Immigration Bill (First sitting)

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Mr Peter Bone, Albert Owen

† Blomfield, Paul (Sheffield Central) (Lab)

† Brokenshire, James (Minister for Immigration)

Buckland, Robert (Solicitor General)

† Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)

† Davies, Byron (Gower) (Con)

† Davies, Mims (Eastleigh) (Con)

† Elphicke, Charlie (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Harris, Rebecca (Castle Point) (Con)

† Hayman, Sue (Workington) (Lab)

† Hoare, Simon (North Dorset) (Con)

† Hollern, Kate (Blackburn) (Lab)

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab)

† McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow North East) (SNP)

† Newlands, Gavin (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)

† Smith, Chloe (Norwich North) (Con)

† Starmer, Keir (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)

† Tolhurst, Kelly (Rochester and Strood) (Con)

† Whittaker, Craig (Calder Valley) (Con)

Marek Kubala, Joanna Welham, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Judith Dennis, Policy Manager, Refugee Council

Mike Kaye, Co-ordinator, Still Human Still Here

John Wilkes, Chief Executive, Scottish Refugee Council

Professor Sir David Metcalf CBE, Chair, Migration Advisory Committee

Kevin Green, Chief Executive Officer, Recruitment and Employment Confederation

John Miley, Chair, National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers

Caroline Robinson, Policy Director, Focus on Labour Exploitation

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 20 October 2015

(Morning)

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

Immigration Bill

09:30

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few points to make. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. For some reason I have never entirely understood, tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. Today we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before our oral evidence sessions, and then a motion to enable the reporting of witnesses’ evidence for publication. Given the time, to allow us most time for cross-examining witnesses I hope that we will be able to take the motions formally.

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.30 am on Tuesday 20 October) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 October;

(c) at 9.30 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 27 October;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 October;

(e) at 9.30 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 November;

(g) at 9.30 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 November;

(h) at 9.30 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 November;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

TABLE

[The Chair]

On the basis of the programme motion, the deadline for amendments to be considered on 27 October, when the Committee will begin line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, is the rise of the House on Thursday 22 October.

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(James Brokenshire.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(James Brokenshire.)

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. We will now go into private session to discuss our lines of questioning, so anyone who should not be here should now please go.

09:31

The Committee deliberated in private.

Examination of Witnesses

Judith Dennis, Mike Kaye and John Wilkes gave evidence.

09:36

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Still Human Still Here, the Refugee Council and the Scottish Refugee Council. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.15 am. Welcome to our witnesses; will you please introduce yourselves for the record?

Mike Kaye: I am Mike Kaye, the advocacy manager for Still Human Still Here.

Judith Dennis: I am Judith Dennis, policy manager at the Refugee Council.

John Wilkes: I am John Wilkes, the chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Q 1 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. This question is directed to Judith Dennis and Mike Kaye in the first instance. You have both expressed concern about the adverse consequences of the provisions on the removal of support in the Bill. Will you tell the Committee what, in headline terms, your concerns are? You have also expressed a concern that the provisions will fail to further the Government’s stated aim, so as well as the adverse consequences, will you outline how, if at all, the Bill will support the Government’s stated aim?

Judith Dennis: We think that the Bill is incompatible with the processes for families to engage with the Home Office if they want to return or have come to the end of the asylum process—these measures would not be compatible with that. The Bill will shift responsibility to local authority children’s services, which have a duty to support children in need. We do not think that it will achieve the desired outcome, partly because families will inevitably lose touch with the Home Office—there will be no incentive for them to keep engaging with the Home Office to try to resolve their situation. Indeed, when a similar measure was piloted in the past, that is what happened. Mike can probably talk more about the impact on individuals.

Mike Kaye: To take up that point, one of the Bill’s goals is to encourage the departure of refused asylum seekers with no lawful right to remain. Members of the Committee should be in no doubt that the Bill will not increase voluntary returns or forced removals. You do not need to take my word for that. We already have on the books section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, which allows these very measures to be put in place. The Home Office’s own review of a pilot carried out in 2005 found that a third of families absconded. The review compared the pilot with a control group of people who continued to be supported, and the number of people who absconded in the pilot was double that in the control group who were supported. The number of forced removals in the pilot was one family, as compared with nine in the control group. The Home Office’s conclusion was that it did not significantly increase voluntary returns and that it should not be used as a blanket policy. It is ironic, therefore, that 10 years on, we are trying to implement the very policy that did not work beforehand. You only have to look at other reviews that have been carried out, where Home Office staff have said, “You should keep refused asylum seekers supported because it allows them to be removed”, yet the Home Office is ignoring the advice of its own staff.

I have to say that this is really an abdication of immigration control—if Committee Members are concerned about immigration control, they should be concerned about this measure—but much worse, it is an abdication of responsibilities to children’s welfare. Bear with me, and I will explain what the impact will be on the people affected. Asylum seekers generally do not have great health. You have people who have experienced torture or who have witnessed or had traumatic experiences. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said that their mental health deteriorates on impact with the system. If they are pregnant, they are three times more likely to die than the general population—that is in general. The level of support that they are on, and most of them would be destitute, is £5 a day to meet the essential living needs of food, clothing, toiletries, transport and anything else. I am not saying that you will starve on £5 a day—you will not—but if you are on that for an extended period of time, it will have consequences for your health and wellbeing.

Currently, we have more than 3,500 asylum seekers waiting more than six months for an initial decision, and appeals are listed six months ahead. Now, if you get to the point where you cut that group off entirely from support, their health will deteriorate much faster than that of the general population. It will cause and exacerbate existing health problems. You only have to look at some of the serious case reviews from the last few years, where asylum-seeking mothers have died from health issues. Those serious case reviews have found that the removal of support was one of the exacerbating factors, so we should be in no doubt that this will have very serious consequences.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 2 You have mentioned the adverse consequences and the number of families in the pilot, some years ago, who disappeared off the radar. How does this compare with supported returns—family support in the return programme—in terms of achieving the Government’s aim?

Mike Kaye: As I just mentioned, one of the aims is getting people to return home, and it is less effective once you remove support, because, as Home Office staff have said, when you do not know where someone is, it is that much more difficult to locate and remove them, so the absconding rate is double once you remove support. Even if asylum seekers wish to stay in contact, and there is no incentive for them to do so, it is very difficult once they become destitute, so this does not achieve the stated goal of trying to get people to return home at the end of the process.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 3 Thank you. You have mentioned children and the impact on them on a number of occasions. Will you give a bit more detail on what the impact might be on local authorities if support is withdrawn for children that come within their area? How does that work and what might the consequences be for the local authority?

Judith Dennis: The local authority has a duty to all children in its area who are in need, so it will be obliged under that legislation to assess the needs of families and of those children, and to provide services accordingly. Of course, in this country, we are very proud of the Children Act in England and Wales, and the Children Acts in Scotland. We are under no illusion that local authorities will want to fulfil those duties and will want the Government to support them financially for that, but we can see from other families who have no recourse to public funds that local authorities are bearing the responsibility of providing for the children. Of course, if you are going to provide for the children, it is both morally and financially sensible to provide for the whole family, so we think there will be a great impact on local authorities.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 4 Following up on that, you have mentioned finances. Are there circumstances in which you envisage that it will be necessary to remove a child from a family in order for support to be provided by the local authority?

Judith Dennis: That should only be done if there are concerns about the parenting, as with other families. It is not a principle of the Children Act that we remove children from their parents and carers if they are doing a perfectly fine job of looking after them. The Children Act was brought in with that principle in mind: that families should stay together, because they are the best people to bring up their own children, and that should happen regardless of the financial difficulties they are in. That is why we have the Children Act to provide that financial support where necessary.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 5 Hence the local authority, in those circumstances, would step in and provide the support that is being removed under the Bill.

Judith Dennis: Indeed.

Mike Kaye: It is instructive to look at the section 9 pilot again. Barnardo’s did a review with 33 local authorities and none of them thought that section 9, which is the equivalent of what we are looking at with this clause, was compatible with the Children Act. They all had concerns about the transfer of cost to local authorities, which would not be reimbursed; the fact that they would still have to do reviews of whether the child was in need and whether human rights were being breached; and that they were opening themselves up to litigation. All those concerns are equally valid for this Bill. The Government’s intention is that local authorities will not support, but I do not see how you can square the circle with the Children Act in that respect.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 6 Thank you. Finally from me, there are provisions in the Bill to prevent appeals against decisions on support. Can you give some evidence as to the quality of the decisions currently being made about the support available in such circumstances?

Mike Kaye: Yes. On the Home Office’s decision-making on asylum support, just to be clear: if someone thinks that there is an obstacle to them returning—for example, they are too sick to travel or they are trying to return but their Government will not issue them with documents—the Government should provide them with support. The same is true for the Bill. In practice, that is often very restrictively interpreted. For example, even when the Iranian embassy was closed, Iranian asylum seekers who were trying to return home and could not get documents were still refused support.

If you are refused support, you can go to the asylum support tribunal. Currently, with more than 60% of cases that go to the tribunal, either the case is overturned by the tribunal, so the asylum seekers are given support; or the decision is remitted back to the Home Office because the tribunal does not think it was right; or the Home Office withdraws the decision because the tribunal thinks it is flawed. If you are getting more than 60% of decisions wrong, how can you take away that means of appeal? You are actually leaving people destitute. That decision to leave a family destitute is far too important to remove the right to appeal, especially when the vast majority of those decisions are wrong in the first place.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 7 Am I right that people may be left destitute on the basis of a decision that is wrong or that needs to be retaken?

Mike Kaye: Exactly right.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Q 8 Mr Kaye, do you agree, in principle, that there should be an ability to take sanctions against people who have no right to be in this country and are frustrating efforts to remove them or not co-operating with a voluntary returns mechanism? Do you accept that principle as a legitimate policy response?

Mike Kaye: Absolutely. We have a system whereby we try to discover whether people meet the criteria for refugee status. It is a very tough measure. You have to prove that you are being persecuted as an individual, that your Government are unwilling or unable to protect you, and that there is no other area of your country that you can go back to and be safe. It is a high measure to prove. I fully accept that if people do not meet that and if that assessment is accurate, they need to return to their home countries.

What I have highlighted is that the measures in the Bill will not help you to return individuals who have come to the end of the process. If you really want to return people at the end of the process, you need to stay in touch with them. Quite often an equation is made between refused asylum seekers and abusive asylum seekers. That is not the case for the vast majority. Last year, the Home Office refused 70% of Iraqis, 70% of Libyans, and 65% of Afghans. I am not necessarily saying that those decisions are wrong. I am saying that you need to understand that those people at the end of the process still have a fear about returning and that is why they do not always co-operate. I take the Minister’s point that sometimes people are not co-operating because they do not want to go home and they should rightfully go home, but for an effective policy, you need to stay in touch with people to encourage them to return voluntarily return or if forced removal is to take place.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 9 There is obviously a distinction that can be drawn. Clearly, you are not supportive of certain aspects of the policy, but I think you have taken the principle. Can I ask about the safeguards that would operate? Am I right in saying that the provisions under section 55 of the Children Act would apply and that provisions relating to destitution would be there in terms of support?

Mike Kaye: I think it is section 55 of the Immigration Act; but this is a question for you, Minister, about something that we do not understand. You said on Second Reading that the protections in the Children Act would be retained. You said in the consultation that safeguards would be introduced for children. I do not understand how you can safeguard children from destitution when it is the explicit aim of the policy that children should not get support from statutory services, local authorities or central Government. Will you explain that to Members, because I cannot square that circle.

[The Chair]

Can I just jump in? I should have explained to witnesses—I apologise for not doing it at the beginning—that Ministers love these sessions. It is a time that they get to ask questions, rather than getting grilled. I want to bring some more Members in, because I have about five queueing up to ask questions.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Q 10 Mr Kaye, are you saying that appeal rights-exhausted families who could and should leave the UK should be entitled to automatic and indefinite support, either from local authorities or the Home Office, if they do not leave?

Mike Kaye: I am saying that if you are really concerned about immigration control, if you want these families to leave, cutting off support from them not only risks the children coming to harm but impairs your ability to enforce removals or encourage voluntary return.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 11 My question, though, was whether you are advocating that we provide indefinite ongoing support for people if they refuse to leave?

Mike Kaye: I think that for families with children, that is the way to have effective immigration control.

[The Chair]

Could I just jump in? I wonder whether Mr Wilkes and Judith Dennis would like to speak on this particular point as well, so that we hear from all three witnesses.

John Wilkes: I think that we still have to support families and those whose appeal rights are refused while engaging with them about the options for return. Taking away support does nothing to facilitate that; all it does is force them to think about what support they can get or force them to disappear from the system. There are no other families in the UK who do not have some form of entitlement to support, so I do not see why these families, who we are trying to work with on their decision—and ultimately, for people who are in that category, on their removal—should not have support. There is no evidence, from any of the other initiatives the Home Office has tried, that taking away support, particularly for families, is going to achieve the policy goal of removal. That is what the policy goal is: we need to look at other ways of achieving it.

Judith Dennis: I absolutely agree. It is frightening to think of the alternative. We are actually talking about making families destitute, so that they have no means of support. What are they going to do? I do not think that that is going to encourage them to go along to the Home Office and say, “May I sign up for voluntary return, please?” The family returns process is a better process for families, because it takes into account their complex situations and the fact that they have very difficult decisions to make, and that those decisions may take some time to come to. If you are a family who fears that their daughter is going to be subject to female genital mutilation on return, but you have not been able to prove that, you are still going to have that fear. Your fear is then, “Which is better? I’m between a rock and a hard place; I don’t know whether to stay here and take my chances. I may get exploited, I may have to live on the streets, I may have to take support from strangers and sleep in their houses and put myself in dangerous situations. Or do I take my family back to what I think is a dangerous situation”. The family returns process encourages engagement on an ongoing basis. It is a process with four stages; it is very well set out in policy. Family engagement managers are employed specifically to talk to families about those very difficult decisions that they have to make. So I do not think it is reasonable to portray these people as just sitting about, avoiding immigration control and refusing steadfastly to go back to where they came from. It is much more complex than that.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 12 Down to brass tacks, then. I think what all three of you are saying is that those families who have exhausted the appeals process, should not be in the UK and should be returning home should get indefinite, automatic support ongoing. Is that what you are all saying?

John Wilkes: People should be supported while we are engaging with them about their choices. There is already a high level of destitution.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 13 How far does that go, though? That is the question I am trying to get at, because at the end of the day these people are in our country illegally. How far do we expect the taxpayer to continue paying, whether it is for housing or whatever, for people who should not be in our country?

Mike Kaye: When you say indefinitely, what we are talking about is resolving that case. That is the crux of what we are trying to do—to resolve the case, by those people either returning to the country of origin or getting status in this country. When we say that you are better off supporting them, we are thinking about the taxpayer. This is not saving money, it is simply diverting the cost to the local authority and building up costs down the line. The longer someone stays in the country without your engaging with them—if you make them destitute and they then disappear—the more difficult it is to remove them later on down the line. That is one of my concerns with the measure. It is not effective for immigration control, it is certainly not effective for child protection, and you are not resolving the case; you are simply abdicating responsibility. The Government should not be doing that.

[The Chair]

Before we move on, let me say that seven Members want to ask questions so perhaps the witnesses could try to keep their answers a little bit shorter.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Q 14 I have a quick question for Judith, going back to something that you said earlier with regard to the Children Act. Obviously, you have to have valid reasons for removing children, but most children get removed because of neglect, and if a family is left destitute they cannot feed and clothe their child. So do you not envisage child protection departments removing children on that basis if support has been withdrawn?

Judith Dennis: It would not usually be the first step. A social worker will try to resolve the issues that arise out of the family’s situation, depending on the causes and the actors who are playing each part. We have seen, from their recourse to public funds, families who are supported by local authorities. Often social workers will engage with the family to try to help them to resolve their situation. We certainly would not expect social workers to be stepping in and taking people’s children away in the first instance.

Social work ethics mean that you have to resolve the situation and try to keep families together where possible. Most of the social workers we speak to would not feel comfortable about taking people’s children away on the basis that the Government have made the family destitute and forced them to neglect the needs of their children.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Q 15 I used to be a child protection social worker myself, so I totally get what you are saying, but social services departments are overstretched and are really sinking because the resources are not there. If they cannot fill the gap and help that family, that child will go hungry and will be neglected, and it is easier to pay for a child than to pay for the entire family, so could we see some perverse outcomes, with children being removed from their families? Is that a risk at all, do you think?

Judith Dennis: It could be, further down the line. I hope that it would not be. My understanding is that it is much more difficult and costly to take a child into care than to provide basic support such as the asylum support regime does, as has been mentioned before. The support is basic and is to avoid destitution. Taking the child into care means that you have to pay another carer to look after that child when the family are perfectly able to do so. The ethical argument and the economic argument mean that we hope we would not see that, but it is—

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

There is a chance, down the line, that that could be the case. I just wanted to clear that up. Thank you.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Q 16 Two quick questions from me. The first is on what happens at present to engage with these families. Mr Kaye, you were just saying that the longer we do not engage with them, the more there is a problem; yet, as I have just heard it, Ms Dennis, you were outlining the current process and saying that it was chock full of engagement. Will the panel comment on the ways in which current engagement is different from what happened under the 2005 process, which I understand hinged largely on corresponding with people rather than engaging with them, perhaps as happens at present?

Judith Dennis: The 2005 pilot took away support, or threatened people with taking away their support if they were not taking steps to remove themselves. Partly as a result of the lack of success of that programme, and of hearing from some families in parliamentary work done by various agencies about the complexity of the situation, this programme was established. There are several stages at which family conferences take place, and specialist family engagement managers who understand the process invite the families—parents and sometimes children—to meetings. They are invited to think about whether or not they want to go and they visit the family, and those kind of things. There are lots of steps. Most of the process is designed to help people think about voluntary return, because there are fewer barriers to removal if someone agrees to go rather than being forced to go. So measures that just take away support, rather than put in more support, have been found not to work, and those that put in more support have some more success.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 17 I suppose in what you are saying there are two types of support, in the sense of money and of engagement, and just to be clear you are—

Judith Dennis: Indeed. I would say that they need to go hand in hand.

Mike Kaye: I just draw attention to the fact that—the point that I was making—if you cut off support, you cut off all that work, because you no longer engage with that individual and they no longer engage with you. The other point that I would make is that under the Bill we are looking at—the Home Office is talking about—cutting off support to families after 28 days. That is an entirely insufficient amount of time to work with a family to get them to return home. In fact, under the voluntary return programme you would be looking at 90 days. This is for delegated powers, but it would be useful if we could get the Minister to indicate that the minimum would be 90 days.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 18 My second question looks back somewhat. Mr Kaye’s organisation, Still Human Still Here, in 2008 gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the then draft citizenship and immigration legislative proposals. Your organisation stated:

“Government asylum support policy is leaving many refused asylum seekers destitute”—

that was clearly the then Government in 2008—and that that destitution

“results from the current statutory scheme”

of that Government. Why is it that two major British political parties, which most recently represented around two thirds of the UK population, would want to pursue such measures when they have been democratically elected?

Mike Kaye: Why would they want to—

[Chloe Smith]

Q 19 Why do you think that the Government—either of those Governments—respond to the electorate’s ask?

Mike Kaye: To be frank, it is a total mystery to me after 20 years how Governments can continue to do the same thing and expect a different outcome. Over 20 years Governments have basically been implementing policies that are short-term, deterrent policies, and they have not been resourcing the system to do the job properly. It is a huge frustration to me, because if Government really supported the Home Office to do the job properly, we would not be looking at a problem with asylum seekers. We have had a static number of asylum seekers for 10 years—25,000 applications—well within the realms of the Government’s ability to deal with quickly and efficiently, but we have under-resourced the system so dramatically that we have not dealt with it effectively. The measures being put forward are a repeat of measures that have failed before. We have evidence from previous Governments, all democratically elected—I do not know why we are even talking about whether they are elected or not. They all try to do the same things and, if you look at the evidence, you will see that those things have not worked. That is what is so frustrating—to look at measures in the Bill that are replicating measures that have not worked previously.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 20 But they are not, because the 2005 pilot was based on correspondence rather than engagement.

Mike Kaye: Talking about correspondence rather than engagement is not going to be the issue that changes whether this works or does not work.

John Wilkes: I have worked in this field for seven years now, and one of the observations that I would share is that the system has been in a state of constant churn over that seven years. Asylum is a very complicated thing—it is one of the most complicated activities that the Home Office has to do under its responsibilities—and it has had perpetual change in all sorts of aspects of the system, and I mean major organisational changes. So the system has no time to settle down and to have a coherent overview of how these things are done. Doing a pilot in one area of the system when there are things that need to be addressed in other parts of the system means that you do not get the results you need. The system needs some time to settle down and to enable a much more focused approach on the whole system. In that way, you will start to achieve better results.

Mike Kaye: If you look back over the past 20 years—I totally agree with what John is saying—what you see is different Governments setting different targets. What you are generally doing is shifting very limited resources to meet a separate target, which just creates a backlog in a different aspect of the asylum system, and you have big structural changes, which are administratively inefficient, waste time and do not deliver the end goals that you are looking for. If we want to save money, to make the system work more efficiently and to have quicker and more accurate decisions, we need to resource the whole system properly.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Q 21 My question is specifically to John Wilkes. It is about the Scottish issue. Obviously, every country has different legislation. You have been through the changes in legislation coming from this House, so I hope that you will be able to advise us about the impact of this legislation, and the challenges that that presents, in terms of Scottish legislation.

John Wilkes: One of the things we said in our evidence was that the Committee should ensure that the Immigration Bill considers whether the legislative consent process needs to be undertaken with the Scottish Parliament under the Sewel convention, which is actually going to be put into statute under clause 2 of the Scotland Bill, which is currently going through the House. We say that because the whole concept behind legislative consent is that whatever this Parliament does should have no unintended consequences on the business of the other Parliament. There are a number of aspects of the Bill, particularly on asylum support, that we feel would have an impact, in the way colleagues have identified, on local authority responsibilities and on duties to children, which are framed in different legislation in Scotland. There is the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which, in Scotland, defines local authorities’ responsibilities in terms of a duty of care to people who have no other resources. We believe that one of the duties of this Bill Committee is to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. What the Home Office often says about immigration legislation is that the intention is around immigration. What Sewel also says is that you have to look at the impact of that legislation, and we think that the impact of this legislation potentially involves legislative consent considerations between the two Parliaments.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Q 22 Mr Kaye, could I take you back to what I thought was the nub of your argument? You said—I think I heard you correctly—that as soon as financial support is removed, people lose contact. Can I put the other side of the coin to you? If somebody’s application is finally refused, do they not, against that backdrop, and irrespective of whether financial support is provided, run and hide, because they do not like the decision, and they do not want to leave the country? I am not persuaded that an element of financial support will, in any way, shape or form, encourage them to stay in a continuous dialogue with the Home Office and agencies while preparations for their removal are made.

Mike Kaye: Refused asylum seekers are not one homogeneous group; there are obviously lots of different people in different circumstances. Some people want to go home, and they take voluntary removal. That can take a long time; their Governments may not co-operate in providing them with documents. Others may be too sick to travel. Others should return home, but may abscond. You do not have to take my word for it; I am giving you evidence from studies that have been done. Where you have families that are supported, they generally do not abscond; they stay in touch with the authorities. If you cut off support, and you have refused asylum to a family or an individual, not only do they have no incentive to stay in touch but it will be very difficult for them to do so once they are destitute. It is the Home Office’s own staff who are saying, “Keep them supported, because then we will know where they are. We can stay in touch with them and encourage them to return home.”

[Simon Hoare]

Q 23 With respect to officials, we only know where people are if they want us to know where they are.

Mike Kaye: Well, I—

[The Chair]

I am sorry. We could go on for an hour about this, but we are really up against the clock, and I have other Members to get in. I would just like the other two witnesses to say whether they agree with the statement that has just been made.

Judith Dennis: Yes. Look at the family returns process data, look at the process, look at the engagement, talk to the family engagement managers and explore how the family returns process works and what is necessary to keep it in place and the families involved.

John Wilkes: I support Judith’s comments.

[The Chair]

Lovely. I think it is Paul Blomfield next—or did you have any more questions, Mr Hoare?

[Simon Hoare]

Q 24 I did have a few more, if time allowed. I shall try to be brief.

These questions are to all three of you, and they probably need yes or no answers. While you are supporting or advising people going through the process, do you take them to end of the telescope they do not want to look from—that is, how will a decision whereby they are not allowed to remain be implemented? Do you do that in advance on a “just in case, let’s keep all the bases squared” basis?

John Wilkes: Yes.

Judith Dennis: You need to keep faith in the system until they have had their final refusal.

[Simon Hoare]

So that is a no. Mr Kaye?

Mike Kaye: Yes, I think 40% of returns are voluntary. That is from Refugee Action, which is working with people to try to get them to go home.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Q 25 I was in Stockholm last year on a cross-party delegation, where we were all impressed by the rate of compliance and returns under the Swedish system. I just wondered what lessons you all felt we could learn from other countries, particularly in relation to this issue of withdrawal of support, in terms of effective compliance, because that is something that we all share an interest in.

Judith Dennis: I do not know enough about the Swedish system, I am afraid. One of the things that worries me about the family returns process—

[Paul Blomfield]

Perhaps from other international comparisons.

Judith Dennis: One concern when families have come to the end of the asylum process is the lack of legal aid for their immigration cases. Somebody is not often either an asylum seeker or an immigrant; during their time here they may well be in both of those categories. Once their appeal rights are exhausted, they may need professional legal advice to help them pursue their case. There are families who go through the family returns process whose removal is not pursued because they are found to have a right to be there, so we need to remember that we do not always make the right decision first time.

Mike Kaye: The experience of other countries uniformly shows that you want a system that gets the decision right first time and has very little backlog, because that discourages unmeritorious claims. It also, conversely, ensures that you do not have backlogs where it becomes more difficult and, indeed, less reasonable to try to remove people, because the longer they are in the process, they more chance that they will have family obligations here; they have restarted their lives and they may actually have lived the majority of their lives here. If you want a system that works properly, it needs to be resourced to work quickly so that you get accurate and prompt decisions, and those decisions need to be implemented.

John Wilkes: The unintended consequence of backlogs is that when you get to address the backlog, what often happens is that the Home Office exercises its discretion and allows people to remain. The message that that sends to people further back in the system is that if you sit it out longer, you might get a better chance. We need to sort the system out to ensure that decisions are made right first time.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 26 Briefly, is there any evidence from other countries that withdrawal of support along the lines proposed in the Bill assists compliance?

Mike Kaye: I cannot speak for other countries, but in the UK we can go right back to 1996 and look at how we have tried to use the removal of support either to reduce applications to the country or to encourage returns, and none of those attempts has worked.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

Q 27 Good morning. I have heard what you have said in answer to the questions about what is proposed in the Bill. You have given your objections to what is in the Bill, so can I ask you what you think is the way forward to effect behavioural change? What is your answer to it?

Mike Kaye: My answer—I have referred to this before—is that you need to resource the system properly so that you get quick, accurate decisions and you enforce them. That is not about spending more money, because it is a spend-to-save policy. With each caseworker you employed, you would actually save money from resolving asylum cases earlier in the process. Once you reduce backlogs, you reduce incentives for people to make unmeritorious claims. You also ensure that you do not get, as John was saying, people who have been in the system for a long time whom you can no longer remove because they get other obligations to stay in this country. That reduces cost and makes the system work better, and it gives it credibility.

[Byron Davies]

Anyone else have a view on that?

Judith Dennis: It is important to understand that some cases are complex and some decisions will not be made right first time. You can do the majority right first time, but you need independent scrutiny and you need skilled caseworkers. There are some in the Home Office who are very good at picking up a case and seeing it through to its end, and that has not been incentivised in the past. Incentivising people to pick up a case and not to lose it until they have resolved it is needed. In addition, accept when somebody cannot be returned home, and give them leave.

[The Chair]

I cannot read the clock very well, so Gavin Newlands, very quickly.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Q 28 I have two very quick questions. One is for Mr Wilkes, following on from my colleague’s question. Do you think there is a danger that the Bill might contravene the Children (Scotland) Act 1995?

John Wilkes: I do think there is a risk of that. That is why I believe the Committee needs to scrutinise these things, and similarly for the provisions of the Children Act in England and Wales. I believe that is why you need to have a consideration of legislative consent, to ensure that those submissions are made about the potential impacts of that.

[Gavin Newlands]

Q 29 Thank you. One explanation given for the failure of a 2005 pilot of terminating support was lack of faith in the asylum process. Is there any reason to believe that people have any more faith in that process now?

Judith Dennis: Among those people whose cases are dealt with by experienced and skilled caseworkers, probably. I was very impressed during a visit to one office where a family had a range of complex reasons for being here, including some of those alluded to earlier, and the caseworker took time to understand the complex problems and tried to resolve each one. We can have faith in those people. Unfortunately, it is not really an incentivised skill.

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid the time has beaten us and I must bring this session to an end. I thank the witnesses so much for coming. You can see the interest of Members and I am sure we could have gone on for longer, but thank you for coming.

Examination of Witness

Professor Sir David Metcalf gave evidence.

10:16

[The Chair]

Q 30 We will now hear evidence from the Migration Advisory Committee. For this session, we have until 10.45am. Will the witness please introduce himself?

Professor Metcalf: I am David Metcalf, emeritus professor at the London School of Economics. I and have been chair of the Migration Advisory Committee since it was established in 2007. The head of secretariat of MAC, Tim Harrison, is also here.

[The Chair]

I am grateful for that. I should warn you that this is the favourite session of the Minister because he gets to ask questions, rather than answer them. I have a horrible feeling he wants to start. Minister.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 31 Perhaps I could open things up for the Committee by asking an open question. Sir David, what are your thoughts on the establishment of a labour market enforcement directive, the need for greater co-ordination on enforcement, and the impact that might have on the employment market overall?

Professor Metcalf: By the way, the Minister and I are appearing this afternoon as well, so we are seeing a lot of each other today.

In a nutshell, I think the proposals are terrific but let me elaborate. My background includes, as part of the Low Pay Commission, 10 years setting the minimum wage, so I know something about the minimum wage, compliance and enforcement issues.

On the Migration Advisory Committee, particularly when we have looked at less skilled immigration, on which we published a major report in 2014, we do not stay in London; we go on visits. We have seen a lot of exploitation, in some cases bordering on slavery. That in a sense confirms the view that I had when I worked on the minimum wage that we do not have sufficient resources to do the compliance and enforcement as effectively as one would wish. For example, when we went to Wisbech in connection with the low skills report, we came across some excellent examples of joined-up government, with different agencies working together. That got us thinking that we have these very good bodies but are they working sufficiently harmoniously? In our report, we said in no uncertain terms that there were insufficient resources devoted to enforcement and that the fines and probability of prosecution were basically trivial—I do not think we used that word, but I will use it now.

In a sense, many of the employers where the gangmasters operate have no real incentives to abide by minimum standards or the minimum wage. We have a flexible labour market—I think this is a good thing because it helps our productivity and with jobs and so on, although that is a matter of debate—but we are not enforcing the minimum standards.

I think the three main proposals in the BIS-Home Office document will go a long way towards assuaging the concerns that we set out. I know that some of my other academic friends who have thought about this—possibly more than me—share that view. Just as an aside, the consultation document on labour market enforcement is excellent and I am sure that the Committee will recognise the co-operation between the Home Office and BIS. Sometimes there is tension between the Departments, but on this occasion they have produced an absolutely marvellous document.

First, you have a director of enforcement and he or she will, in a sense, set out strategy, report and be the pivotal person in an intelligence hub. They will mainly be dealing with the minimum wage with HMRC, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the employment agency standards inspectorate. They are the three bodies that he or she will have to engage with initially and set the strategy out for and think carefully about resource allocation.

The second proposal is a new offence of aggravated enforcement, which is in a sense between the rather minor infractions—I do not want to call them less serious—of the minimum wage rules and those that are very serious, almost slavery. Right now, we have not got anything that sits in the middle and the proposal is essentially to have one that sits in the middle. In the extreme, that might attract a two-year custodial sentence, so it is pretty serious.

The third proposal is that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority can spread out—not so much in its licensing role, but it does have considerable expertise in horticulture and agriculture and the proposal is that it could check in particular on aggravated enforcement in other sectors, such as construction, hospitality and so on. When I was an academic in this area, I wrote that there was a lack of enforcement. I have been involved with both the minimum wage and immigration in particular on the low-skilled end, and I think the proposals are really excellent.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 32 For laymen like me, are you saying that the new role of the director of labour market enforcement is a good idea?

Professor Metcalf: A very good idea indeed, yes.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 33 Okay. Do you think the director will provide the focus necessary to bridge the gap you say exists between the current labour market offences? You also mentioned lack of resources throughout your answer. Do you think that the Bill will bridge that gap, too?

Professor Metcalf: That is a tricky one. Successive Governments have indeed put in a bit more resources—for example, for HMRC to enforce the minimum wage—although quite whether they are sufficient is an open question. It depends on how the director works, but on the idea of them thinking through the resources required for the three different bodies, and perhaps in future health and safety, for example, and possibly bringing local authorities in as well—strategy is an overused word, but in this case it really is a strategic role. Thinking through quite what the strategy should be will go a long way towards, in your words, filling the gap with the resources. Frankly, the inspections are very resource-intensive, and I suspect we just do not have the public finances for sufficient enforcement.

As an aside, that also takes you into a point that I made in my one paragraph to you: we need to think about punishments as well.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 34 In your 2014 report, “Migrants in low-skilled work”, which we have quoted several times, you talk about countries that use the International Labour Organisation labour inspection convention 81 of 1947, which seemed to be particularly effective. Will this new director bring us much closer to that working model?

Professor Metcalf: If I may say so, that is a really good question, because in some senses, what we were feeling our way towards in the “low-skilled” report was the notion of having an overall labour market inspectorate, which that ILO convention is about. What happened was the Prime Minister took up the issue of enforcement in the speech immediately after the election and set up an immigration taskforce, but on the immigration taskforce, you have different Departments who have different interests—the Treasury, with HMRC, and now the Home Office, with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and so on. I think it is quite understandable that the immigration taskforce—the ministerial taskforce—and probably, the Cabinet Office and so on, did not want to disrupt the machinery of Government completely and start with a blank sheet of paper and set up a new labour market inspectorate. They wanted people to get on with the job but have much more joined-up thinking and overall strategy.

We are where we are, and it may well have been that we would almost have had no labour market enforcement for the two years while we were trying to set the inspectorate up. It would be very difficult. Some of the people are not civil servants and some are, and they are located all over the place. Sticking with what we have got and trying to approach it in probably an incremental way is actually very sensible.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Q 35 Mr Bone, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have a couple of questions. I am a big fan of the anti-slavery commissioner. I think that in six months, he has had a big impact, precisely because he is independent and has a remit that goes across different Departments and organisations. You said that it was key that the post of director is able to work harmoniously with other Departments, but you mentioned the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, and a lack of clarity about what the relationship would be. Do you think that ought to be fleshed out on the face of the Bill for this post to have the maximum impact?

