Plenary, 31 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001

Official Report 364KB pdf

---

Outworking Bill

The next item is a debate on motion S1M-1596, in the name of Mr Alasdair Morrison, on the Outworking Bill, which is UK legislation, and on an amendment to that motion.

The most vulnerable people in our society are often the target of unscrupulous people who cynically try to exploit them. One example is the use of bogus home-working schemes, aimed at people who are unable to work outside the home, including pensioners, carers, the disabled, lone parents and people with learning difficulties or poor communication skills.

Genuine home-working opportunities can offer employees and employers greater choice and flexibility, particularly if a home worker is able to work flexible hours. Home working can open the labour market to individuals, including the disabled, for whom other types of employment are difficult or incompatible with their circumstances. It is estimated there were almost 38,000 home workers in Scotland last year.

Scams are different. They often start with an advert in a newspaper or shop window, or on a lamp post. They hold out an opportunity for lucrative work that simply does not exist. The scams take many forms: they may demand advance payment, with promises of work that never materialises, or payment for home assembly kits with which work is done but never rewarded. Others turn out to be scams for recruiting other people to do the same.

The people who run these schemes have been getting away with it for far too long. They are cynically exploiting those who are least able to defend themselves. At any time, about 300 scams are known to be in operation in various parts of the United Kingdom. Every year, thousands of people are victims of such scams. Without action, the number of victims will increase.

It is time that these swindlers were stopped—and that is exactly what the Outworking Bill aims to do. Since the 1999 consumer white paper was published, there has been a commitment to tackle bogus outworking schemes—a commitment that I hope is shared by all members. As Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Henry McLeish gave the Executive's endorsement to the broad sweep of consumer protection proposals that were set out in that white paper, including proposals to tackle home-working scams. The fact that those proposals will now be implemented by means of a private member's bill at Westminster in no way detracts from the merits of the bill, which has been given the full support of the United Kingdom Government.

Those members of the public who have been stung in the past by such scams will be all too glad to see them brought to an end by this route, which is the quickest route. Although outworking is a devolved matter, it is vital that we prevent Scotland from becoming a haven for unscrupulous practices that will affect many of our constituents. The protection that will be provided by the bill should therefore be extended to Scotland. Uniform protection will then be available in all parts of the United Kingdom. Leaving a loophole in Scotland whereby the exploitation of vulnerable and needy people could continue is both unwanted and unnecessary.

As the memorandum explains, the bill will tackle scams by outlawing advance payments and the advertising of bogus schemes. Trading standards officials will be able to intervene as soon as they are aware of a scam. The bill has been drafted to avoid penalising genuine home-working schemes or legitimate business practices such as franchises, direct selling or employment agencies.

I ask the Parliament to support the Executive's motion. I expect that all right-thinking members hope and appreciate that it makes sense to work in co-operation with other parts of the United Kingdom to provide a uniform level of protection for the British public. Our overriding concern is to introduce an effective ban on bogus outworking schemes quickly. The bill offers an effective way of protecting the vulnerable members of our society.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principle of tackling bogus outworking schemes by controlling the seeking or receipt of advance payments for the provision of work or of information about work opportunities as set out in the Outworking Bill and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve this end in the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

At the outset, I wish to make it clear that the SNP has no objections to the aims of the bill. Protecting the public against the cheats and fraudsters whose business is to con money from would-be workers, many of whom can ill afford to lose any money, is an objective with which we can all agree.

It is a matter of regret that, under the terms of the Executive's motion, the Parliament will be deprived of the opportunity to discuss how to tackle the issues raised in the bill. Members will be unable to scrutinise the bill and we will be unable to propose or discuss amendments. In short, we will be unable to tailor the bill to fit Scottish needs or to consider whether any extensions to it are required.

There is a more fundamental issue for the Parliament: whether a Westminster MP should legislate for Scotland on wholly devolved matters by means of a private member's bill. The Outworking Bill was introduced by the member for Birmingham Northfield.

I quite understand that the UK Government wishes to legislate for Scotland on devolved matters when a wider UK bill is under consideration. However, a private member's bill, by its nature, is neither Government legislation nor a Government priority. Notwithstanding the long-standing commitment that the minister claimed the Government has had on outworking, the Government has not introduced a bill on the issue.

Private members' bills and their implications for devolution have been examined previously. Margaret Beckett, the Leader of the House of Commons, made that clear in a memorandum to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons, in which she said:

"The Government is likely to oppose any private Member's bill which seeks to alter the law on devolved subjects in Scotland or Northern Ireland."

When the late Donald Dewar addressed this chamber on 9 June 1999, he was of the same mind. He said that

"the Scottish Executive expects that the UK Government will oppose any private member's bill that seeks to alter the law on devolved subjects unless it is clear that the proposal has the support of the relevant devolved body."—[Official Report, 9 June 1999, Vol 1, c 358.]

