Labour unveils Team Scotland to take on SNP

13 Scottish MPs have been charged with the responsibility of taking on the Nationalists

Labour has assembled a crack-team of 13 Scottish MPs to spearhead the fight against the SNP in the run up to the forthcoming independence referendum, which the Scottish Government has pledged to hold sometime between 2014 and 2016.

Led by new Shadow Scotland Secretary Margaret Curran, it is composed of some of the party's brightest young Scottish talent, including Gemma Doyle and Gregg McClymont, and a number of its more established figures like ex-Defence Secretary Lord Browne and former MSP and Scottish Executive minister Cathy Jamieson.

Commenting on its formation, Curran said the new group - which she described as "powerful"- would focus on the "big economic issues" and work to "hold the government at Westminster to account day in, day out". In an echo of the attack line used by Scottish Labour during its disastrous Holyrood election campaign earlier this year, she also drew a parallel between the Nationalist administration in Edinburgh and the Coalition administration in London: "These are tough times for many families caught between a Tory government cutting too hard and too fast, and an SNP government whose economic policy simply isn't working."

However, the precise remit of 'Team Scotland' is unclear. How will it relate to the party north of the border, particularly in light of the latter's efforts to distance itself from Westminster influence? What part will it play in opposing Scottish Government policy, a role which had up until now been reserved for the MSP group? Crucially, will it be accountable to the next Scottish leader or to Ed Miliband?

These questions lay bare the dilemma Labour has found itself in with regard to Scotland over the last few years. For instance, if Curran's troupe is answerable to Miliband, the SNP will, rightly, take it as confirmation that the party has failed to come to terms with the nationalist dynamics currently fuelling Scotland's drive toward greater autonomy. If not, Salmond and his supporters will cite it as evidence that the Unionists are dancing to a separatist tune and claim a further, albeit minor, victory in their bid to dismantle the British political structure. Either way, Labour comes off second best and Curran certainly has her work cut out.

James Maxwell is a Scottish political journalist. He is based between Scotland and London.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.