Professor Metcalf: No, I do not think so at this stage. Doing it incrementally is really a rather good idea. The main enforcement people currently are the three in the Bill—the employment agencies, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and HMRC, with the minimum wage. In a sense, the new director, whoever he or she is, will have a major task to get those agencies to work in a bit more of a joined-up way. There may well be a case in the future for trying to bring in, under the same strategic role, health and safety, local authorities and on occasions, possibly the Department for Work and Pensions as well, which deal with national insurance, for example. For me, it is a major task to do what is being done, and I do not think that at this stage, it is necessary to do that, but it is possible that we might even think, three or four years down the line, when we have seen how it works, “This is three quarters of the way to a fully-fledged labour market inspectorate. Perhaps we could transform it into a labour market inspectorate and bring the other bodies in as well.” But I think this is very good—it is not a halfway house; it is a three-quarter-way house.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 36 You also mentioned the need for sufficient resources. Do you believe that, as things stand, the director does have sufficient resources to prevent worker exploitation?

Professor Metcalf: Probably not, but in the consultation document and, I think, in the Bill, it does not actually set out quite what the resources are.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 37 What do you think they should be?

Professor Metcalf: I think that successive Governments have put more resources in—certainly into HMRC, but less so with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. One understands the difficulties with the public finances, but we probably do not have sufficient resources. In the low-skilled report, we calculated that you would get an inspection from HMRC once every 250 years and you would get a prosecution once in a million years. That suggests that we do not have enough resources. In turn, that takes you to the potential trade-off between the resources and the punishments. If you do not have sufficient resources, you may need to ensure that the punishments—certainly on occasion—are properly implemented. That is why I am in favour of the new offence of aggravated exploitation, which, in the extreme, carries a two-year jail sentence.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 38 Your hope was that the director would be able to set established minimum standards with employers. However, in parts of the Bill, the criminal aspect has shifted from the employer to the employee. What impact do you think that is likely to have?

Professor Metcalf: You mean on illegal working? I try, as chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, to stick to my knitting and do what we have done. Frankly, I have not thought about that very much. It is a matter for you, as the Committee, and for other people to decide what they think about illegal working.

Your point about employers is really important. I hope that the CBI, which is an excellent organisation— I know from my time on the Low Pay Commission how important the CBI was in ensuring that the minimum wage worked properly—buys into this. Occasionally, the CBI is rather hostile to regulation. In a sense, that rather surprises me, because the regulation that has been proposed here will help its members. It takes away the cowboys, as it were, and the people who do the undercutting. Therefore, your point about the effect on employers is very important. I hope that the CBI buys into this.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

Q 39 What impact more generally do you feel illegal or poorly regulated workers’ protections have on the domestic, legal workforce?

Professor Metcalf: We went into that in some detail in the low-skilled report last year. It is interesting. When we went out to Wisbech and Peterborough and so on, the concerns were about the exploitation of the migrants. However, the people we spoke to were well seized of the consequences for British workers: possibly some displacement, although lots of times they would not actually want to do the jobs; and, for certain, downward pressure on the wages at the bottom end of the labour market. By properly regulating this aspect of the labour market—including immigrants and the British workforce—this will go a long way towards raising the welfare of British residents. I would have thought that this is something that we should all welcome. Our report was about immigrants, but it went into what the issue was doing to British residents. We did find evidence that it was undercutting wages. The measures will be very important to stop that.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 40 You described, in your evidence, the current regime as trivial in the sense of the likelihood of an intervention or a prosecution. You gave the figures of an intervention once every 250 years and a prosecution once every million years. We welcome, therefore, the director of labour market enforcement, because that provides an opportunity to bring a degree of oversight and strategic thinking. Obviously, reporting to the Home Office and to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is a welcome step in the right direction.

I know you have been tasked on resources a number of times. You clearly accepted that, the public finances being what they are, there may not be much by way of resources and suggested that increasing the sanction might do the same work. Is it not the reality that, with that level of intervention and prosecution, unless significant resources are put into the relevant agencies, the prospects of this raising beyond trivial to very much further up the scale are pretty limited? You can only do so much with the sentence, unless you are going to go way off the scale.

Professor Metcalf: Of course, I am exaggerating when I say once every 250 years for a visit. Of course, they will do it based on risk.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 41 It is targeted and intelligence-led.

Professor Metcalf: Yes. The director being the centrepiece of the intelligence hub will certainly help to ensure that the resources that are initially available to the three agencies will be used in a sensible and, I assume, most effective way. I am with you, Mr Starmer. I wish that more resources were devoted. I am not quite sure how much, but one of the roles of the new director will be to put pressure on the different arms of Government to provide more resources for this. I do not know at this stage how much more is needed to be able to increase the number of visits and inspections, albeit on the basis of risk.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 42 Ultimately, the pressure will have to be on the Government, because the agencies are likely to say, “We allocate our resources. We are happy to go along with the strategy but, ultimately, those are the resources we have. Therefore, we simply can’t up the number of inspections, and so on, in the way that might be strategically most advantageous.”

Professor Metcalf: Absolutely. The pressure will come via the director on to the different Ministries of Government and, ultimately, the Treasury.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 43 In headline terms, what do you see as the gaps? This is to co-ordinate a number of agencies, which is a good thing. What gaps are still being left?

Professor Metcalf: We need to consider where DWP, the local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive fit into the picture. They are the other main agencies and, for quite understandable reasons, they have not been included at this stage. We need to consider that.

As I have mentioned, given that we all know that we do not have the resources for enforcement, in the background we should be thinking about the penalties. If you think about the minimum wage, for example, although the penalties on the statute book are possibly large, employers are being fined only about £1,000 on average when HMRC takes them to court. These penalties do not seem to be sufficient to encourage firms that are behaving badly to obey the law.

[Simon Hoare]

Q 44 Given what you have just said about the importance of having the director, and taking on board the resource issue, where would you be expecting him or her to be focusing their energies in the first instance? Which sectors of the economy are most exposed to workers being exploited?

Professor Metcalf: That is an interesting and difficult question.

[Simon Hoare]

I know. That is why I asked it.

Professor Metcalf: There is good behaviour and bad behaviour in most sectors, but we know that hospitality is an area that is very much at risk. A lot of that is ethnic on ethnic. It is Chinese on Chinese, as it were, and Bangladeshi on Bangladeshi—I know that from the minimum wage. The big fiddles are on the hours of work—they grossly understate the hours of work to HMRC to make it look as if they are paying the minimum wage when they are not. Construction is quite a fruitful area. The reconstituted GLA will probably focus on those two sectors. In a sense, that is why I think having the director as the pivotal person for the intelligence—all those agencies know a lot about the sectors they have to get into—will help a lot. But my initial inclination would be to say construction and hospitality.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Q 45 Is a worker who does not have the right to work in this country—for example, a parent who is made destitute by this legislation—and who is being ruthlessly exploited, or physically or sexually abused, more or less likely to seek protection as a result of these provisions?

Professor Metcalf: I do not know all the details of the legislation, other than what I am talking about in terms of enforcement. I would hope that the director makes the enforcement issue more central to the labour market. If we enforce the minimum standards, a person in those circumstances would be more aware of the possibilities—often, particularly if they are migrants, they are not aware of them—and also more likely to go public. I would have thought that that would be quite a major component of the new director’s work. That basically follows up the question from earlier, because if you can stop the exploitation of the migrants, it is also helpful to British residents.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 46 Sir David, I imagine that you would agree that labour market exploitation takes place where gangmasters and those exploiting people can create a climate of fear and intimidation. You will be aware that in the States, for example, there is a clear protocol between the Department of Labour and the Department of Homeland Security on firewalls between immigration control and labour market enforcement, to ensure the effectiveness of labour market enforcement and to create a climate in which people can properly express concerns. Is it important that we have such a firewall in the UK?

Professor Metcalf: I have never thought about that. I would need to ponder that a little. In some senses, when we went out in Wisbech, for example, we thought that having a Home Office official and somebody from the Department for Work and Pensions doing national insurance, as well as some people from the local authority and a community policeman from Latvia who spoke Latvian—the issue was about Latvians—made for a very strong enforcement team. So I am not sure, on the ground, when you do major inspections like this, that the firewall would be completely helpful, but I have not thought through the issue. I understand what you are saying in terms of the machinery of Government, but I can see that, on the ground, it would actually be quite helpful to have the different bodies.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 47 Are you not concerned that those who are being exploited might be less willing to talk about their exploitation if they felt that that threatened their immigration status?

Professor Metcalf: No. I think that that would be the case. I mean, by and large, when we were dealing with this, we were dealing with A8 countries. But in terms of threatening immigration status, we do not want people to be exploited, but if their immigration status is that they should not be here, well, they should not be here.

[The Chair]

Time is again catching us out, so I think this will be the last question. Mims Davies.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Q 48 You mentioned the construction and hospitality industries, in particular, as areas of illegal working—

Professor Metcalf: No, I did not say “illegal”.

[Mims Davies]

Sorry if I misunderstood that—areas where there might be more exploitation. I am just wondering about the causes. Is that about a skills gap, or is it just pure exploitation?

Professor Metcalf: A lot of it is because those sectors have very low levels of unionisation, for example. Unions have costs and benefits, but one of the things they do is to try to enforce proper minimum standards. A lot of the work in construction is done on projects; in hospitality, there are so many workplaces that is possible for the employer to be almost never on the radar. There is a combination of reasons why those sectors are prone to commit exploitation and, to use your word, to do things that are basically illegal, certainly in terms of the minimum wage. If you were to go into Chinatown and check the immigration status of the people there and the way in which wages and hours are calculated on their payslips—to the extent that any of them have payslips—you would find huge possibilities for enforcement.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. Thank you, Sir David. You have been an excellent witness.

Examination of Witnesses

Kevin Green, John Miley and Caroline Robinson gave evidence.

10:46

[The Chair]

Q 49 We will now hear oral evidence from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, and Focus on Labour Exploitation. For this session, we only have until 11.25 am. I warn the witnesses not to be surprised if the Minister asks questions, because he is allowed to do that in this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves?

Kevin Green: I am Kevin Green, chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation.

Caroline Robinson: Caroline Robinson, director of policy at Focus on Labour Exploitation.

John Miley: John Miley, the national chair of the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers and also licensing manager at Broxtowe Borough Council in Nottinghamshire.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 50 May I begin with the illegal working offences in the Bill, in particular the extension of an offence to employees as well as employers, and ask the panel how they think that will impact on the power relationship between an exploiting employer and exploited employees? Secondly, do the panel think it will have any impact on the confidence of employees to come forward? If criminal cases are to be brought, it is very important that those affected come forward and give an account, and possibly give evidence. Thirdly, do the panel think that there is any evidence that the employee offence is needed, given the other offences that are already in existence? Caroline Robinson, I think you particularly expressed some views on this.

Caroline Robinson: At FLEX, we think that the offence of illegal working is extremely dangerous, for three reasons. They relate to modern slavery, in particular, which is a key focus for our organisation and a major focus of this Government, who have set out to be a world leader in tackling modern slavery.

First, we think that people will be fearful of coming forward to be referred into the UK national referral mechanism as victims of trafficking. Only last week, we were working with a victim of trafficking who is currently in a situation of trafficking in the cleaning sector, but who has an undocumented status and is very fearful of coming into the national referral mechanism. The NRM provides 45 days’ support for victims of trafficking and a potential positive conclusive grounds decision that that person has been trafficked. If, however, they are unlucky and not found to be a victim of trafficking, for whatever reason—people are extremely fearful of that—now, under this offence, they might face 51 weeks in prison. That is the first reason.

The second reason is that we know that traffickers use the threat of deportation, removal and reporting to immigration officials in order to abuse and exploit workers. We are extremely worried about this offence, which you stated yourself is an addition to existing offences that people who have overstayed or entered the country undocumented would already face penalties for under the Immigration and Asylum Act. This offence, which serves a public relations function in terms of intensifying the hostility towards migrants, will be used by exploiters to intensify that hostility, to ensure that people remain in situations of exploitation and to threaten people with removal. We heard about a situation in the fishing industry recently in which a man was being abused and was living in extremely dangerous conditions. When he asked to have better conditions and living standards, the skipper called the Home Office, took him to port and reported him for removal. The conditions that people are living in and under which people are exploited are very much related to their immigration fears.

The third reason is something that was raised a lot on Second Reading, namely the criminalisation of trafficked persons. Although the Home Secretary set out the statutory defence, which is in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, it is quite narrow in its terms. The schedules exclude a number of offences for the victims of trafficking, such as aggravated criminal damage, but if I was to leave the building in which I was held I would no longer be covered by the statutory defence in the Modern Slavery Act.

We also know that people are in different types of situation in the UK. I was interviewing trafficked persons on Friday, and a woman I spoke to, who was in the national referral mechanism, was exploited when she first came to the UK. She then managed to escape that exploitative situation on her own, and entered into various undocumented working relationships. What would the situation be in relation to her? What would it be in relation to someone who was in an undocumented working relationship when they first entered the UK and was then exploited? How does this relate? We have a number of questions in relation to that and are deeply concerned. Given that, as you said, there are offences that relate to undocumented workers already, we think the measures are entirely unnecessary and very dangerous.

[The Chair]

Rebecca Harris wants to come in on that point.

[Rebecca Harris]

Q 51 We know migrants are quite knowledgeable—they are good about communication and about the details—so do you think that the knowledge that working in Britain would be illegal and a criminal offence might deter people and make it less likely that they would allow themselves to be trafficked in the first place? With that knowledge, they are less likely to come to this country.

Caroline Robinson: The question of whether migrants are knowledgeable about the different offence structures in the UK is an interesting one. I think a lot of myths circulate. There is a perception of marginalisation and that people are not on a par with British citizens in terms of rights. As for individual offences, and the fact that this offence is 51 weeks but the offence under the Immigration and Asylum Act is six months, I do not think that people are aware of that distinction. When you talk about imprisonment versus removal, there is certainly a fear of imprisonment among the trafficked persons that I talk to, and a real fear of officials. However, in terms of the level of detail, and this extra detail when going to countries outside the EEA area, and how that would have an impact, I think there is a distinction—

[Rebecca Harris]

Q 52 You do not think that it might make people less vulnerable to being trafficked if they knew in advance that this was the legal situation in Britain?

Caroline Robinson: I have been working on the field of human trafficking for 11 years now. At international policy forums, the first thing that Governments are prepared to do is put money into awareness raising and huge prevention campaigns. This Government put £2 million into a widespread awareness campaign about the modern slavery hotline, which was great, and about modern slavery. A lot of effort goes into awareness raising about the threats and the dangers that people face, yet they still come.

[The Chair]

Q 53 For clarity for the Committee, will the witness define what she means by trafficking? I thought trafficking meant people who were not aware and were tricked. What is your understanding of trafficking?

Caroline Robinson: Trafficking as defined in the UN human trafficking protocol involves the act, the means and the purpose, the act being to recruit, transfer or move someone into a situation, the means being to coerce, threaten or deceive and the purpose being exploitation of various forms. The act also includes harbouring, which is the retention of someone in a situation, so we and many eminent international legal scholars understand trafficking to mean when someone is held—through coercion, threat, deception—in a situation of exploitation. For our intents, and for many Governments, although not the English Government, trafficking is not a question of movement but of holding someone in that situation, and therefore trafficking could be a situation, as described on Channel 4 news last night, of Romanian workers held in an apple packing factory through threat, coercion and exploitation—not moved into the UK, but held in a harbouring situation, as set out in the UN human trafficking protocol.

[The Chair]

That is very helpful. Rebecca Harris, did you have anything more to say on this?

[Rebecca Harris]

No.

[The Chair]

We will go back to Keir Starmer, but I would like to hear from the other two witnesses as well.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 54 Can I go to the flipside of enforcement and look at protection? The role of the director of labour market enforcement has been widely welcomed, and rightly so. Most discussion so far has been about enforcement. Do the witnesses have views on the protective role of the director and whether the remit is wide enough?

Kevin Green: We certainly welcome the role. We think it will add value in terms of the whole data gathering co-ordination across Government. In terms of its role in protecting vulnerable adults, that is dependent on the resource and the way that it actually functions in reality. For us, extending the remit of the GLA in terms of it being able to investigate exploitation is important. That is welcome. I know that that is part of the consultation. Again, going to the last point, you have to be very careful about any kind of regulation for the victims of these offences, because a lot of the stuff that we see is criminal activity. A lot of legitimate businesses and recruitment agencies are infiltrated. Often, it is dependent on an individual worker being quite brave—being a whistleblower and flagging this up so that authority can be brought in. We need to be very careful that we do not demonise the people who are in vulnerable positions.

We welcome the development. We think it will move things forward. The level of protection is much more about the level of resource available across the breadth of activity that it will cover.

Caroline Robinson: I share that view about protection being linked to resources. We advocated strongly during the Modern Slavery Bill’s progress through Parliament for expanded remit and resources for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and for an overarching labour market focus on inspection and enforcement. We welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement on 21 May, and the measures in the Immigration Bill go some way to address that.

The point about the protective purpose of the director is very important. For us, the core purpose of that role should be the protection of vulnerable workers and the prevention of exploitation. That has been at the centre of the work of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and has been part of its success. That authority, as we know, operates on a limited budget, so the resources are also of critical importance. On the role of the director of labour market enforcement and the labour market enforcement strategy, what most concerns us is the power of the director to hold control of the budgets, governance of those labour inspectorates and shifting budgets according to the strategy.

We know that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is extremely stretched in its current remit and has done a great deal to ensure a level playing field in those core sectors in which it operates. If it is to be shifted into other sectors, we believe that the good work it has done in the existing sectors is under grave threat. This overarching role is a good thing, but it requires extra resources if any changes are to be made, and it definitely needs to have, as the core purpose of that role, the protection of workers and the prevention of exploitation.

John Miley: The ability of the agency to get involved in enforcement workers’ licensing is welcome. It will cut corners—that is not the right phrase. It will remove barriers for them in respect of enforcement. Currently they have to await police action for the licensing authority to attend. To be able to be a responsible authority—to be a responsible body under the Licensing Act 2003—will certainly improve that status for them.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 55 Caroline, I want to come back to you and the answer you gave to my colleague earlier. You said that you were not sure that illegal immigrants are aware of the rules and regulations around countries. Most people in the UK know that when you go abroad there is a huge perception in the wide world that Britain is a light touch.

I grew up in Australia and the children of a lot of my friends I grew up with have come to the UK and know full well that they can overstay their visas without too much hassle. We have 100,000 students who overstay their visa requirements. There are also the heritage cases we know about, and the traditional open-door policy. How can you say that you are not sure whether somebody coming to this country with the intention of being an illegal immigrant is not aware of the rules and regulations?

Caroline Robinson: I was talking about specific rules and regulations and whether the distinction between six months and 51 weeks would be transferred to someone in a village in Nigeria, for example. I am not sure that I agree about the light touch. Your case about Australia is interesting. I once arrived in India without a visa and the Indian officials allowed me to leave my passport at the airport and spend my time in India, and then to return and leave.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 56 We are not talking about India, we are talking about the United Kingdom and what has traditionally happened in this country. The general perception, throughout the world, not just Australia, is that we have traditionally been a light touch. That is among people who come and go just for holiday visas, for example. If you intend to come here as an illegal immigrant, surely you will have the knowledge that you can get away with far more than people who do not intend to do that in the first place.

Caroline Robinson: What I was suggesting was that it is quite a different situation for people from different countries. If you are on a holiday visa and are Australian and overstay, potentially that is a little bit different from arriving here from a country such as Nigeria and overstaying. The situation and the response might be different. That is part of what I was suggesting.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 57 You do not think that the UK has been a light touch, then.

Caroline Robinson: We have had a raft of immigration legislation over many years, with controls and responses. I am not sure whether that means that people think the more immigration legislation that we have, the more of a light touch people perceive us to be. Then perhaps there is a problem with the legislation, I do not know.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 58 Leading on from Mr Whittaker’s question, do any of the panel believe that clause 8, the offence of illegal working, will have any impact on people illegally coming to this country?

John Miley: I am not sure. In terms of licensing, I am not sure there would be any particular effect at all, I have to say. I am not sure that there is a major problem in licensed premises; maybe more so in late-night takeaways and off-licences. I do not perceive that to affect it at all.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 59 Does anyone on the panel think that clause 8 will prevent illegal workers coming into the country?

Caroline Robinson: What we think will prevent people from working here undocumented is to reduce the demand for undocumented workers. To do that, we require enforcement of labour standards across the board. To be clear, the demand for undocumented workers is not because employers prefer undocumented over documented workers; it is because they cannot pay documented workers below minimum wage as easily as they can undocumented workers. They still try, and as I mentioned, Channel 4’s investigation last night showed Romanian workers being paid below minimum wage and being treated in substandard conditions, because they were under the perception that they were not entitled to the same rights as British citizens.

We know that 78% of those exploited for their labour are, in fact, documented in the UK. So the reduction in demand for undocumented labour through the enforcement of labour standards by this director of labour market enforcement is welcome, but to do that we need a labour inspectorate that is level with other labour inspectorates across the EU. To have just 0.8 inspectors per 100,000 workers at the moment leaves us quite open to abuse. We just heard from the Migration Advisory Committee, which said in its report last year on low-skilled migration that there is just one inspection by the HMRC national minimum wage inspectorate per 250 years for employers. The frequency of inspections is certainly an incentive for employers to employ undocumented workers, as the fear of being caught is low.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 60 My personal feeling is that clause 8 is a show pony for the Daily Mail. It will not actually make any difference to people coming into the country to work illegally. However, what is your opinion of clause 9? Do you think that it goes far enough to put the onus on employers to not employ people illegally and not exploit workers?

Kevin Green: I gave evidence to the Modern Slavery Bill Committee when that legislation was going through. One thing that is quite important is that large businesses manage their supply chains effectively and are held to account. We recognise that there was some movement towards that in the legislation, and the anti-slavery commissioner clearly has a remit to look at that. We do not think that that has gone far enough. We think that large employers, such as supermarkets, need to be very aware of what is happening throughout their supply chain and should be held to account. That is much more likely to deliver results, along with strong enforcement, than creating more legislation and regulation that is not enforced.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 61 Specifically, previous witnesses have spoken about takeaways and the construction industry, which would be small employers. Does clause 9 go far enough to prevent that exploitation?

Kevin Green: It is helpful, but I am not sure that it goes far enough. Think about how the supply chain works for the construction industry, with multiple small organisations working into a large developer. Hold the large developer to account, make them accountable for what activity happens in their supply chain, and I think you will drive out a lot of the bad practice that we are hearing about.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 62 Mr Miley, as a licensing officer, does this give you enough to go on to stop illegal practice, or would you like to see more in there?

John Miley: I think it helps. I am quite keen to ensure that the licensing authorities are not given some sort of role in this in respect of being responsible. If we are making checks on certain documentation, I do not want us to be part of the problem. If something happens and we miss a check, we do not want to be responsible for it. It is important that owners and employers are responsible. It certainly gives the enforcement agencies the opportunity to take proper action against them.

[Byron Davies]

Q 63 Caroline, you mentioned the extent of harbouring. You talked about the Romanian case on Channel 4. What is the extent of this, and what is the evidence?

Caroline Robinson: Of people being harboured in situations of exploitation?

[Byron Davies]

Yes.

Caroline Robinson: The evidence from the National Crime Agency statistics shows the range and scale of the exploitation referred into the national referral mechanism. The scientific adviser’s report to the Home Office was published last year, and estimated that there are 13,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK. If we go by the NRM stats, one third of those would be victims of labour exploitation—about 4,300 victims of labour exploitation in the UK. Those are the statistics.

[Byron Davies]

Q 64 What would your definition of harbouring be, out of interest?

Caroline Robinson: Harbouring was placed on the UN human trafficking protocol by the Americans at the time of the travaux préparatoires to the protocol. It was based on the definition of harbouring in US domestic law, which is about retaining individuals in a situation—keeping people in a situation and harbouring in the same situation.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 65 I am keen to ensure that we learn from other countries, and I am interested to know what the panel thinks we can learn from them about effective labour market enforcement. In particular, I am interested in the line of questioning that I was pursuing earlier, which was about the relationship between immigration officers and labour market enforcement regimes. For example, in the States there are clear firewalls, which the Americans think enhance effective labour market enforcement.

John Miley: I have no view on that, I am afraid.

Caroline Robinson: FLEX has just conducted a review of other countries’ labour inspection frameworks, and we have also been looking at research; we have been conducting research as part of a pan-European project on improved identification of victims of modern slavery. That research in particular showed an interesting finding in the Netherlands, which we had previously held up as a great example of labour inspection; it has a very large labour inspectorate and has conducted work in this area in the past. However, the victims of trafficking we spoke to there said that the confused mandate of the SZW inspectorate caused problems on the ground, so that they were unwilling to come forward. That is because the inspectorate serves two functions: one, to identify undocumented workers; and, two, to identify exploitation.

The concern in our research then was that the people we had spoken to had not come forward to be identified by inspectors at the time of inspection, because of the overlap they saw between the inspectorate and the aliens police, which often conduct joint investigations; and the inspectorate has an overlapping mandate.

We are also concerned that where this overlapping mandate exists, it is quite hard to look for two things at the same time. We have our own example of that in the UK. We have the case R v. Khan, Khan and Khan, from 2010, about nine men who were held in in a restaurant by the Khan family in a situation of trafficking for labour exploitation. Those men were there for four years in situations of exploitation before they were discovered and before those perpetrators were convicted of trafficking. During that time, the judge’s report from the court said, there were regular inspections by Home Office officials. So the documents were in order, but the labour exploitation was not; those people were being held and trafficked for labour exploitation, yet regular Home Office inspections identified nothing. Eventually, they were able to seek help from family members or friends to leave that situation.

Kevin Green: Our take on it is that we are part of a global organisation of recruitment businesses called Staffing Industry Analysts. We recognise the need for strong labour enforcement, and there are lots of examples of where it works well.

One area that we would certainly flag up, and where we need to be careful, is in putting too much of an onus on business to address this issue through some kind of licensing regime. We have looked internationally and we cannot find any example of where we think this adds a huge amount of value. We think that a lot of this activity is about criminal activity, where people are trafficked and in forced labour.

We are very clear that the role is, first, to hold large organisations to account, as I have already talked about, through supply chain management, and, secondly, to have a strong inspectorate, which has the resources to investigate and bring people to bear, rather than creating a huge bureaucracy for a lot of legitimate businesses, where there is more responsibility to produce evidence, and which would add cost and complexity to legitimate businesses. What we are really doing here is trying to find the people who are undertaking this activity of forced labour and human trafficking.

[The Chair]

I am aware that time is getting on, and I also have quite a few Members who still want to ask questions. Undoubtedly, we could talk for a long time about the trafficking issue, but we will move on.

Minister, would you like to ask a question?

[James Brokenshire]

Q 66 I want to ask Mr Miley, who has expertise and experience in licensing, how he thinks the powers contemplated in the Bill could strengthen existing enforcement around standards in the licensing process, and who should be holding licences. Also, I would like to know about his experience of using closure notices, and some of those short-term measures that are currently reflected in licensing legislation and are now being contemplated in a broader sphere.

John Miley: To answer the last question first, my authority has had no particular experience of using a closure notice. We have come close to it, but we tend to try to negotiate issues out before such things has happen. It is good that the proposals reflect the current practices under the Licensing Act 2003, which will make life a lot easier for licensing authorities to utilise the situation. There is the potential for reviews of a premise’s licence if a closure notice is actually turned into a closure order, which would be quite useful.

As for general enforcement, it is difficult to quantify the real issues relating to illegal working in licensed premises. As I said before, there is the possibility that that happens in late-night refreshment houses. In ordinary licensed premises, such as public houses and restaurants, that does not tend to be the case. It also seems that the national fraud initiative has not discovered much in the way of that in the past year. It has found more in the taxi trade, which I understand will be dealt with later in an amendment to the Bill.

The Bill will give the immigration agency the ability to undertake risk-based inspections and actions without needing to get the police involved, which happens currently. I am unsure whether it will improve standards. I suspect that if people can get away with it, they will continue until they are caught. An example then needs to be made and the employer needs to be properly castigated.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 67 Do you have any comments on intelligence sharing and joint working with other agencies to support the work of local authorities?

John Miley: It is to be commended. Generally speaking, licensing authorities do not work in silos. They work in the broader scheme of things, and work with the police and the Security Industry Authority and more generally with immigration. Good work is currently going on in quite a lot of cases. We do an awful lot of partnership working. In fact, it is one of the cornerstones of the licensing procedures that we consult and gather information among ourselves. In Nottinghamshire, all the responsible authorities meet every six weeks. That will include the immigration authority when the Bill is passed. It is a useful evidence and information gathering and sharing process.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Q 68 I want to explore a little more around employers who are repeat offenders. I have witnessed examples of activity from smaller businesses that have caused concern. Does clause 9 go far enough to prevent such businesses, once caught, from doing it again? Is it enough to stop people who have already caused concern for agencies?

John Miley: In terms of licensing, if enforcement action is taken and it goes to its full conclusion, there is the possibility of closing the premises down. That is quite a strong penalty, so it would potentially have the effect of stopping it.

Kevin Green: Certainly, in terms of the recruitment industry, the conduct regulations and the enforcement in BIS are pretty clear. If people are found guilty, they can be struck off or prosecuted. We actually see few examples of repeat offences.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Q 69 I have been made aware that fines sometimes—

Kevin Green: In relation to what example? I am not quite sure what we are talking about.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Q 70 Undocumented workers. It has not always reached a full conclusion, so there has perhaps been a view that the penalties are not stiff enough. That is why I am interested to know whether this measure is enough finally to stop people taking those decisions and using undocumented workers.

Kevin Green: My take is that we have to be very careful. There are lots of businesses, and we look at national minimum wage breaches. There are only two cases that have involved recruiters, and they were just miscalculations. Such businesses should be held to account to make sure that they put it right, and then we move on. There is a difference in holding businesses to account. Sometimes small businesses without the resource might make mistakes, and we still need to hold them to account. There is lots of regulation already in place to do that. I think some clarity about that and resource for enforcement are important, but that is very different from somebody who is actually bringing people, harbouring people—what I would call human trafficking. That is criminal activity, and we need strong clarity about the potential punishment, the right level of resource and the right level of intelligence gathering across the different agencies, where this is moving in the right direction.

One of the things that we have uncovered is that, when they find criminal activity, lots of my members will provide examples and identify areas to the GLA where they think they have been infiltrated or where they see information, bank details and telephone numbers being given from one employer—they will then whistleblow to the GLA. Those legitimate businesses need to be sure that, by whistleblowing, they are actually helping to resolve the issue. Resource for the GLA is critical in moving this forward. They need the resource to go after the people who are carrying out real exploitation so that we do not mix them up with small businesses that make the odd mistake along the way.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 71 I want to take Ms Robinson back to her point about defences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, in which I take a great interest—I sat on the Public Bill Committee. I have that Act and the Criminal Damage Act 1971 in front of me because she made a specific reference to that defence. As I understand it, the defence supplied in the 2015 Act in relation to criminal damage specifically excludes criminal damage with the intent to endanger another person’s life, so it is a rather more specialist case than she might have suggested. Secondly, on Second Reading of this Bill, the Home Secretary was very clear that all those defences will continue to apply. Will Ms Robinson explain her view?

Caroline Robinson: All those defences will continue to apply. What do you mean?

[Chloe Smith]

Q 72 The Home Secretary said that those defences will continue to apply. I thought I heard you say earlier that the defences will not apply; the Home Secretary says that they will.

Caroline Robinson: In relation to the Immigration Bill?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes.

Caroline Robinson: Sorry, I was thinking about Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Act. Yes, she did say that, which is why I said it will be very interesting for organisations such as mine, and many others, as part of the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group to know for sure what would be the situation in the case I set out in which there is a series of events in a person’s stay in the UK. They might be exploited when they arrive and then they escape that exploitation on their own—that happens many times, including to a woman I spoke to last week—before entering undocumented work.

Secondly, what would be the situation if I was in undocumented work when I arrived in the UK and then that work deteriorated to the point of exploitation, as we know is a regular pattern in exploitative working conditions? What would happen there? Would I be offending for that work at the beginning, or would the modern slavery defence, if proved, counter that previous work? Those are the questions that remain for us. It would be brilliant to have expanded detail on that in Committee.

[Mims Davies]

Q 73 I want to pick up with Mr Green, and perhaps Mr Miley, how the Bill intends to improve the market regulation and enforcement of workers’ protections. Why has such a culture built up in certain sectors, and how have we allowed that? Does what is in front of you work for that culture to be broken down?

Kevin Green: In terms of exploitation in certain key industrial sectors?

[Mims Davies]

Yes.

Kevin Green: What we need—and many people have said this consistently—is the ability to share intelligence across multiple agencies. I think that the director of labour market enforcement is a step in the right direction. Points were made earlier—for instance, how we bring in the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, because they are going into premises on a regular basis. Over time, that should be extended. Once there is intelligence gathering, it is about the right enforcement regime to tackle that. So, where it is potentially a minor breach, through something like the conduct regulations—there I think we have the right enforcement in place. Sometimes you really need detailed police investigations to crack a criminal activity that has been very exploitative. I think this is a step in the right direction. The additional offences, apart from the one for individuals, are probably helpful. So my answer is that I think it will be helpful in addressing some of that; but, again—as I have said consistently today—it is about the level of enforcement activity. It is very rare for us to agree with the TUC, but—

[The Chair]

Order. I am really sorry. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated to ask questions. Again, I thank the excellent witnesses; we could have spent a lot longer on this.

[Keir Starmer]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. This afternoon we move to witnesses who deal with the landlord and renting provisions in the Bill. In an answer given orally last week, there was an assurance that the evaluation for the west midlands pilot of the scheme would be available before the Bill Committee. Since we are getting to that witness this afternoon, where is the evaluation? I would certainly benefit from reading it before I start my questioning at 3 o’clock.

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for the point of order. I will certainly make inquiries where necessary—unless the Minister wants to say anything.

[James Brokenshire]

I can say that, as Members may have noticed, there is a written ministerial statement on the Order Paper in relation to the right to rent scheme roll-out more generally. Alongside that, the evaluation is being published. I suspect—and can certainly talk to hon. Members outside the Committee as well—that the evaluation will be available on gov.uk well in advance of our considerations this afternoon.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the sitting. Thank you again to the witnesses; you have the message. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm.

