Business of the House
Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Mark Durkan(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
May we have a statement or debate on the rationale and details of the UK-Sudan strategic dialogue and the Khartoum process—the EU horn of Africa migration route initiative—both of which pretend that Sudan is simply a transit route for refugees, when it is in fact a significant source country of refugees fleeing the predations of a regime that has been indicted by the International Criminal Court but is now being indulged by those two processes?
English Votes for English Laws
Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Mark Durkan(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I will not give way.
On Speaker certification, which the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) referred to in his contribution, the Speaker already certifies money Bills and selects amendments. I am sure that, as he does now, he will take advice on what should be a technical decision.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said at the McKay commission on behalf of the SNP:
“We look at each bill, as we get the business for the week, we assess it for the Scottish interest. If there is none or if it’s insignificant, we take no interest… We have never had the problem. 12 years since the setting up of the Scottish Parliament, we have had the self denying ordinance and found it about the most easiest thing possible to do and we do not see what the fuss is.”
I recognise the cross-border issues that have been raised by hon. Members from north Wales. We met yesterday and we debated the issues the other week. There has been a request to amend Standing Orders to set out the timing of decisions and the ability to make representations. Those parts of the process are not detailed in Standing Orders for other certification processes, but I understand why hon. Members raise this point. I understand that such things happen in practice and they may be in “Erskine May”. I am not sure that it would be appropriate to put them in Standing Orders, but it is up to hon. Members to make their suggestions.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Lady will remember that when the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was being discussed in the last Parliament there were proposals for the Speaker to make determinations about what would or would not be a confidence motion that could or could not effectively terminate the Parliament, and it was argued by Conservatives that the Speaker should not be put in the position of making a politically sensitive determination.
Dr Coffey
I think the Speaker is more than well equipped and will certainly have the advice available to do that.
Let us turn to the spending consequentials. As a result of discussions and debate, we have listened and tabled Standing Orders that we believe clarify the situation. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier, we have done this to give comfort to all Members. Spending is voted on through the estimates and, yes, in answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), amendments can be made to the estimates, though only to lower spending because Crown Ministers have the right of financial initiative. Estimates are given effect by law, by the Supply and Appropriation Bill, both of which we have all voted on in the past 24 hours.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) referred to income tax definition. Aspects of income tax which have not been devolved, whether they are reliefs or the definition of taxable income, would continue to be UK matters. It is the rates and the thresholds that are in the process of being devolved.
On Bills and Barnett consequentials, many individual pieces of legislation lead to some changes in funding, but that does not necessarily mean that the funding for that UK Government Department changes. It does not follow that it has a directly identifiable impact on the block grant to the devolved Administrations, so efficiencies in one area could be redirected to front-line services, without Barnett consequentials. That is why Barnett consequentials are calculated on changes to overall departmental spending at spending reviews, and that is why we end up voting on them through the estimates voting process.
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) referred to tuition fees. I think he was probably referring to the resource accounting and budgeting charge—the RAB charge. That is a non-cash item so it does not affect the spending power of the Scottish Government.
Childcare Payments Bill
Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Mark Durkan(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I do not pretend to know much about Welsh schools, although my cousin goes to school in Wales and I have many relatives there. I am not necessarily aware of the provision that exists, but I know that this Government are keen to work with schools in England to increase the number of schools choosing to make provision for young children. I do not know what the Welsh Assembly Government are considering, but the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), has consistently tried to introduce reforms that will make child care provision an attractive career. We are right to press ahead with some of the childminder agencies we are introducing, not through this Bill but separately, to remove some of the administrative burdens that might be deterring people from entering that career. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage such agencies to set up in his area of Arfon, bringing new employment opportunities for both men and women and making provision for working parents.
