House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Oct 1990

Column 1055

Questions to Ministers

3.30 pm

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention to, and to seek a statement on, a matter that arose yesterday, and which I believe constitutes a serious abuse of the proper procedures of the House. Yesterday, immediately before Social Security Question Time, I happened to come across a set of abandoned papers, of which I have full copies with me. When I was able to examine them more closely after questions, I discovered that they were photocopies of 14 oral questions tabled to Social Security Ministers for that day, together with the replies that were to be given by Ministers-- [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Prime Minister does not wish to know about this breach of procedure by her party.

The answers in the photocopies were, indeed, exactly the answers that were given by Ministers. In addition, there were 16 pages of briefing, in each case headed with the title "Bull points", putting substantial defensive arguments in favour of the Government's case. It is clear that that material was circulated among Government Back Benchers to assist them at Question Time. It is also clear that the drafted ministerial replies could have come only from the Government. The briefing sheets all had code figures, which I know from my experience in government are used by Whitehall officials. It is a clear abuse of the procedures of this House that advice and briefing from civil servants, which are supposed to be tendered privately to Ministers, are then secretly made available to the Government's supporters for partisan use in the Chamber.

In the past, it has been alleged that the Government were packing the Order Paper with favourable planted questions ; it now appears that they are packing Question Time with favourable planted answers. I ask for a full inquiry into the matter and that a statement be made by the Secretary of State when that is complete.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman gave me notice during Question Time of his intention to raise that matter. There is no objection to general briefings, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, he knows from his own experience that such briefings are frequently given. However, it is a discourtesy to right hon. and hon. Members who are to ask questions to reveal the proposed answers in advance, and I hope that that practice--if it has occurred--will cease.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : We are used to bogus and hypocritical points of order being raised in this House.

Mr. Speaker : Then I judge that this is not to be one of them.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : I withdraw the word "hypocritical", but more than one Opposition Member has told me that they have been asked to sign questions that they did not even understand--let alone understand the answer. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) suggests that there is something hypocritical in the Government's actions, but if the Opposition ever came to office--which God forbid--they would do exactly the same things for which they are criticising the Government for doing.

Column 1056

Mr. Speaker : I have already made my own views absolutely clear.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath :

Edward O'Hara Esq., for Knowsley, South.

BILL PRESENTED

War Pensions (Disregard)

Mrs. Alice Mahon, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Bernie Grant and Mr. John Battle, presented a Bill to provide that income from war pensions shall be disregarded for the purpose of assessing entitlement to any benefit payable out of the Social Security Fund or the National Insurance Fund : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Tuesday 23 October and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker : With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,

That the draft Housing (Grants for Fire Escapes in Houses in Multiple Occupation) (Prescribed Percentage) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c. That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Local Government Boundaries Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Speaker : Ten-minute Bill. Dawn Primarolo.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. We are past the time for points of order, but I will hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mullin : I was on my feet previously, Mr. Speaker. When I attempted to table a question for the Secretary of State for Defence, asking whether British service men or any other employees of his Department had been involved in providing military training--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in order to read out a disallowed question. The matter to which he refers has not been brought to my attention, and if the hon. Gentleman feels strongly, as evidently he does, perhaps he will come to see me. However, he cannot raise that matter openly in this Chamber.

Mr. Mullin : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question was blocked. On the one hand, the Government want us to believe that they are not giving aid to Cambodian resistance fighters, and on the other, they decline to answer questions about that matter.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I have no responsibility for questions being blocked.

Column 1057

Statutory Minimum Wage

3.38 pm

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the introduction of a statutory minimum wage ; to make provision in respect of related duties and responsibilities of employers and wages councils ; and for connected purposes.

Members of Parliament enjoy a statutory minimum wage, and it seems wholly wrong that one should be denied to the most poorly paid members of our society. The Government's so-called economic miracle has proved a mirage, especially for the low-paid in our society. In Hansard on 17 May 1988, the Prime Minister argued that proof of the success of her economic policies was that

"Everyone in the nation has benefited from the increased prosperity".--[ Official Report, 17 May 1988 ; Vol. 133, c. 801.] I emphasise her word "everyone". That is the so-called trickle-down theory, but the hallmark of that theory under the Government has been the growth of inequality. The gap between the rich and the poor has increased due to the Government's economic and social policies. The trickle-down theory originated in America, as so many of the Government's ideas do. John Kenneth Galbraith, an American economist, likened the trickle-down theory to the idea that if one feeds sufficient oats to a horse there will eventually be something for the sparrows. He noted that this theory was more popular with the horse than with the sparrow, which is no surprise. We note that directors awarded themselves pay increases in excess of 33 per cent. last year at the same time that the Government told the low-paid to cut their requests for decent wages.