11:27

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Immigration Bill (Second sitting)

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Mr Peter Bone, † Albert Owen

† Blomfield, Paul (Sheffield Central) (Lab)

† Brokenshire, James (Minister for Immigration)

† Buckland, Robert (Solicitor General)

† Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)

† Davies, Byron (Gower) (Con)

† Davies, Mims (Eastleigh) (Con)

† Elphicke, Charlie (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Harris, Rebecca (Castle Point) (Con)

† Hayman, Sue (Workington) (Lab)

† Hoare, Simon (North Dorset) (Con)

† Hollern, Kate (Blackburn) (Lab)

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab)

† McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow North East) (SNP)

† Newlands, Gavin (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)

† Smith, Chloe (Norwich North) (Con)

† Starmer, Keir (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)

† Tolhurst, Kelly (Rochester and Strood) (Con)

† Whittaker, Craig (Calder Valley) (Con)

Marek Kubala, Joanna Welham, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Neil Carberry, Director of Employment and Skills, CBI

Lord Green of Deddington, Chair, Migration Watch UK

Harry Mitchell QC, Migration Watch UK

Ms Alanna Thomas, Migration Watch UK

Richard Lambert, Chief Executive, National Landlords Association

Eric Leenders, Executive Director for Retail Banking, British Bankers Association

David Smith, Policy Director, Residential Landlords Association

David Snelling, Chief Superintendent, Sutton Borough, Metropolitan Police

Stephen Gabriel, Strategic Manager, Homes and Communities, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Ilona Pinter, Policy Adviser, The Children’s Society (also representing the Refugee Children’s Consortium)

Kamena Dorling, Policy and Programmes Manager, Coram Children’s Legal Centre (also representing the

Refugee Children’s Consortium)

Adrian Matthews, Principal Policy Adviser (Asylum and Immigration), Office of the Children’s Commissioner

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 20 October 2015

(Afternoon)

[Albert Owen in the Chair]

Immigration Bill

Examination of Witness

Neil Carberry gave evidence.

14:00

[The Chair]

We now move to the fourth panel of witnesses and will hear oral evidence from the CBI until 2.30 pm. May we informally refer to you as Neil?

Neil Carberry: Absolutely.

[The Chair]

Q 7474 Neil, may I ask you to introduce yourself for the record?

Neil Carberry: Yes. I am Neil Carberry, the CBI’s director for employment skills and public services. For the record, I should say that I am a member of the Low Pay Commission and the council of ACAS, but all my comments today will be made purely in a CBI capacity.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Q 75 Neil, thank you for coming to give evidence this afternoon. This is one of the rare occasions when I, as the Minister, get to ask some questions, so there is nothing unusual in this. On labour market enforcement, Sir David Metcalf, head of the Migration Advisory Committee, gave evidence to the Committee earlier today and commented that he hoped that the CBI would buy into the labour market enforcement director mechanism contained in the Bill. He was essentially extolling it and suggesting that the CBI should welcome it. In fairness to you, I want to put his perspective to you so that you can respond.

Neil Carberry: Ever since I was a student in the London School of Economics industrial relations department and Professor Metcalf was there, I have tried to keep him happy. The CBI’s attitude to the labour market section of this Bill is probably a good place to start. We are interested in driving out some of the appalling practices that exist in parts of our labour market. It has always been the view of CBI members that empowering enforcement officers to kick a few doors down and bring some bad guys to justice is the right thing to do. To do that effectively, you need a risk-based, intelligence-led approach. To the extent that any Government of any political colour take that up, the CBI will be supportive.

In a sense, our attitude to the labour market enforcement director is that if that is what is on the cards here, we will support that work. It is important that we ensure that people who are not able to raise their own concerns, because of the situation that they find themselves in, have some method of support from state enforcement. The labour market director will hopefully do that. Our concern is whether that work will topple too far into what we have perhaps seen in the past: tick-box approaches that actually fall more heavily on the compliant than on the non-compliant, who we would all agree need enforcement action.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 76 So your call is for smart enforcement, using intelligence and drawing together all the different strands of information to target more rigorously the non-compliant.

Neil Carberry: I think that is right. My understanding of the role of the director as we have seen it so far is that this individual will work across agencies. It is important that this change does not draw agencies’ attention away from their work. HMRC is still investigating every national minimum wage complaint that it hears and has also started to do some excellent intelligence-based, targeted work in key sectors. The introduction of the director will hopefully improve interaction with other authorities, but will not draw funding and work away from protecting people in areas such as payment of the national minimum wage.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 77 What is the CBI’s current assessment of labour market exploitation and non-payment of the minimum wage? How does your organisation seek to challenge that? In parallel with the Bill’s provisions, what role do you see the CBI playing?

Neil Carberry: Broadly, our view is that compliance with employment law in the United Kingdom is good. Largely, non-compliance is inadvertent and we have excellent systems to allow people to raise their concerns about that. There are parts of the labour market—where, I am glad to say, CBI members tend not to be found—which are more open to abuse, where there are more interlinks with people trafficking, for instance, and which are not easily policed by traditional labour market means because these companies are not traditional companies.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 78 And are you looking at particular sectors, or is that a more general comment about the labour market?

Neil Carberry: I would think that it clusters in three or four particular sectors, yes.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 79 Such as?

Neil Carberry: The obvious one would be parts of agriculture.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Q 80 I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. Mr Carberry, offences are already specified in the Immigration Act 1971 that are applicable to migrants who breach their immigration conditions. Do you believe that clause 8, which creates the new criminal offence of illegal working, is necessary, and do you think that it may have unintended consequences?

Neil Carberry: What we are particularly concerned about is that any criminal offence is genuinely used to go after criminal activity. Employment law offences are typically civil offences. As I have already said, breaches are largely inadvertent, or if they are not inadvertent they are due to lack of understanding on the part of an employer. The right place to police that is through education, the tribunal system, the advice that ACAS offers and so forth. I am not a criminal lawyer. To the extent that the offence that has been created is to be used to go after employers where there is repeated, multi-faceted and exploitative treatment of workers, we are very happy for that offence to exist, so long as the businesses that are brought to justice are engaged in those steps. What worries us particularly is not the existence of the offence but the risk that there may be a general drift of employment law in the United Kingdom from the civil to the criminal, because that would be quite destructive for employee relations in general.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 81 Just to unpick that, do you think that actually criminalising the workers is useful in changing practice?

Neil Carberry: I think that the critical issue is the action by employers. The CBI is not taking a position on criminalisation of workers; that is not within our vires as a business organisation.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 82 I agree that if employers are employing people illegally, they should be accountable for that. Do you feel that the Bill goes far enough to enable that to be enforced?

Neil Carberry: I think that the critical issue is not the law in this case; it is the will to go after some of the very worst practices in the UK labour market. It is about co-operation between the police and other authorities in getting into some of these beds in sheds places and taking action. One of the lessons we have to learn from the experiment with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is that the GLA has largely been a box-ticking licensing organisation that has increased costs on the compliant. There is relatively little evidence that the creation of a registration approach has actually done anything to prevent exploitation. From a CBI perspective, we would far rather that the Government had a strong offence, structured in a way that would stack up in the courts, and then used powers of prohibition, for instance, to drive out bad practice. Of course, that is what we had before the GLA was brought into existence—albeit that they were not heavily or effectively used.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 83 Finally, do you believe that the director has the remit and the resources to prevent this from being a box-ticking exercise? Would they have the authority to make the necessary changes?

Neil Carberry: That remains to be seen. The director clearly has to develop an enforcement plan, which has to be approved by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. I would hope that that enforcement plan was well grounded in the effective work that some of the agencies are currently doing and would therefore be resourceable from within that. I had discussions last week with the HMRC team who are looking at non-compliance with the minimum wage; they feel that they currently have the resources to continue the good work they are doing.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Q 84 I want to turn back to the evidence given to us this morning by Professor Sir David Metcalf. When he was discussing the CBI, he said that the regulation of the labour market proposed in the Bill would take away the cowboys and help your sector. He went on to say that it would go a long way towards raising the welfare of British residents. Do you think he has applied a risk-based, intelligent approach to his assessment?

Neil Carberry: I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating when it comes to the director. On the existence of a labour market director to do this work, his assessment could well be the case. What worries us is less what is in the Bill as introduced than some of the discussion in the Government’s consultation paper last week, which seems to suggest a broadening of a licensing approach. I think that would ultimately be a doubling up regulation on the compliant and would draw away from kicking down the doors of the non-compliant. From our perspective, there is every chance that the labour market director’s role could be very beneficial to lawful companies and workers.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 85 On the face of the Bill then, it is a good thing.

Neil Carberry: Yes, I think so. We have never been against effective enforcement.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Q 86 You talked about parts of the labour market where abuse happens. I am conscious that many of your members might have had their reputations tarnished by unwitting involvement through supply chains. Can you share your thoughts about the Bill in the context of the most effective way of helping your members to achieve supply chain compliance?

Neil Carberry: Any answer to that question will have to take account of some of the responsibilities that companies will take on under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I actually had a long discussion last night with some of our members about the challenges of doing that effectively—many of them are currently wrestling with that. Of course, there is a limit to what companies at one end of a supply chain can do and assure themselves of, but there is a duty to do some work, as the Act makes clear.

The most important thing is to ensure that, where companies at the top end of a supply chain suspect that something illegal is happening, they are clear about the route to take to obtain assistance from regulators and enforcers, and also that there are simple routes for enforcers to take towards targeted action. We would see that as one part of the role of the director as set out in the Bill. For instance, we would expect them to look to establish ways in which a major retailor could raise concerns effectively and then feed into an intelligence-led action.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 87 You mentioned a situation in which companies at the top end of a supply chain have reason to believe that things are going wrong further down the supply chain, but the problem faced by many of your members is that it might be impossible to know what happens further down the supply chain. What more could be done to achieve effective enforcement of labour market standards down the supply chain and out of the sight of your members?

Neil Carberry: Clearly, it largely is out of the sight of our members. I will start from the test of what we want, which is something that brings an enforcement officer into the site where things are going wrong as quickly and effectively as possible, with the powers to change the situation. We know that, largely, where we find national minimum wage non-compliance, we tend to find immigration non-compliance.

The first thing is to make sure that, whichever body is resourced to do it, there is a clear thought process about where we believe this is happening in the labour market; within that, then, that there is some intelligence-gathering about where the issues might be. There should then be live discussions with businesses in the sector about what they hear and what they see; then, police and enforcement agencies should have the capacity to intervene. That much more targeted approach, I think, is the only way to protect workers who do not have the capacity to raise concerns about their own treatment, especially if they are being exploited. I would much rather see that intelligence-led, almost police-style action than anything that looks like a process for companies in the sector, because I think that some of these non-compliant organisations would just ignore that.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 88 Do you think that there are sufficient resources, as the situation currently stands, to achieve the objectives you are talking about?

Neil Carberry: I mentioned HMRC’s rule earlier. I think to do it effectively, it may be necessary to look at resources for other parts of the system. Having said that, one of our biggest challenges at the moment is enforcement agencies talking to each other. A case in point is that if a business moved out of a GLA-regulated sector, the employment agency standards inspectorate would still have prohibition powers. There should be more discussion taking place about, “If this business has had a licence removed by the GLA, what is the case for prohibition more broadly via EASI?”

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Q 89 Good afternoon. Do you think there is a risk of the Bill making it harder for migrant workers to access the labour market because employers are afraid that they will be breaking the law, and don’t understand how it works, so they err on the side of caution?

Neil Carberry: I think the section 8 checks that employers already do are largely embedded in companies’ operation now, so the mere existence of a non-UK passport at hiring is an issue. There is some nervousness, I think, about the fact that the quality of forgery is now very, very high, and I think businesses would welcome more support from UKBF and others on identifying forgeries when they do those checks. Broadly, we have not seen evidence of a chill effect on migrants being able to find work yet, and the performance of the UK labour market over several years now suggests that opportunities are still being created both for UK citizens and migrant workers.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Q 90 Would the CBI be willing to keep an eye on that? In my constituency, I have already had people coming to me who have been offered jobs and then the employers—and it is large employers—have backed off, saying that they want actual evidence; phoning the hotline is not evidence for them. I wonder whether the reason why I am getting quite a few people coming to me now is that they know that the legislation is going to change; it would be interesting to see if there was an effect once this came in.

Neil Carberry: I think the necessity of assurance for companies in hiring migrants becomes greater as the cost of getting it wrong becomes greater. I have been working on employment relations issues for the CBI for over a decade now, and the process is that every year it becomes more costly to hire migrants and more risky for companies. Particularly for some smaller and medium-sized companies, there is a concern there, and support structures for businesses are quite important.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Q 91 I would like to ask about the role of the director, in terms of vulnerable workers, and more broadly whether that role could help the Government’s agenda of redressing the balance on equality issues and addressing the gender pay gap, so as to shine a broader light on these employment issues.

Neil Carberry: I refer to my earlier answer. It is really important that we keep the exploitation agenda—there is deeply unsavoury activity taking place in parts of the labour market—separate from the civil employment law agenda. If you look at the gender pay gap, Ruby McGregor-Smith’s Women’s Business Council report concluded that it is a multi-faceted issue that requires a series of actions, primarily from business but also from the education system, to address. We would be more comfortable continuing to do that work in partnership with the Government Equalities Office, Ministers and the new Select Committee on Women and Equalities, than getting too drawn into a debate, as we have already discussed, about beds and sheds and some pretty exploitative practice.

[Mims Davies]

Q 92 So you see them as clearly separate issues.

Neil Carberry: Where I would say there is some equalities benefit is that it is certainly true that minority ethnic workers and many women are more at risk of the kind of treatment that we are discussing.

[Mims Davies]

Q 93 That is my feeling, and I am on the Women and Equalities Committee, hence why I asked that question. I hear what you say, but it worries me if we completely disconnect the two.

Neil Carberry: No, this action clearly has equalities benefits.

[Mims Davies]

Q 94 Fantastic. Are you also able to expand on the CBI’s concerns about the apprenticeships levy? It is obviously the Government’s ambition to see apprenticeships grow. Will the levy affect your members, or the immigration skills charge? What is the impact that you see on businesses?

Neil Carberry: Apprenticeship levies are quite complex at the moment because there are two of them. They have become known in the CBI’s employment team as the big levy and the little levy. There is the large apprenticeship funding model levy, which is a deep concern for the CBI.

On the question of the skills charge, although we do not welcome additional costs, we fundamentally disagree with the idea that immigration is used to resolve skills issues and to avoid training, because companies in the UK do extensive amounts of training—more than many other large western European competitors in terms of spending.

Having said that, if there is to be a skills charge, we need to make sure that it is effectively targeted, so that the money raised does go into apprenticeships that are training people towards the levels of skills that people who came in on a visa were helping to resolve the shortage of. More broadly, it is probably preferable to us that these charges exist than that we make changes to the pay bands for tier 2 migration. Additional cost for a visa is one thing, but being unable to get a person you need at any given point because of changes to the pay bands is more of a business problem. For us, in the grand scheme of things, although we do not like it, we would rather have an immigration skills charge than a much higher entry level of pay to bring people in.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Q 95 In trying to target action against criminals who exploit workers, which is something we can all agree on, do you think the Bill blurs the lines between employment law and criminal activity?

Neil Carberry: I think that is a significant risk, less so around the role of the director than the recent discussion about expanding the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The role of the GLA so far has largely been an employment process. Since its creation the GLA has spent rather more time telling my members where the commas should be in employment contracts, which is an employment issue, than kicking down doors in parts of the country where doors need to be kicked down.

My sense is that we need to maintain that gap, for exactly the reasons that your colleague raised earlier, which are that employment law is a civil issue; most of its infraction is inadvertent or due to lack of knowledge, so it is really important that people are able to address that—there are routes for people to address that—and it is about the bit of the labour market where workers are not able to secure their rights, which should be at issue in the Bill. The CBI’s test for this Bill, in practice, when it finishes its passage, is to make sure that the actions contained within it are about addressing those issues of exploitation.

[Gavin Newlands]

Q 96 Do you think that it should be employers’ or the Government’s responsibility to prevent illegal working, especially given the move away from civil penalties to criminal charges?

Neil Carberry: I think employers should have a duty to ensure that their workforce have the right to work in the United Kingdom—that is probably accepted by our members—at the point of hiring. The issues that we have often faced are issues of establishing that fact in a timely fashion.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 97 Just to come back on that last question, what is your assessment of the level of knowledge among your members, recognising that part of the role of the labour market enforcement strategy, which the director will obviously have a key role in developing, is to focus on advice to the Secretary of State about education and training? What further steps, in practice, should be undertaken around that, and what about the role of the director in that piece?

Neil Carberry: There is an analogy here, slightly oddly, with the process of automatic enrolment in pension schemes. The Pensions Regulator for many years dealt with some very large companies, which had large defined-benefit pension schemes, kind of knew what they were doing and spent a lot of money on compliance. In many of our largest members, immigration compliance is a million pound a year commitment, because of the scale of it and the reputational risks that we have already discussed. We live in a world in which company size is gradually getting smaller, and has been for 20 or 25 years; the majority of firms are small businesses, and the majority of our members at the CBI are small businesses, often with limited HR capacity. The transition that, for instance, the Pensions Regulator had to make to talking to businesses that had never even heard of it and offering support—it is still struggling to get that right now, but progress is being made—is exactly the same transition that we need to make in this space. It really is helping smaller businesses to understand their duties and the support on offer to them that will be critical to making sure that illegal working action is effective.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 98 So I suppose in other words, to draw out another comment in Committee this afternoon, you are suggesting that the focus on that awareness should be at the smaller business end, the SME end, and on the some of the challenges that might reside there. Equally, I am assuming that you would not say that the larger firms themselves have no potential issues, given the supply chain elements touched on previously—who your sub-sub-contractor is, who is on a building site or has been contracted into a particular job—and the need for alertness around those sorts of elements, from a reputational as well as a legal perspective.

[The Chair]

Just before you answer that, we have a couple of minutes. Will any other Member wish to ask a question in that short time? No. Neil.

Neil Carberry: I agree with that. We talked earlier about the capacity of a firm to know whether it was dealing with partners who are compliant. What I would point to is that in this space we should not look for answers that look easy in Westminster but are actually ineffective on the ground. Experience with, for instance, licensing models—we are concerned about the potential for part of the Bill to create the space for the Secretary of State to dial up or dial down the extent of licensing models—is that licensing itself does not actually give a company any assurance that the licensee is compliant or not. The record of the GLA in taking away licences shows that firms behaving improperly were licensed. It is much, much better to have rigorous enforcement, intelligence-led, and then high-quality advice and support for companies that are taking action under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

[The Chair]

Q 99 Okay. We are coming to the end, so if there are no further questions I will thank our witness for giving evidence today. If there is any other information that you would like to give to the Committee, please feel free to write in.

Neil Carberry: We are aware that we have not yet given you a written submission, but colleagues are preparing one that will arrive in due course.

[The Chair]

We look forward to receiving that. Thank you very much.

Examination of Witnesses

Lord Green of Deddington KCMG, Harry Mitchell, QC and Alanna Thomas gave evidence.

14:30

[The Chair]

Q 100 Good afternoon. We now move on to the fifth panel of witnesses and we are to hear oral evidence from Migration Watch UK. To remind everyone, this session will finish at 3 pm. Can I call on the witnesses to introduce themselves?

Lord Green of Deddington: I have been chairman of Migration Watch UK, which I think it is quite well known to the Committee, for the last 15 years. Harry Mitchell, QC, is my honorary legal adviser and Alanna Thomas has done a huge amount of work on the Bill.

[The Chair]

You are all very welcome.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 101 Thank you all for coming today. Lord Green, to give us some context, what is your estimate of the current size of the irregular migrant population in the UK?

Lord Green of Deddington: Yes, I am very glad to offer you some context, because I think we really have to see the Bill in the wider context. We realise that there are already 11 Acts of Parliament dealing with immigration and that there is a handbook of immigration law of nearly 2,000 pages. So we have that in mind, but, even so, the Bill in principle has our full support. We think it is a serious and intelligent attempt to tackle illegal immigration and the pull factors that drive it.

It has also come at a pretty opportune time. I need hardly tell you that immigration is the major issue of public concern, especially as the crisis in Syria and the middle east has led to the effective collapse of the borders of southern Europe. We have been lucky here in that, in recent years, we have had only 20,000 or 25,000 asylum claims, but I think we all remember when that number hit 80,000 and we found that there were half a million files lying around in a warehouse, which was appalling, especially for those who had genuine cases, but on any level that was appalling and must not be repeated.

In terms of context, it seems to me that we now need to get ahead of that curve, both in identifying genuine claimants and removing and deterring those who are in fact economic migrants. We think that the Bill can help in that task.

To answer your specific question about the probable size, in 2009, the LSE gave a central estimate of about 600,000. We looked at that and thought that a million was probably closer, but almost by definition it is impossible to be accurate. The conclusion to be drawn from those numbers is that it is absolutely inconceivable that the Government would introduce measures that removed a million people from the country by force. It cannot be done, would not be done and nobody would support it. That is why measures, including some of those in the Bill, are essential if we are to persuade people to make up their own minds and go home when they should.

It is worth mentioning in that context that the sheer scale of movement is not really widely understood. In any one year—I will take 2014—7.5 million tourist visas were issued. Clearly, some of those will be tempted to overstay. Business visitors: 1.7 million. Students and student visitors: 270,000 in one year. So you are looking at an enormous flow of people and no way in which you can forcibly remove them if you need to. Indeed, we do not even know who they are, or even if they are here. As you probably know, exit checks were abandoned by the Conservatives to the EU in ’94 and by Labour to the rest of the world in ’98. So for nearly 20 years, nobody— the Government, the Home Office—has the slightest idea who has gone home and who has not. We are starting from an appallingly difficult situation and, as I said, the only way to approach it is to improve the likelihood of people deciding for themselves. Also, it is necessary to tackle the difficulties that have arisen in the removal process. In my view, they are not very widely understood, and when I first heard them, I was rather surprised.

It is the case, surely, that an effective removal capability is at the basis of the credibility of the whole system. If people think that they can stay indefinitely and not be removed, of course they will do that if it is to their advantage. I am afraid that successive Governments have sort of concealed the weakness of the system by conflating various figures, but if you look at the number of immigration offenders who have been removed, in the last six years the average has been fewer than 5,000 every year compared to the numbers that I have just given you for the inflow. It will be obvious to you that work is required on this front, and I hope obvious to you that this Bill will help with that.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 102 To expand on that, at a practical level, you rightly said that there are 11 Acts of Parliament, and that we still do not know who is coming in and who is going out. Groups have said that if support to asylum seekers is withdrawn, there is concern that they might abscond from the system. On a practical level, what do you believe the Bill will add to existing legislation, so that we can deal with the problem? From my casework, I know that the biggest problem is that once the Home Office team has gone through the process to recognise that someone needs to be deported, it does not have the resources to deport them. On a practical level, I cannot see how the legislation will make that process more straightforward. Are there specific proposals in the Bill that will do so?

Lord Green of Deddington: Yes, and that is a very good question if I may say so. There is a huge amount to do, but I would pick out the appeal process, which has been leading to significant sources of delay, and is sometimes quite ruthlessly exploited by a bogus applicant, and is more likely to be so, and by some of the lawyers. The first-tier tribunal has considered 850,000 cases in the past seven years, so the provisions in the Bill that will provide for removal first and appeals later will be very important. Equally, it will be important that that provision is not applied when it should not be, and I am sure that you will be focused on that as a Committee. The reality, however, is that the legal system has been exploited to the disadvantage of the community as a whole.

So far, as I am sure that you know, the Government have reduced the number of kinds of appeal that you can make from 17 to four. When they applied the “removal first, appeals later” provision to foreign national offenders, they found that only 25% bothered to appeal and of the total, only 1% succeeded. Of course, foreign national offenders are likely to have a much less convincing case than many others, but if we can find a way, consistent with human rights of course, to shift the burden of appeals, we can get the whole system moving more rapidly than it has in the past. And as I said at the beginning of my evidence, now is the time to do it, because we must have a system. The Government keep talking, and rightly so, about breaking the link between people getting to Britain and believing that they can stay here indefinitely. That amounts to the fact that we must have an effective way both of differentiating between economic migrants and asylum seekers and of swiftly removing the first of those two. There is a lot to be done, and I think that the Bill will help.

[Sarah Champion]

My final question—

[The Chair]

Very briefly.

[Sarah Champion]

In that case, I will let other people have a go.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 103 Lord Green, there has been some questioning during the course of this session about the introduction of offences relating to illegal working, in particular the creation of an illegal working offence against employees. Could you share any thoughts and comments on how we can have a firm response and crack down on illegal working in all its different forms, as well as some of the draws that entice people into migration? How would you respond to the challenge that this may somehow prevent people from coming forward who may be victims of exploitation or trafficking, for example?

Lord Green of Deddington: I will keep my answers shorter in future, Mr Chairman, but I wanted to set out some of the basic considerations.

[The Chair]

Sure. It was a good opening exchange.

Lord Green of Deddington: Our view is that it simply has to be an offence to work illegally in this country. I cannot see how it can be otherwise. For starters, these people are unquestionably undermining the wages of British workers or immigrant workers, for that matter—legal workers. There is no question that they are undermining the wages of legal workers.

Wages in London are lower than anywhere else in the country. Why? Because in low-paid work there is an enormous number of people who are ready to work for very little and, of course, employers know they can get illegals for even less. It has to be an offence, and it is high time that it was. As you say, there has to be a balance. As you know, the Modern Slavery Act helps in certain cases if people will come forward, but the answer probably is stronger enforcement—in other words, lean on the employers in order to squeeze out the ability to do this.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

Q 104 Lord Green, in response to an earlier question, you talked about an effective removal system. Could you expand on that and tell us what you think would be an effective removal system?

Lord Green of Deddington: First, it has to be quick. It has to be fair and it has to not be under the impediment of extremely complex procedures and legislation. I think the proposal in the Bill is right in addressing that. There are other issues, of course. They probably need more resources to do it. They probably need a bigger detention estate. With all those put together, one can work on improving the removals, but, as I say, you cannot remove 1 million people. You have to make sure they want to go themselves.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 105 Lord Green, you have already said there should be a duty on employers. I presume you put into the same category people such as landlords, whom the Bill specifically addresses. How can we better prevent illegal working without imposing additional burdens on business generally?

Lord Green of Deddington: I do not think you can, to be frank. There has to be a duty on employers and they have to fulfil it. They have to recognise that this is a serious matter of great public concern. It is a field in which some unscrupulous employers are making a packet at the expense of honest employers. They have to fulfil it.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 106 I wonder whether I could follow up on your answer to the Minister, Lord Green. You were saying that the criminalisation of workers would be helpful in achieving labour market compliance.

Lord Green of Deddington: Sorry, I am not saying workers should be criminalised; I am saying that illegal work should be a criminal offence.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 107 Effectively, the Bill criminalises undocumented workers, does it not?

Lord Green of Deddington: If they are here illegally, yes. That is the point.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 108 In your evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee review of low-skilled work, you talked about the problem of fear in the workplace and of there effectively being a climate in which employees would not challenge their employers. Do you not think that creating a criminal offence assists the hand of unscrupulous and exploitative employers and gangmasters, and therefore negates the desire that we all share to achieve effective compliance in the labour market?

Lord Green of Deddington: Yes, there is clearly that possibility. You say, does it negate. I think not because the wider issue is that we must crack down on illegal employment, which is widespread. Another part of that is to enforce action against employers, very few of whom have actually been penalised.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 109 I wondered whether you were hesitating because you wanted to add to that answer.

Lord Green of Deddington: No, not for the moment.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q 110 I wonder whether I can ask another question. Your evidence to the MAC review of low-skilled work also talked about the need for more effective enforcement of minimum wage compliance and other areas. Do you think that it is a problem that the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate only has nine full-time staff, and do you think that more resources need to be allocated for effective enforcement?

Lord Green of Deddington: I think pretty well without question. One of the problems about expanding the legal base, it has to be done as a starting point but, if it is not then enforced, it becomes a waste of paper. If I may say so, I think that this Government have not devoted the resources that are necessary to what is an increasingly serious problem. They need to look again. The amount spent on the whole immigration system is about £750 million a year, I believe—absolute peanuts. It is one of the areas of government—I am sure that there are other areas—that needs more attention than it is getting.

[The Chair]

We are just over halfway.

[Mims Davies]

Q 111 I want to pick up on something that was raised this morning by the Refugee Council and Still Human Still Here. They were inferring that the reform of the support will affect asylum seekers, leaving children destitute and obviously affecting social services and local authorities. I wondered whether you had an understanding of the level of numbers that may be affected by that, and therefore the impact that could be anticipated, or whether that is in essence scaremongering?

Lord Green of Deddington: In terms of numbers, offhand I do not know. I would make a distinction between families where there are children present, which would surely affect the way in which they were handled, and those where there are no children. Where there are no children, when people come to the end of their process, they should go—end of story. We certainly should not have the taxpayer paying for them.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

Q 112 Back to that point, there are two questions relating to what we were told early this morning by witnesses. On that point—namely, we were told that with a lack of resources, when people have finally lost their appeal, that would drive them further underground and they would cease to engage; it would not work and we would find that less people were leaving—can you comment on whether that is a fair assessment? Will that measure and the other measures in this Bill make it more likely that people go underground and less likely that they are going to come forward and engage, as we are told the term is, and come to the conclusion that they need to go of their own accord?

Lord Green of Deddington: Of course, it would depend very much on the individual cases. The overall statistics are very clear. First, of those who have applied for asylum—this is the average over the last 10 years, just to give you the broad scope—50% only did so when they were discovered. Secondly, when those cases were heard, 50% were granted. So the other 50% were refused, and of those only half were removed. So if you set foot in this country, as people are doing every day from Calais, and you say the word “asylum” you have a 75% chance of staying here. Of course, they know that—they have relatives, they have friends, they have mobile phones, most of them. If you are going to weight the system, which is the only thing you could do by legislation, then you have to weight it against bogus asylum seekers. That is my bottom line.

[Rebecca Harris]

Q 113 Thank you. That takes me back to the other point, which is about making working illegal, in particular, although it equally applies to some of the other measures in the Bill. I put it to one of our earlier witnesses that quite a lot of potential migrants—even those who might be considered to be being trafficked or abused or taken advantage of when they get here—are quite well informed about the rules and the system here, and, as you said, their chances of remaining indefinitely. Would you say that they are more likely to know that it will be illegal and more difficult to work here, and will that, along with the other measures in the Bill, stop the draw factor? We were told this morning that it was unlikely that people who come from abroad would really know what the rules were here.

Lord Green of Deddington: I do not think that we should underestimate the intelligence of people because they come here illegally. For a start, there is very strong communication within communities, whether you be a Filipina maid or a Syrian carpenter. They all have friends and relatives, and communication is extremely good; they learn very quickly and they also learn the way round the system. I would not be too bothered about that. We need a system that is sensible, firm and fair, and they will either realise that that is the case or realise that it is not.

[Gavin Newlands]

Q 114 I just want to ask for a quick clarification of an earlier answer to the Minister, in which you used the phrase “these people”. To be clear, can you define “these people” for the Committee?

Lord Green of Deddington: I am not sure what you are referring to.

[Gavin Newlands]

At the start of an answer to the Minister, you used the phrase “these people”.

Lord Green of Deddington: I do not know which answer you are referring to. Can you be a bit more specific?

[Gavin Newlands]

You might have been referring to asylum seekers or to migrants, but you gave the answer.

Lord Green of Deddington: I do not understand the question, I am afraid.

[Gavin Newlands]

You used the phrase.

Lord Green of Deddington: I use lots of phrases.

[Gavin Newlands]

Q 115 My main question is, to what extent do you consider that the Bill carries the risk of encouraging everyday discrimination against people who do not appear to be British?

Lord Green of Deddington: Could you say that a bit louder, please?

[Gavin Newlands]

To what extent do you consider that the Bill carries the risk of encouraging everyday discrimination against people who do not appear to be British?

Lord Green of Deddington: What did he say?

[The Chair]

Lord Green, are you having difficulty with the sound?

Lord Green of Deddington: I am, rather, yes—and, if I may say so, that slightly different accent. I did not understand the question, I am afraid.

[The Chair]

Okay. You can try again, Gavin.

[Gavin Newlands]

Do you think this Bill carries a risk that it will encourage everyday discrimination against people who do not appear to be British?

Lord Green of Deddington: Does the Bill carry the risk? Ah, sorry, yes, I understand. Some aspects of it might—you are probably thinking of the tenancy provisions. There is that possibility and it would be foolish to deny it, but you have to balance that against the absolute scandal of beds in sheds and the exploitation of people—immigrants usually, but not always—by ruthless landlords. There are tens of thousands of beds in sheds, probably more, and appalling conditions. That has to be tackled. Yes, there is a downside, as there is to any kind of change of this kind, but let us keep our eye on the ball. There is a scandal going on in relation to the housing of many people and that needs to be tackled.

[The Chair]

There is a very crowded field and we have about seven minutes. Kelly?

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Q 116 Earlier on you mentioned some of the numbers and the applicants to stay here. To what extent do you believe that the opportunities and ease of obtaining illegal work in this country are a pull for people to continue to come here?

Lord Green of Deddington: It is a major factor, absolutely. The wages here are so much higher than in the countries from which many people come—indeed they may have no means of earning a living in those countries in current conditions. I mentioned earlier that 50% of those who apply for asylum do so only when they are discovered working—or are discovered, but they will be working when they are discovered. Clearly, from their point of view, their intention was to come and work and then, as a fall-back position, apply for asylum if arrested. So, yes, that is a major factor.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Q 117 Mr Owen, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I apologise for arriving late.

I would like to ask the panel some questions about illegal working. At the moment, a number of measures can be taken in relation to both employers and employees where there is an inspection of premises and people are found to be in the country without proper status. The problem, as I understand it, has been the low rates of inspection and even lower rates of enforcement. That is the really critical issue. For that reason, steps have been taken to create a director of labour market enforcement and it is hoped there will be better strategy—streamlining and all the rest of it—but throughout those debates, and certainly when I was Director of Public Prosecutions, I cannot remember people saying that there was a problem with not having an offence that can be prosecuted. In other words, nobody has suggested, as far as I know, that there is a problem because there is not an action that can be taken against employees. There is obvious action that can be taken.

Do you know of any evidence of any cases that have not progressed because the offence of illegal working by the employee was not in place? In other words, there was an inspection, something was found to be wrong, but then there was a problem over not being able to bring a case because you did not have an offence against employees. I do not know of any evidence of that.

Lord Green of Deddington: Almost by definition it would not arise, because if there were no offence they would not be taking it further—

[Keir Starmer]

Q 118 No, I am sorry to interrupt you, but there are plenty of examples throughout our criminal proceedings sector where something happens and a team will have carried out an inspection or arrest and realised that they cannot proceed any further because there is no offence that fits the action they are trying to deal with. That is not uncommon. Usually the response is to legislate to fill what is seen to be a gap in the available offences. I have never seen any evidence here that it is a gap in the available offences that caused the problem. It seems to be that there are not enough resources to carry out inspections to enforce the measures that are already there.

[The Chair]

Can I ask for briefer answers and questions, please, if we are going to satisfy everybody on the list? Thank you.

Lord Green of Deddington: On the first point, you may well be right, but that is more for the Home Office than myself. On your second point, enforcement is essential, and it is not happening. You mentioned this director of enforcement. I think that is probably a good idea, but I would say this. The civil service is not a Meccano set; it is a plant and you cannot keep digging it up to see if it is working or not. I think we need to be careful about reorganising, organising and reorganising. On this occasion, I think there is a case for it.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Lord Green, although I, too, cannot remember the context in which you used the phrase, I would like to support what Mr Newlands was saying. There was a very disparaging tone with regard to “these people”. It certainly jarred with me. On such a sensitive issue as this we all need to be careful about language.

