produce any evidence, which I think feeds into amendment 103, because it is critical to the operation of the entire part, in relation to clause 36. My second point about the Department’s consultation is that it has not published or responded to any of the responses. The only information that Members of the House have seen is when people who have responded to the BIS consultation have self-published them, and I do not think that is good enough.

Trade unions are already heavily regulated, not just with regard to membership, but in other areas, too. No other membership organisations, voluntary sector groups, businesses or, indeed, political parties in the UK are subject to equivalent rules. There are already extensive regulations through the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1992 and the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998—a fact that the Government seem to have wholeheartedly disregarded in bringing forward the Bill—and the responsibility trade unions have to the Information Commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

On a point of order, Ms Primarolo. My Committee looked at the White Paper on the lobbying Bill about 18 months ago. It made no mention of anything to do with the trade unions. The trade union provisions appeared in July, one day before the House rose—a bit about trade unions was bolted on to a Bill that all of us in the House had already dealt with as a lobbying Bill. Is it in order for those provisions to have been added when the House has been under the misapprehension that the Bill is about lobbying? Is this not a hybrid Bill and therefore disqualified from discussion in the House?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

The hon. Gentleman is very experienced and has been a Member for a long time. As he knows, what he has asked is not a point of order. The House has given the Bill a Second Reading, and his points are for debate, if necessary, on the Floor of the House. They are certainly not a matter of order for the consideration of the Chair today.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you, Ms Primarolo, for that ruling on an important point of order. I remind my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, that other stuff has been bolted on to Bills, including the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill—disgracefully, the agricultural wages board was abolished at the last minute in the House of Lords without any political debate in this House.

Before the Government start lecturing unions about transparency, they should take a long, hard look in the mirror, subject themselves to this Bill and publish their own membership audit certificate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

Could not the shadow Minister answer our hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) in this way? If on a lobbying Bill we are allowed to add in stuff about charities and trade unions, could not our hon. Friend produce another part to the Bill that addressed the issue he raises about shareholders? Obviously, that would be in order—anything can be added. Hon. Members from across the House could add stuff on child care, foreign policy or the Government’s war-making powers. Bringing forward a Bill and bolting on a part such as this at a very late stage is an abuse. It is surely not in order.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I will decide what is in order. If a Bill has unrelated purposes in it, that does not necessarily make it a hybrid Bill in procedural terms. It would be as well for us to concentrate on the points before us now.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you for that ruling, Ms Primarolo. All I would say is that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) is one of the most experienced people in the House. Perhaps he could bring forward an amendment on Report to consider the issue of regulating shareholders.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Baroness Primarolo

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 59, page 32, line 9, leave out clause 25.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 22 and 23.

Amendment 60 in clause 25, page 32, line 13, leave out ‘or becomes’.

Government amendment 24.

Amendment 37, page 32, line 14, at end insert—

‘(za) the individual has been an employee of a company for at least two years.’.

Amendment 61, page 32, line 15, leave out ‘the company’ and insert ‘a majority of the employees of the company’.

Government amendment 25.

Amendment 62, page 32, line 21, after ‘£2,000’, insert—

‘if the individual has been an employee of the company for less than three years, increased by an additional £2,000 for every additional year for which the individual has been an employee of the company’.

Amendment 40, page 32, line 23, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument such regulations as are necessary to safeguard an employee who declines to enter into an agreement under subsection (1) from any consequential detriment.

(1B) The Secretary of State may not make any regulations under subsection (1A) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment 41, page 32, line 23, at end insert—

‘(1C) The Secretary of State shall issue such guidance as is necessary to safeguard any person who declines to enter into an agreement under subsection (1) from any consequential reduction or withdrawal of any state benefit to which they are entitled by virtue of their current employment status.’.

Amendment 63, page 32, line 23, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall provide by regulations for there to be, for every company having employee shareholders, a director who is elected by those employee shareholders.

(1B) Regulations under subsection (1A) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment 39, page 32, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 33.

Government amendments 26 to 31, 64, 65, 32 and 66.

[Ian Murray]

We now come to the worst clause in a bad Bill. In the words of the Christmas song, ’tis the season to be jolly, but sadly this out-of-touch Government are dampening the festive spirit with a measure that embodies the characteristics of the classic Dickens character, the miserly employer Ebenezer Scrooge, at his worst. I would never accuse the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), of being such a character, but I hope that he will prove to the House that he is not, by removing clause 25 from the Bill.

As in that Christmas tale, let us look back at the ghost of Beecroft past. It was back at the beginning of October when, much to everyone’s surprise, the Chancellor announced the Government’s intention to introduce a new employment status. A company would be able to offer an employee shares in its business in exchange for some of that individual’s rights at work. The proposal has had a quick passage since the Chancellor’s speech, in which he spoke of

“owners, workers and the taxman, all in it together. Workers of the world unite.”