To give an idea of the scope of low pay, I shall quote from evidence from the south-west region, where my constituency is situated, using Government statistics from the new earnings survey, which shows that the region is riddled with dramatic inequalities between men and women, part-time and full-time workers, non-manual and manual workers. The picture highlights, almost to the point of caricature, the fact that the Government's free market policies bring a divided society where economic affluence for some is paid for by poverty pay for many. It is appalling that people who work long, hard hours, sometimes six or seven days a week, should have to claim benefit to attempt to make ends meet.

Pay inequality has reached record levels. The 1990 new earnings survey shows that, in 1979, the lowest paid 10 per cent. of manual workers earned 68.3 per cent. of average pay. In 1990, the figure has dropped to 63 per cent., and it is lower than at any time since records began in 1886. The gap between the best paid and the lowest paid--pay inequality--is worse in 1990 than it was in 1886. During the past 10 years, the best paid workers have received real pay increases 16 times greater than those for workers on low pay. The causes of low pay are manifold, but it is clear that, without intervention from Westminster, the south-west, like all other regions, will continue to have widening pay inequality and entrenched low pay.

The single market may well make matters worse by enabling more social dumping, whereby European companies can join relocating United Kingdoms firms to exploit the region's low pay.

A major cause of the poverty experienced by hundreds of thousands of workers and their families, in the south-west and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are the

Column 1058

Government's policies, which encourage the spread of low pay and inequality. The Government's lone opposition to the social charter, the proposed abolition of the wages councils, the threat of benefit suspension for unemployed people who refuse to take low-paid jobs, and encouragement for employers to pay benefit level wages in temporary wage top-up schemes all bear witness to that.

In the south-west, three quarters of a million workers--half those in employment--earn wages below the poverty line of £4.16 per hour ; 400,000 workers, of whom eight out of 10 are women, would benefit immediately from the introduction of Labour's plans for a statutory minimum wage of £3.10 per hour.

The majority of workers in the south-west earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold of £4.32 an hour. Women are twice as likely to be lower paid than men and part-time workers are two and a half times more likely to earn less than £3 an hour. More and more firms are illegally underpaying their workers, but few are prosecuted, since the wages councils have been marginalised and isolated by the Government. We need to introduce a statutory minumum wage and to strengthen the statutory duties of the wages councils to enforce wages and to protect workers who go to them with complaints of low pay.

These rights must be extended to part-time and home workers, thus following the example of the European Community, which is developing the idea of atypical worker--those who do not work a normal working day. Our equality laws need to be strengthened, and social security benefits must be improved in order to reinforce the work of the wages councils. These proposals are a vital tool in the attack on poverty and inequality. Those who own companies have proved that their strategy is to keep as much as possible for themselves and to pay as little as possible to those they employ, thus hitting women workers the hardest.

A statutory minimum wage should be an essential part of our economic strategy. It would help to counter the trend of short-termism in the United Kingdom, whereby low pay and low productivity are chosen as low-cost alternatives to investment in training and equipment. A statutory minimum wage would lessen the danger of the United Kingdom becoming a low-wage region in Europe, by acting as an incentive to United Kingdom employers to pursue high-wage, high-investment and high-productivity business strategies.

Finally, a statutory minimum wage would alleviate the poverty and misery of hundreds of thousands of families whose labour is exploited by unscrupulous, unreasonable and unfair employers. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to .

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Bob Cryer, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.

Statutory minimum wage

Ms. Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the introduction of a statutory minimum wage ; to make provision in respect of related duties and responsibilities of employers and wages councils ; and for connected purposes ; and the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 October and to be printed.-- [Bill 198.]

Column 1059

Orders of the Day

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part I, Amendments to Part I, new Schedules relating to Part I, new Clauses relating to Part II, Amendments to Part II, new Schedules relating to Part II, new Clauses relating to Part III, Amendments to Part III, new Schedules relating to Part III, other new Clauses, other Amendments, other new Schedules.-- [Lord James Douglas- Hamilton.]

3.48 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : Before we get down to a detailed consideration of the Bill as it now stands, I am bound to express on behalf of my colleagues and some of those on the other side of the House extreme concern about the way in which, even at this late stage, the Bill has been handled by the Government. From start to finish, it has been a shambles.