What I did not follow in the logic of your response to an earlier question about the financial support provided to people who have had their applications refused and who have exhausted the appeal process was why there should be an exemption for those with children, or a different style of treatment for those who have children. It seems to me, and I would welcome your views, that if a parent is told that they do not have the right to remain, they are by definition responsible for the welfare of their child. If the child is going to suffer disproportionately because there is a lack of central Government or local government funding, the solution remains in their hands. They have exhausted the appeal process; they have no right to remain. Surely, to safeguard the future and wellbeing of their child or children they should return to their country of origin as quickly as possible. I did not follow the logic that you were deploying as to why there should be two separate streams merely predicated on the fact that people had children.

[The Chair]

Lord Green, I have one more Member, Anne, wanting to ask a question. If you do not finish your response, would you please give some written response to that?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will try to be quick. In answer to an earlier question regarding asylum seekers, Lord Green, you said that they know that they have a 70% chance of staying—I am paraphrasing—and that some of them even have mobile phones. I wonder if you are aware of a detailed report from 2010 that Swansea University carried out for the Refugee Council on this very matter of whether asylum seekers set out to come to the UK. They said that the belief that many politicians have is not supported by the existing research evidence, much of which suggests that destinations are determined not by personal choices about lifestyle but by the practicalities and demands of the situation—

[The Chair]

Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Lady in full flow. Lord Green, Mr Hoare and Ms McLaughlin have asked questions that are on the record, and if you could provide answers we would very much appreciate it. On behalf of the Committee I thank you for the answers you have given. If you have additional information that you want to supply to the Committee, please feel free to do so.

Examination of Witnesses

Richard Lambert, Eric Leenders and David Smith gave evidence.

15:01

[The Chair]

Q 119 Good afternoon. We are now hearing evidence from the sixth panel of witnesses, from the National Landlords Association, the Residential Landlords Association and the British Bankers Association. For this session we have until 3.45 pm. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

David Smith: I am David Smith from the Residential Landlords Association, and I am the policy director.

Richard Lambert: I am Richard Lambert, chief executive officer of the National Landlords Association.

Eric Leenders: I am Eric Leenders, the executive director responsible for retail and private banking at the British Bankers Association.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 120 May I ask the panel—but I think probably Mr Lambert and Mr Smith in the first instance—about the provisions in the Bill dealing with the duties on landlords to carry out checks before renting to, or allowing premises to be occupied by, a person without the right immigration status? Do you have concerns about those provisions, from the perspective of the landlords, and do you have any comment about the concern of others that there could be a default position leading to discrimination—in other words, landlords being so concerned, because it is a complicated exercise and they are not entirely sure what they are doing, that it is easier simply to default to a position where you rent to somebody who is pretty obviously British, or who has a British passport?

David Smith: We have four areas of concern, so yes to your first question and, actually, yes to your second as well, but in a different way. We are concerned about the speed with which the second Bill has been brought forward when the first Act, the Immigration Act 2014, is not fully in force. It was announced only two hours ago that the pilot that has been evaluated in the west midlands will be rolled out across the country from 1 February. That pilot was held by the Immigration Minister to be a success, so we are not clear why there needs to be a set of criminal provisions on top of civil fines, which are, apparently, already effective. We would urge Parliament to take its time as it goes through implementation of the changes.

We are concerned about document discrimination—so not so much discrimination on grounds of nationality as discrimination on the grounds of people not having passports. Having a passport is far and away the simplest way to check somebody, so we are concerned that landlords, rather than just discriminating against people, will simply take the path of least resistance, especially as more pressure, potentially, is applied to them, with the possibility of ultimately going to jail. Indeed, I note from the evaluation that was published a few hours ago that one example was given, by one of the interviewees, of a situation of somebody without a passport being refused accommodation. So we are concerned about that.

We are concerned about the way in which the offences come into effect. The way the Bill is drafted, as soon as the Secretary of State has served a notice informing a landlord that they have illegal immigrants in their property, they are immediately committing the offence of having illegal immigrants in their property. It takes 28 days before you can possibly evict those people, so there are 28 days during which they are committing an offence. It has been suggested to us that the Home Office will not seek to prosecute, but it would seem to me that the only person who could give such an assurance is the person who is now filling your old job, Mr Starmer, at the CPS, the prosecuting body.

It would also be normal with offence of this type to have a provision that says that a landlord can establish a reasonable excuse—for example, if they have been severely ill or something like that—and that provision is not there.

The last thing is the air of confusion about two aspects in particular. First, the helpline has been described as a helpline, and was stated as such the other day. However, it has also been described to us as only being there to check for asylum seekers and people who do not have documentation. We would like to know which it is, and whether it will be fully funded as a helpline, so as to be effective.

The other thing that is notable from today’s announcement is that the provision is to be rolled out from 1 February, but it is not clear whether it will only apply to new tenancies commencing on or after 1 February, because it has also been stated to us in other meetings that it may apply to tenancies that are already in place on 1 February. It would be very nice to have some clarity on that, because it would be an extremely serious problem. I see that the Immigration Minister is shaking his head, which may give me the answer to that question.

Richard Lambert: We have concerns about placing this kind of responsibility on landlords, who are not trained for it and are not familiar with it. However, we have taken the view that we have to try to make sure that if this system is going to be introduced, it is as straightforward and practical as possible for landlords to operate. That has been the level of our discussions with the Home Office and other agencies throughout the past year, since the previous Act was introduced.

On concern about discrimination, we were probably more concerned about discrimination when the original policy was announced, or at least I was more concerned at that time than I am now. That is partly as a result of my going round and talking to local landlord meetings, as I do regularly. Rank and file landlords in our organisation are very worried about this issue, and those outside the pilot area are more worried than those inside it. One of the things that really comes back to me is, “How will we be able to tell if somebody is British? You can’t just look at them and say they are British. You can’t see their name and say whether or not they are British. In this day and age, you can’t even listen to their accent and say whether or not they are British.” So what we find is that landlords are moving towards the assumption that, in the same way that employers now tend to check all identities regardless of nationality, landlords will check identification, to make they cover off this particular aspect.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 121 I thank our witnesses for giving evidence this afternoon, and I also thank the relevant landlord bodies for their participation in the round-table sessions that we have had and will continue to have throughout the detailed implementation of the Bill.

I want to come on to one of the parts of the Bill that relates to the termination of tenancies. When landlords discover someone who is in the country illegally, they will be able to resolve that issue in a speedier fashion through the landlord and tenant legislation. Would that be welcomed by the sector?

Richard Lambert: Most definitely. Our big concern about the initial Act was what would happen once a landlord found they had a tenant who no longer had the right to rent, or who they thought had the right to rent but turned out not to have it. How could the landlord end the tenancy as quickly and as cleanly as possible, without necessarily getting into the whole court process? One of the problems with a court process is that it can be very protracted, yet the landlord is in the position of having committed an offence.

What we wanted to see was a process that moved that forward as quickly and clearly as possible. The provision in the Bill whereby the Home Secretary issues a notice once the Home Office has been informed that a tenant no longer has the right to rent achieves that. We have some concern about a power that has always been with the courts moving over to the Executive, but that is a constitutional principle for Parliament, ultimately, to decide. For our purposes, and looking at the practicalities, the power should work effectively.

David Smith: There are a couple of different points to make. First, it is generous of you to put in a provision to allow eviction of Rent Act tenants, but it is possibly not entirely necessary, as Rent Act tenants will have lived in the UK for so long that they are almost certainly entitled to stay here anyway, irrespective of how they entered the country.

The other part of it that I am a little bit more concerned about is with relation to assured shorthold tenancies and the power you have put in to evict. As I read it, it would still require an amendment to the tenancy itself for that power to be exercised, in that ground 7A can only be used inside a fixed term if it is mentioned in the tenancy agreement. So that ground for possession would require a lot of landlords to change their tenancies, which it is obviously their responsibility to do, but there is obviously a substantial piece of education that will need to be done in the sector, which I accept is our responsibility—possibly more than it is yours.

The other point is the issue of transfer of tenancies, so where there is a group of tenants, some of whom are illegal immigrants and some of whom are not, there is a power for the court to transfer the tenancy. The first point is that it is easily got around by simply issuing proceedings for some other ground for possession as well, which is relatively easy to do. The other problem about it is: how will you deal with all the other side bits that go with it—for example, tenancy deposit protection?

If a deposit is registered in one group of tenants’ names and the tenancy is transferred by the court to a different group of tenants’ names, the deposit protection schemes will need to have the deposit re-registered, and something will need to be done to deal with that contractual positon. So I am a bit concerned as to how that will work. In practice, I am afraid the mechanics are a little bit more complex in terms of shifting tenancies around between tenants.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 122 The detailed input given thus far has been helpful in flushing some of those issues and, no doubt, those discussions will continue.

Given the time, I should ask Mr Leenders about the banking provisions. The new provisions in clause 18 are on existing bank accounts and the ability to take action. That may be linked to some of the other issues we have touched on in the session, such as proceeds of crime legislation, linked to the employee criminal sanction that was highlighted in a previous session. Will you comment on the practicality and operation of that?

Eric Leenders: Certainly. We have some experience through the Immigration Act 2014 of implementing the required database search for new accounts that customers might want to open. That has given us some experience and some learning. The three-stage process in the Immigration Bill is broadly similar in the sense that first there is the status check, currently through CIFAS. Then there will be notification of any matches back to the Home Office, which is the three-point match, and no fuzzy logic, which gives a clear indication of those particular clients that we might need to close accounts for. The differential is the action that is then taken.

Essentially, though, as we understand it, there are two ensuing actions. First would be an instruction to close the account. We are working closely with HM Treasury officials to understand how that might work in practice—if I may, I will come back to that point. Second would be some form of freezing order through the courts that might facilitate ongoing regular payments, potentially for rent and other things, if there are subsequent actions that the individual might need to take.

In the context of closing the accounts, some of the challenges I think we find are, first, which types of accounts? We know it is individual accounts, joint accounts, additional signatories, charities and some smaller accounts, but is it all those instant access accounts or is it simply current accounts? That has been a challenge that we faced that was clarified, I think on the Floor of the House, with the Act.

There is also the treatment of balances, particularly of course for overdrafts. That has a bearing on the amount of time we would consider appropriate for actually closing the account. Currently, the default would typically would be 28 days, but, if there is an overdrawn balance, we would probably like to see that paid and the account closed quicker to lessen the propensity for that overdraft to drift up again.

I think we have a bit of an issue where there might be knowledge of a disqualification but we might not hold the qualifying account. These days we tend to have financial services across a range of providers, and the extent to which our responsibility might be to disclose to those whom we feel might hold the account, or whether we do nothing, is a moot point just now.

The granularity of disclosure once we have given notice to close the account is something that we are working on with Treasury officials. Currently we are looking at whether that should include balances, additional parties to an account or details of regular payments, which potentially would include details of the originating account for that regular payment. That is not information that we would necessarily find easy to extract from systems, so that is an additional build for us.

In the Financial Conduct Authority we have obligations to treat customers fairly. We found with the Act that there are some cohorts of consumers where actually it is quite difficult, in the sense that those with no fixed address might not have suitable matching criteria to pass through the database, so then we should call them out. That of course creates a customer service issue. Elderly consumers are another area—perhaps they have not registered on the electoral roll and therefore, again, we might need to call them out. We need to get that referral process quite slick.

We will in parallel need to implement the payments accounts directive, which has a requirement that you are familiar with to do with account opening for citizens legally resident in the European Union, which is a different definition and criterion to work through.

In terms of the pragmatics, as we envisage what we call operationalising, we would see that first wave of checks across a database—it might be as many as 120 million-something accounts, so there will be a volume of activity. Thereafter, if we were to undertake checks quarterly, say, we would be very keen just to check any additions and amendments to a register, rather than to have to sheep-dip the whole database.

The final point of course is the timeline. We have had some useful clarifications, again, from Treasury officials that suggest that the first checks might not take place until the latter stages of 2017. Typically, banks need something of the order of 18 months to implement mandatory change processes and to go through testing and assurance internally. We might be able to foreshorten that—we are talking about a period of about, say, 12 months. Whatever we can do ahead of the detail in the secondary legislation would be very helpful to us.

[James Brokenshire]

Q 123 Thank you for that detailed and comprehensive answer on the provisions, which is quite helpful and instructive on the level of detail that is engaged here. Just briefly, perhaps you could reflect on the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 and their implementation. What has been the practical experience? Clearly a lot of this quite detailed analysis was engaged there as well. What has been the situation to date?

Eric Leenders: On volumes, I think we have seen about 1.9 million searches go through the CIFAS database. From that we have identified some 14,000 matches against the database, and those have been referred back to the Home Office. That has in turn identified some of these issues such as people with no fixed address or those elderly consumers. So we can draw on that experience to inform our thinking around the Bill.

We consider that the CIFAS process is working quite well. The truncated timeline was difficult, frankly; there was an element of manual processing, and with manual processing there is, unfortunately, a higher propensity to or risk of error. So that is why we called for that slightly longer timeline—to ensure that as far as possible we can automate and therefore reduce the error rate within the process.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Q 124 I want to talk about potential discrimination under the right to rent aspects of the Bill. Not everyone is as enlightened as Mr Lambert, and so not everyone believes that you cannot tell by a face, a name or an accent whether someone is British. I was very struck by a statement sent out by the Residential Landlords Association, which I am going to read from:

“Whilst the Residential Landlords Association condemns all acts of racism the threat of sanctions will inevitably lead many landlords to err on the side of caution and not rent to anyone whose nationality cannot be easily proved.”

How concerned are you that the Bill will allow some people to use it as an excuse for their racism and that others will inadvertently end up acting in a racist manner, not because they want to but out of fear that they may end up breaking the law if they do not?

Richard Lambert: How concerned am I that some will use it? Very. How concerned am I that some will use it inadvertently? Fairly, but our experience is that most of the concern about the provisions is from people who have not gone into the detail, are worried about what they might have to take on, are concerned that they do not have the expertise or knowledge and are very focused on the penalties, because what has been pushed hardest is not the responsibility or the practicality but the level of penalty for getting it wrong.

Having had a quick look, like my colleague, at the evaluation report that was published this morning—we had a chance to look at it before we came in here—something like 22 of the 26 landlords who responded said that it was actually relatively easy to undertake the checks and that there did not seem to be an obvious level of overt discrimination, although there is still an undertone, and in a few cases that does happen.

It is a real risk, but when I said what I did about awareness of the fact that we live in a multicultural, multiracial, multifaceted society, that was not me speaking—obviously, I believe that—but me recounting what has been said to me by landlords at local meetings around the country. They are very concerned about the practicalities of how you make this work, and they realise that you cannot make assumptions, from looking at somebody, about whether they have the right to rent or whether they are a British national. The only way is to check and to check everyone. I recall anecdotally from my colleagues on the Home Office working group on the evaluation report that the largest level of resentment coming back from tenants was from the indigenous white British population, who did not understand why they were being asked to prove the right to rent. You actually get a counter-intuitive response.

David Smith: People who will discriminate would discriminate anyway, so in a sense people who are going to actively discriminate as a result of the Bill would have been actively discriminating before. Our biggest concern is what we have chosen to call document discrimination. Of the UK indigenous populace—or however you want to describe those people—17% do not have passports. If a landlord has two people walk through his door who want to rent the same property, and one says, “I have a passport and can do the right to rent check right now,” and the other says, “I do not have a passport but will come back tomorrow with two forms of identification off the secondary list,” the landlord is technically not breaking the law by taking the first person, and in practice I am sure that he will take that first person.

Our concern is that there are groups of people who are not in possession of passports and driving licences. As a lawyer, I have many such people as clients, because I have a large client base of elderly people or people who are in care. There are substantial numbers of those people, and a lot of them are renting, increasingly in the private rental sector, as there is a change from social renting to private renting. There is a potential difficulty with providing those people with proper identification.

We have called for a much simpler document for people who are on benefits and would already have been checked to receive benefits. Local authorities could provide a single document—perhaps watermarked or stamped—that landlords could be clearly told was acceptable as a single document. At the moment those people are going to need to produce two separate documents. They may not have them to hand, or it may take time to acquire them. The benefits letter has to be signed by a named official, and named officials may be reluctant to put their names on these documents. Our concern is that groups of people who should have no reason to be concerned by this legislation at all may find themselves being put through checks that they cannot easily meet.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 125 I declare an interest as per my declared interest in the Members’ register. For the record, I am probably what Mr Smith calls one of those in his sector who are amateurs and accidental landlords. One thing I know from experience, although I may be an amateur, is that the eviction process is incredibly burdensome for landlords. It is far too lengthy and hugely costly, and when you are going through the process, you do not get any rent from the tenant who is in your property. That is the current situation, whether they are an illegal immigrant or not. I cannot for the life of me understand, and neither can the members of Calderdale Landlords Association, whom I have spoken to, why on earth as an organisation you would be against something that is far better and makes it far quicker for a landlord to evict a tenant in these circumstances.

David Smith: In what sense?

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 126 You said very clearly that you had some real concerns around the eviction process that was being proposed. You mentioned the 28 days, for example. That is a much quicker process than what is currently in place.

David Smith: I said that my concern was that as soon as the Secretary of State had issued a notice to a landlord, they are committing an offence, and it takes 28 days before they can even begin the eviction process. During those 28 days they are committing the offence of having an illegal immigrant in their property.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 127 But they are already committing an offence as the law currently stands, and the process of evicting a tenant takes much longer. What I would like to know is why on earth you are advising landlords that this element of the Bill is not particularly—

David Smith: I think there is a misunderstanding here. They are not committing an offence as the law is currently drafted, because it has not changed yet. If it were to be changed, what we are after is a situation where, provided that the landlord is proceeding diligently to carry out the eviction, they are deemed not to be committing the offence of having an illegal immigrant in their property—so they have what the Act has termed a statutory excuse. As the situation stands, as soon as the Secretary of State issues the landlord with a notification that the tenant in their property is an illegal immigrant, the landlord is instantly deemed to be committing an offence of having an illegal immigrant in their property, and they can be prosecuted for that.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 128 So the new eviction process in the Bill is a good thing. Is that what you are saying?

David Smith: Yes. I have no concern about that at all.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 129 Okay. Can I just ask you about document checks, which have been mentioned? I just wonder whether you guys actually understand what is going on in your sector. If you try to get accommodation from an agency, for example, as I recently did here in London, first, you have got to be there on the day to secure something, and if you cannot get down to London to physically go and see it, you will lose it. Secondly, if you do not have the checks, whether you are an illegal or a legal resident in this country, it is a very difficult process anyway, because that is what people demand. Have you considered for one minute that for the amateurs and accidental landlords that you refer to, the introduction of some form of check, as is happening in the Bill, will protect them in other ways as well as just against potential illegal immigrants?

David Smith: Well, I suppose there are two answers to that. First, the current guidance would imply that using checks in other ways might well be unlawful discrimination, because the document checks are for establishing the right to rent, so that would depend on the guidance that is issued.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 130 But we have that in place anyway. If I do not have those documents to prove to an agency that I am who I am when I want to rent a property, whoever I am, guess what? I do not get the property.

Richard Lambert: To be fair, I think that that is custom and practice through tenant checking rather than a strict legal requirement. The other difficulty is that in some elements of the private rented market, lower-income people, people on benefits, vulnerable people and people who are very transient simply do not have that kind of documentation to hand.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 131 Okay. Let me just ask one final question, because I think I have made my point on that one. My question is to you, Mr Lambert, because you mentioned an undercurrent of discrimination in the system. May I point out that no evidence at all from the pilot—which, okay, was only published this morning—suggests that there is a discrimination there? You said that you have heard hearsay from people you have spoken to, but may I ask whether you have any physical evidence to suggest that there might be some form of discrimination in the system?

Richard Lambert: If you read the full report, I think it mentions one or two examples in the focus group that refer to what could be interpreted as minor levels of discrimination.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 132 So there is no real evidence—

Richard Lambert: That is what I am saying: there is no strong evidence of discrimination, although there is the potential there, and some minor level of concern may emerge in the focus group.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 133 Will the panel give us their assessment of what numbers might be involved in the area of policy that we are talking about? Do you have any assessment in particular of how many prospective tenants might present themselves to your members, or how many bank accounts in the case of Mr Leenders?

Richard Lambert: We can talk about how many households are in the private rented sector—there are about 4.4 million at the moment—and I think there is a turnover rate of about 25% to 30% a year, so we are looking at just over 1 million to 1.25 million new tenancies a year.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 134 Of those, do you have a sense of how many might fall under the provisions of the Bill?

Richard Lambert: None whatsoever.

David Smith: In a sense, they should all be falling under it, because landlords are required to check every new tenant, so one would assume that 1.2 million of them will require checks. How many of those people will then be found to have established the right to rent is perhaps one of the most hotly contested questions before this Committee, I would have thought.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 135 That is exactly what I am driving at. Could you give us your view on it?

David Smith: We have no information, clearly, as to how many unlawful immigrants there are within the private rented sector. The reality, as I think has been established before, is that landlords who are routinely and knowingly renting to illegal immigrants are probably breaking the law in a vast range of other exciting ways and are therefore intentionally well below the radar. Landlords who do not know that they are renting to illegal immigrants do not know that they are renting to illegal immigrants. Therefore, the information is extremely hard to come by.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 136 Just sticking with the two landlords, if I may, before coming to Mr Leenders on the same question, your organisations are membership organisations, clearly, and you know how many members you have. Do you have any sense of how many members you do not have? In other words, how many landlords are under the radar, to use your phrase?

Richard Lambert: That again is difficult to say—for under the radar. I estimate that there are probably about 100,000 landlords in all the landlord associations throughout the country—ours and the many little local landlord associations that exist. So there are probably about 1.4 million landlords who are not in landlord associations. It is then about what you mean by “under the radar”. If you mean the people who are completely illegitimate, who are renting beds in sheds and are probably landlords incidentally, because actually what they are is organised criminals and the housing element just comes in as part of that, they are more interested in prostitution, people trafficking, money laundering and so on, who knows? We could not tell that. What we do know is that there are probably about 1.3 million to 1.4 million people renting out property who are not directly engaged with our organisations or any other organisation. Our concern is always where they get their information from, how they know that what they are doing is the right thing, and how they learn about what is best practice or, indeed, about changes in the law.

David Smith: You should be aware that of landlords not in our organisations a significant number will be using letting agents who, themselves, are perhaps not always perfect either—a significant percentage of them do not fall under any professional body. A goodly percentage of them are aware of their responsibilities and will no doubt learn about them as they go forward. In a sense, there is a force multiplier effect by engaging landlord organisations, which can capture a good percentage of landlords, and by engaging letting agent organisations, which will pick up a lot of landlords who choose not to join a landlord membership body.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 137 Mr Leenders, any reflections?

Eric Leenders: I think we can identify 123 million instant access accounts. If we were to apply the experience from the Immigration Act of roughly 1% of searches being referred to the Home Office, that would potentially lead to a working assumption of about 1 million or 1.2 million searches being referred to the Home Office. That, in itself, surfaces an operational point about the readiness of the Home Office to deal with that volume in the initial wave of searches in the first quarter of the implementation of the Act. That is just one of those technical issues that we would like to work through. We might be able to find mitigants to that. For example, we might be able to strip out those who currently hold UK passports, but that is detail that we can work through in secondary legislation. I would not see that as a primary legislative point at all.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 138 I have two small, mopping-up questions. Mr Leenders, you went through the customer service and administrative burdens that the legislation puts on you, but are you largely in favour of it? Are there any unintended consequences of the legislation that we should be aware of?

Eric Leenders: We do not have a policy position on the Bill, nor did we on the Immigration Act 2014. There are some customer service points that give a little cause for concern. Referring customers with a seven-day service level agreement to the Home Office leaves them, effectively, in limbo for a period, and that customer might, quite justifiably, be entitled to an account. We do not feel that is the best experience, so we would want to work through one or two details like that. We would certainly want to have a period of testing—we are already encouraged by the Treasury giving some consideration to its own pilot exercise—presumably during the formulation of the secondary legislation, such that the customer impacts are minimised so far as possible.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 139 Mr Smith and Mr Lambert, I was surprised by how small the sample size was in the west midlands pilot results. Of the 67 respondents who are tenants, 60 are students. My assumption is that students are much more likely to have passports and letters of authority from their institutions. Do you believe that this is a skewed sample?

Richard Lambert: The evaluation period could have been better. It could have been a lot longer. We would have said, ideally, a year to 18 months because most tenancies last more than six months. In order to understand how this process works, you have to give it that length of time so you can see tenancies coming to an end, and limited right to remain coming to an end and you can see how that renews. It also took place at what is probably the slowest time of the year so, inevitably, there were not going to be a lot of tenancies turning over. Then there were the difficulties of contacting the population. It is interesting that in a university area, most responses to the request for tenant respondents came from students who are possibly more likely to be active in some of the social issues and more aware of these things going on.

David Smith: Students are also, to a large extent, exempt from checks. Students are nominated into accommodation by their educational institutions so any student in a hall of residence is effectively exempt from checks anyway. Given that areas around Dudley and West Bromwich are not substantial student areas—parts of my family come from the area—it is a shame that there was such a high student sample. I would have liked to have seen a sample that more adequately represented a wider spectrum of social demographic groups. We remain concerned about the effects, not so much on, for example, Members of Parliament renting homes, but on people in the lower social demographics who increasingly are coming into the private rented sector, will have difficulty with this legislation and are often driven into the arms of less salubrious landlords.

[Gavin Newlands]

Q 140 I know from your written evidence that you call for a clearly understood and properly resourced helpline for landlords. Will you share your members’ experiences of the helpline during the pilot? A recent written answer from the Minister, for which I am very grateful, revealed that there were two full-time equivalent staff for the helpline. Was that sufficient for your members?

David Smith: We have not had any particular feedback. We have certainly had calls to our member helpline from members. I do not know whether that means that they were not happy with what they got. We are concerned about whether the helpline will continue to be resourced as a helpline once we are talking about all of England. That is not clear yet—I am looking at the Minister to see whether he nods or shakes his head. I can tell you that we run a member helpline and that more than two people staff it. It is that simple. Two people will not be enough to cover all of England, but I am not clear about the plans for widening the helpline.

If the helpline is not adequately staffed, there is little point in having it, I suspect. We would like more online resource. I note that, in the evaluation—the guide that was published today—the Government have highlighted the European PRADO database, but it covers only EU documents, not EEA documents. My members are not familiar with Liechtenstein passports, not that they would necessarily see a great many of those. However, many members are likely to believe that countries such as Ukraine are in the EEA, which they are not. We are therefore concerned about people both ignoring countries of which they should take account, and thinking that countries that they have seen in the news recently, which are around the fringes of the EU, must be in the EU.

We are also concerned about the potential for forgery that is opened up on list B. Several documents on there are potentially prone to forgery with a laser printer and we are very worried about the risk our members run of prosecution for not being the most adept spotters of forgeries. Immigration officers frequently examine passport documents and they are highly trained in that. My members are not equipped with UV scanning lights or skilled watermark detection systems, and I am afraid that many of them would not know a watermark if you asked them about it anyway. I am therefore concerned about how they will detect the more sophisticated forgeries, and what the break point is for what they should detect. I am not worried about sellotape.

[The Chair]

Q 141 Can we just get the questions and then we will have the answers?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Mr Smith, you mentioned earlier businesses or associations that are part of your organisation, and you said that landlords who wilfully engage in this sort of activity will fall under the radar. Do you agree that the tougher penalties in the Bill target those very people?

[Simon Hoare]

I wondered whether Mr Smith wanted to reflect on his comment that there were not many students in Dudley. That will come as a shock to Dudley College, which has worked closely with the University of Wolverhampton since 1999, offering, among other courses, a PGCE and a Certificate in Education post compulsory education, and has six campuses. That suggests to me that there are quite a lot of students in Dudley.

David Smith: In which case, I immediately withdraw any suggestion that Dudley is not a substantial student town, with my apologies.

[Simon Hoare]

So the corollary is that the baseline with the data that the evaluation mentioned is possibly a little more bona fide than you first indicated.

David Smith: It is still the case that there is a large number of student responses, and I would have liked to see data that drew on groups of people who were absolutely not students. I am prepared to accept that, yes, there may be more students in those areas than I envisaged, but that does not change my primary concern, which is that, from what I can see, having looked at the evaluation briefly, there are a lot of students in the responses. That potentially skews the data and I would like to see a study that was drawn from outside the student population, if possible.

Ms Tolhurst, I am not immediately convinced that increasing penalties in and of itself will smoke out bad landlords. Bad landlords are already subject to a raft of housing legislation with varying penalties. I do not know whether many people saw the story in The Times on Saturday, which was based on freedom of information data that my organisation obtained. They show very poor enforcement by local authorities. I do not know what level of enforcement of this legislation there will be through the Home Office. If it is actively enforced against bad landlords, then, yes, I would agree with you—if.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions in this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. Again, if there is anything they feel they need to add to the answers they have given, please write to the Committee Clerks.

Examination of Witnesses

Chief Superintendent David Snelling and Stephen Gabriel gave evidence.

15:46

[The Chair]

Q 142 Good afternoon. We are now on the seventh panel of witnesses and we will have oral evidence from the Metropolitan police and from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. This session will go until 4.15 pm.

Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Stephen Gabriel: My name is Stephen Gabriel and I am the strategic manager at Sandwell Council with responsibility for private sector housing.

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: Good afternoon. My name is David Snelling. I am a chief superintendent from the Metropolitan police, but my role here is that I am chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council—which has replaced ACPO—Vehicle Recovery Group.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

Q 143 I want to ask Chief Superintendent Snelling some questions about the provisions in the Bill relating to driving. An issue has been raised that somehow the progress being made by the Metropolitan police in particular in dealing with some of the problems relating to stop-and-search measures will be, in effect, hampered by the introduction of provisions relating to the search of vehicles that might be used by illegal immigrants. What do you say to that suggestion?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: Perhaps I can give a theoretical example from an operational perspective of how this practice is most likely to be employed. It is most likely that we will have come across something by a vehicle that we would have had some reason to stop, which would then enable us to do a check on ownership of the vehicle using the police national computer. At that stage, what we would probably do then is speak to the driver and ascertain his or her details. Again, we would then again do a check on the national police computer about them, but at the same time we would also carry out a driving licence check. That would give us some indication of the type of driving licence they held, if any at all.

So, regarding what we would call the traditional stop-and-search provisions whereby we see somebody acting suspiciously in the street, we go and question them—stop and search them—our interactions would be merely reactive, following on from cause to stop a vehicle and then ascertaining other provisions about the driver from there.

[The Solicitor General]

Q 144 So this is intelligence-led policing, as opposed to what I will frankly describe as some of the random stops and searches that we know disproportionately disadvantage people from the black and minority ethnic communities.

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: If I were perhaps to take out some of the language from there and talk about this particular instance, yes, we would have had cause to stop a vehicle, and we would have done further checks on the driver of that vehicle, which would enable us to deal with them in whichever way is appropriate.

[The Solicitor General]

Q 145 On the new power relating to the detention of a vehicle relating to a person unlawfully here in the United Kingdom, how will that dovetail with existing powers to detain vehicles?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: We have a variety of powers to detain vehicles. We have a power to stop any vehicle to ascertain ownership and driver details. What we would then do is inquire into whether the driver has authority to drive that vehicle. The power we use most often at the moment would be stopping vehicles where there is no insurance or the driver is driving otherwise than in accordance with their licence—we find a lot of people with provisional licences who are not driving with L plates. In that respect, I would see it as a staged process: we would stop the vehicle, then ascertain the circumstances of the driver.

To fall within the provisions of the Bill, we would most likely need to do a further check with the immigration authorities, which at that stage would give us reasonable grounds—whether or not you could use the term “proof” is another thing—based on a search on the immigration database, to believe that that person is driving as an illegal immigrant. That would fall within the provisions of the Act—should the Bill be made an Act of Parliament. At that stage we would have the power to seize the vehicle, as we would currently do under driving without insurance.

[The Solicitor General]

Q 146 So the extra dimension is then the ability to check the Home Office database?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: Yes, that is something we would require to actually exercise the powers proposed in the Bill.

[The Solicitor General]

Q 147 Are you satisfied that these provisions will not cut through or cut across the excellent work being done by the police service on reforming stop and search and having a much more intelligence-led approach to it, as opposed to the random problems that we all acknowledge we saw in the past?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: In terms of the example I have given, it is a series of steps that we can say objectively are what have led us to form the suspicion. We would be referring to an authorised database, owned by a Government agency. That should allay the view of various members of the public that we would just be, to use your terms, stopping people on speculation.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 148 Chief Superintendent Snelling, can I follow up on the questions about driving? You have talked us through the way in which a vehicle would be stopped at the moment, using current powers. I think a number of licences have been revoked as the result of the exercise of existing powers, and of course when you find someone in a car who is not legally allowed to be here or has an irregular immigration status, there are various enforcement actions that can be taken in any event. Have you, on behalf of the chiefs’ council or in any other capacity, asked for a further offence of driving while not having a regular immigration status? In other words, have you identified a gap in your powers that has led you to ask for further offences to be considered because you have found a problem?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: Can I give you a short answer?

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, please.

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: No.

[Keir Starmer]

Thank you.

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: If I can slightly flesh that out—or have I been cut off by the Chair?

[The Chair]

No, you have not, but please be brief.

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: We have been involved in discussions with the Home Office that have proposed this power, but to the question whether we approached the Home Office, the answer is no.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 149 Mr Gabriel, do you believe the provisions in the Bill covering landlords and the new responsibility of landlords to effectively become immigration experts are going to put a strain on community relations and perhaps lead to more discrimination?

Stephen Gabriel: We speak to landlords on a daily basis. Some of the landlords are not saying that they feel it is an extra burden. The point was made earlier that some landlords have already been looking for and taking information such as copies of people’s passports or other forms of identification, so the good landlords would have been doing checks anyway. Also, some landlords have said that where they felt a bit nervous about asking for proof, the pilot gave them a legitimate reason to ask for and get that information before they could move further with any contracts.

A point was raised earlier about the indigenous population having access to identification, and that could be a challenge. As we know, migrants or asylum seekers who are looking for accommodation will normally come with the relevant documentation. I think there is a point around the indigenous population having the right documentation. As was raised earlier, if two people come along at the same time and one has the documentation but the other does not, the landlord is likely to go with the one who does.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 150 As you said, good landlords are going to welcome this because it gives them more support to ask for documents to prove legitimacy and protect their tenancy. The group that I am concerned about are the accidental landlords, who just see this as another burden when they did not particularly want to be in this situation, and who may withdraw themselves from the market. I am concerned about the potential for bad landlords to fill that gap, offering substandard accommodation and not asking for the right documents, so that people could fall off the radar and people who choose to fall off the radar could go even further off.