Given the views expressed by Donald Dewar, the chamber should expect two things: the UK Government should not support the bill and the Parliament should oppose it today. Support from the devolved body should be informed, rather than based on a half-hour debate. The UK Government has not yet expressed a view on the bill, as the bill's second reading does not take place until 12 February.

We must ask the minister why the Scottish Executive is in such a hurry to transfer its responsibilities over devolved matters by means of a private member's bill promoted by a back-bench MP who represents an English constituency. Why is the Executive seeking this Parliament's consent? Has the Scottish Executive discussed the bill with Westminster colleagues? Does the Executive no longer expect such private members' bills to be opposed by the UK Government? Why have not representations on behalf of this Parliament been made before now?

Those are serious and important issues for the Parliament. The Outworking Bill is the first private member's bill that has been the subject of a Sewel motion and I do not believe that we should even be considering it today—the convention that has been agreed should be adhered to.

I notice that the Presiding Officer wants me to wind up, so I will do so. I ask the Executive to reconsider its position on the bill, even at this stage, and to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S1M-1596.1, to leave out from "as set out" to end and insert:

"and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to bring forward legislation in Scotland to achieve these aims of the UK Outworking Bill."

My contribution to the debate will be fairly brief. The Conservative party welcomes the minister's motion for two reasons. Outworking is a matter of concern throughout the United Kingdom and, if a bill has already been introduced in Westminster, it seems eminently sensible to allow Westminster to proceed with it. That would avoid duplication of parliamentary activity by this chamber—I believe that all members welcome the bill—and, I hope, the disadvantage of cross-border disparities arising if separate legislation were to be considered by the Scottish Parliament.

However, one or two technical issues arise that merit consideration. First, the practices that the bill strikes at, while nefarious and profoundly undesirable, may to some extent already be covered by criminal law in Scotland. That significant aspect should be borne in mind. Secondly, I hope that the bill will be scrutinised by the Scottish Executive justice department so that technical input can be made to Westminster. That is competent and perfectly possible, so I disagree with Ms Marwick on that point.

There are instances of genuine commercial activity in which one individual negotiates with another for the provision of goods or services and in which the pre-payment of some initial deposit is involved. It is important that the Westminster bill should attempt to distinguish between the sort of activity that this chamber would—unanimously, I am sure—condemn as unacceptable and the genuine individual commercial activity that can legitimately take place between individuals. It would not be desirable if the bill struck at that kind of legitimate activity.

People work from home for various reasons. Many people who see home working as an option that suits their circumstances are cut off, for one reason or another, from other employment opportunities. That makes them sitting ducks for unscrupulous operators who can, at present, employ dubious practices that are not, strictly speaking, illegal. Care must be taken to ensure that opportunities offered by genuine and reputable companies for people to work from home remain. However, legislation to protect people from bogus schemes is welcome and overdue.

If such legislation is under way at Westminster—whoever is promoting it—and if that legislation will extend protection UK-wide, I can see no good reason to duplicate that legislative effort in this Parliament. Miss Goldie made some pertinent points about ensuring that Westminster legislation correlates with Scottish legislation, but the sensible and pragmatic way forward is to agree that the Sewel motion be passed and that the work be done at Westminster, tailored to our circumstances if necessary. The sooner that is done, the better. If this is the best and quickest way forward, we should take it.

As a former official with the GMB—which is the union for Scotland's estimated 38,000 home workers—I take a keen interest in measures to protect that vulnerable section of the work force. Those workers carry out a massive range of tasks, from envelope addressing to assembly work. Most of them are women—often black ethnic minority women—in their 20s or 30s with dependent children.

I could recount at length the issues that home working raises for trade unionists. Only 9 per cent of home workers have a written contract; only a quarter get information about their tax or national insurance; and only a third receive an itemised pay slip. Many have no guarantee of minimum hours of work, and there are problems around maternity leave and sick pay, for example.

Although I recognise the many problems in that sector, and although I will continue to campaign for home workers' rights, we are, as the minister said, talking about people who are exploited far more than genuine home workers are; we are talking about the victims of the outworking scams. That is not legitimate home working; it is exploitation and, thanks to this bill, it will soon become criminal.

We all know how the scams work. Companies offer non-existent work—for example, kits that people make up but that are continually rejected because the company says that they are substandard, leaving the home workers out of pocket. The bill will make it illegal for companies to demand upfront payments or to advertise bogus schemes; it will crack down on the unprincipled parasites that run those operations.

However, do our colleagues and friends on the SNP benches care about that?

Yes!

No—no they do not. That is the difference between us. Never mind that we will be protecting some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland; never mind that we will be clamping down on unscrupulous con artists who cynically prey on people in desperate circumstances; the SNP says, "No, let's have"—

Will the member give way?