After the long summer recess, we thought that we were coming back to deal in a reasonably civilised way with what was left of the Bill--a much improved Bill after the changes and the arrangements made in Committee between the Opposition and the Government to remove certain clauses. We thought that we were coming back to consider about 30 new clauses and 150 amendments. I freely accept and welcome the fact that many of the new clauses and amendments were the result of concessions made by the Government to Members on both sides of the Committee. So far, so good.

There was also some new business that the Government wished to introduce, which again was perfectly acceptable to us. However, as recently as Saturday morning, through the medium of the radio, we learned that the Government had decided to introduce into the Bill at this late stage two major and extremely contentious clauses. They are not contentious in the sense that we wish to oppose the spirit that lies behind them, but the new clauses merit a great deal of debate and they would have been debated had they been introduced in Committee. But they were not ; and now, literally days before the Bill returned to the House, we were given notice that the Government intended to introduce two new clauses.

I refer in particular to the clauses on children's evidence, live television links and supervised attendance orders. We will not oppose those clauses, but at every stage of the progress of the Bill, the legal process in Scotland has been treated with contempt. If the Government accepted that the clauses could not be dealt with fully in Committee--heaven knows, there were enough hours in Committee to debate many matters--how on earth can they logically justify moving them at this stage and saying, "You will now have to consider these matters with 30 new clauses and 150 amendments"? As the Minister well knows, we have at most a day and a half in which to dispense with that business.

Labour Members will do their best to improve what will go on to the statute book. These are matters of concern, importance and complexity, so it is beyond reason to

Column 1060

suppose that we shall deal with the major issue of television evidence from children or the extraordinarily major reform in Scottish criminal proceedings of supervised attendance orders being available for fine defaulters in anything like the detail or seriousness that the subjects demand.

It is right that we register our protest at this stage and advise the people of Scotland that, once again, important legal reform is being dealt with by the Government in this cavalier manner. They are interested not in passing what is right but in getting the legislation on the statute book in any shape or form. We will do our best tonight, but once again the behaviour of the Government is a disgrace.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : I can reply quite briefly to the hon. Member forCunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and will do so in the same spirit as he approached the subject.

We have a substantial task ahead of us, but I am sure that the House will recognise that the bulk of the amendments were tabled as a result of concessions and commitments given to Back Benchers in Committee. We would be failing in our duty if we did not honour those commitments.

Much of parts I and II of the Bill are complex matters of law, so it is important to take the opportunity on Report to make the drafting as clear and straightforward as possible. We have had to consider carefully the drafting of part II in the light of changes made in Committee. We dropped several clauses in parts III and IV in accordance with the understanding that they would not be reintroduced. Where we have brought forward new issues, the reason has generally been that an issue was raised but not debated in Committee, which was certainly the case in relation to child evidence. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was right to raise that matter in Committee, and he made it clear that he would seek to return to it on Report.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) rose--

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I hope to reply positively to the hon. Gentleman later, when we debate child evidence.

Dr. Godman : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister speaking on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker : It is not a point of order. This is the consideration motion, which is debateable.

Dr. Godman : I seek an assurance from the Minister in order to save time. Will he confirm that the Government will accept all my new clauses on children giving evidence in criminal proceedings?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I intend to accept the central point on video evidence. That does not include every aspect of new clause 1, but we shall go into the details later. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman reintroduced the new clause.

The dropping of certain provisions on fines had unforeseen effects which made necessary the introduction of the provision on supervised attendance orders. I should be grateful if Opposition Members could exercise a willing suspension of disbelief until we reach new clause 20. For our part, we are ready to debate any of the points that

Column 1061

Opposition Members may consider raise large issues and to explain why we regard the provisions as necessary and desirable in the interests of the Scottish people.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause 16

Designated religious bodies

".--(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time, by order, designate for the purposes of this section such recognised bodies as appear to him--

(a) to have as their principal purpose the promotion of a religious objective ;

(b) to have as their principal activity the regular holding of acts of public worship ; and

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(c) above are-- (a) subject to subsection (4) below, that the body has been established in Scotland for not less than 10 years ;

(b) that the body can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that it has a membership of not less than 3,000 persons resident in Scotland who are 16 years of age or more ; and (c) that the internal organisation of the body is such that one or more authorities in Scotland exercise supervisory and disciplinary functions in respect of the component elements of the body and, in particular, that there are imposed on such component elements requirements as to the keeping of accounting records and the auditing of accounts which appear to the Secretary of State to correspond to those required by sections 3 and 4 of this Act.