Stephen Gabriel: Bad landlords have always been out there. Even with the introduction of this legislation, in the area that I cover in Sandwell, we are still picking up landlords who are not fulfilling their obligations. I talk about the grey economy of landlords, and I think there is still a lot of work to do to identify those landlords. In Sandwell, we have undertaken a proactive approach for one of our neighbourhoods that we know has a high turnover of newcomers. We are finding some real challenges in relation to the quality of properties that people are living in, particularly properties above shops. We have tried to go there with colleagues from environmental health and housing to take a holistic approach to those buildings, so we can get up and see what is happening above the shops. We found on one occasion two elderly people aged over 80 living in a property that I would describe as—well, not very nice.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 151 Unfortunately, I have areas like that with private landlords, and those properties tends to be occupied by migrant workers but also trafficked people coming over. What could be in this Bill that is not there already to target those bad landlords?

Stephen Gabriel: From my perspective, it is about what we do on the ground operationally and how we work with our enforcement colleagues. We have now opened up the channels of communication with the Home Office and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. We have undertaken one joint enforcement activity in Sandwell, and other enforcement activities are coming through now. I am also aware that across the other authorities affected by the pilot, the increase in that relationship in sharing information, sharing data and going out on joint enforcement visits has really raised the profile of the work that we are doing among landlords.

Another thing is how we raise the profile among tenants. One of the things that we have done in the region is recently to launch a mobile app, which is called “Check Before You Rent”. One of the questions in the app is: is your landlord accredited, and have they asked you for any information about the immigration checks?

[Mims Davies]

Q 152 I must declare an interest in the road safety aspect, because that is an area I have worked in previously. Chief Superintendent Snelling, in terms of people killed or seriously injured, have you identified communities where there is a difference in the culture regarding drink or drug-driving? Have the police identified that as a concern?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: In wider issues such as drink and domestic abuse and domestic violence, we have identified some communities that are more prone to that. That would be the remit of a local police chief superintendent. I am Sutton borough commander, so I have a good idea of the make-up of my communities within the area that I police. Were there to be specific community concerns or tensions, we would seek to look into it either through education or through enforcement.

On the road safety side, in Sutton we are working closely with Transport for London to raise awareness of safety among schoolchildren. For the wider population, we would hope that the provisions of the Bill would be widely publicised. As I have highlighted with the scenario for stopping, we have run certain operations nationally with the immigration service and we have worked with them to target areas of concern. They, like us, would be feeding into their community representatives to ensure that they would have an understanding of why we have exercised those powers.

[Mims Davies]

Q 153 Have you identified a spike in certain areas where people have been killed or seriously injured by people who do not have the right documentation or perhaps the right driving licence or insurance?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: The short answer is no. We would tend to look locally at some of the problems. For example, in London I am aware that there has been a recent slight rise in the number of failed to stop collisions. We tend to think the reason for that is because people did not have the appropriate driving licence or insurance, which is why they would not stop. Again, some of our work would be reactive and some would be proactive.

[Mims Davies]

Q 154 Finally, in terms of people identified and the information that you highlight, is this a timely piece of legislation?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: I think there is an area, yes, that we could address—some areas that would tighten up some of the current provisions. Although the police have not asked for the authority, working with the Home Office I can see where that could assist us.

[The Chair]

We are just over halfway through this session. A brief supplementary from Keir, and then I will come to Byron.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 155 Chief Superintendent Snelling, can I come back to you on a different aspect of driving? The proposed offence is driving a motor vehicle when a person is not lawfully resident in the UK. As I understand it, that means that somebody who overstays can commit the offence once they have lost their lawful right to be resident in the UK. In other words, you can have someone who is entitled to drive, has a valid driving licence, proper insurance and so on, and then on a certain day, if they overstay or go beyond their permitted residence here, they have become a criminal offender for driving a car. Do you know—if you do not, tell us—in such circumstances, is their otherwise valid insurance immediately invalid, so that they are also an uninsured driver?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: The short answer is no. I think we would need a detailed approach to the insurance company. We often find at the roadside that some of the provisions of the legislation would still allow them to be covered as far as the legislation is concerned, although other offences may have been committed.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 156 Do you know what the situation is here?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: I have not looked into it in enough technical detail.

[Byron Davies]

Q 157 Mr Snelling, leading on from the Minister’s questions—it is perhaps a little out of context now—on this fear about the stop and search issues, do the immigration authorities have access to the police national computer? Can they flag up on the PNC whether somebody is an illegal immigrant?

Chief Superintendent David Snelling: I am afraid I do not have that level of detail about immigration authorities’ access to the police national computer.

[Rebecca Harris]

Q 158 I would like to go back to the question of discrimination in housing. Mr Gabriel, you said something quite interesting, which was that you found that quite a lot of tenants quite liked the idea that they would have to be asked for documentation—they would not have that awkwardness, because it was mandated. I noted, looking at the findings of the report into the trial, the mystery shopping survey found that a higher proportion of black and minority ethnic potential tenants were asked for their documents, but in the ultimate findings a higher proportion of them were given tenancies compared with white British. Does that make any sense to you? Does that surprise you? Can you give any interpretation of that?

Stephen Gabriel: Just to clarify, my point was about how landlords felt that, with the legislation coming in and the right-to-rent pilot, they then had the ability to ask the questions, not the tenants. In relation to discrimination, I think the point that I made earlier, the issue around the indigenous population is the biggest thing. If you have got the requirement—the passport or the driving licence—you are less likely to be discriminated against than someone who has not.

[Rebecca Harris]

Q 159 So it could be beneficial in that regard.

Stephen Gabriel: Yes.

[Rebecca Harris]

Thank you.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 160 Mr Gabriel, you mentioned the grey economy of landlords and spoke about more collaborative working. I think you touched on the issuing of notices of compliance and things such as that. Do you feel that you already have sufficient powers to deal with the grey economy? Would you say that the powers in the Bill around the checks that landlords have to do will actually overall enhance your job regarding that particular economy?

Stephen Gabriel: There is more that we can do around trying to understand where the grey economy is, but I think that the Bill and the work that we have been doing go some way to beginning to address that—in particular, the collaborative working between organisations. That is the point to be made here. Previously, it was very difficult for local authority enforcement teams to work with the Home Office and the GLA, but now there is a real impetus for us to work together to deal with some of these enforcement issues, and we are seeing that on the ground.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 161 So the new powers in the Bill, around the landlord checks, for example—will they enhance that role as well?

Stephen Gabriel: That is right, yes.

[Gavin Newlands]

Q 162 Mr Gabriel, the Bill removes support for a majority of failed asylum seekers. Do you have concerns that through this aspect of the Bill, the Government are in effect devolving to local government responsibility for the support of refused asylum-seeking families through its responsibility to accommodate children? At this time of great restraint in local government funding, do you feel that this is an area that might be looked at again?

Stephen Gabriel: It is a challenge. One of my concerns in Sandwell is that we are part of the West Midlands strategic migration partnership and there is the need for local authorities to have parity in numbers in the families whom they are supporting. Yes, in Sandwell our percentage is higher than in some of the other local authorities in the area, so if the Home Office stops supporting those families, that will potentially have a negative impact on the local authority. That could be a challenge for the local authority.

[The Chair]

Q 163 We have approximately seven minutes. Does anyone else want to ask a question?

[Rebecca Harris]

Q 164 Mr Gabriel, I often find quite a lot of anger from people who are waiting on housing lists, because they have a certain conviction in their own minds that people are getting housing ahead of them, whether private rental or whatever—that they are being squeezed out of the market because of vast numbers of illegal immigrants, whether that is true or not true. In your professional opinion, do you think that the measure will give people more reassurance that there is not that injustice, and that they will know that it is not possible?

Stephen Gabriel: The ability to carry out the checks and to be seen to be doing more to make sure that those members of the community who do have a right to stay here are being checked from a housing perspective is a tool that will allay some of those fears, I think.

[The Chair]

Do any other Members wish to ask questions? If there are no further questions, I thank both witnesses for their evidence, and we will move on to our final panel. Thank you very much.

Examination of Witnesses

Ilona Pinter, Kamena Dorling and Adrian Matthews gave evidence.

16:10

[The Chair]

Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from the Children’s Society, Coram Children’s Legal Centre and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. As I indicated, this is the final panel, and we can go up to 5 pm. May I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record?

Ilona Pinter: I am Ilona Pinter. I am policy adviser at the Children’s Society and co-chair of the Refugee Children’s Consortium.

Kamena Dorling: I am Kamena Dorling. I am head of policy and programmes at Coram Children’s Legal Centre and co-chair of the Refugee Children’s Consortium.

Adrian Matthews: I am Adrian Matthews. I am the policy adviser to the Children’s Commissioner for England on immigration and asylum-related matters.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 165 To all of you, please—if you could answer briefly—what do you perceive to be the risks for children’s welfare of the provision to remove support from families who have been refused asylum under clause 34? May I start with Ms Pinter?

Ilona Pinter: We think the risks for children from this provision are very serious indeed. Essentially, it would see families becoming destitute—they would no longer have accommodation and financial support under asylum support. That obviously brings with it a whole range of risks, from families being street homeless to families having to move around, potentially for short periods of time, to stay in potentially unsafe accommodation. The research broadly, including the Children’s Society’s research, shows that children who are currently destitute are at a heightened risk of being exploited, as well as at risk of remaining in circumstances where they are facing domestic violence. Obviously, some of the evidence that currently exists from serious case reviews highlights the real child protection risks for children of having no support.

Adrian Matthews: Could I add that some families will no doubt go into the woodwork? That actually creates all sorts of problems, because parents will then, in order to feed their children, resort to very unsafe practices—unsafe childcare practices and unsafe working environments, and so on and so forth. The other effect is very clear: a lot of families will turn to local authorities for support, and whether they are given that support or not I think is almost immaterial in the end. The fact is that it will massively increase the burden on local authorities in terms of processing applications and claims from families who are destitute and street homeless.

Kamena Dorling: I would echo what both Ilona and Adrian have said. A key concern is, as Adrian has mentioned, this shift of the burden on to local authorities. We are already seeing local authorities struggling to support the number of families currently in the UK with no recourse to public funds. This would look to increase that pressure, and one of the results we are seeing of that pressure is very low levels of support for families that are turning to local authorities, if they are getting anything at all, but also quite high levels of gatekeeping, where often families are turned away anyway. Then we are just going to see either children visibly destitute and homeless or going missing entirely from services, and that will presumably have a knock-on effect on their access to education, access to healthcare and all the problems that we are already seeing for children in families who are undocumented at the moment.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 166 Looking at current practice, from your experience, how are children’s best interests currently being assessed by the Home Office? How would this play a role in a decision to deport a family under the clause?

Ilona Pinter: The first thing to say is that there is currently no mechanism by which children’s best interests are decided, considered or assessed. That has implications not only for support, but for how families’ substantive decisions within the asylum process are taken into account. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees did a piece of research in 2013 that highlighted a lot of failings where children’s best interests under the protection claim were not considered, which has consequences down the line. The Home Office’s own evaluation of the family returns process highlights that most families involved in the process feared returning home. Reasons include families fearing what will happen to them and their children if they are returned. We believe that the provision to end support for families to encourage them to go home will not work, because they still have those remaining fears about the consequences.

Adrian Matthews: The current practice of Home Office decision makers in taking into account the best interests of children is patchy, to say the least. We had a good example last year that we were involved in as the Children’s Commissioner, in which the Home Office had removed a mentally ill Nigerian mother with a six-year-old who had been born here. She did not survive in Nigeria. She only survived through the foster parents, who had been fostering the child for six months and supporting her while the legal process was going on in the UK. Eventually, the upper tribunal decided that the Home Office had acted unlawfully in not taking into account the child’s best interests and returned the family to the UK.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 167 So building on that, the potential in the Bill to deport before appeal presumably raises concerns.

Adrian Matthews: Yes, exactly.

Kamena Dorling: I was going to say that when we look at a range of provisions within the Bill, there appears to be an assumption that children’s interests will be considered as a matter of course. From our day-to-day practice and at Coram Children’s Legal Centre, where we represent children and families in such situations, at best we get lip service paid to children’s interests. Quite often, there is no detailed analysis of how any immigration decision would affect a child in a family or on their own, which is really concerning. There is a huge absence here both when we are talking about changes to support for families in the asylum system and when we are talking about the extension of the deport-first appeal. Children are absent from later provisions. There is no consideration of the impact on children.

Adrian Matthews: I would very much like to echo that. One of the most serious aspects of the appeal provisions is the test of “serious and irreversible harm” but that is applied to the person who is to be removed, excluded or refused entry, depriving the child a voice in proceedings. Under the current arrangements, in an in-country appeal under article 8 human rights grounds there is at least the potential for the child’s voice to be heard. The change specifically excludes children who are settled or who are UK citizens from having a voice in the proceedings about how they will be affected by the removal or exclusion of a parent. That is a serious concern that engages the UK’s obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, particularly article 12, which requires the state party to allow the child to have a voice in such proceedings.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 168 The Government believe that they are compliant with the European convention on human rights and that there is no conflict with any children’s legislation. You would disagree with that.

Adrian Matthews: I would not agree with that.

[Sarah Champion]

Okay. To the rest of the panel, do you think that the legislation complies?

Ilona Pinter: It is notable that on the provision to withdraw asylum support, for instance, there is no mention of the section 55 duty on the Home Secretary to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in relation to all of the functions, including asylum support. There is no mention of how many children would be affected specifically by that provision.

Kamena Dorling: If we look broadly at the UN convention on the rights of the child, as has been already mentioned, article 12, which is about the voice of the child, is key, but so is article 3, which requires us to take the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. We have had a number of cases go to the Supreme Court on that, and we have got very good guidance from the Supreme Court about how the interests of children should be examined.

One of the findings of the Supreme Court is that children should not be blamed for the actions of their parents. Again, what we seem to see in this Bill is this idea that any immigration behaviour that is deemed undesirable can result in a policy of forced destitution, for example, which seems to me a very stark means of punishing children for the action of their parents. So there are a number of concerns.

[Sarah Champion]

To reassure the panel, I will point out that we are blessed with a Minister who has always been a child advocate and campaigner, so I am sure he will look very closely at these matters.

[The Chair]

I am sure that was put on the record.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 169 I have a question for all members of the panel, which really follows on from that point. In your experience and with your background, can you think of any circumstances in which the Home Office could argue that it was in the best interests of the child to remove support? Did the Home Office ever make a decision that it was in the best interests of a child to remove support?

Ilona Pinter: I think it is difficult to say that by specifically removing support, if there are no other mechanisms, that children would be protected. There are obviously some circumstances—a lot of the cases that we deal with are very complex—in which there are child protection issues. However, that would need to follow child protection proceedings. We do not believe that removing support from families will be an effective way of getting families to leave the country, and that has been shown through evidence time and time again, through the Home Office’s own evaluation.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 170 Perhaps I should just nuance the question. Are there any circumstances where support is removed in which the same support, or similar support, is not simply picked up by another agency that could ever be argued to be in the best interests of the child? Obviously, if things just swap to another agency and somebody else just picks up the bill and provides the service, it is a bit of a pointless exercise.

Adrian Matthews: Well, it either swaps to another agency or the parent puts themselves in a precarious position in order to support the child. So I think that the short answer to your question is no, there are not really any circumstances in which withdrawing support is in the best interests of the child.

Kamena Dorling: But of course what this Bill is trying to achieve, as I read it, is to increase the numbers of families returning. What we are trying to advocate is that we have a family returns process, so why not put more effort and resources into increasing the capacity of that process, through which ideally families might return? Then at that point you would be withdrawing support, because you would have already put steps in place for them to depart the UK.

Adrian Matthews: To reinforce that, if you read the reports of the independent family returns panel you see that there is quite a lot of evidence that there has been a vastly greater uptake of the voluntary return packages that are available through consistent and careful engagement by family engagement managers with those families, addressing their fears and so on and so forth. That is a much more realistic, and in the end productive, way to go, rather than simply using punitive methods of withdrawing financial support and accommodation.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 171 Thank you. I have a similar question in relation to the proposal on appeals, which is “remove first, appeal later”. Can you think of any examples where it is in the best interests of the child to remove first and appeal later?

Ilona Pinter: The difficulty is that, as I said before, there is not a best interests determination process, so we do not know what the best interests of the child are. However, that is not the same as saying that families or children should never be removed; that is not our position. Our position is that if you do not know what the best interests of the child are first, how can you do that balancing? There are obviously lots of circumstances in which it would be fine for families to return to their country of origin, and even children who have been born in the UK and grown up here would be able to adjust to another environment. It is not about never being returned but about how the process is best dealt with. To engage with children’s welfare there needs to be a conversation with families. As Adrian said, the returns process is working. The first report of the family returns panel showed that around 50% of returns did not need an ensured return. The next time the panel reported, 76% of returns did not need an ensured return. Families are co-operating, but there is a need to address those barriers to return, and that can be dealt with only with co-operation with the families, through working and engaging with them.

[Keir Starmer]

Q 172 To be clear, absent that co-operation and support, in a simple case of deport first and appeal later, is your answer as I understand it, namely, that it is simply impossible to assess whether deportation is in the best interests of the child because the exercise is never carried out?

Adrian Matthews: I would add one thing. There are enormous practical difficulties in appealing from abroad, particularly for families who have been destitute in the UK. They will be going back with virtually no resources at all; questions about how you organise an effective appeal from abroad in those circumstances need to be answered. But I do not think it will be, because once they are out of the country, they are out of sight and out of mind. Appealing from abroad is a really tricky problem.

Kamena Dorling: Presumably you can envisage a situation in which there is a mind to remove a parent or a family from the country so that they can appeal from abroad, and we would move the family unit as a whole. That might not be detrimental to the child. Families move all the time. I could remove my son from the UK with me and that would still be in his best interests. I go back to the point that we do not have an assessment of the impact on the children so we do not know.

Ilona Pinter: To put this into a little perspective, one thing that is often overlooked is that deport first, appeal later is going to affect a range of families, including those in which the children are British, those who have status, those who do not have status or those who have an irregular status. We know from the University of Oxford that 120,000 children are undocumented in this country and over half of those were born and have grown up here. Many will not have the language of the country that they are being returned to; they may have never been there, as they have grown up here. Effectively they will be going to a country to which they have never been before.

On the point about British children, which is important, we have had cases in which families have been removed where we believed that the children were British. Because there is no system for finding out the best interests of the child, or even for checking details such as whether the child is British, or whether they would be stateless if returned, there is a real risk that those families would be removed and find themselves in very difficult circumstances.

[The Solicitor General]

Q 173 You are making an assertion that the best interest of the child is not part of the consideration of the decision maker—for example, in this provision relating to certification of whether a deport first, appeal later procedure should be adopted—but is that actually right? Is not the evidence that, on a case-by-case basis, each individual family situation will be assessed? There may be occasions when it is in the best interests of the whole family to deport the entire family, and there may be instances when it is better for the child to remain in the UK while the subject of the application is deported. Is it not really an issue of looking at matters on a case-by-case basis, rather than the blanket suggestion that the best interests of the child simply do not come into it?

Ilona Pinter: I think we agree that it is on a case-by-case basis. We are saying that there is no assessment of children’s best interests. The UNHCR report highlights strong examples in which children’s best interests were not taken into account in the decision making.

[The Solicitor General]

Q 174 Forgive me, but that is different, is it not? There may be some cases in which the view of the Commission is that the child’s best interests were not put front and centre, but that is different from saying that there is a blanket approach of not taking children’s best interests into account.

Adrian Matthews: There are cases, clearly, where it may be in the child’s best interest for the parent to be removed from the country—for example, if the child is affected by domestic violence. That takes individual consideration but, excluding those cases—the UN convention covers this—it is normally the case that it is in the best interest of the child to be brought up by both parents unless it is in their interest not to be. The sorts of circumstances you are envisaging would address that. Of course, decision makers will need to look at those factors but, in general, it is in the interest of the child to be brought up by both parents. We recently did some research on the family migration rules, and I was genuinely shocked to find out that missing parents for what might be considered, from an adult point of view, a short amount of time—a matter of months, but sometimes years and sometimes longer—has a profound effect on young children at a time of their life when they are forming bonds with their parents. It is essential that the state does not interfere with those early things, because that could be what you would regard as irreversible and serious harm.

[The Solicitor General]

Q 175 Which means that sometimes it will be in the interest of the family for the entire family and the children to temporarily leave the country together.

Adrian Matthews: It may be, but that would be very circumstance dependent. Of course, the immigration authorities have no power to remove a British citizen from the country. That might be in the family’s control, and families do make decisions to do precisely that.

Kamena Dorling: I think it comes down to a question of the current decision making that we see. We are not saying that there is a blanket disregard. I just do not think that in a lot of decision making there is meaningful engagement with what effect a decision will have on a child. As we have seen in guidance from the Supreme Court, you are first meant to assess what is in the best interest of the child before looking at competing considerations. No other considerations, not even immigration control, automatically trump what is in the best interest of the child. We do not really see that level of engagement in decision making; we see what I would call lip service: “We have a section 55 duty. Obviously we have considered this and it is fine.” I am paraphrasing, obviously.

There needs to be more onus on proactive assessment, and we have provided a case study in which the child was actually British—we were looking at the decision to remove that child—and because the mother could not show evidence that the child was British, she was going to be removed with that child. It was only in the process of the in-country appeal that the tribunal ordered the Home Office to look into the status of the father. It was then confirmed that the child was British and should not be removed. It is about that kind of proactive engagement.

Adrian Matthews: Part of the weakness of the system—you might be right that there is some consideration of the best interest of the child subject to immigration control—is that there is no consideration of the best interest of the child who is not subject to immigration control. That could be a settled child or a British national child. The decision-making process, because it is geared towards immigration, is not set up to look at the wider effects. A clear example is that the Home Office does not know how many children are affected by the family migration rules. It does not know how many British children and settled children are affected by the exclusion of a foreign national parent. The Home Office does not count them.

[The Chair]

That was an interesting and important exchange. I am conscious that Simon has been waiting patiently, and then I will bring in Anne, Craig, Mims and Kelly.

[Simon Hoare]

Q 176 I have two questions that I hope you can deal with reasonably quickly. The first might just be a yes or no answer. Do you understand the rationale and the public demand that sit behind this Bill?

Adrian Matthews: Yes.

Kamena Dorling: If it can be yes or no, then, yes, I understand.

Ilona Pinter: indicated assent.

[Simon Hoare]

Q 177 We heard from Lord Green and I think one or two others that people who are seeking asylum or refuge in this country are usually pretty well linked in terms of communication and understand what is going on through the use of mobile telephones or established relationships with friends or relatives already in the country. So they know broadly what the new “regime” is going to be all about. If that is the case—I will be interested to know whether you dispute that—casting forward to the future again, someone would know that under the criteria they are bogus, for want of a better phrase, and would know that their application could not be successful, because they do not qualify under any criteria. So why would a caring or loving parent want to put their children through the mill of being destitute while they are trying to prove a point that they know is unprovable? I appreciate that it is a different kettle of fish for those who are here now, but as a signal for the future I wondered whether you think that parents, irrespective of where they come from, would be prepared to put their children at risk in order to make their point.

Adrian Matthews: It took me a number of years of studying law to understand the asylum process. I think the assumption that parents are well acquainted with the rules and regulations is very overstated. If you go to the camps in Calais at the moment there is absolutely no information about the British asylum system. Lawyers who have been there have found that people are really misguided and really do not have a sound understanding of what they are coming to when they intend to come to the UK.

Ilona Pinter: I agree. The idea that people know what they are coming to is not realistic. It is certainly not the experience that we have with the families that we work with. Actually, they are incredibly vulnerable and the fact that families would remain here destitute, rather than returning, is a sign of the difficulties that they would face being returned. Again, this is highlighted in the evaluation of the family return process—most of the families cited fear of return as one of the issues. It was shown that financial incentives and reduced re-entry bans were not helpful in persuading families to leave, because they had an overwhelming sense of what the risks would be for them and their children. While I appreciate the public rhetoric around this, the reality is very different for these families. They are willing to survive on so little because of the risks that they face if they return.

[Simon Hoare]

Q 178 Risks in their judgment though?

Ilona Pinter: In their judgment, of course—but in that respect they are doing what they believe is in the best interests of their children, because they believe at the end of the day that remaining in the UK will give their children the best life chances. Whether that is an accurate interpretation is debatable, but that is what they believe, and it is not about—as it is often characterised—trying to frustrate the system. What we see are very desperate families trying to do the best by their children.

Kamena Dorling: I agree entirely. It is not our experience that families and children arrive in the UK with any kind of detailed knowledge of the asylum system, nor with a detailed knowledge of the asylum support system. We certainly do not see people coming here simply for that level of support.

I wanted to add a little bit, because I think it is an important point about the rationale and the public drive behind the Bill. Presumably, in wanting to respond to that, we want changes that will bring in the change that the Bill purports to be introducing. One of the points that we have made is that taking away asylum support from families has demonstrably been shown not to incentivise them to leave the country. You make children destitute and homeless, but you do not achieve your intended aim, which is for more people to leave the UK. If we accept that—and the Home Office has conducted its own evaluations that show that—all we see, really, is punishing children for their parents feeling that it is best for them to remain in the UK. I think that that is problematic. If we have legislation, we want it ideally to achieve its purpose.

Adrian Matthews: I would echo that. I think it is an absolutely legitimate aim of the Government to remove failed asylum seekers if they have been through a fair and proper process. That is it, really; I do not have anything to add to that. It is simply about the method that you use to go about it. I sincerely believe that what is proposed in the Bill is not going to achieve the Government’s aims, and that there are better ways to do it through an established and workable family returns process that has proved that it is capable of increasing the take-up of voluntary departure, which is greatly preferable to enforced removals.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Q 179 I presume that you will continue to campaign and lobby against parts of the Bill. From what you are saying, one of the biggest things for all of you is the inclusion of children in the groups that will not receive support if their or their parents’ asylum claim has been refused. I do not know whether you were watching earlier, but I wanted to alert you to the fact that you have a supporter in Lord Green of Migration Watch UK. I think he is quite a valuable supporter to have, given that he did not seem overly keen on having too many asylum seekers in the country. He seemed quite surprised that children might lose support. He said we have to make a distinction between those who have children and those who do not, and that they would have to be treated differently. If I were you, I would contact him and get him to support any campaigning that you are doing.

I wanted to ask whether you agree with me that rendering families destitute will shift the financial burden not simply on to local authorities and charities, but on to the health service. I am not sure what the situation is in England these days, but I know that in Scotland, those who have had their asylum claims refused can access free healthcare. I do not know whether it is the same here, and I do not know what Wales and Northern Ireland are like. Do you agree that the health of these families will be so significantly impacted that there will be an increased cost for those services that provide healthcare?

Adrian Matthews: And not only to the families. There is a public health issue if you deprive the children of the right or the means to go to hospital or to visit their GP, or if their parents are too scared to do so. That public health issue affects all of us, not just the families.

Ilona Pinter: I agree. This was the subject of the previous Immigration Bill, where issues around health were debated at length. Like immigration control, public health is a public interest, as are child protection and international protection. There needs to be a review of those and more debate, particularly around other public interests.

Costs shift to health services. We already see in families who are awaiting their asylum decisions, particularly where parents have poor mental health because they have suffered trauma already and because of the pressures that the immigration process brings to bear on them, parents being sectioned under mental health provisions and children being taken into temporary foster placements as a result. One of the ways in which costs could shift to local authorities is through children being taken into care. If families are made destitute and parents have to rely on working without permission, provisions in the Bill will mean that the parents will be criminalised, which will again mean that children need to go into care. There are other considerations to take into account.

Adrian Matthews: I understand you are going to be hearing from local authorities and they will evidence the fact that during the section 10 pilots in 2004-05, a number of children were, in fact, taken into care as a result of what the Government were attempting then, which was to withdraw support and accommodation, so it does not work.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 180 I want to come back to the Minister’s earlier point. The point about assessment is that the children’s best interests forms a part and is an integral part of that process. I think it was Kamena—I apologise if it was not—who said children should not be blamed for the actions of the parents. However, they are in this situation because of the parents. For those families who have exhausted their appeals rights, those who could and should leave the UK, how long do you feel we should give support? Do you think it should be indefinite?

Adrian Matthews: It has to be case sensitive and based on the best interests of the child. Take, for example, a child born in this country. If you are going to send them back to another country, they will need to be returned with certain things that can prove their identity—establish or re-establish their identity—so they will need an original birth certificate and their medical records; they will need documentation from the embassy to show that they have legitimately travelled from the UK to the country of return. All these things are case sensitive. A lot of different factors would need to be taken into account. So I do not think there is an answer to your question in terms of a set time or limit. It has be done on a case-by-case basis.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 181 Sorry to cut you short, but the Minister has already made it clear that it will be done on a case-by-case basis. My question to you is: when families that include children get to the point where they should leave the UK, how long do we continue to support them? Indefinitely? Until they decide to go? I am a little confused by what you say.

Adrian Matthews: In the system currently in operation, families are given a lot of opportunities. They are encouraged to take up voluntary return and they go through various stages. If they do not, there is a required return stage where they are given a ticket and are expected to turn up at the airport. If they do not do that, they enter a stage of enforced return, so they will get a visit from the immigration service, who will take them from the house and to the airport, or take them to Cedars, pending their return. So the answer to your question is that we already have structures in place to ensure families get removed if they come to the end of the process.

Ilona Pinter: On the returns process, one helpful point might be that at the moment there are set time limits between family conferences, but information from Barnardo’s, for instance, highlights that for families that go through the returns process, it can take around a year for those families that go through Cedars. There are other estimates for how long it can take.

We do not advocate for families being on asylum support any longer than they need to be. Asylum support is incredibly low at £5 a day per child, and it has been reduced recently through regulations. Children are already living in very difficult circumstances. It makes it very difficult for families to afford food and clothing and be able to take care of their children. Also, parents cannot work on asylum support, so it is in the interests of children to be taken off asylum support as soon as possible either by families having their determination and being able to integrate or move into employment or other benefits, or, if they do not have a right to remain and if there are not risks for them on return, making that process as short as possible.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 182 But if they are going through the returns process, one would presume that it has already been determined that they need to leave the UK.

Ilona Pinter: This is the problem that we have tried to highlight. A lot of the families come to the end of the process, but because they have not had a fair chance to have their claim considered, they have existing fears of return. That is highlighted by the fact that 40% of families that entered the family returns process are actually granted leave to remain. It means that families are not getting proper access to legal advice. They are not having a proper chance to have their claim considered, and more needs to be done on improving the decision-making process in the Home Office.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 183 So it is more about the decision-making process, rather than what is in the Bill, which proposes to remove them or cut off the support once a decision has been taken. Is that correct?

Ilona Pinter: I am not sure what you are asking.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 184 What you are saying to me is that it is more about the robustness of the decision-making process rather than the elements in the Bill that say that once you get to the end of that process, we pull support.

Ilona Pinter: Yes.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 185 If the decision-making process was robust, you would support this process?

Ilona Pinter: We would not support making families destitute, no.

[Craig Whittaker]

But that is not what I am asking; I asked you a specific question.

[The Chair]

Craig, Ms Dorling is trying to respond.

Kamena Dorling: I think it might address the question as well—

[Craig Whittaker]

No, I do not want to adjust the question. I want the question answered; it was very specific.

Adrian Matthews: If we have robust decision-making—

[The Chair]

Order. One at a time, please. Ms Dorling is being patient.

Kamena Dorling: There are two things that need addressing. One, as Ilona has addressed, is the decision-making process at the beginning of the asylum process. The other is how families are engaged with at the end of the process. We are advocating that more energy be put into that family returns process. I appreciate that we do not want a situation whereby families are on asylum support indefinitely, but if they are part of that process and they are being worked with, either through assisted voluntary return—although funding is being cut for that—or through the family returns process, of course, they should be supported within that, and there are timescales as to how long return takes. I suspect you are talking about the families that do not engage with anything at all, which is a very tricky area, and I am not sure that we have cracked it, but given that we know that cutting off support will not encourage those families to return, it seems more practical to think how we would engage with those families.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 186 What I am getting at is that a process is in place, which families will go through. I understand and accept that you are arguing that the process is not robust enough, but the great British public cannot understand, once a decision is made to deport somebody in this country, why it takes forever to do so. Let me just ask this question: what is a reasonable time that people should expect it to take for someone to be deported forcibly?

Kamena Dorling: I do not feel I can answer that, but I do feel it is a question to go back to the Home Office, because there is an enforcement question there, is there not?

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 187 The Home Office has come up with the Bill and that is why I am asking. You do not think the Bill is acceptable.

Kamena Dorling: But we know that the great number of people who are here in the UK, who the Home Office believes should not be here, are not being removed by the Home Office. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has already pointed to the fact that that enforcement process is not working well enough. I am not sitting here advocating that families are all removed immediately, but I think there is a question there. We are saying put more energy into the family returns process and assisted voluntary return, but also that there is something for the Government to think about, which is that if you think that more families need to be removed, then address enforcement. Do not just withdraw support in the hope that they will go. That does not answer your time issue, because I do not know how long that should take.

[Craig Whittaker]

Does anyone—

[The Chair]

I am sorry, but we are going to move on now. A number of people are indicating that they want to speak. I have Mims and Kelly down, but the Minister and Sarah want to make a brief intervention on this point.

[The Solicitor General]

Q 188 I was interested to hear the point about engagement in the process of deportation. Would you agree with me that there is an opportunity to do that, because people who are in a position of having had their leave refused and their asylum-seeking status rejected can apply for an extension of support from the Home Office, if they show that there is a genuine obstacle to their being removed; for example, ill health or a failure by the home state’s embassy or high commission to provide documentation? Do you think that mechanism is an opportunity for both sides to engage with each other, explore the obstacles and find a way forward that allows families to be deported?

Adrian Matthews: My understanding is that the precise conditions would be set by regulations. Is that correct?

[The Solicitor General]

Yes.

Adrian Matthews: It is very difficult to answer your question without seeing how those regulations will be set. The indication from the consultation was that they would be on fairly restricted grounds. You are correct that there was a mention of health but my experience is that—particularly where the Home Office engages with mental health issues—you are asking caseworkers to make decisions on things that they are really not competent to make decisions about such as the mental health of parents. We end up with quite a lot of distressing situations where the mental health of the parent might be a genuine obstacle but it is not recognised as such.

[The Solicitor General]

Yes, but my question was: is it not an opportunity for both sides to look at the evidence and come to an informed decision? I agree that people cannot make decisions on mental health unless they have evidence in front of them. If there is evidence that the applicant has a mental health problem, that should guide the decision making, should it not?

[The Chair]

Q 189 With a panel of three it is always difficult because each wants to give an opinion, so if we have one question to them, we will get the responses quickly. We only have four minutes. Two people want to ask questions and Sarah wants to make a brief intervention, so do not feel that you all have to respond to the questions.

Ilona Pinter: Can I make a point?

[The Chair]

Very briefly.

Ilona Pinter: The big problem is on decision making. The Asylum Support Appeals Project highlights that 65% of asylum appeals are successful. The section 95A provision does not have a right of appeal, so it will be very difficult for families to extend that grace period, which I think you are referring to. If the Home Office makes an incorrect decision, which happens often, families will not be able to challenge it. That is one of the big worries. Sorry, this is not short. This has not been set out yet. The Home Office proposes 28 days of a grace period. We think that is far too short. We have highlighted what we think it should be or, at least, some considerations and the evidence to take into account on what the grace period should be.