It is great news that under this Government more women are working than ever before, yet we would like to see even more women—and even more parents—going into work. This scheme is part of our long-term economic plan. We recognise that the cost of our child care is the second highest in the OECD as a percentage of family income; only Switzerland’s is higher. I think that it is fair to say that under Labour the number of childminders decreased significantly and costs went up. Before the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North springs to her feet—if she is not following the latest reshuffle news on Twitter—let me say that I recognise that that trend has continued, but it is not going on at the same level. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for referring to my haircut. It was nothing to do with the events that seem to be unfolding on Twitter. I merely got a phone call from my own mother complaining that my hair was too long and, as we know, in these situations mothers know best. I am not a mother, so I have to stick with what my mother tells me.
Let me give a few of the reasons why these things matter. A couple of years ago, the Conservative Women’s Forum undertook an inquiry, in which I think you might have participated, Madam Deputy Speaker, into the executive pipeline of talent. It focused not only on the number of women on boards, but on how we encourage women to get up the executive ladder and, more importantly, on what women can do for themselves, what Government can do and what companies can do. The issue of child care was a running theme throughout the inquiry, particularly for those in junior management. Once people are at a certain level, they probably receive a salary that means they do not have to think about the issue; they can pay for a nanny and even though it might be painful, the costs are not quite so prohibitive. We consistently received evidence that the voucher system was inadequate. It did not cover enough of the cost, it was very limited or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned earlier, it did not help people such as the self-employed. I am pleased that the Bill extends the provision to almost anyone in work and it is right that we should do that.
It is also fair to say that no one magic bullet emerged as a result of the inquiry to solve some of the challenges in the pipeline of talent or in how we tackle child care, but nevertheless the discussions before the Budget announcements on how to help with tax relief were exactly the issues being brought up by senior executives. I was glad that the subsequent announcement was made in Budget 2013.
The proposals in Budget 2013 were limited to £6,000 of child care costs, which would have meant a maximum benefit of £1,200. I was pleased that after the consultation, to which significant contributions were made, we were able to change the age limit to 12 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has pointed out, to change the age limit for children with disabilities. We also increased the limit to £10,000, with a maximum of £2,000 support. That was the right thing to do, because it recognised the costs of child care. Nevertheless, it is important that we have retained the choice for parents who are in employer-supported child care schemes to stay in that system while recognising that we will close it to new entrants, so to speak. I support that because, understandably, companies have gone to some expense to set up these schemes and they are popular. We should not withdraw one thing simply for the sake of simplicity for the Government.
The hon. Lady from Northern Ireland—I have forgotten her constituency—
Dr Coffey
Thank you. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to the situation in which one parent was not working and asked why they would not get support with child care costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has accurately pointed out, the consultation raised those points and we have extended the provision when there is a working person and somebody on carer’s allowance or employment and support allowance. When people are enjoying parental leave after having children, they should not be penalised if they have children in child care. We do not want any unintended consequences.
I am a strong supporter of the traditional family. I am sure that I am not the only person whose mother did not work initially after having me, although she did start to go back to work as a supply teacher. It is fair to say that although the Government have scarce resources, they are offering both parents the choice to get back into the workplace, as opposed to one person having to choose, for perfectly good reasons, not to return to the workplace. I therefore support the gist of what the Government are saying about restricting support to cases in which both parents are working or the other cases that have been alluded to.
I am surprised that there are no Members in the Chamber from the Scottish constituencies, because, of course, this is a United Kingdom measure, although I am delighted that we have had contributions and interventions from Members from Wales and Northern Ireland. Much has been made of the fact that National Savings & Investments will initially be providing the child care account. You may have read in the weekend press, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if the people of Scotland choose to go ahead with separation, NS&I will not be able to provide accounts to people living in Scotland, as they will effectively become foreign nationals. They might wish to consider that as another element of the question. I am sure that if somebody from the Scottish National party were here, they would leap up and say, “We will have an even better scheme and it will cost less than yours.” Nevertheless, I am sure that the good people of Scotland recognise that that is unlikely to be the case. The Minister might want to consider the issue in her regulations for this provision, but let us not prejudge the outcome of the referendum. I strongly believe that the people of Scotland will recognise that staying together is better for us all.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman would say that, and he has been very loyal to his nationalist friends. I recognise that.