(3) Where a body is, for the time being, designated under subsection (1) above the following provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to the body nor to any component or structural element of the body which is, itself, a recognised body--

section 1(5) ;

section 3 ;

section 4, other than subsections (6) to (8) and subsection (12) ; section 5(2) and (6) ;

section 6 ; and

section 7.

(4) The Secretary of State may determine that the condition mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above shall not be required to be satisfied in the case of a body--

(a) which has been created by the amalgamation of two or more bodies each of which, immediately before the amalgamation, either was designated under this section or appears to the Secretary of State to have been eligible for such designation ; or

(b) which has been constituted by persons who have removed themselves from membership of a body which, immediately before such removal, was so designated or appears to the Secretary of State to have been eligible for such designation.".--[ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I found this the most difficult issue in the Bill. I will try to sum up quickly our point of view on it. New clause 16, in its former guise as new clause 2, was the subject of prolonged debate in Committee. As a result of the concerns of many hon. Members, I agreed to withdraw new clause 2 for further consideration. Having given the matter further thought, I concluded that the new clause should be part of the Bill with only a minor modification to its former form. New clause 16 seeks to provide a

Column 1062

measure of exemption from the supervisory and accounting provisions of Part I for religious organisations with a substantial following in Scotland.

Forceful representations were made to the Government that charities for the advancement of religion--Churches--are in some respects a special case. Religious freedom is, of course, a fundamental right of people in this country, and we must be careful that, in establishing a system of supervision, we do not prejudice or appear to prejudice that.

The person concerned with the management and control of a religious charity will frequently be the religious leader of the community. To suspend a religious leader, as the court will be entitled to do for mismanagement of the secular affairs of the religious body, might be viewed as improper interference by the secular authority in spiritual matters. The state is, of course, most anxious not to become involved in any way in the spiritual affairs of the charity.

A most important consideration is that, if we were to provide a blanket exemption for all bodies established for the advancement of religion, many undesirable, cult-like bodies would escape control. Some unscrupulous people might, indeed, deliberately set up charities with spurious religious purposes to escape the controls contained in the Bill. That must be avoided.

A distinction also needs to be drawn between taking action to intervene in a Church's affairs or to enforce compliance, on the one hand, and simply including the Churches within the purview of those provisions concerned with disclosure, accounts and the Lord Advocate's right to investigate, on the other.

Yet a further consideration, and one about which hon. Members who served in Committee were particularly concerned, is that, for obvious reasons, we do not wish to discriminate in favour of one religion over another on grounds of religious doctrine. That is certainly no business of the state.

New clause 16 affords religious organisations capable of meeting certain criteria the opportunity of opting out from the supervisory and investigatory functions of the Lord Advocate and the courts. It enables them to prepare accounts in the manner in which they have in the past, provided that such accounts are generally of a standard similar to those provided for in clauses 3 and 4. It removes the possibility of sanctions being applied for non-compliance, but retains a right for members of the public to seek copies of accounts and the explanatory document.

The provisions are necessarily a compromise, but I believe that they strike a reasonable balance between ensuring that there is internal control within the religious body as regards discipline and the requirement for production of accounts, and preserving a right for the public to be informed, while removing from such bodies anxiety, however misplaced it may seem, about interference by the state.

This is difficult territory, and any solution must be a compromise. The new clause has the support of the Scottish Churches Committee, a body representing all the major Churches in Scotland whose combined membership of people over the age of 16 amounts to 1,600,000. Despite widespread reporting of the Standing Committee's consideration of the original clause and our having since consulted the minor Christian Churches and the non- Christian religions in Scotland, including the Jewish congregations, members of the Islamic and Hindu faiths,

Column 1063

Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Religious Society of Friends, the Salvation Army and a wide variety of smaller bodies, I have received no representations to the effect that the provisions are unacceptable. On the other hand, I have received strong representations from the Scottish Churches Committee, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and various parish ministers to the effect that the new clause should be introduced.

4 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : I wonder whether the Minister could clarify a matter that is causing me some apprehension. It arises from the justification that he has advanced for the clause. Do I understand that one reason for the clause is to ensure that the Lord Advocate does not have to intervene in the affairs of religious charities in the same way as he might have to intervene in the affairs of non- religious charities?

Surely the issue concerns the standard of conduct and the standard of behaviour of a charity, whether it is of religious origin or not. It is most curious to say that the exemption is being introduced for the purpose of ensuring that the Lord Advocate does not apply the same standard to religious charities as, by law, he would be obliged to apply to non- religious charities.

Next Section

Home Page