[The Chair]

Q 190 We have three minutes. I will take the three questions and we will see how we get on with the replies.

[Mims Davies]

The issue that you see is the decision-making process and resources in terms of impact on potentially destitute families. I am really keen to know what level of families we are talking about. Are they clustered in certain areas? How much will that be a resource issue on other children in communities, where people are then putting pressure on those local resources because of these impacts?

[The Chair]

We will just take Sarah and Kelly, and then we will try to get some responses in two minutes, I am afraid.

[Sarah Champion]

The panel responded to all the questions by talking about families. Does the Bill have any implications for unaccompanied children?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I represent a constituency in Kent, where the issue of unaccompanied minors has caused great pressures over the past 12 months. It is already a burden on the local authorities and the local people. I wonder whether you think there are any measures that are not in the Bill that would discourage families from allowing their young people to travel here on their own?

[The Chair]

We are time-restrained. If you can give brief answers, I will bring all three of you in.

Ilona Pinter: Shall we answer all the questions in one go?

[The Chair]

Try.

Ilona Pinter: I am not sure about the question on geographical concentration but I imagine that there may be greater concentrations in the dispersal areas and urban areas, where most undocumented migrant families live and where there are more communities in which those families would get support.

The question about unaccompanied children is important. There is nothing in the Bill that says how unaccompanied children who come here, including care leavers—over 18-year-olds who would be subject to some of these provisions—will be treated. This is a really important point because, as the Bill is drafted currently, the deport first, appeal later provision could apply to care leavers who came here as unaccompanied children. These are children who have grown up here. They may be orphaned and they may be at risk—

[The Chair]

The third point—

Ilona Pinter: What was the third point?

[The Chair]

Okay, it does not matter. I will go on to Ms Dorling.

Kamena Dorling: I cannot answer very helpfully about certain areas, but of course you see families dispersed in the process of getting asylum support. So, with more knowledge about where those dispersal areas are, you could envisage that, when that support is cut off later down the line, those are the local authorities and regions that will be impacted more than others.

On accompanied children, as Ilona said, we are very worried that the extension of deport first, appeal later would affect those who arrived as unaccompanied children and did not get granted asylum but did get granted what was called UASC leave—temporary leave until you turn 17.5. There is huge concern there.

The other point I quickly want to make is that we have also raised concerns about changes to what is currently called temporary admission and replacing it with immigration bail. There is a suggestion that, as part of that, that could include a prohibition on studying, which for children who arrive and claim asylum and have not had their decisions dealt with, for example, would mean that they would be here and unable to go to school or college or higher education. That is in our evidence, but it is another thing to raise.

Adrian Matthews: There are probably about 15,000 individuals, split between about 5,000 who are currently on section 4 support and about 10,000 who are currently on section 95 support. The section 95 support obviously includes parents and children. There is some information in the immigration statistics. I think they will have a disproportionate impact on Wales, which is one of the dispersal areas, and also on Scotland and some of the urban areas of England. That is the answer to that.

On your question about whether you can stop parents sending their children, if you look at the profile of the countries, with one or two exceptions the majority of unaccompanied children who come to this country come from the most war-torn and dangerous areas in the world—Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Eritrea and so on and so forth. They are the big refugee-producing countries in terms of unaccompanied children. From their point of view, those parents are making the decision and raising the money to send their children here to protect their children’s lives. Until we get changes in those countries, and they are more stable, I am afraid that those children will keep coming.

Are there provisions in the Bill that I am concerned about that have not already been mentioned? Yes. I am concerned about clause 30, on 3C leave, which is the extension you get when you are awaiting a further decision. That will have a disproportionate impact on unaccompanied children when they hit 18.

[The Chair]

The session started early and has finished late. I will take the rap for that. It was very interesting, and if there is anything that the panel feels they have not given us in their very technical answers, they can supply that to us in writing. I thank the witnesses for your evidence and Members for their questions.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Charlie Elphicke).

17:03

Adjourned till Thursday 22 October at half-past 11 o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

IB 01 David Smith, Policy Director, Residential Landlords Association

IB 02 NSL

IB 03 Recruitment and Employment Confederation

IB 04 Coram Children’s Legal Centre

IB 05 Tony Smith CBE, Former Director General, UK Border Force

IB 06 Scottish Federation of Housing Associations

IB 07 Adrian Matthews, Principal Policy Adviser, Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England

IB 08 Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA)

Trade Union Bill (Fifth sitting)

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Edward Leigh, Sir Alan Meale

† Argar, Edward (Charnwood) (Con)

† Barclay, Stephen (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)

† Blenkinsop, Tom (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)

† Boles, Nick (Minister for Skills)

† Cameron, Dr Lisa (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)

† Cartlidge, James (South Suffolk) (Con)

† Doughty, Stephen (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

† Elliott, Julie (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

† Ghani, Nusrat (Wealden) (Con)

† Howell, John (Henley) (Con)

† Kennedy, Seema (South Ribble) (Con)

† Mearns, Ian (Gateshead) (Lab)

† Morden, Jessica (Newport East) (Lab)

† Morris, Anne Marie (Newton Abbot) (Con)

† Prentis, Victoria (Banbury) (Con)

† Stephens, Chris (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

† Stevens, Jo (Cardiff Central) (Lab)

† Sunak, Rishi (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)

Glenn McKee, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 20 October 2015

(Morning)

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

Trade Union Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

I shall make a few introductory remarks to explain our process for those who are new to all this. We will now start the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chair do not intend to call starred amendments, which have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period for Public Bill Committees is three working days. Therefore, amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on a Monday for consideration on a Thursday and by the rise of the House on a Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday.

As I said, I will explain how the process works for those who are new to Committees. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. That shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Grouped amendments are generally on the same or similar issues. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. Bear it in mind that this is not like the main Chamber: it is pretty easy to be called here, so you do not have to rely on interventions, and interventions should be short.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call again the Member who moved the lead amendment. Before they finish speaking, they will need to say whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. If a Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments that are tabled, although we have none today.

Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which the amendments are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, the debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list. Decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I know that this is complicated, but we are in good hands with the Clerks. They will sort it all out; do not worry. New clauses are decided on after we have finished with the existing text—that is, after we have considered clause 22. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules, following the debates on the relevant amendments. Obviously, if a debate on amendments has been very long, a stand part debate may not be necessary.

I hope that all that is helpful to everyone. Members will recall that we agreed a programme motion on 13 October. It is reproduced at the end of the amendment paper and sets out the order in which we will consider the Bill, so we start with clause 1. There are no amendments to this clause, so we will start with the question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1

Meaning of “the 1992 Act”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to open the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. This room has rather less comfortable chairs and rather more mind-blowing wallpaper but definitely better acoustics than the room that we were in for the evidence sessions. I think that we discovered through the evidence sessions that there are deep and passionate disagreements between the different parties on the measures in the Bill, but equally I hope that we discovered that both sides are prepared to argue their points courteously and respectfully, and we will all part, I hope, as friends and colleagues at the end of it.

Clause 1 sets out that references in the Bill to “the 1992 Act” are references to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Bill largely amends or inserts new provisions in the 1992 Act. This clause enables the shorthand form to be used throughout the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Sir Edward, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this room with the rest of the Committee; it is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister and alongside many hon. Friends. I agree with the Minister that we had a lively start to consideration of the Bill during the oral evidence sessions. Fundamentally, I think that Opposition Members have explored how the Bill belies its stated intent. It is partisan. It challenges long-standing civil liberties in this country. It is poorly drafted, with significant legal implications.

Given that we are discussing clause 1, which relates to the 1992 Act—previous legislation—it is important to see the Bill in context: essentially, it is a Bill without a purpose. We heard on Second Reading, most notably from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) that given the significant reduction in industrial action over the past 30 years, it is important to question why the Bill even exists in the first place. That reduction is borne out by the statistics; the number of days lost to industrial action each year has fallen dramatically. Since 2010, on average, 647,000 days have been lost, compared with 7,213,000 lost in the 1980s. There is no problem here and the Bill goes well beyond the realms of sense in challenging the long-standing right of workers up and down this country to stand up for their rights. We heard aptly from a number of witnesses that they see many objections to the Bill. The Government are struggling to find supporters to back it up.

I declare my interest—and I am sure that other hon. Members will do the same—as a member of the GMB union and draw attention also to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let me be clear from the outset: we intend to oppose every clause, because we consider the Bill an affront to civil liberties and the rights of workers up and down the country, and do so starting with this clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 1

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Ballots: 50% turnout requirement

[Stephen Doughty]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—

“(iia) in which at least 50% of those who were sent a ballot paper in accordance with section 230(2) of the 1992 Act voted, and”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—

‘(iia) in which at least 50% of those who according to the trade union’s reasonable belief were employed by the employer in a trade dispute, and whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action, voted and”

Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 9, leave out

“were entitled to vote in the ballot”

and insert:

“according to the trade union’s reasonable belief were employed by the employer in a trade dispute, and whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action,”

Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out

“entitled to vote in the ballot”

and insert

“sent a ballot paper in accordance with section 230(2) of the 1992 Act.”

Amendment 20, in clause 5, page 3, line 6, leave out from “individuals” to the end of the paragraph and insert

“who according to the trade union’s reasonable belief were employed by the employer in a trade dispute, and whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action”

The amendment would be consequential to Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 23, in clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 15 to 21

Amendment 21, in clause 5, page 3, line 16, leave out from “individuals” to the end of the paragraph and insert

“who according to the trade union’s reasonable belief were employed by the employer in a trade dispute, and whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action”

The amendment would be consequential to Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 22, in clause 5, page 3, line 20, leave out from “who” to the end of the paragraph and insert

“were sent a ballot paper in accordance with section 230(2) of the 1992 Act”.

[Stephen Doughty]

Amendments 1, 2, 7, 8, 20, 23, 21 and 22 stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who are not in Committee today but are taking great interest in its proceedings.

Let me first turn to the substance of clause 2, to which our lead amendments 1 and 2 refer. The clause sets out measures by which a ballot and subsequent industrial action will only be lawful if there is a minimum 50% turnout among trade union members who are entitled to vote. Committee members will know from our evidence sessions that the overwhelming majority of trade unions and the TUC are opposed to the clause in principle and are highly concerned that it seeks to introduce excessive turnout and voting thresholds for ballots for industrial action, and that it further defines abstentions as no votes. Let me take each of these in turn.

If the clause is successful, industrial action will be lawful only if there is a minimum 50% turnout among trade union members who are entitled to vote, outside certain “important public services”—as the Government define them—as referred to in clause 3, which we will come to. A simple majority will need to vote in favour of strike action. For example, if 500 members are balloted, at least 250 must vote and at least 126 must vote yes for industrial action to go ahead.

It is important to set out at the beginning that such thresholds are rarely used anywhere else in our democracy. They were not even used in recent referendums, one of which was very significant—I am sure there will be another significant one in the next few years—and certainly not in the general election or other elections up and down the country. Much as we might wish turnout to be higher on all those occasions, I am sure that the threshold provision is relevant to the election of many members of the Committee; an extensive list has been produced by the Library.

Ministers have implied in the media and in other chat about the Bill that recent industrial action in, for example, the rail sector shows the need for the change, yet a recent ASLEF ballot for industrial action on the tube would have passed the proposed threshold, with a turnout of 81%, as would many other examples. Let us be clear: trade unions, as witnesses made repeatedly clear in their evidence, want to see high turnouts and the highest engagement when considering a matter as serious as industrial action or, indeed, a full strike. Why would they not want to? They want to see a high turnout. They want to see their members engaged. They want to be organised and to demonstrate a clear wish for action as a last resort.

Government Members have raised a number of examples of low turnouts. We could debate the merits of action in each case, but I fear—this fear is shared by many of the witnesses who gave evidence and across the trade union movement—that the Government are, in reality, simply seeking to silence unions that do not reach or narrowly miss such arbitrarily high thresholds, despite having legitimate grievances about pay, pensions or health and safety. I am thinking of one particular example: the strike referred to in evidence from the Royal College of Midwives, which was the first time in 154 years that it had taken such action. Under the Bill, that strike would have narrowly missed the threshold.

As the Minister will know, there was a lot of focus on this clause in the oral evidence sessions. While a swathe of those who gave evidence were against the introduction of thresholds, I admit that a number spoke in favour of it, although they had little evidence to back up their claims. For example, Dr Marshall of the British Chambers of Commerce spoke of how his support for thresholds was underpinned by his belief that the number of people affected by industrial action was not going down, and he emphasised extensive indirect effects. That claim was made by a number of other witnesses and by the Government. The reality is that under repeated questioning, they were unable to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim of indirect effects.

As we have made repeatedly clear, if the Government truly had altruistic intentions, they would offer clear support for our amendments in Committee. Our amendments would boost participation by expanding the use of tried and tested methods such as secure workplace balloting, which has repeatedly brought about high turnout thresholds in Central Arbitration Committee ballots and in other matters, and by bringing things into the modern age through e-balloting. We will have a lengthy discussion of these matters later, but it is crucial to underline them now. Unsurprisingly, the Government are not supporting our amendments.

John Hannett, the general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, hammered home the point that for thresholds to be met and for higher turnouts to be achieved, we must help as much as we can to get turnout up. That is especially the case in dispersed workforces such as those in the retail and distributive sectors, which operate 24/7. I have had extensive discussions with unions such as USDAW about the inherent difficulties and the time it takes to engage with small workforces such as those operating in small shops around the country. I know USDAW members operating, for example, in local Co-op stores in my constituency. They are dispersed and working long hours, and the efforts required to engage them in the process of balloting need to be made as straightforward and easy as possible. It is not a lack of concern about issues in their sector or any ballot proposal that prevents such workforces from engaging; often, it is the very real practicalities of their lives and professions. That situation is repeated across many other sectors.

Long gone are the days of huge unionised workforces in single locations. The reality is that workforces across the country are increasingly dispersed, with people working different hours and in many different locations. John Hannett said clearly:

“I have no problem with thresholds, but it is the facilities and…access”—

access to ballots in this case—

“that is the issue.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 24, Q61.]

More fundamentally, the Opposition are concerned that the clause, and the Bill more generally, will undermine constructive employment relations. The reality is that the introduction of ballot thresholds will mean that unions need to take more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure necessary turnout exceeds by a significant margin whatever legal threshold the Government arbitrarily seek to set. That will inevitably divert time and effort away from finding an amicable settlement, which I am sure is what all members of the Committee want.

We do not want to see strikes or industrial action—we are well aware their consequences—so the Government should be doing everything in their power to facilitate negotiation and reasoned discussion about concerns. The reality is that the thresholds will remove the incentives for employers to seek an early resolution to a dispute. I believe that many of them will decide to wait and see whether a union can meet the strike thresholds before they make a revised offer. That is not a model for modern industrial relations.

It is also crucial that the Committee recognises that the Government are seeking to rush through these proposals without proper consideration or consultation. The Minister will know that the Regulatory Policy Committee roundly criticised the Government’s approach. It concluded that the Department’s impact assessment on ballot thresholds was “not fit for purpose.” Those are damning words. While the impact assessment estimated that the statutory thresholds contained in clauses 2 and 3 would reduce the number of days lost to industrial action, the RPC described as inadequate the Government’s

“assessment of the costs and disruption caused, and its impact on the economy”.

That underlines the sense that we got from many witnesses that grand claims were being made about the indirect effects of industrial action, but they were simply not substantiated by evidence.

It is worth noting that, in the previous Parliament, the RPC issued just over 2,000 opinions, but there were only 14 instances in which a Department proceeded to the next stage of the policy process on the basis of an impact assessment rated by the RPC as “not fit for purpose.” Will this be another example of flying in the face of common sense and the views of a respected independent body?

The clause defines abstentions as no votes for industrial action. We heard repeatedly from witnesses—in particular, from those with legal expertise in the field—that that is undemocratic. Others went as far as to say that that is illegal. International agencies with responsibility for supervising complaints with human rights standards have repeatedly criticised the use of strike ballot thresholds in countries across the world. The International Labour Organisation stated that, in strike ballots, only votes cast should be taken into account.

The Government’s proposals go well beyond what is endorsed by internationally recognised standards. I asked the Minister in his oral evidence session what assessment he had made of legal challenge to the Bill and he said,

“we are not anticipating legal costs to fight.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 165, Q410.]

I am sure we will return to that again and again, because there is a strong weight of evidence to suggest that the Government will face significant legal costs from the Bill, and not just on this issue, but on many of the provisions on picketing and the implications for the devolution settlement, to which we will come in due course.

The Minister’s answer stood in stark contrast to the weight of legal opinion the Committee heard. I refer in particular to a comment from Stephen Cavalier of Thompsons Solicitors, who said,

“the provisions under the ILO convention specifically say that an abstention should not be treated as a no vote, and that is a clear area of potential illegality. There are not similar thresholds in any other European Union member states or Council of Europe convention states. The Bill introduces a new requirement that is likely to be found to be unlawful. In particular, the treating of an abstention as a no vote is likely to be subject to legal challenge.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 33, Q79.]

We could not get a clearer opinion than that from a respected firm of solicitors who engage in trade union and employment law. That view about the inevitability of legal challenge was shared by Shane Enright of Amnesty, Sara Ogilvie of Liberty, Professor Keith Ewing and the representatives of the Welsh and the Scottish Governments in relation to a wide range of issues.

The amendments in this group attempt to address and expose other concerns we have on this clause and related clauses. We believe that, in this Bill, the Government are deliberately attempting to introduce the maximum number of obstacles and risks for trade unions as they go about exercising their democratic rights. Our amendments are designed to challenge that and to provide clarity in the regrettable circumstance that the Bill is passed in its current form.

09:45

On amendment 1, as I explained earlier clause 2 provides that industrial action will only be lawful if at least 50% of those who are entitled to vote participate in the ballot. Many organisations, including the TUC, are concerned that employers will rely on the wording of the clause to bring legal challenges. Given previous attempts to frustrate union activity, there is reason to suspect that employers will argue that some members who were entitled to vote did not receive a ballot paper, that more members were entitled to vote than were balloted and, therefore, that the minimum 50% turnout was not met. Our amendment would provide that the 50% turnout requirement should apply only to members who were sent a ballot paper. The amendment would provide trade unions with increased certainty that they have complied with the 50% turnout requirement and that they are not subject to vexatious claims or attempts to undermine ballots that have been undertaken in good faith.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Of course, in all of these things we want reasonable people to behave reasonably, but the new ballot thresholds may provide a perverse incentive to employers not to seek an amicable resolution to a potential strike situation because of the heightened likelihood of a no vote with, first, people who do not vote counting against and, secondly, the possibility that the threshold might not be met. An amicable settlement will become less likely, particularly if an employer—there are some employers like this—feels that it is an advantage to press it to the ultimate sanction.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed. I also suspect that that would be the case if employees suspect that an employer will use badly drafted clauses such as this to attempt to bring legal proceedings against the conduct of a ballot. This is all about ensuring the balance of power and responsibility between employers and employees in order to promote dialogue, negotiation and settlement. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many provisions in the Bill that seek to undermine that balance and, therefore, undermine the possibility of negotiations that would ultimately prevent industrial action or strikes.

Amendment 2 seeks to protect trade unions from legal challenges in the event that they may have inadvertently sent a ballot paper to an individual who is not entitled to vote because they are not employed by the employer involved in the dispute. That is an important point in exposing some of the risks in the Bill as currently drafted. Business structures in the UK are increasingly complicated, and outsourcing is prevalent in many companies. Companies use many different structures and set-ups to conduct their operations. As a result—some members of the Committee might be surprised by this—individuals are often not aware of who is their legal employer. The amendment would mean that unions could rely on information provided by their members about who they believe their employer to be, rather than needing to make additional inquiries of the employer. The amendment also states that the 50% turnout requirement will only apply to individuals

“whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action”

when the ballot was issued. That wording would bring clause 2 in line with existing case law on industrial action ballots and would mean that unions are less vulnerable to vexatious legal challenges. Will the Minister share whether he believes that the clause, as it stands, is in line with existing case law on ballots and whether risks such as those I have exposed here exist?

[Ian Mearns]

Another clause will remove the check-off system for some employers. The check-off system provides, through the payroll records, a record for employers of trade union members in a particular employment situation. Removing the check-off system, tied with clause 2, removes the ability of employers to know who is eligible to vote in a strike ballot.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is an important point. During our considerations we will see that, rather than hanging together coherently, the Bill belies its original drafting intent and is more like a Swiss cheese full of holes. Many aspects of the Bill do not sit together well because they are being put together for a different purpose than what the Government say they are trying to achieve.

Amendments 7 and 8 would apply similar principles to those that I have just laid out, to clause 3 of the Bill which deals with the proposed 40% threshold. I know we will come to that in due course. We have a number of serious concerns about the 40% threshold that go beyond even our concerns about the 50% threshold, but the same principles exist. If we are to have thresholds, we need to ensure that unions will not be opened to all sorts of vexatious legal challenges.

Amendment 20 would apply a similar principle to the reporting requirements on ballots outlined in clause 5 of the Bill. Amendment 23 would remove the requirement on trade unions to take the responsibility of informing members and employers whether the 50% turnout threshold was met and, where relevant, whether the 40% turnout threshold was met. I do not understand why the Bill—evidenced throughout its text—seeks to bog down trade unions in extra red tape, particularly when the Government claim that it is all about reducing regulation and burdens. Surely employers would be able to easily calculate whether a trade union has met any statutory thresholds applied using the numbers provided by the trade union? I really do not see why this reporting requirement is necessary.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think this goes beyond the percentages required for a ballot? The fact is that companies with recognised trade unions on site have either gone through voluntary recognition or compulsory recognition, which means that the workforce have already been balloted on whether they want a trade union representative liaising on their behalf with an employer. Is this legislation not going way beyond ballots and actually trying to give employers the ability to de-recognise unions across the country in all sorts of different workplaces, public or private?

[Stephen Doughty]

I believe that the Bill has many sinister intents. There are many provisions that can be used to tip the balance between employers and employees well beyond what would be reasonably expected in a democratic society. We heard during the evidence sessions that the Bill and these provisions put us at the bottom of the league when it comes to international labour standards and the rights of workers and trade unions.

Amendments 21 and 22 are to clause 5 and are consequential to other amendments for consistency.

Before I conclude on this group, it is worth referring to some of the comments. Many comments were made about this set of proposals in the written and oral evidence and it is important to bring the Committee’s attention to a number of them.

The Royal College of Nursing said that:

“The changes that are proposed…will do nothing for the improvement of industrial relations. The emphasis on ‘strikes’ and seeing all industrial action through the prism of strikes is misleading. This is at a time when the number of disputes is low compared to the past. The effect of the proposals to set thresholds”—

and a whole series of other measures—

“is not a ‘neutral’ step, rather it further strengthens the power already held by employers in workplace disputes now.”

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent speech. One of the other consequences of the thresholds that came out in the evidence was organisations concerned about a real impact on gender equality issues and on women workers trying to pursue industrial action. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as I am, that that could lead to a situation in which the gender pay gap widens as a result of this legislation?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which was made on Second Reading and by a number of witnesses. The Bill has a disproportionate impact on women, many of whom would be standing up on issues such as disparities in equal pay. We have repeatedly heard how, despite the Equal Pay Act being so many years ago, the reality is that women earn significantly less than men for the same hour of work conducted, particularly in certain sectors. Unions play a crucial role in standing up for those women. Importantly, I mentioned the diffuse nature of the workforce in sectors such as retail, highlighted by USDAW and others. A lot of women work in those sectors, and there will be a disproportionate impact.

Turning to some of the other evidence, we heard from the GMB which underlined the point I made that thresholds will lead to unions taking more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure the necessary turnout. It stated in written evidence that

“Employers will be encouraged to sit on their hands and wait to see if the threshold can be reached rather than address the underlying issues in the dispute.”

USDAW, which I have referred to a number of times, said:

“The best method to ensure high levels of workplace democracy is to make it as easy as possible to vote and to ensure that each vote counts equally. Under the proposed system of ballot thresholds, an individual choosing not to vote is likely to have more of an impact on the outcome of the ballot than someone choosing to vote against industrial action. If an individual votes against industrial action, their vote will be added to the turnout threshold even if they are in the minority, meaning that their vote could help to ensure that the ballot threshold is met. However, if someone chooses to abstain, their vote will not be added to the turnout threshold potentially meaning that, even if the vast majority of votes cast were in favour of action, the ballot will not meet the threshold requirements. As such—”

—USDAW is categorical about this

“the proposed ballot thresholds will clearly be detrimental to workplace democracy.”

I have another piece of evidence from Unison:

“In the UK an absent vote is not regarded as a negative one. There are a range of reasons why trade union members might not vote.”

It then gives a very practical example:

“There might be a positive decision to abstain. They might be on holiday or ill. They might not have an opinion on the dispute and rely on their colleagues to make their views clear.”

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Does my hon. Friend agree that they can be in management and also in the trade union, and it is dependent on the employer to recognise that member of management within the business unit, although not necessarily in their branch?

[Stephen Doughty]

That is indeed the case. To touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, low-paid workers are more likely to move and change address, and they might not regularly update the trade union on their latest details.

Unison is very clear:

“Rather than enabling such members to participate more easily in trade union ballots, the Trade Union Bill will restrict the democratic rights of working people and the ability of trade unions to represent their members in the workplace. It will ultimately lead to a diminishment of workplace democracy.”

We also had a response from UCATT, an important union representing workers in the construction sector. We did not hear from UCATT in the oral evidence sessions, which was a shame, but it has submitted written evidence, which says:

“It should be also noted that for trade unions taking strike action is always a last resort, no union asks members to lose money on a whim, it is only called for following an end to protracted negotiations that 90% of the time reach an amicable settlement.”

That point cannot be overemphasised. Unions want to find resolutions to disputes, but the Bill puts a whole series of barriers in the way of successfully resolving disputes.

Finally, it is important to look at some of the Bill’s potential legal contraventions. I mentioned the evidence given by Thompsons Solicitors. It also submitted evidence to the Government’s consultation, the conduct of which was significantly lacking, as identified by the Regulatory Policy Committee. In section 10 of the submission from Thompsons Solicitors to the Department on the consultation on ballot thresholds in important public services, it says:

“The ballot thresholds in ‘important public services’ will engage Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any restriction on the right protected by Article 11 must be ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’. To be ‘prescribed by law’ the proposed legal framework must have sufficient clarity and precision to enable the trade union on whom the restriction is imposed to regulate its conduct accordingly (i.e. to know exactly which of its members the additional threshold applies to). There is a very real prospect, on the evidence so far, that the government’s attempts to meet this standard will fail. It is completely unacceptable to palm responsibility for identifying whether a particular member is covered by the additional threshold off on to the trade union, (paragraph 17 of the consultation). The problem will be particularly acute when considering ‘mixed’ balloting constituencies—i.e. ones including some members who are covered by the additional ballot threshold, and some who are not.”

The complexity and uncertainty created by the way the Bill is drafted provides all sorts of grounds for legal challenge and undermines the ability of unions to stand up for their workers. Industrial action must always be seen as a last resort.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful speech. We are in a period of historically low levels of industrial action, with only about 300,000 days lost to strike action in the last year or so, compared with about 130 million days lost to sickness absence. From that perspective, we are looking at such a low level of disruption from industrial action compared to sickness and industrial illness. It accounts for just 300,000 days, as compared to 130 million.

[Stephen Doughty]

The statistics my hon. Friend quotes are very accurate. During the oral evidence sessions, we mentioned a number of times that the impact of industrial action on actual days lost, whether to customers or parents or users of the health service, is very small compared to the number of days lost for other reasons. We only have to look at the statistics collected by Transport for London on lost customer hours. Far more customer hours are lost due to signal failures, broken-down trains, weather and so on than as a result of industrial action. In the words of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Government’s plans to reform trade union law are an “outdated response” given the challenges that employers actually face today, many of which my hon. Friend referred to.

10:00

[Ian Mearns]

One passenger group working on railway delays estimated that more working hours were lost from people being delayed on their train journeys than were lost from industrial action taken by railway workers.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is indeed the case. It is certainly borne out by the evidence that I have seen from Transport for London. The Committee has heard from a number of train companies and representatives of passenger organisations, and indeed they also implied that this was the case. The reality is that the impacts of industrial action are very small. In conclusion, I fear that the Bill and especially clause 2 will make industrial relations worse, not better. Introducing arbitrary thresholds beyond international norms, potentially in ways that are illegal, and without any clear evidence of need underpinning that or any accompanying measures to ensure the maximum participation possible—as I said, we will return to this—suggest an ill political intent, quite frankly. That is why we will oppose clause 2 today, and we may seek to move any one of these amendments to a vote, depending on what the Minister has to say.

[The Chair]

We will now have a debate. Please keep in order by mentioning the word “threshold” every few minutes.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I draw the Committee’s attention again to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a part-owner and director of a trade union law firm prior to election in May, and I am a member of the GMB and Unison trade unions. Unusually, I would like to start by agreeing with those in the party opposite sitting on the Front Bench. In responding to concerns about participation levels and thresholds in the election of police and crime commissioners, the Home Secretary said:

“I never set a turnout threshold for any election, and I’m not going to do it now”.

She continued:

“For the first time ever they”—

police and crime commissioners—

“will have a democratic mandate for the people for the work that they’re doing”.

That is probably just as well, because the Home Secretary’s mandate for police and crime commissioners was an average turnout of just 14.7%. While the Home Secretary would not place a threshold on the election of those who run our police forces, we are here today looking at the very same issue for trade union members deciding whether to take industrial action as a last resort. The thresholds proposed in the Bill are arbitrary, as we have heard. They are out of kilter with international standards in law, and they simply do not make sense.

Let us take the ballot held by the Royal College of Midwives last year on whether to undertake industrial action. It was the first such ballot in the college’s 134-year history, and it was won with a very clear margin: 82% of those voting were in favour of industrial action, and 8% were against. Despite that vast margin of support, because the turnout was 49% of eligible members, that proposed industrial action could not legally have taken place had the Bill received Royal Assent at the time. It could not have taken place because every vote not cast would have been counted as a vote against industrial action. Yet, had a few more thousand midwives voted against the action, it could legitimately have taken place. Abstentions here would perversely have more power to influence potential industrial action than the vote of a member who was opposed to it. That is a real, practical example of how ill thought out this legislation is, and how it will adversely impact on industrial relations.

I suggest to the Minister that not only does this clause make no sense, it also raises real legal concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth referred to these in his opening address. The ILO states that only votes cast should be taken into account in a ballot. It has already indicated that it would accept a complaint in relation to dual ballot thresholds. Several of the written evidence submissions to the Committee highlight our position in respect of the ILO, but one statement from the Freedom of Association Committee stands out. It said:

“The requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike, particularly in large enterprises.”

There is also potential for challenge in the European Court, because under the clauses we are considering today, the minority can undermine a ballot by not voting rather than by participating. I thought this was what the Bill was all about. It gives disproportionate rights to abstentions.

The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled in the Demir case that:

“it does not follow that the government can deliberately impose a restriction on fundamental union activities and so make the position of the parties so unequal that there is no incentive to engage”.

The Bill does the exact opposite of incentivising participation, while at the same time taking no measures to remove barriers to engagement. If participation and legitimacy are the real aims of the Bill, then I urge the Minister to abandon clause 2 and accept our amendments.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Like my colleagues, I refer to the declarations I made at the start of proceedings last week. I want to talk in practical terms about my experience of what was referred to in some of the evidence, but I will start by saying that I totally support the comments made by my hon. Friends today. The overarching thrust of the Bill is that it will make thresholds almost impossible to meet. The premise of the Bill is based on a total lack of understanding of how the real world of industrial relations works in this country today.

In the real world, industrial action is always an absolute last resort. Last week in the evidence session, some of the leaders of the largest trade unions stated that industrial action is not what trade unions are about and not what they aim for. At the end of the day, their members lose money by taking industrial action. They often represent some of the lowest-paid people in society and that is always at the forefront for any trade union leader or official when negotiating.

No one takes industrial action lightly. Trade union officials are trained today in order to avert industrial action at all costs. However, it is a legal right and is there as a last resort. That needs to be borne in mind in everything we are discussing today. The thresholds proposed in the Bill of 50% and 40% are extreme in their nature. Modern ways of working were outlined very articulately last week by the general secretary of Unison, Mr Dave Prentis, when he talked about partnership working. The big trade unions today work very closely with the employers of their members, whether in the public or private sector. Obviously, one of the thresholds applies to all, the second applies to the public sector of a yet undefined group of people.

Partnership working is about building up relationships and getting to know people and to understand the way they work and what the real issues and nubs of the problems are. Some of the later measures in the Bill will have an impact on that working. Removing some of the facility time from people will not lead to better relationships or better partnership working. The opposite will happen and there will be a lack of trust and understanding of people and where they come from.

Some of the later proposals on check-off are probably even more significant. A ballot is the most intensive thing that any trade union and any employer prepares for, which is why the vast majority of employers in this country are not comfortable with the Bill. Drawing up the list of eligible people in the bargaining group is the most difficult thing that anyone on either side has to do. Check-off facilitates and helps with that process, because it means that the employer knows exactly where a person works within the organisation, but that is not known if someone pays by direct debit. There is also, potentially, a data protection issue, because if someone pays their trade union membership by direct debit, that information is confidential and known only by the union member and the trade union, not the employer. Therefore, in an industrial action ballot, the crucial checks and balances for getting the lists correct will not be there. Everyone wants the lists to be correct, because if they are not, the matter will end up in court.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Apart from the fact that in certain sectors management would want to pay their trade union membership by direct debit, perhaps to keep it private and away from managerial colleagues, any employee with fewer than two years in post might not want to let their employer be aware of their trade union membership—depending on the relationship between the union or workforce and the employer—because of the employer’s history of behaviour towards unions. That would lead to problems for individuals seeking to exercise their right to be a union member. Furthermore, if someone had information about trade union members on direct debit, the potential for litigation in court over small anomalies being bounced back and forth between the employer and the trade union would be vast, and create even more expense for the employer and the union.

[Julie Elliott]

I could not agree more. None of us ever wants to reach the point where an industrial action ballot has to take place, but if we do, the time spent on the accuracy of the lists, under the new conditions, will be an enormous task. If it is a national public sector dispute, there will be at least hundreds of thousands of people to deal with. It is not just 50 or 60 people, or a handful in either direction. We are talking about huge numbers, and if it is a national dispute, they will be working all over the country and in displaced workplaces.

[Chris Stephens]

Does the hon. Lady believe, as I do, that part of the point of an implementing threshold is to stop national, or UK-wide, industrial action, by design, for many of the reasons she has mentioned?

[Julie Elliott]

That might well be the motivation behind some of it. As I said in my opening remarks, the measure makes it almost impossible for certain types of dispute to take place.

If the trade union side has to spend so much extra time not only on getting the lists correct, but on making the turnout so high, that is time the officials are not spending on talking to the employer and trying to avert strike action, which has to be the motive of everyone involved in an industrial dispute. The only way to resolve a dispute, whether an industrial dispute or any other disagreement in life, is by talking to people. If there is no time to sit down and talk constructively, the problem escalates. That is common sense.