On the timing, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that if we could bring in the scheme tomorrow, we would do so. However, we do not want to repeat—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Manchester Central want to intervene? I think she said that we have been in power for four years, and I recognise that we are bringing this into play rather late in our parliamentary term, but she will know some of the challenges of government from her previous experience. Nevertheless, I would rather we got this right than end up with the fiasco we had over tax credits, which were brought in in quite a rush, with all the accompanying problems. The hon. Member for Manchester Central might be slightly bemused by that, but overpayment of tax credits and trying to reconcile figures and help people out with that is one of the biggest issues in my constituency casework. She will, I think, recognise some of the challenges of bringing in a new system.
The Bill rightly provides that the connections between the different agencies will be updated quarterly. We are not going to get into penalties and going back and forth, but provision is made for recovery. It is important that parents recognise that they should anticipate the potential impact if their conditions change. To be frank, I think the biggest change will occur when people move from one salary bracket to another, or decide to stop claiming universal credit and simply to claim this instead. At least the hurdle or cliff edge when people have to change is fairly black and white.
Mark Durkan
Would the hon. Lady like to see a strong information and advice offer built into the scheme, so that people who are having to decide how to navigate between universal credit and the scheme will get advice and without-prejudice, better-off calculations?
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Mark Durkan(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In following the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), let me say that I am surprised that he did not rest his rebuttal of the arguments about amendment 76 on clause 4, which clearly shows that the register—in the way it deals with persons—would cover those exact points. However, that does not fully allay the concerns we should have when we see the Government’s amendments to what is already a highly flawed Bill, not least Government amendments 92 to 95 to schedule 1, about which I am sure we will hear from the Government.
Like others, I do not want to take up too much time now, given the range of issues that we need to reach in order to deal with the layers of inadequacy and evasion that are, to my mind, deliberately built into the Bill. The Government who told us that lobbying was the next big scandal have basically come up with the narrowest of nets to deal with professional lobbying, restricting it not to professional lobbying as we all know and understand it—lobbying as we see it practised in and around the parliamentary estate and elsewhere in public life, at various levels of government—but to a narrow definition of “consultant lobbying”.
We have a net that is deliberately narrow, made up of holes that are deliberately wide. That is why I welcome the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which would ensure a wider net with smaller holes. If Parliament achieves that, we will have done something for our credibility, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said. However, if we remain with the Bill as provided by the Government, or if we amend it in the way they have proposed, Parliament will be open not just to ridicule, but to suspicion. Why would we go along with a glaringly inadequate Bill? Why would we fail to respond to the representations that have come from so many people in the business who will not be affected—I am sure that some will be happily unaffected—but are bemused at what the Government have produced in part 1?
I know that we looked at the Bill more widely on Second Reading, Mr Caton, but I hope it is in order to make the argument in the debate about this group of amendments and part 1 that it is hard for people not to be suspicious when they see the lobbying to be registered so narrowly defined in part 1, and the issues to be covered in part 2 so widely scoped. As many hon. Members who have spoken have pointed out, none of the lobbying scandals that have happened in recent years—not even those during the life of this Parliament—would have been ameliorated or mitigated in any way by the scope of this Bill. Instead of pretending that it will solve the next big scandal, let us be clear: it would not have addressed any of the big, small or medium scandals that we have seen in the last few years. That has to be a matter of design on the part of the Government. They cannot have missed all those points just as a matter of haphazard chance and sloppy drafting. To my mind, the scoping in part 1 is deliberately evasive.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
The Government have already said that they are trying to fix a specific issue relating to a gap in transparency. I do not think I got an answer from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), so can the hon. Gentleman explain how many people he thinks will be required to register under the amendments we are discussing? Does he believe that MPs should also make a declaration whenever they meet a lobbyist, be they in-house, or from a trade union or a charity?
Mark Durkan
As other hon. Members have said, we do need a lobbying Bill, but we needed more consultation and proper pre-legislative scrutiny precisely to determine how many people would be caught and whether they should be comfortably caught under this Bill.