Would Mr Russell sit down? We have heard enough of him today.

Yes is the answer.

No. The SNP says, "No—let's have a constitutional debate. Let's all sit down and have a chat about the schedules to the Scotland Act, private members' bills and Sewel motions." That might be more important to the SNP, but it is not more important to me and it is not important at all to the people whom the bill will protect. The nationalists want to leave 38,000 vulnerable workers twisting in the wind while they carry on with their self-indulgent constitutional pontificating.

Such a level of debate does not befit this chamber. I do not care who introduces the bill and nor do the people whom it will protect. Only the SNP members care about that—and it is all that they care about. I urge SNP members to think about what the bill will do, to grow up and to support the motion.

That was a truly pathetic speech, because in this short debate the SNP has not in any way disputed the value or aims of the bill. We support the principle. Of course we support what is set out in the memorandum of the bill, which says that

"it will be unlawful to ask for or receive a payment in advance",

that

"no payment can be taken from the worker"

and that

"it will be unlawful to advertise bogus schemes".

Of course we agree with that; nobody has at any point suggested otherwise.

However, our focused objection has two points. The bill laudably aims

"to tackle bogus outworking schemes but will not affect genuine homeworking jobs".

What we want—it is why this Parliament exists—is to bring scrutiny to bear on that aim to see whether it will be achieved in Scotland by the bill or whether there may be other aspects to consider.

The argument put by Annabel Goldie and our friends the Liberal Democrats does not stack up. Tricia Marwick said that there may be distinctively Scottish aspects to the problem that should be looked at. That is not the daft constitutional point that Duncan McNeil seems to think it is. It is possible that Scotland's demography is different or that there is a different employment profile here. To take Annabel Goldie's example, given that there is a different legal system, is it not possible that distinctive aspects of that system may need to be looked at?

If that is the case and if—even in this tiny, truncated debate—we have already identified a range of areas where there may be distinct Scottish problems, why should the Scottish Parliament, which exists to improve the scrutiny of legislation, not do just that?

Quoting Margaret Beckett and Donald Dewar makes the point that the issue has been specifically addressed. On 9 June 1999, Donald Dewar said in this Parliament:

"In addition, the Scottish Executive expects that the UK Government will oppose any private member's bill that seeks to alter the law on devolved subjects unless it is clear that the proposal has the support of the relevant devolved body. That is also the position of the UK Government."—[Official Report, 9 June 1999; Vol 1, c 358.]

It is impossible to know before coming to Parliament whether the relevant body agrees because the Parliament is the relevant body. It was clearly stated that the UK Government and the Scottish Executive would not push through a private member's bill until it was known whether the relevant body agreed. If it was right then, what has changed? Why is it wrong now? What is the rationale for accepting such a bill now when previously it was not acceptable? If nothing has changed, does Labour no longer agree that democratic scrutiny—to provide, in Labour's soundbite,

"Scottish solutions to Scottish problems"—

is central to the Parliament's purpose?

If we want more than a quick headline, we should not pass the devolved responsibilities of this Parliament to another institution, let alone to a back bencher in another institution. That is an abdication of our responsibility. We owe it to the people who put us here to do the job that we are paid to do.

I support what Duncan McNeil said. I am glad that a Labour member from Birmingham is promoting this private member's bill. Like Duncan McNeil, I was a GMB union official, but in the southern region where I lived and worked for 17 years before coming back to Scotland. I was the chairperson of the national home working campaign and we lamented the fact that for around half a century there had been no legislation to protect home workers. I vividly remember meeting many home workers from Cornwall, Devon, Hampshire and London—people making shoes and cushions at home and even people undertaking Government work, through a contractor, who were being paid a pitiful amount for dealing with tax returns.

Rather than navel-gazing, which is what Duncan Hamilton is engaged in, we should be standing in solidarity with our comrades down south on an issue that is important to people throughout Scotland. We are talking about issues of poverty that really hit home to the people who are most vulnerable in our society: mothers who cannot go out to work and young people who cannot get jobs through the regular processes. We need to celebrate the fact that the legislation, which is needed, is being introduced. All strength to the elbow of the people who are putting the bill forward.

I can remember being one of those young people myself, reading the Exchange & Mart, being desperate for money, and thinking, "How can I earn myself some money?" I answered an advertisement in Exchange & Mart, paid money up front and got back cushion covers, but received no money for the work that I did.

Let us support our colleagues and everything that is being done in the south. More needs to be done. A vast amount of employment protection legislation needs to be introduced to strengthen the position of people who work at home. It is not bad to work at home—there are many good things that people can do when they are working at home. We should not engage in constitutional wrangling. Let us fix the problem. Let us focus on the issues and work well for the people who matter: those people who work in their homes and who need our help.