So much time will be spent on the accuracy of the lists, with all the problems that the later clauses of the Bill throw up, and then on getting the enormous turnout. The 50% threshold is a difficult one in itself, but adding on the 40% threshold is incredible, if not completely unrealistic, except in a specific workplace with everyone working for one employer, as the rail disputes in recent history have shown. In the broader public sector there is genuine doubt as to whether the 40% threshold is achievable. The evidence from Stephen Cavalier, from Thompsons Solicitors, is that it will probably lead to more industrial action. Professor Ewing says in paragraph 10 of his written evidence:

“The ILO Committee of Experts pointed out that ‘account should only be taken of the votes cast’, while any ‘required quorum and majority should be fixed at a reasonable level’.”

I defy anybody to say that some of the measures in the Bill around thresholds are reasonable.

Where will the Bill take us if it comes into law as it is written today? My view is that it will make positive industrial relations much more difficult. Because of that, it will inevitably lead to more strikes, which I do not believe is what any Member, on either side of the House, wants. It will most likely lead to the Government ending up in court, with a massive cost to the taxpayer. Nobody wants us to end up in that situation, so I urge the Government to look again at the two thresholds.

10:15

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill will not only lead, in all likelihood, to increased cost, but to increased public disruption, given that it is likely to increase disharmony within the workplace and undermine partnership working?

[Julie Elliott]

Absolutely, and that is a fundamental point. If the motivation behind the Bill is to try to limit industrial action, its net effect will be to make things worse.

[Ian Mearns]

Building on my hon. Friend’s experience, industrial action is usually taken by members of trade unions when extreme frustration at a lack of progress in negotiations is being experienced. Therefore, given the levels of frustration that exist in these situations, would the imposition of thresholds enacted by this legislation make wildcat action more likely?

[Julie Elliott]

That is highly possible: if people do not have an avenue to resolve their dispute with their employer—in an organised workplace with trade unions, that is usually through their trade union discussing the issue with the employer—that would be an inevitable consequence. None of us wants to see that kind of action. In the past 10 years or so, legislation in this area has led to very good industrial relations. I remember very personally and vividly, as the daughter of a miner living through the 1970s, how industrial relations used to be in this country. None of us wants to end up in that situation again. It was a dreadful time to live through. What we want is constructive, good relationships where industrial action ballots are an absolute last resort. The changes that the Bill proposes will make that impossible.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

There is also a potential business cost. If we do not have collective bargaining, where one individual, on behalf of the company, talks to one individual, on behalf of the workforce, that will necessitate individual consultation. Depending on the size of the workplace, that could take a very long time and cost a lot of money.

[Julie Elliott]

I totally agree, and these are issues we will explore later when we talk about practical implications of facility time. In conclusion, I urge the Government to look again at the thresholds and what I believe will be their impact—probably unforeseen by the Government—namely more industrial action and more disharmony in the workplace, and the potential legal consequences, with the Government having to spend a lot of taxpayers’ money defending challenges in the courts.

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I declare my membership of Glasgow City Unison and the fact that I was a Unison activist for 20 years prior to my election. Indeed, when I submitted my new application to join the branch again, it had created a House of Commons sub-branch, so that is a good tale to have.

I oppose the threshold for three main reasons. The first is the impact on equality issues, particularly gender equality. The Government have not addressed the difficulties of women workers being able to prosecute and to try to get an industrial dispute on such issues as shift changes, where they would be impacted far more than male workers. Amnesty, Liberty and other organisations made clear their concerns on those issues during the evidence sessions. The second reason is the issue of people not voting. I find it incredible that the deceased will be described as being people who are against industrial action. There are many reasons for people not voting, and that principle is wrong.

The third reason concerns the practicalities of what happens during a ballot process and afterwards leading to a dispute. The key test of whether there is a mandate for industrial action is how many trade union members participate in the industrial dispute. The trade union has arguments and has to make a calculation after a ballot result about whether that is support for industrial action. Where there has been a low turnout, some trade unions have not gone forward to industrial action because they did not believe that they had that support. That is the true test of whether there is support, and on that basis trade unions make a gamble as to whether they should go forward.

With low turnouts, the notion has been presented that trade union activists and officials, after the ballot result has been announced and they have been unable to persuade members to take industrial action, develop mystical powers to persuade trade union members to participate in industrial action. It is almost as if trade union officials adopt Jedi-like powers, where all they have to do is make one wave of a Jedi hand and say, “This is the industrial action you’re looking for.” Frankly, that is a fanciful notion, and on that basis we are opposed to the principles of thresholds.

[Nick Boles]

At the opening of the debate and of the evidence sessions, every Opposition Member rightly and properly declared an interest as being a member of a trade union. In many cases, they have also declared an interest as being a former official of a trade union. They are proud of that, and they are right to be proud.

I do not have that privilege, but I have another privilege, which is to be a member of the general public. As members of the public, we rely on hospitals being open, because we do not get to go to another hospital under the NHS. We have to go to the one that has offered us the appointment. As members of the public, we rely on a particular school to take our children and educate them for the day, because we do not have the option to buy our way into another school within the public services. We have to send our children to the same school every day. As members of the public, we rely on particular forms of transport that are monopolies in people’s lives. We do not have the choice to choose other forms of transport very easily when a form of transport is closed due to a strike.

I can tell the Committee that all Government Members take our responsibilities as Members and representatives of the general public seriously indeed. All we are trying to do through the Bill is to think of their interests when strike action happens and to adjust slightly the balance of power between union members and members of the general public. Opposition Members are absolutely right to represent the unions that they have all either worked for or been members of for many, many years, but we on this side of the House are absolutely right to defend the interests of the members of the public who put us here and elected us to this House.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have to say that it is a shame that the Minister is starting the debate by being somewhat disingenuous. Opposition Members also represent members of the public. In fact, the TUC made it clear in its evidence that it represents 6 million members of trade unions throughout this country who are also members of the general public and want their rights respected. Indeed, there are members of families who are not members of unions, but they also want their family members’ rights respected. Will the Minister not acknowledge that with one in 10 of the British population being members of trade unions, as the TUC has put it, the Bill has a significant impact on their rights and responsibilities and they are all members of the public too?

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to accept that the one in 10 members of the public who are also members of trade unions must be represented properly in the House, and Opposition Members are doing an admirable job of representing them. I contend that the other nine out of 10 members of the public who are not members of unions and who are affected by strikes when they shut schools and hospitals and close down transport networks also deserve representation, and that is what we are providing.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will make a little progress, if I may, and I am sure that we will have an opportunity to hear from the hon. Gentleman soon.

The shadow Minister noted that there are many other things that cause more days to be lost than strike action. He mentioned, I believe, sickness, bad weather and breakdowns in machinery. I would bring forward tomorrow Bills in this House if I could abolish sickness, bad weather and breakdowns in machinery, but unfortunately we have to deal with the real world, and we are focusing on a minor adjustment to the balance—a slight rebalancing—on something that we can affect, which is the number of services shut by strikes.

[Ian Mearns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to take an intervention. All we are saying is that we want strike action to take place on the basis of a clear democratic mandate and not just because a very small minority of union members want it. Opposition Members have made great play of how strikes are always the last resort and no one ever wants strike action based on a tiny turnout. Indeed, we heard in last week’s evidence sessions from some very distinguished and eloquent leaders of major unions who made many of the same points.

I simply draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that in 2015—in this very year—London bus drivers, in a ballot organised by Unite, whose general secretary we heard from last week and who wrote in a letter to the Prime Minister that no one wants to see strike action on the basis of a very low turnout, nevertheless called a strike on the basis of 21% of the members of the union who were eligible to vote actually casting a vote and 18% to 19%, therefore, actually supporting the strike action. We also heard from Sir Paul Kenny of the GMB. In 2014, in a case involving local government workers, 23% turned out to support strike action over pay. We heard also from the general secretary of Unison. In 2014, there was a strike over the pay of NHS workers, and 16% of the members of Unison entitled to vote in the ballot had turned out. The idea that we are somehow tackling a problem that does not exist is shown to be entirely spurious by those figures.

[Chris Stephens]

There are a couple of tests in terms of the Minister’s arguments. First, did any of those employers take the union to court? That is a genuine question. And surely if the trade union was not confident that its members would participate in the industrial action, it would not have called it, because trade unions cannot discipline a trade union member who does not participate in industrial action.

[Nick Boles]

The unions may have been confident, but their confidence was surely misplaced, given that in these cases the figures ranged from 16% to 21% for the people who actually bothered to vote, and that includes the people who voted against the proposed action. This is a problem and it affects members of the public.

[Jo Stevens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will, I promise, take a whole range of interventions, but I just want a little time to make an argument in response to the eloquent arguments that we have heard from the hon. Lady and others.

There was a lot of discussion, quite rightly and properly, about the claim that we make that the indirect consequences, the indirect impact, of strikes can outweigh the direct consequences. There was some criticism—not entirely unjustified, in my view—from Opposition Members that no statistics are available to measure those indirect impacts. I hope that Opposition Members will be pleased to learn that I have therefore written to Andrew Dilnot, who runs the ONS, requesting that the ONS look into how it can capture the indirect impacts of strikes.

The shadow Minister makes great play of the fact that the number of working days lost directly due to strike action is relatively low by historical standards. Although he picks a period that particularly flatters the figures, I nevertheless accept the broad point, which is that the number of days lost directly to industrial action is relatively low, compared with some of the dark days of the past.

10:30

I would like quickly to talk the Committee through a strike that actually happened, and how we might begin to start estimating its indirect impacts. In July 2014, the National Union of Teachers called a strike that caused 20% of schools to close for the day. This is all very vague, and I am going to make no absolute claims about specific numbers of days lost, but I am going to talk the Committee through how one might get a feel for the rough size and scale of the impact of such a strike. Using a rough average of 382 pupils per school, another strike of that magnitude that closed 20% of schools could close 4,029 schools, affecting 1.54 million pupils in England. According to Office for National Statistics data, there are 4.12 million working households in the UK with dependent children. Based on a school closure rate of 20%, that means that roughly 820,000 working households would be impacted by a strike that closed a school in which one of their children was expecting to spend the day.

The ONS says that 3.2 million of those households are two-parent working households, in which both parents work. A further 851,000 lone parents are also in work. I am not going to try to guess how many of those working single parents and double-parent families where both parents work actually had to take a day off work unexpectedly to look after their children when they could not go to school, because of course many of them may have been able to call a grandparent or make emergency childcare arrangements.

[Julie Elliott]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way.

I am absolutely going to assert that millions of parents had to take a really difficult decision that had a great impact. Either one of them had to take a day off work, which they did not expect and so could not give their employer much notice, or they had to spend a great deal of money on emergency childcare, or they had to inconvenience another member of their family to provide childcare cover. So do not come to me—I know you would not, Sir Edward; I say this to the shadow Minister—bandying about your very low figures for the number of days lost directly to industrial action when 1 million parents in that strike that closed 20% of the nation’s schools had either to take a day off work or spend a great deal of money that they would rather not have spent on emergency childcare.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have no reason to doubt the disruption that is caused by any individual strike. We are all clear that we want to avoid that. My mother was a teacher, and I have friends with kids. It causes disruption for lots of people. My mother was a member of the NUT, in fact, and she took any suggestion of industrial action or strike action very seriously. She was hardly a militant, and she would not have wanted to do that. However, I think the Minister needs to put those statistics in context. Given that he has done that extensive analysis, perhaps he or his officials can estimate the number of days lost to a child’s education over the course of their school career—perhaps just their primary school career. It will be a very small number.

In that example—I do not know to which strike the Minister was referring—the union may have had extremely good reasons to go on strike. They do not want to, and we all recognise that it has an impact, but it must be seen in a wider context. It is not enough to justify the measures in the Bill.

[Nick Boles]

I want to move on to the amendments. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember that the strike I was talking about, which happened last year, was supported by 22% of NUT members. I am sure it was very important for those 22%, but it was not particularly important—not sufficient for them to fill out a ballot paper and put it in the post—for the other 78%, so let us get this in perspective. It was clearly of rather more importance to the millions of parents who were affected than it was to the 78% who had the right to vote but did not.

I will now turn to the amendments unless hon. Members want to intervene.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to ask one simple question. Does the Minister regard children going to school as childcare?

[Nick Boles]

I am glad to say that it is a great deal more than that, but when a school is closed because of a strike supported by 22% of union members then, unfortunately, childcare is what parents have to be able to deliver.

[Jo Stevens]

My point is on the earlier remark about making slight tweaks to the current law. The Minister proposes to introduce a new concept in the Bill, which is to count abstentions as no votes. How can that be described as tweaking the current law?

[Nick Boles]

I do not accept the caricature. All we are saying is that, when action is proposed that will have a great effect on people—citizens and equal members of the public who have no vote at all in this ballot and who are not even consulted—it is not unreasonable to require a level of participation that is more than half. That will not stop most strikes, as we have seen from the figures, but it will reassure members of the public that strikes are happening only when they have sufficient support. The British people are fair. They believe in people having the right to strike and would always want to retain that possibility for themselves, but they feel that it is unfair when it happens, as that NUT strike or those other strikes that I listed did, on a very low turnout.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I was looking at the evidence from John Cridland from the CBI. He sums up what the Minister is trying to say very well. He said:

“I think it is reasonable, given the level of disruption involved, that there is clear evidence of a significant mandate.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 8, Q6.]

That is all we are asking for.

[Nick Boles]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to have been reminded of John Cridland’s evidence. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central made the claim that the vast majority of businesses do not support these measures. The CBI unequivocally represents more businesses than any other business organisation—that is a matter of fact—and Mr Cridland was very clear that it is not just supporting the Bill but has supported this policy for five years and has only just persuaded a Conservative Government to adopt it. So that was not an entirely accurate characterisation of the position.

[Ian Mearns]

I wonder whether the Minister might reflect for a moment or two on whether enacting this Bill will mean that those members—he talked about the 78% of union members in a particular ballot not voting—have an understanding that an abstention will count as a no vote. That might be the trigger that he does not want, for them to get out and vote in a ballot.

[Nick Boles]

One of the problems that we have in this discussion—I am sure it is a failure on my part—is that Opposition Members do not seem to understand that we are not trying to stop strikes. We are trying to stop strikes that have very low levels of support. If unions are, as a result of this legislation, enabled to ensure that every single strike ballot sails over the new thresholds, the Bill will have been successful, not least because the British public will have the confidence that the issue at stake is so important that it justifies that action.

[Chris Stephens]

I have a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Gateshead. The Minister mentioned that a 22% ballot closed all those schools. If it was able to close all those schools, it would suggest that the support for the industrial action was more than 22%. Surely this is about participation and helping trade union members participate in a ballot? Will the Minister look seriously at those issues?

[Nick Boles]

We are looking quite seriously at those issues, which is why we have introduced the legislation. Given the hon. Gentleman’s express desire to tackle those issues, I hope I can persuade him to support at least some of our measures.

On the detail of amendments 2, 7, 20 and 21, I appreciate the desire to have clarity and certainty about who is entitled to vote, but that is already well established as a result of the operation of existing provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and of case law, which provide a balance in the system by protecting trade unions against challenge over insignificant breaches of the balloting rules. For example, many of the provisions in the legislation on balloting are already subject to a reasonableness requirement. Section 227 of the aforementioned Act confers the entitlement to vote to

“all the members of the trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced”

to strike.

Sections 226A and 234A require that the lists and figures supplied in the ballot and strike notices

“must be as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union at the time when it complies.”

In addition, section 232B provides that a union still complies with the requirements on balloting even if it has made an error in the process, so long as the failure or failures are

“accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot”.

That was tested recently in court—the margin of error was considered in the case of RMT v. Serco Ltd. As a result, the obligations to give accurate notices and to ballot accurately are already governed by what is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union. The obligations are not intended to be unduly onerous for the unions to comply with. There is no obligation on the union to prepare or update records specifically for industrial action ballots. Plus, as I have explained, unions are already well used to assessing what is reasonably practicable, given that that is an established concept in the 1992 Act. Of course, we are introducing reforms to ensure that unions have up-to-date records of their membership anyway, which I will come to shortly.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for his assurances about the existing case law and previous legislation. Given that he is in the mood for tweaking, would he go back and look at those issues? We have been very clear that we oppose the legislation but, if the Minister is going to proceed, would he look at clarifying beyond doubt in the Bill that those little problems cannot be used by people who might seek to be vexatious in frustrating unions that are reasonably trying to comply with it?

[Nick Boles]

I am always happy to look and reassure myself, but I am pretty confident that that is the case. The amendments proposed by the Opposition go further. They would allow the union to import a reasonable belief into a trade dispute. That is in stark contrast to the current position, where there is an objective test to determine whether a matter constitutes a trade dispute or not. That is important because it is the basis from which flows the legal protections for unions and for strike action that is taking place properly. It would allow the issue to be open to a degree of uncertainty, according to what the union believed. That would be detrimental to employers and would tip the balance too far in favour of trade unions. The current wording allows clarity for both parties.

Other changes that the Government are making to the regulation of trade unions will simply make amendments 1, 8 and 22 unnecessary. The coalition Government introduced a new requirement for unions to submit membership audit certificates to show that they are complying with their duty to keep membership records accurate and up to date. The changes are designed to ensure that unions know who their members are, enabling them to be democratically accountable and to reflect the will of their members. The first membership audit certificates are due in June 2016. The fact that unions will therefore have more reliable membership records means that they will in future have more confidence that those who are entitled to vote receive the ballot paper. I am therefore not convinced that unions need leeway to allow certain members to be left out of the number of those who count towards the thresholds. Of course, that same point applies to amendments 20 and 21.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Is an industrial ballot conducted among members or among employees?

[Nick Boles]

Obviously, the people who are eligible to vote have to be members of the union. They are also employees of the unit where the ballot is being held. Their entitlement to vote is based on being members of the union.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The two are different, because the employees list could include people of other unions or none.

[Nick Boles]

I did not entirely catch what the hon. Gentleman just said. Perhaps he would repeat it.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

One list is the list of members set by the union. The other is a list of employees, which can include members of another union or of none. That is the proper list for an industrial ballot, not the members’ list by the union.

[Nick Boles]

I am not sure that I entirely understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw. To be eligible to vote, someone obviously has to be both.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

No.

[Nick Boles]

To be able to call for strike action, people have to be both an employee of the unit where there is a dispute and a member of the union that is calling the ballot.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

No. The Minister is obviously unaware of the law.

[Nick Boles]

I am sorry not to have satisfied the hon. Gentleman.

10:45

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I reassure my hon. Friend the Minister? In the light of the evidence sessions and the correspondence I have received from my constituents, although there are a huge number of technical details, the overwhelmingly important point is the one he has made: we support the thresholds in our key public services so that disruption is not brought to our constituents on such a wide scale as we have seen resulting from school closures and so on.

[Nick Boles]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is always good to be reminded of whom we are sent here to represent. Sometimes, I get the sense that Members think they are representing other people.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland by describing as well as I can who is entitled to vote in a ballot:

“Entitlement to vote in the ballot must be accorded equally to all the members of the trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced by the union to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the industrial action in question, and to no others.”

That is my understanding of the law. I have no doubt that he will want to draw my attention to where he disagrees with the law, but I believe that that is what it says in section 227(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I do not want to instruct the Minister in actual law, but as someone who has actually conducted a ballot, in terms of practice, a business unit and the employees within in it—[Hon. Members: “That is not the law.”] Well, it is the law. It is the same thing—it is a business practice that is conducted under the law and it means that employees on site are all part of the industrial ballot, whether members of the recognised union, another union or not a member of a union at all. We are talking about a business unit. That is the law.

[Nick Boles]

One of the beauties of British democracy is that we Members are not sent to Parliament to control the practice out there in the real world. We are sent here to pass laws and regulations. If the hon. Gentleman wants to confess that he has been party to practice that was not in accordance with the law, I am certainly not going to report him for it, but it seems to me that he is suggesting that there is a difference between workplace practice and the current law.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I do not know where the Minister is going with this, trying to infer things or besmirch my reputation when I was simply pointing out what the law and business practice is. We are only two hours into line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I do not think this is a very good start, Sir Edward.

[The Chair]

I am not sure that that was a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman made his point.

[Nick Boles]

I am sorry, Sir Edward. I did mean that as a light jest. From the look in the hon. Gentleman’s eyes, I think he knows that. I should probably plough on.

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister is not supposed to talk about Members’ eyes; it is what they say that is important.

[Nick Boles]

Fair enough, Sir Edward.

The fact that the unions will have more reliable membership records means that, in future, they will have more confidence that those who are entitled to vote do indeed receive a postal ballot paper. That is why I am not convinced that unions need leeway to allow certain members to be left out of the number who count towards the thresholds. As I have said, that point applies to amendments 20 and 21 as well.

Finally, on amendment 23, it is not enough simply to have the 50% and 40% thresholds in place. We must also ensure that union members and the employer have information about whether all the conditions that relate to the ballot mandate have been met, because it is not just the union leaders who need to know whether the ballot has secured a valid mandate. Members and employers ought to know whether any subsequent industrial action is valid and legally secure. Information about whether the threshold or, if appropriate, thresholds are met is a crucial part of that. It adds transparency and clarity to the process.

Of course, we could leave unions, members and employers to work it out for themselves from information that they are already entitled to receive—under section 231 of the 1992 Act—about the number of votes cast and the number of individuals answering either yes or no, but that would not be fair. The union will have calculated the result in order to know itself whether it has secured a mandate, so why not simply pass on that information to those who are directly affected by the mandate? On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth to withdraw amendment 1.

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not wish to withdraw the amendment. I will briefly comment on a few of the points that the Committee has made on this group. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central raised some important points about the turnout thresholds for police and crime commissioners, which gave us a very strong context for the absurdity of the Government proposals and their position. The Government have been involved in plenty of other ballots, not least the election of many Conservative Members—I accept that this is also true of Opposition Members—where those thresholds would not have been met.

I also refer to the point made on the impact of abstentions, which we will emphasise at numerous points in the Bill. The Government are supposedly serious about increasing turnout, but there is nothing in the Bill to increase participation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central made some important points about the potential to undermine partnership working in seeking a resolution to disputes, and spoke of the practical experience that she and others have had. She described a ballot as the most intensive thing that unions and employers go through and spoke of the challenge of getting lists right.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West aptly pointed out the equality impacts and trade union self-regulation on whether to take action.

[James Cartlidge]

The point of equality impacts has been raised many times. Obviously, the threshold makes no specific statement in any sense on that, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that, going back to the Minister’s point about school closures and the impact of major strikes, women are among the most disproportionately affected, particularly mothers with children at school?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have no doubt that women are affected by strike action. Nobody on the Opposition side of the Committee is attempting to deny that. We are making a point about the impact of the Bill as a whole and its disproportionate impact in every strike ballot that is going to be undertaken under the new rules.

[Ian Mearns]

Do fathers take children to school?

[Stephen Doughty]

Yes, fathers do take children to school, but we are concerned particularly about the impact of the Bill on women trade unionists, which many witnesses have made clear. As I have said, trade union members represent one tenth of the UK population. I will come back to the Minister’s comment on that in a moment.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West made the point that trade unions will only in very rare circumstances proceed with industrial action if they are not going to be able to get their members to take part. That should be the real test of whether or not there is consent in the broader sense. I liked the hon. Member’s reference to apparently Jedi-like powers to induce members into industrial action. All I can say is that this is not the Bill Ministers are looking for.

The Minister made some very false divisions. I intervened when he made the point that Opposition Members are somehow standing up for militant trade unionists and Government Members are standing up for ordinary members of the public. What absolute nonsense! The idea that there is such a division is simply not the case. Every one of those 6 million trade union members is a member of a family who care about their conditions—whether health and safety, pay, pensions, or working arrangements. I believe they have deep concern about many of the actions that the Government are taking to undermine workers, particularly in the public sector.

[Jo Stevens]

Would it not be right to say that many public sector unions have taken industrial action in order to protect the very public services that Conservative Members say are affected by the disruption?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am sure that, without the Bill, we would get into a wider debate about the Government’s attitude towards public services and their funding. The Minister talks about the Bill being a minor adjustment. That is simply not the case. It is the most dramatic change to trade union legislation in a generation. That is the considered view of many of the legal experts and others who have examined it. It is not “tweaking” to change the rules on abstention, potentially in breach of international conventions. It is very significant. The way that the Government and the Minister have been dressing this up as a tiny movement here and there to bring things in line is disingenuous.

[Ian Mearns]

We are getting to the nub of the problem the Bill is trying to sort out. Government Members have repeatedly talked about the disruption caused by industrial action in schools, but thankfully in this country industrial actions in schools are few and far between. To put it in context, according to the ONS, the problem the Bill is trying to sort out—industrial action in this country—added up to just 0.00005% of all days worked. We are sitting in this room trying to sort out that problem.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a very clear point about the problem the Bill seeks to solve. We have heard that again and again. I am pleased that the Minister said he will ask the ONS to look at the issue of indirect impact. It will be helpful for the House to have that information. I suspect it will confirm many of the views that have been expressed by Opposition Members and many of the witnesses. It is disappointing that some witnesses, including the CBI and others, made grand statements about the need for the Bill without being able to justify it. Even without ONS statistics, there are other ways of making the case clearer, but they have been unable to do it.

[Julie Elliott]

On whether bits of the Bill are legal and whether they will end up in the courts, the evidence presented last week by legal experts Stephen Cavalier and Professor Keith Ewing confirmed that the measure would end up in the courts. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Stephen Doughty]

I certainly do. I am not a lawyer and I do not have experience of testing such things in the courts, but a significant amount of legal opinion suggests that the Bill is potentially in breach of a series of international conventions, let alone the devolution settlement and existing domestic legislation, and it questions whether many aspects of the Bill are enforceable in the courts.

Going back to the necessity of the measures in the Bill, the Minister has said that he accepts that there are historically low levels of industrial action in this country, and yet the Government have repeatedly extrapolated a sledgehammer from a limited number of examples. We can debate at length the rights or wrongs of any individual strike or industrial action, but we are making legislation for the whole country, all forms of industrial action and all trade union members. The legislation will affect every single trade union member in this country and every single dispute. It simply cannot be right to extrapolate and make general points on the basis of a few examples that the Government have used to back up their case.

[Dr Cameron]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the public are unlikely to look on the Bill favourably, given the potential legal challenges and the impact on the public purse?

[Stephen Doughty]

One interesting aspect is that the public are not aware of the likely impact on the public purse of legal challenges arising from the Bill. We can look at a number of examples. For example, the Government tried to take the Welsh Government to court over changes to the Agricultural Wages Board, which has a lot of similarities to aspects of the Bill. It resulted in an extremely expensive legal case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court. If the public were aware of the likely challenges and costs arising from the Bill, they would take a very dim view.

Let me turn briefly to what the Minister said about Opposition amendments. I appreciate his clarifying that unions are protected under section 227 of the 1992 Act. He said that they are protected under reasonableness measures in existing case law. If the Government intend to proceed with this legislation, I urge him to look carefully to ensure that those protections actually exist. I will describe more such protections when we discuss the next amendment.

I have less confidence in what the Minister said in opposing amendments 1 and 7, so I will press them to Divisions and test the will of the Committee at the appropriate point. It would be helpful, given the nature of the debate between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, if the Minister could clarify his position on my hon. Friend’s point in writing to the Committee. It is important that the Committee is in possession of the full facts on the nature of how disputes are played out and how balloting takes place in the workplace. I re-emphasise the concerns that we and the vast majority of people who gave evidence have about clause 2 and its many implications.

11:00

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 2

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Stephen Doughty]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘(3) Small or accidental failures in the arrangements for carrying out the ballot which do not affect the result of the ballot are disregarded for the purposes of compliance with section 226.’

The amendment would ensure that small or accidental mistakes in the carrying out of a ballot which are immaterial to the outcome of the ballot are disregarded and are not grounds for complaint to the Certification Officer or recourse to the courts.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, and insert?

‘(3ZA) Small or accidental failures in the arrangements for carrying out the ballot which do not affect the result of the ballot are disregarded for the purposes of compliance this section.’

The amendment would ensure that small or accidental mistakes in the carrying out of a ballot which are immaterial to the outcome of the ballot are disregarded and not grounds for complaint to the Certification Officer or recourse to the courts.

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long on these two amendments, which are designed to be probing and to highlight the difficulties that unions may face when seeking to comply with the proposed threshold rules. The amendments relate to some of the points we have been discussing about the potential for vexatious legal challenges on the conduct of ballots that I believe, given the history of industrial relations in this country, some employers may choose to make.

I have already outlined why we have serious concerns that the Bill is attempting to put as many barriers as possible in the way of people exercising their democratic rights. It is worth looking at what Sara Ogilvie of Liberty said in the evidence sessions. She summarised her concerns by saying that:

“My concern is that the proposals in the Bill would absolutely render the right”—

of industrial action—

“illusory, largely by creating a system of bureaucracy and hurdles that people have to overcome.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 60, Q158.]

That concern clearly applies to the matters we have just discussed, but I want to flag up a further, related concern.

The Bill does not provide trade unions with any defence if they make a minor technical mistake when sending out ballot papers, even when they have made genuine efforts to comply with any new requirements. Trade unions are currently protected from small accidental failures when identifying who should be balloted and when sending out ballot papers. Mistakes that would not affect the outcome of the ballot should be disregarded.

The amendments would extend the small accidental failures defence to the new 50% and 40% turnout requirements. If the Minister believes that trade unions are already protected in that regard, as he has said, will he explain why? Will he reassure those who are deeply worried that the proposal will be yet another tool in the hands of those who would attempt, in a vexatious manner, to frustrate the legitimate expression of trade unions’ rights, such as by complaint to the certification officer through the proposed new powers or by recourse to the courts? What are his views on that?

[Nick Boles]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the amendment. In matters as serious as workplace disputes and industrial action, it is of course right that trade unions must undertake a number of procedures when running a strike ballot. The rules are there to ensure consistency and fairness in how the ballot is organised. They are not in place to trip up unions, but are there to protect the interests of workers, employers and the unions themselves.

Inconsequential errors of process that have no material impact are not what the balloting rules are designed to address. That is reflected in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and in case law, which together already protect trade unions against challenge over insignificant breaches of the balloting rules. For example, section 232B of the 1992 Act provides that a union still complies with the requirements on balloting even if it has made some error in the process, so long as the failure or failures are accidental and on a scale that is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot. As I mentioned previously, in the case of RMT v. Serco the Court of Appeal held that although the exception in 232B does not apply to all parts of the 1992 Act, that does not prevent a union from claiming immunity when there is an insignificant breach or a trifling error in relation to the rules, even when there is no explicit statutory defence. That case also made clear how far unions must go to ensure the accuracy of the figures given in ballot and strike notifications, and the explanation they must give as to how the figures have been reached. Specifically, it established that there is no obligation for a union to obtain further information or to set up systems to improve its record keeping.

The law, therefore, already delivers the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for his comments. The points that have been made are important, because with any legislation it is not beyond the ken of those who would wish to frustrate the exercise of democratic rights to attempt to use the law in a way that would at least bog down disputes in lengthy litigation. I appreciate the Minister’s reading his comments into the record, and I certainly hope that they will be considered if the Bill proceeds in its current form. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Chris Stephens]

I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2G) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.

Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2H) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services provided by the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 77, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert—

‘(4) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 78, in clause 4, page 3, line 2, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 79, in clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 80, in clause 6, page 3, line 44, at end insert—

‘(3) This section does not apply in relation to industrial action in Scotland.’

Amendment 81, in clause 7, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 82, in clause 8, page 4, line 24, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 42, in clause 10, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

‘(5) None of the provisions of sections 84 and 85 shall apply to public sector employees in sectors or providing services which are wholly or partially devolved to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on contributions to political funds would not apply to employees in public services providing services which are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive.

Amendment 72, in clause 10, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

‘(6) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on contributions to political funds would not apply to employees in public services providing services which are devolved to the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 51, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

‘(13) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to facility time of the employees of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive, or to public sector employers working for or providing services that are wholly or partially devolved to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on facility time would not apply to employees working for or providing public services which are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive.

Amendment 73, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

‘(14) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to facility time of the employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on facility time would not apply to employees working for or providing public services which are devolved to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 84, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

‘(13) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.’

Amendment 85, in clause 13, page 10, line 44, at end insert—

‘(14) For the avoidance of doubt, the powers in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.’

Amendment 86, in clause 14, page 11, line 11, at end insert—

‘(4) This section and the Schedules it inserts shall not apply in Scotland.’

Amendment 87, in clause 15, page 12, line 23, at end insert—

‘(4) This section shall not apply in Scotland.’

Amendment 88, in clause 16, page 13, line 26, at end insert—

‘(5) This section and the Schedule it inserts shall not apply in Scotland.’

Amendment 89, in clause 17, page 14, line 43, at end insert—

‘(11) Trade union members resident in Scotland shall not be required through their union to contribute to a levy imposed by this section.’

[Chris Stephens]

This group of amendments could be called the devolved group. It goes to the heart of principles regarding mandates—not just the mandates that trade unions derive with regard to taking industrial action, but whether there is a mandate across the nations of the UK for the Bill and for specific clauses within it. That is natural, when we have four nations in the UK with a different leading party in each.

The amendments also raise issues of consent. The devolved Administrations and local authorities are being dictated to by the Bill regarding how they conduct their industrial relations. There are issues regarding the effect on the spirit of friendship and solidarity across the UK, and regarding our mandate, which is to seek the devolution of employment law in the Scotland Bill. It is important to point out that Parliament has yet to put to the test whether employment law should be devolved to Scotland.

The constitutional issues that arise from the Bill could have serious consequences. We were told by Ministers in the evidence sessions that industrial relations are reserved, but in reality they are not. The reality is that devolved Administrations in the past have kept the two-tier workforce agreements, which the coalition Government removed for workers in the public sector in England.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, though, as the Scottish Cabinet Secretary Ms Cunningham did, that industrial relations are currently reserved?

[Chris Stephens]

Ms Cunningham then went on to make the position clear about the impact that would have. The hon. Gentleman is correct that industrial relations are reserved at this point, but an electoral mandate was given to 56 MPs who were elected in May—I could argue that there are 58 MPs in Scotland who are opposed to the Bill. The Bill is a real concern, because it ignores, for example, the work of the Scottish Government in setting up the Scottish fair work convention. They are working in partnership with trade unions rather than seeing them as the enemy of the public and using the kind of rhetoric we have heard while discussing the Bill.

The Bill brings into question the impact of the industrial relations capacity. We have heard from the local authorities in Scotland. Conservative councillor Billy Hendry said in a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities statement that COSLA is opposed to the Bill. The Bill seeks to dictate to the devolved Administrations on issues of facility time and check-off. There seems little support in Scotland and Wales or in aspects of the public sector in England for the removal of check-off. Check-off is a voluntary arrangement, and for the UK Government to dictate to parts of the public sector who have an electoral mandate to conduct industrial relations is wrong. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he has responded to the Scottish or Welsh Governments on the principles of consent.