I have to give it to the Chancellor; he has certainly fostered a sense of unity. He has unified outright opposition to this policy from every quarter. It has received a lukewarm response, at best, from the business community, and it has been roundly trounced by employee organisations, trade unions, business leaders and charities. Only five of the 219 consultation responses welcomed the proposals. We therefore believe that our amendment 59 is the only acceptable option, as we can see no way in which the clause could be amended to make it more palatable. I appreciate that amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is in his place, but, to be honest, he is trying valiantly to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said on Second Reading, this measure is about cash for repeal. For as little as £2,000-worth of shares, an employee would be able to give up legal rights such as their right to training, their right to unfair dismissal protections, their right to a redundancy payment—even though their shares might be valued at less than the statutory redundancy payment—and their right to flexible working, which would fly in the face of announcements made by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills only last week.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising one of the key points on why we need transparency. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said clearly that transparency helps not only the Scottish people to determine how their money is spent and allocated, but the other component parts of the United Kingdom to see how money is spent in Scotland, which would be welcomed by everyone in this House. Indeed, we have not even had transparency on the Bill itself. The Bill has been called “a poison pill”, “a dog’s breakfast” and “dangerous” by the same party that voted for it, campaigned against it and will, no doubt, vote for the amendments if the House divides this afternoon.

We need transparency from the Scottish Government at every level on what they wish to achieve. In the past few months, we have heard the Scottish National party say in public—the records are available—that it would reduce fuel duty, reduce corporation tax to the level it is in Ireland, and will be in Northern Ireland, which is 12.5 %, and that it would reduce duties and business rates. I am not an expert on taxation systems or, indeed, on algorithms or mathematics, but it seems that that would lower every single tax in Scotland, so I pose the question, where would the money come from? There is only one place that it can come from, and that is public services, so, on the report that would come from the Secretary of State concerning those powers, I challenge the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party to tell us, with regard to every single tax that they wish to lower or decrease, where the money will come from and where the money will go.

Let us take corporation tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) mentioned, and which is a complicated issue. I mentioned smoke and mirrors at the start of my contribution, and there has been a lot of smoke and mirrors from the Scottish Government on corporation tax. They have used the example of Northern Ireland, but there are two clear lessons from Northern Ireland.

As I said in an intervention, Northern Ireland wants corporation tax devolved to equalise its rate with the country on its land border to the south and ensure that it is not disadvantaged. That highlights two things: first, that the land border is important; and secondly that corporation tax levels, when they are lowered to such a drastic state as we have seen in Ireland, create an uncompetitive situation and a race to the bottom.

We cannot afford that race to the bottom in the United Kingdom, with its land border between England and Scotland, because it would create an environment in which the money that came out of the block grant—some £2.6 billion if the rate were equalised with Ireland’s at 12.5%—would have to come from public services.

The Scottish Government have yet to tell us which public services they would cut. The national health service already has far fewer nurses in Scotland than it did in 2007, and the Scottish Government have yet to tell us where the money would come from in terms of public services, so I should welcome the debate and the evidence that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) tells us we should have about corporation tax, because perhaps the Scottish Government could lay out that information, and the report under discussion, which would come back annually to the House until those taxation powers had been fully devolved, would be very welcome and could examine some of those issues.

The smoke and mirrors continues, because the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, when he was in London yesterday, no doubt met his London SNP colleagues to discuss these issues. In his speech to the Institute of Directors he suggested that, with the powers in the Bill transferred to Scotland, income tax levels in Scotland would not be changed. One of the key points here is that the Scottish Parliament has powers to reduce or to increase income tax in Scotland by 3p, but the Scottish Government chose not to maintain HMRC’s systems to enable that, so we are left with the Scottish Government and, indeed, the First Minister jumping up and down like little children, demanding powers—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but I am sure that he is coming back to the debate which we are having here about the importance and relevance of the report.

[Ian Murray]

I will be coming back to the report this very second, because it is about transparency, and what we have had quite clearly from the Scottish Government is a complete lack of transparency. I hope that the report allows us some, because when the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will have a Scottish rate of income tax, the devolution of stamp duties, the devolution of landfill tax, the power to create new taxes and the power to borrow of many billions of pounds—borrowing powers, incidentally, which the Scottish Government did not want but have planned to use. So it is quite important that the report comes back.

With this amendment, the Lords have done a good job of enabling us to see where the new taxes will go. I certainly welcome it and will support it later this afternoon.

Public Sector Pensions

Debate between Ian Murray and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

You are talking about choices that the SNP Scottish Government will make and one of the big choices they made was to cut capital spending far faster and far further than your own Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Minister and should refer to him as the Minister or “he”. “You” means the occupant of the Chair, and this is nothing to do with me, fortunately.