I will respond first to Helen Eadie.

There is no point.

My colleague says that there is no point in doing that, but I will. Helen Eadie made an impassioned plea on behalf of people who have been cheated by fraudsters. It is right and proper that such matters should be addressed. However, if she is so passionate about the issue, why does she not think that she should carry out her job in this Parliament by making legislation for the benefit of the very people whom she purports to represent?

Annabel Goldie raised an important issue. We are dealing with a private member's bill that could inadvertently change criminal law in Scotland, and we are being asked to do so on the basis of a two-page memorandum and a bill that refers to no Scottish legislation. We do not know the impact of the bill on Scottish legislation. I urge the Executive to consider closely the implications of what it is asking the Parliament to do. We need far more scrutiny of the bill and I urge members to support my amendment so that we can give the issue the scrutiny that it deserves.

The memorandum does not say exactly what the bill covers. Duncan Hamilton made some important points. There are issues that the minister must address in summing up. He must tell us what discussion there has been with his Westminster colleagues. He must also tell us whether there has been discussion with the member who introduced the bill. He must explain the meaning of this statement by Margaret Beckett:

"The Government is likely to oppose any private Member's bill which seeks to alter the law on devolved subjects in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It will remain a question of judgment for individual Members"—

that is, back-bench Westminster MPs—

"whether to introduce legislation on an issue which Parliament has already decided should be devolved, unless it is clear that the proposal has the support of the devolved body concerned."

That is the important issue. It is about the Westminster MP finding out, before he introduces a bill, whether it is clear that the Scottish Parliament will support it.

We were not asked for our views prior to the introduction of the bill. The first reading has already taken place and the second reading is scheduled for 12 February. It is vital that such issues are addressed. That does not take away from the fundamental issues in the bill. We can do both: we can consider the way in which the issue affects people in Scotland and debate a similar Scottish bill. If, as the minister suggested, the matter is such a priority, there is no reason on earth why the Executive cannot introduce similar legislation. I urge the minister to answer the questions and to reconsider the Executive's whole position on the matter.

I welcome the majority of the views that have been expressed today. I will begin with Annabel Goldie's dignified and appropriate remarks, which highlighted several relevant issues. Miss Goldie, rightly, highlighted the potential cross-border disparity that would arise unless the chamber supports the Executive motion. Miss Goldie raised several issues about Executive officials and their relationship with officials at Whitehall. I assure her that the officials are in regular contact on matters that could impact Scots law and any differences that may arise. Nora Radcliffe questioned the impact of the bill on legitimate home working. The bill will not impact the genuine employer, who has nothing to fear.

The Scottish National Party has claimed to support the bill. However, the fact that the SNP lodged its tawdry amendment borders on the pathetic. In her opening three-minute speech, Trish Marwick spent more time dealing with constitutional minutiae than with the bill that will make Scotland a no-go area for the unscrupulous who seek to exploit the vulnerable.

Will the minister give way?

I do not have enough time—I have only three minutes to deal with the SNP and its irrelevancies. In the three minutes of Trish Marwick's opening speech she proved one thing: she is completely off her constitutional trolley.

The fact that the bill has been introduced at Westminster does not detract from its merits and is not a valid reason for excluding Scotland from its scope. I know that the nationalists have difficulty digesting that, so I will say it again: the fact that the bill has been introduced at Westminster is not a valid reason for excluding Scotland from its scope. Every MP, including those who represent Scottish constituencies, has the opportunity to consider the bill. That includes the member for Banff and Buchan, but judging by yesterday's performance and the mauling that he received from the Secretary of State for Scotland, I doubt whether Mr Salmond will appear at Westminster for many weeks.

The nationalist amendment would mean abandoning other Scottish priorities to make time to produce separate legislation in Scotland. In effect, the nationalist amendment would allow the UK Parliament to dictate the Scottish Parliament's legislative programme.

Now that I have dealt with the irrelevancies, I will turn to the issue at hand. It is worth reminding members that, at any one time, about 300 scams are operating in the United Kingdom. Such scams can secure thousands of pounds for the operators and bring misery to the victims who have parted with much-needed cash. It is essential that the Parliament gives a clear message that the con artists who operate those scams will not be tolerated in Scotland. There is widespread support from business and consumer groups for the measures contained in the bill to stop that malpractice. The provisions will ensure that the seeking of advance payments and the advertising of bogus schemes can be stamped out through the introduction of criminal offences. That will give trading standards officers the powers that they require to deal effectively with the scams that we know are going on.

It is essential that the measures provide uniform protection across the United Kingdom. We cannot allow Scottish consumers to have less protection than their counterparts elsewhere. If we do not allow the Outworking Bill to be extended to Scotland, this country will become a haven for such scams. That would be a wholly unacceptable situation. I ask the Parliament to support the Executive's motion.