More importantly, the deputy General Secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress at our political conference in Aberdeen at the weekend, at a fringe meeting, described the principles around facility time and check-off to be the most pernicious parts of the Bill, simply because it strikes at the heart of trade union organisation. Employers benefit from employees having good facility time. They know who they are; they are people who can deal with people and sort issues out; it leads to fewer tribunal claims, less litigation, better health and safety and, indeed it can lead to lifelong learning for employees as well. Those are the very real benefits of facility time.

There was no consultation with the public sector, this provision interferes with electoral and political mandates, and I believe that there is a lack of consent for the Bill across many parts of the UK.

[Dr Cameron]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland and the Scottish Government have had harmonious working relationships with management and unions, in terms of partnership, and that there is great concern, from constituents and from the Scottish Government, the councils and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, about the Bill’s potential to undermine this?

[Chris Stephens]

Absolutely. The current figures show that there is less industrial action in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. That suggests that partnership working is successful and leads to less industrial action and better working relationships across the board. We know that many public bodies oppose the Bill. Some public bodies have gone even further and said that they will defy the Bill. This can only lead to conflict with other public bodies, conflict across the public sector, and it could lead, as Professor Keith Ewing suggested, to a constitutional crisis across the UK. It is rather ironic that this is coming from the UK Government, when they usually point the finger at other people for causing constitutional crises across the UK.

The trade union movement is the largest group in civil society and we should be working in partnership. I look forward to the debate and will indicate in my summing-up whether we wish to push any amendments to a vote.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a pleasure to move on to one of the most significant parts of the Bill in relation to its potential legality, let alone its potential for implementation.

I wish to speak to our amendments 11, 12, 42, 72, 51 and 73, but I shall respond first to the speech by the hon. the Member for Glasgow South West, many aspects of which I have a great degree of sympathy with. I entirely understand his concerns about the impact of the Bill on Scotland, particularly in areas that are clearly devolved. Let me be clear at the outset that, in line with the principles of togetherness and solidarity that underpin the trade union movement, we intend to oppose and to attempt to defeat every substantive clause of the Bill in order to stand up for workers in every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Our amendments also highlight specific areas that we believe most clearly breach the existing devolution settlement, in line with the evidence provided to us by the Welsh and Scottish Governments and other concerned stakeholders.

11:15

Other amendments in this group that we have tabled are an attempt to expose the contradictions of a Government who repeatedly claim that they are a champion of regional devolution in England, yet seek to undermine the rights of English local authorities’ mayors and, given the new devolved powers that the Government have been talking about, authorities’ own industrial relations and contractual arrangements. That is particularly important in the light of the significant changes to regional devolution in England that the Government are moving ahead with. They are essentially devolving powers to mayors and regional councils across England on the one hand and then clipping their wings with the other. The Tory Government are adopting a divide and rule approach to trade union legislation and workers’ rights across the United Kingdom.

I want to turn to the stark comments made by Profession Keith Ewing in the oral evidence session. He was referring to the impact on Scotland, but he said:

“The problem will be if a Scottish public body decides, ‘We are not going to comply with this ban on the check-off,’ or ‘We are not going to publish the facility time arrangements that we give to trade union representatives.’ What will happen at that point? We are looking at the question of who will enforce those obligations against Scottish public bodies.”

That could be applied to Welsh or English public bodies and local authorities. He continued:

“Are we really saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring a case against a major Scottish public authority to enforce those obligations? The Government are walking, almost blindfolded, into a major constitutional crisis around the Bill.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 129, Q346.]

Based on the Government’s record, we know that they might be inspired to launch legal actions against Scottish public bodies, as they have tried to do on various occasions against the Welsh Government over decisions they have made. Of course, as the record will show, the Government have been found to be on the wrong side, as decided by the Supreme Court, and the case has been found against them at great cost to the taxpayer.

We also need to look closely at the comments made by the Minister for Public Services in Wales, Leighton Andrews, who is clear both about the lack of consultation on the provisions that have an impact on the devolved settlement, and about their potential impact. He said:

“We have good relationships with the trade unions. We value our workforce and believe that they contribute proactively to the development of strong public services.”

He also said:

“The First Minister’s letter to the Prime Minister also raised a fundamental constitutional issue in respect of our right to defend legitimate devolved interests. He said in that letter that we have great concerns that the nature of the Bill would cut across the devolution settlement, which is of great concern to us. We recently received a short reply from the Prime Minister, but we do not regard it as dealing with the key issues that we set out.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 79, Q219.]

He went on:

“We also find it somewhat odd that a UK Government Bill of this kind seeks to specify, for example, how much union facility time employees have saved local authorities in Wales.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 79-80, Q221.]

As he pointed out, Wales been going through a local government reform programme. Clearly, as part of that negotiation and debate, on which there are many views in Wales, there needs to be discussion of the wider contractual arrangements with local authorities and their powers and relationships. The Bill cuts across a sensitive and important set of discussions on local government reform in Wales.

The Scottish Government have also laid out their concerns. Roseanna Cunningham, the Minister, said:

“I am not aware of there being any formal consultation in advance of the introduction of the Bill. While I have had some correspondence backwards and forwards with the relevant Minister, there has not really been much in the way of a discussion and we are still trying to establish exactly how it would impact on us. We share a lot of the concerns that the Welsh Minister expressed to you.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 82, Q227.]

I am surprised—this has been revealed at many stages of the Bill, including on Second Reading—that on such a matter of potential clash with the devolution settlement, and particularly in the light of the Government’s agenda on local government devolution in England, there has not been the level of consultation that one would expect on these issues.

[Ian Mearns]

Hon. Members will be aware that in the north of England the Government are seeking to establish elected mayors covering regions or sub-regions, and great cities and local enterprise partnership areas in places such as the north-east of England. Does my hon. Friend see the capacity for additional conflict if elected mayors are established and then instructed by Her Majesty’s Government about how they should conduct industrial relations affairs within their own elected area?

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only does that apply to such relationships going forward, but we need to look at the impact of the Bill retrospectively. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on that. Obviously, local and devolved government across the UK already has extensive contractual arrangements on matters such as check-off, facility time and so on. That is particularly true in the public sector, but also in relation to bodies that receive public funding. Those things are woven into the fabric of employment contracts up and down the land. The Bill simply drives a coach and horses through that and could result in a serious number of legal challenges.

[Chris Stephens]

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, if an elected mayor, a local authority political party, or even a devolved Administration political party puts in its manifesto that it wants to deal with workers by having good facility time and check-off, surely that mandate should stand and should not be interfered with.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Who should have the power in that situation to determine the type of partnerships and arrangements that exist? Should it be for the UK Government, who claim they are pro-devolution, to interfere in those relationships and negotiations?

The implications are clear. I refer to the position that many Scottish local authorities and Scottish Labour party have taken regarding the Bill, which is essentially a position of non-compliance, particularly with the measures abolishing check-off and curbing facility time. To date, every single Labour-led administration in Scotland has passed motions to that effect. They are giving a clear signal of intent regarding the potential constitutional clash we are heading towards.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very interested in amendment 12, which states:

“None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services provided by the Mayor of London”.

In other words, thresholds would not apply in London. In the city where we have had the greatest problems with tube and bus strikes with low turnouts, on which we have had a huge amount of evidence, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should leave London out of the thresholds?

[Stephen Doughty]

The point we are making with the amendments is that it should be for devolved Governments, and the Mayor of London, to determine the type of relationships they want to have. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into a debate about the Mayor of London’s relationship with the trade unions, I think he is heading on to a sticky wicket. We heard nonsense from the Mayor of London on Second Reading. That goes back to a fundamental point: we are constantly looking at the impact of strikes rather than the reason for them. It is as though they were all dreamed up by a bunch of militants without cause. That is simply not the case. I suggest we do not go down the line of debating the Mayor of London’s industrial relations.

Going back to Scotland, Scottish local government is making it clear that it will not implement the Bill. If that is the case, as also appears to be the suggestion of the Welsh Government and other public bodies across the UK, we are heading into difficult territory.

The Labour party believes that a collective response and approach to this divisive legislation is both the most ethical and efficacious way to proceed, in the best traditions of trade unionism. Although I understand the principles underpinning many of the SNP amendments in this group that are intended to exempt to Scotland alone from particular clauses, our position is clear. We want to exempt all of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, from all the clauses of the Bill. We intend to do so by voting against each clause of the Bill, and I hope the SNP will continue in the vein already established in Committee and join us in doing so in the principle of solidarity.

There is much that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and I agree on. However, although I understand the intent behind the SNP amendments, there is a risk that amendments that seek to defend the rights of workers in only part of the UK will play into the Government’s hands and encourage a race to the bottom. I hope the SNP will continue its support in defeating each clause of the Bill and join us in voting against the Bill, should it proceed, on Third Reading.

The SNP has tabled amendments 84 and 85, which relate to consent to legislate on a range of issues across the UK. We believe that devolved nations should be exempted, as per our amendments. Nevertheless, there is no inconsistency in supporting those SNP amendments. We would also look favourably on a number of other amendments the SNP has tabled to later parts of the Bill.

I turn to amendment 11 to clause 3. Setting balloting thresholds for the range of important services outlined in the Bill will clearly have a direct impact on public policy areas that are wholly devolved. As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am very concerned that the Bill could breach the devolution settlement, whether in Wales, Scotland, local authorities in England or London. In clause 3, it could particularly affect health services and the education of those aged 17.

[The Chair]

Order. As we have had a debate about Jedi knights, may the force be with you all.

11:25

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting)

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Sir Edward Leigh, † Sir Alan Meale

† Argar, Edward (Charnwood) (Con)

† Barclay, Stephen (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)

† Blenkinsop, Tom (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)

† Boles, Nick (Minister for Skills)

† Cameron, Dr Lisa (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)

† Cartlidge, James (South Suffolk) (Con)

† Doughty, Stephen (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

† Elliott, Julie (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

† Ghani, Nusrat (Wealden) (Con)

† Howell, John (Henley) (Con)

† Kennedy, Seema (South Ribble) (Con)

† Mearns, Ian (Gateshead) (Lab)

† Morden, Jessica (Newport East) (Lab)

† Morris, Anne Marie (Newton Abbot) (Con)

† Prentis, Victoria (Banbury) (Con)

† Stephens, Chris (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

† Stevens, Jo (Cardiff Central) (Lab)

† Sunak, Rishi (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)

Fergus Reid, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 20 October 2015

(Afternoon)

[Sir Alan Meale in the Chair]

Trade Union Bill

14:00

Clause 2

Ballots: 50% turnout requirement

Amendment proposed (this day): 90, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.”—(Chris Stephens.)

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2G) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.

Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2H) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services provided by the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 77, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert—

‘(4) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 78, in clause 4, page 3, line 2, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 79, in clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 80, in clause 6, page 3, line 44, at end insert—

‘(3) This section does not apply in relation to industrial action in Scotland.’

Amendment 81, in clause 7, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 82, in clause 8, page 4, line 24, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 42, in clause 10, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

‘(5) None of the provisions of sections 84 and 85 shall apply to public sector employees in sectors or providing services which are wholly or partially devolved to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on contributions to political funds would not apply to employees in public services providing services which are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive.

Amendment 72, in clause 10, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

‘(6) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on contributions to political funds would not apply to employees in public services providing services which are devolved to the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 51, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert?

‘(13) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to facility time of the employees of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive, or to public sector employers working for or providing services that are wholly or partially devolved to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on facility time would not apply to employees working for or providing public services which are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive.

Amendment 73, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert?

‘(14) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to facility time of the employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on facility time would not apply to employees working for or providing public services which are devolved to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 84, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

‘(13) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.’

Amendment 85, in clause 13, page 10, line 44, at end insert—

‘(14) For the avoidance of doubt, the powers in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.’

Amendment 86, in clause 14, page 11, line 11, at end insert—

‘(4) This section and the Schedules it inserts shall not apply in Scotland.’

Amendment 87, in clause 15, page 12, line 23, at end insert—

‘(4) This section shall not apply in Scotland.’

Amendment 88, in clause 16, page 13, line 26, at end insert—

‘(5) This section and the Schedule it inserts shall not apply in Scotland.’

Amendment 89, in clause 17, page 14, line 43, at end insert—

‘(11) Trade union members resident in Scotland shall not be required through their union to contribute to a levy imposed by this section.’

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, as we return to line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. When we left, we were discussing the group of amendments about devolution and I was about to set out my case on amendment 11.

By setting balloting thresholds for the range of important services defined by the Bill, we need to be clear that this will impact on public policy areas that are wholly devolved. As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am concerned that the Bill could breach the devolution settlement in Wales and in Scotland, as well as with regard to the increasing powers of local authorities in England, Mayors and the Mayor of London.

Health services, education of those aged under 17 and fire services are already clearly devolved to Wales, and the Welsh First Minister stated in a recent letter to the Prime Minister:

“It is clear…that significant elements of the Bill relate specifically to public services which in Wales are unambiguously devolved responsibilities. I therefore do not accept the suggestion that the Bill must be regarded as concerned exclusively with non-devolved issues…Policy on how to support, or ‘protect’, the delivery of devolved public services such as health, education and fire is…for the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. This includes the way the public sector bodies in such devolved services work with trade unions to ensure effective delivery of services to the public.”

That is very important because we regularly hear examples from the Government about services. Most of them seem to relate to London—though, as I have said, we should give the Mayor of London the choice of how to handle these relationships. These examples do not relate to services in Wales, Scotland or elsewhere. I wonder why that is. Given that the devolved Governments have raised a series of concerns in their oral and written evidence, in letters and so on, will the Minister inform the Committee what discussions he and other Ministers in the Department and the Minister for the Cabinet Office have had with Ministers and officials in the devolved Administrations before the Bill was published and subsequent to their concerns being raised?

This is particularly important because the First Minister of Wales specifically pointed out the positive social partnerships that exist in Wales—we have heard similar evidence from Scotland—and the impact that that can have on the positive delivery of public services. The Minister need not accept just the word of the Welsh Government for this, welcome though that would be, as we also have research published by the Royal College of Nursing, which witnesses touched on in oral evidence. The research highlights the benefits of high-trust working relationships between managers and unions in the public sector. In that case, it was related to health in particular. I believe that the Bill and this clause seek to drive a false wedge between them.

We have already heard how Scottish Labour and local authorities run by Scottish Labour have made it very clear that they do not intend to implement the Bill. I have been made aware during the lunch break of a statement released by one of the Welsh councils, and I know that many share this position. I have a statement from Torfaen, a Labour-run authority. Councillor Anthony Hunt has tabled a resolution there, endorsed by the council, which says that the council

“resolves to oppose the introduction of the Trade Union Bill 2015, urges the Government to abandon the Bill and instead make a commitment to work in partnership with the trade union movement”.

There is dissension at many levels.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We also heard evidence from the Welsh Minister for Public Services about the firefighters’ dispute over pensions, in which a solution was reached and the Fire Brigades Union put off strike action in Wales. Is that not a good example of where Wales is doing things differently?

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a perfect example, which exposes the different industrial relations policies that different Governments across these islands are pursuing and the benefits to the public of avoiding strike action, which is what the Government say that they want to do with the Bill. The example that my hon. Friend just gave stands in stark contrast to the testy relationship that appears to exist, as we heard in oral evidence, between the London fire brigade and the Fire Brigades Union, and the wider context of industrial relations in that city. Surely if the Government’s aim, as they keep repeating, is to reduce industrial action and disruption, particularly in crucial services such as fire, we want to do everything we can to build positive partnerships and come to resolutions, as was the case in Wales.

Amendment 12, in a similar vein to amendment 11, seeks to ensure that the Bill does not interfere with the ability of directly elected Mayors and local authorities in England to manage such services and decide how to manage their relationships with trade unions. It is consistent with the Government’s localism agenda. Amendments 42 and 72 relate to clause 10, on political party fund opt-ins, which we will discuss in due course. Briefly, amendment 42 would ensure that the opt-in requirements for trade union political funds would not apply to public sector employees working in sectors or providing services that are devolved to the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Amendment 72 would ensure that the proposed new opt-in requirements for union political funds did not apply to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England. Again, as a point of principle, we believe that those bodies should be able to make their own decisions about how to manage their relationships with trade unions in those sectors and how those trade unions use their money.

On amendment 51 and 73, I draw the Committee’s attention to a letter dated 10 September 2015 from Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, to the Prime Minister, expressing his concerns about the Trade Union Bill. In the letter, the First Minister says:

“Similarly, it cannot be right for the UK Government—blind to policy priorities and devolved service delivery reforms in Wales—to specify how much union ‘facility time’ devolved public sector employers should allow. Nor am I convinced that the intention to end ‘check off’ arrangements for trade union subscriptions in the public sector is necessary or appropriate. The Welsh Government operates these arrangements as part of its approach to effective social partnership and is not seeking to change this.”

I know that the Scottish Government are similarly concerned about this matter, and I am sure that my colleagues from the Scottish National party would agree.

These are important policy decisions about relationships and the balance of responsibilities and rights. They are part of the crucial relationship between the Government and public bodies, and those who work in them. Frankly, the Welsh and Scottish Governments have a different approach, and they want to ensure that it is positive.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend outlines a coherent case. Although the Government maintain that they have the power to enact the Bill across the United Kingdom, it could in practice be enacted in very different ways in different parts of the United Kingdom. English citizens could end up with many fewer rights than their counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Do we want English men and women to have fewer rights than their Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts?

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very important point. As I made clear when introducing our amendments, the Labour party believes in exempting all parts of the United Kingdom from the Bill and its provisions. It would be hugely problematic for there to be areas of complete disagreement and an imbalance among the different parts of the UK. That prompts a series of questions, and I hope the Minister can explain how the measure will work in practice, given that the devolved Governments and local authorities are already indicating that they do not wish to implement it.

Amendment 51 would ensure that the new requirements to report on facility time would not apply to employees of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive or public sector employers working for or providing services that are partially or wholly devolved to those bodies. It would ensure that the Bill does not interfere with the ability of those Governments to manage those services and decide how they engage with their staff and determine their relationships with trade unions.

In the same vein, amendment 73 would ensure that the new reporting requirements did not apply to the facility time of employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England. Again, that is consistent with the Government’s localism agenda.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

May I remind the shadow Minister of Dave Prentis’s evidence last week? I thought it was peculiar—perhaps the shadow Minister can enlighten us—that he said that, when it comes to check-off, it is not just about the devolved nations, but the new combined authorities. They will be allowed to do everything, but not talk to staff and trade unions about having check-off or not.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very important point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to what the general secretary of Unison had to say on that matter. Unison represents a significant number of employees in local government across the UK and has exposed a very serious problem.

I want to ask the Minister some specific questions that I hope he will answer in his response to this part of the debate. I pressed him in the oral evidence session about the legal assessments that had been made in developing the Bill. Clearly, I do not expect him to share the detail of Government legal advice, but I would like to know, given the apparent paucity of consultation with devolved Governments across the UK and, it appears, with local government, what conversations took place. I am not asking the Minister to share the contents of the conversations, but can he tell us what conversations took place, given the huge implications of the Bill and the legal precedent for cases such as this ending up in the Supreme Court? What conversations took place? Did any take place? I sincerely hope that they did. Anything the Minister can share with the Committee would be very helpful.

I pushed the Minister on my second point in the oral evidence session. As we have heard from a vast number of legal experts, there is a serious risk of legal challenge to the Bill. One legal opinion can be challenged by another, but the reality is that that might be exactly where the Bill ends up: in the courts. Have the Government set aside funds to deal with legal proceedings that might result—it is inevitable, I believe—from the Bill’s proceeding in its present form?

Thirdly, I would like to know the Minister’s response to the apparent concerns of the Welsh and Scottish Governments, local government across England and local government in Wales and Scotland, and his response should they choose not to implement the Bill, because they believe that it breaches their settlement. Will he take legal proceedings against them to enforce the Bill? How much does he think that that will cost the taxpayer? Or will he just let them carry on? I am sure that he wants to enforce his Bill, but there will be a cost if there is resistance to it from the public bodies to which he is trying to apply it. Keith Ewing said very clearly that he thought that we were walking blindfold into a major constitutional crisis. I have great sympathy with that position.

Fourthly, given the nature of existing contractual arrangements in a whole series of public bodies that receive public funding, which refer to check-off, facility time, and to many other matters that are pertinent to the Bill, does the Minister propose that the measure will apply retrospectively, and that we would therefore have to unwind hundreds of thousands of contractual arrangements, particularly in the public sector across the UK? Will the Bill apply retrospectively? How does the Minister think that will impact? What estimate has he made of the cost, should any individual challenge that through the courts? I imagine that quite a significant number of individuals would want to challenge that if they believed that they had signed a contract in good faith with a public body that gave them certain rights. What estimate have the Minister and the Department made of the cost of that? How does he see the Bill being implemented?

Will he have a hit squad, which the Minister for the Cabinet Office talked about, going round local authorities and devolved Governments to check the texts of the contractual arrangements that they enter into? Will he go through every piece of paper signed by every public sector employee or by anyone who could vaguely be determined to have enjoyed some sort of public sector funding in their role? Will he interfere with every single one of those contracts? This is an extraordinarily heavy-handed approach from a Government who claim that they want to avoid regulation and interference—and that they are the Government of devolution and localism.

I have a final question for the Minister. We heard from the Scottish and Welsh Governments that they are reserving their position on whether a legislative consent motion is required for the Bill. Perhaps not all members of the Committee are familiar with legislative consent motions—LCMs—but they can be seen regularly on the Table in the House when the UK Government seek to legislate for matters that are partially or fully devolved for some practical reason. If the legislation makes sense, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive can give permission to the UK Government to do that. There are many circumstances in which that is appropriate. However, on this occasion they clearly do not believe there is a clear case for that. I would like to know what the Minister would do, should the Welsh and Scottish Governments withhold legislative consent. What discussion has the Minister had with UK Government Law Officers about the Government’s approach and, again, what would be the costs to the public purse? I suggest that the Minister makes ready a tidy little pot of money to deal with all the legal proceedings that will emanate from the Bill if it goes ahead in its current form. That will really put paid to the suggestion that the Bill will benefit the taxpayer. It will cost the taxpayer a lot of money.

14:15

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alan. As we have heard in eloquent speeches from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, amendment 90 and the rest of the amendments in this group aim to limit the geographical extent of the Bill. In the oral evidence sessions last week, we heard evidence from Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training in the Scottish Government, and Leighton Andrews, the Minister for Public Services in the Welsh Government, about the collaborative relationship that these Administrations have with trade unions. That is, of course, laudable. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that need cut across the positive relationships—the partnerships, as they describe them—between unions and Government in Scotland and Wales, any more than it will cut across the partnership and the positive relationship that we have with unions in relation to English matters.

The Bill is about ensuring that industrial action can go ahead only with a strong, democratic and recent mandate. It is about increasing transparency and accountability, both in strike ballots and in political funds. It is about protecting non-striking workers from intimidation and ensuring that unions take proper responsibility for picket lines. It is about securing transparency and value for money for the taxpayer. It is about creating an appropriate regulatory environment for unions. To me, these all seem to be reasonable objectives. How can we not want to apply these benefits uniformly across Great Britain?

Mike Emmott, senior policy adviser at the CIPD, who in general does not support the measures in the Bill, nevertheless put it eloquently when he told this Committee last week that it was appropriate for the Bill measures to be dealt with on a Great Britain-wide basis. He said:

“It is going to be quite odd for employers dealing with different rules applying in different jurisdictions, where there may be issues that go across the whole of the UK.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 36, Q90.]

The Bill seeks to ensure that when the lives of commuters or patients or parents of school-age children are disrupted by strike action, that action is supported by a significant proportion of union members. In particular, we are seeking to protect the users of important public services from highly disruptive strike action that is driven by a small minority on the basis of an outdated ballot. The provisions of the Bill apply to the whole of Great Britain: to England, Scotland and Wales, to London, and to English local authorities. This is because all the provisions in the Bill relate to employment and industrial relations law, all of which are clearly reserved matters under the devolution settlements with Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, employment and industrial relations are transferred matters; therefore, respecting the agreement that was properly reached with Northern Ireland, the Bill’s provisions do not apply there.

On that basis—that this is indeed a reserved matter—it is entirely in order for the Government to propose that the Bill applies to the whole of Great Britain. There are strong, practical reasons why employment law should apply across the whole of Great Britain. Under the devolution settlements with Scotland and Wales, Parliament devolved some responsibilities, while some remain reserved. Again, certain responsibilities are being devolved to local authorities in England and to the Mayor of London. None of the responsibilities that are devolved include employment law or industrial relations, so devolved matters are simply not at play.

The shadow Minister asked a number of detailed questions, which I will try to answer as best I can. Obviously contacts take place between officials in every Department here in London and officials in the devolved Administrations. I am not going to provide a running commentary or a list of them, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in response to letters that the First Minister of Wales wrote to the Prime Minister on 9 September, the Prime Minister replied on 2 October. In response to letters from Roseanna Cunningham on 7 August and 9 September, she and I had a reasonably lengthy phone conversation on 8 October. I am always happy to speak to them and to discuss any concerns they may have.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said that there had been suggestions by members of the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and other local authorities that they might refuse to comply with the provisions in the Bill should it become law. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite remarkable to compare the number of times you hear people threatening not to obey a law in prospect—when it is being considered by Parliament and when there is some chance of affecting the outcome of Parliament’s deliberations—and the number of times when those duly constituted public authorities actually refuse to obey the law of the land and put themselves in breach. Let us cross that bridge when we come to it. I do not anticipate those rather wild and lurid threats being carried out—they are, after all, being made by institutions and individuals who oppose the Government politically and oppose the measures. They are, of course, entitled to use, in rhetoric, whatever arguments they like, but ultimately what they do is what will count.

Similarly, the number of times when it might be claimed that a legislative consent motion is required is very different from the number of times when it is actually required. When it is required is determined by the devolution settlement and by whether a matter is reserved or not. As Ms Cunningham herself has admitted, it is absolutely clear that, currently, employment law and industrial relations a reserved matters. There is absolutely no question about the full right of the UK Parliament to make laws that affect the whole of Great Britain on those matters.

[Stephen Doughty]

I appreciate that the Minister would not do anything other than defend the Bill as an entirely reserved matter, but does he accept that its provisions will have significant consequences for matters that are wholly or partially devolved to a series of Administrations around the UK? Yes or no?

[Nick Boles]

No, I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that minor changes in how individual employees pay a subscription to a particular membership organisation is a challenge to the ability of the devolved Administrations—the Scottish or Welsh Governments—to run their national health service or their schools. That seems ludicrous to me. It is, of course, a matter of employment law and it will, therefore, apply to people who work in public services that are, themselves, devolved, but the idea that it will prevent or interrupt the policies of those Governments towards their public services is to overstate the case.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady, but I do not want to have an endless ping-pong session with the hon. Gentleman at this point.

[Jo Stevens]

I refer the Minister to the letter of 14 October from the Welsh NHS Confederation to his colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which states:

“We feel that some of the proposals outlined in the Trade Union Bill could have a detrimental effect on this relationship”—

with trade unions—

“and potentially lead to unnecessarily challenging industrial relations in future…strike action in the NHS in Wales over the last decade has been minimal, despite significant organisational change and the introduction of significant changes to terms and conditions, so we do not believe that any additional measures to protect the public from strikes are necessarily required.”

Will the Minister comment on that?

[Nick Boles]

Yes. In a sense, the answer is the same. Everybody is entitled to say exactly what they think. I encourage it, I welcome it and we will always listen to any representations. We disagree. We believe that those people are overstating the case and that, when the Bill becomes law and the provisions are implemented—in Scotland and Wales as well as in England—it will not interrupt those very positive industrial relations, it will not interrupt those partnerships, and it certainly will not interrupt their ability to run their public services as they see fit.

[Chris Stephens]

There is a difference between employment law and industrial relations and how they impact on public services. I am curious about the Minister’s comment about the provision of public services, because political parties say how they will deal with industrial relations in public services as part of their manifesto commitments, whether for Scottish, Welsh or any other elections. Surely, those mandates have to be respected.

[Nick Boles]

We respect mandates, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will respect ours. I draw his attention to another example. The national minimum wage affects every single person who works anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is a reserved matter. It is something that this Parliament sets. I have not heard objections from the Scottish Minister—the very same Scottish Minister—saying that this is an egregious intrusion into Scottish matters and that somehow it is appalling that there is a national minimum wage. It is simply the case that we live in a system where some matters are reserved to the national—the United Kingdom—Parliament and other matters are devolved. The content of employment law and industrial relations is a reserved matter.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I think we have had enough, Sir Alan. I will give way one last time, because we are making incredibly slow process.

[Stephen Doughty]

To be fair, Sir Alan, I asked the Minister a number of questions. He has not answered the major question about whether the legislation applies retrospectively to contractual arrangements in the public sector in the devolved Administrations and across local government in England and elsewhere, and about what he believes the consequences will be. He makes out that this is all some slightly trifling matter that is not going to cause problems. Often, facility time, check-off and whatever else are written into contractual provisions and exist in arrangements that are made by devolved Administrations with their employees about their contracts. Will the legislation apply retrospectively, and what does the Minister believe will be the impact on the ability of Administrations to make contractual arrangements, as they have done before? Or is he admitting that the Bill interferes with their ability to do that?

[Nick Boles]

On the effect of the provisions on existing contracts, we have asked whether they are acceptable by international obligations and we are absolutely assured that they are. Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national minimum wage. Its introduction had an impact on existing contracts, some of which therefore had to be revised to reflect it. This legislation will have no greater impact—in fact, rather less so—on existing contracts. We are confident that any effect it will have is entirely consistent with all the relevant legal framework.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

This is seriously the last time, because the hon. Gentleman has many that new clauses he wants to get to and I am just trying to help.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister has been most kind, so I will ask just this question. The cost to public bodies of reissuing new statements of particulars and contracts could be considerable. Will the Government provide finances to the public bodies in that position?

[Nick Boles]

Sir Alan, you know as well as I do that if I were even to dare tiptoe on to the question of the financial settlement with devolved Administrations, there is literally a device implanted in my brain that would explode and decapitate me. I am not going to go there, however much pleasure it might give Opposition Members. [Interruption.] However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to the Chancellor—or to me and I can pass on the request—I will, of course, reply to his question.

If there are no further requests for interventions, I will conclude. The amendments in this group seek to use the Bill as a mechanism to carve out different arrangements in employment law and industrial relations for Scotland, Wales, London and English local authorities. Parliament has already determined that these matters are reserved. The amendments are an attempt to extend devolution by the back door and that is why we cannot accept them. I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

[Jo Stevens]

In opposing clause 3 and speaking in support of our amendments, I wish I had the faith in the legal advice that the Minister seems to have in his lawyers. I remind the Government of the evidence that we heard last week from Professor Keith Ewing, professor of public law at King’s College, London, about the Bill being incompatible with settlements in Wales and Scotland, which is entirely contrary to the position that the Minister has just asserted. The Committee will recall that Professor Ewing said:

“The Government are walking, almost blindfolded, into a major constitutional crisis around the Bill. That constitutional crisis could be as explosive for this Government as the poll tax was for the Thatcher Government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is a big, big problem, and I am not sure that people have really thought through the consequences.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 129, Q346.]

Not having thought through the consequences is a recurrent theme in the Bill. I appreciate that the Government seem to have struggled to give examples of good industrial relations in England. Almost every example of industrial action and dispute that they have referred to has involved employees in London, which I would suggest is a reflection on the Mayor of London rather than on current industrial law.

14:30

In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government have taken a very different approach and have a constructive industrial relations strategy at the heart of their policy making and their legislative programme. The Welsh Government understand the importance of constructive industrial relations to the economy and the public. As the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, said in his written statement on 9 September, the Bill

“has the potential to cause significant damage to the social and economic fabric of the UK.”

The Committee is well aware of the view of the First Minister and the Welsh Government that the Bill offends the devolution settlement. It intrudes into Welsh jurisdiction and devolved powers. Significant elements of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has pointed out, refer specifically to public services, which are unquestionably devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. They will require its legislative consent. The Committee has also heard evidence from the Minister for Public Services, Leighton Andrews, confirming this. Clause 3, which requires the additional 40% overall membership support threshold for industrial action, includes health services, education of those aged under 17 and fire services. Some devolved transport responsibilities such as highway maintenance may also be affected.

The Government will also be aware that all public bodies in Britain are required to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, but the duties in Wales and Scotland on this are much stronger. That raises an additional area of concern about the breach of the devolution settlement that the Bill presents in relation to public services.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Is the hon. Lady as surprised as I am that the Minister’s response appears somewhat flippant, as though he wishes to call the bluff of the devolved Governments and the councils? There is little recognition of possible legal repercussions, costs and contingencies for the public.

[Jo Stevens]

I absolutely agree, and that is a risk that the Government are taking. The Bill has significant equality implications, despite the suggestion otherwise in the equality impact assessment—which reads, frankly, as though it was written on the back of a fag packet. The Bill presents a real danger that decades of progress on equality in the workplace will be undermined through the erosion of trade union rights. We know that trade unions are one of the best protections from discriminatory treatment in the workplace, with trained officers and representatives who deal with a range of workplace issues, protecting equality of treatment and, in the process, saving employers from reputational damage and litigation. It is simply not acceptable or legitimate for the UK Government to impose the Bill on Wales.

We have heard that the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister to set out his position and his concerns clearly and constructively. The Prime Minister’s response has been described by the Minister for Public Services as disappointing. I think he was being too polite. I would go further and describe it as inadequate. It failed to acknowledge any devolved interest whatever. We have heard from the Minister for Public Services that the Welsh Government are considering how they would seek to protect legitimate, devolved interests, including devolved public services, from the Bill, including tabling a legislative consent motion.

I go back to the comments of Professor Ewing from the beginning of my contribution. Do the Government really want to mire themselves in expensive, lengthy litigation with the Welsh Government over the Bill, played out in Supreme Court? Do the Government really want to suffer another embarrassing defeat as they did over the Agricultural Wages Board litigation with the Welsh Government?

The Bill was the subject of a debate in the Welsh Assembly last week. The Assembly Member for Pontypridd summed up the view of the Welsh Government by saying:

“We do not need this law in Wales and we do not want this law in Wales”—

it sounds a bit like Dr Seuss, this—

“And I know that we will do all that we can to support all those who oppose this Bill and, if necessary, to challenge its legitimacy in the Supreme Court.”

The Government have been given a clear warning. By accepting our amendments to clause 3, the Government have the opportunity to save time, save face and save taxpayers’ money. Will they take it?

[Stephen Doughty]

I want to respond briefly to a number of comments made by the Minister. Obviously, he maintained his position that this is a wholly reserved matter and claimed—shamefully—that this was about extending devolution by the back door. We on this side would contend that this is attempting to extinguish part of devolution by the back door. The Government have made that very clear.

The Minister is essentially saying to the Committee and to the public, “Trust me, it’s not devolved in any way: it’s all fine,” but we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central that the Government’s record on this is wobbly at best. They have already suffered serious defeats in the Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayer. I would expect, at the very least, the Government to have taken the most precautionary and consultative approach before proceeding with matters of this seriousness. The Minister did not want to detail all the different meetings or give a running commentary. I gently suggest to the Committee that that was because not many meetings, if any, took place before the Bill was published. That is certainly the impression we have been left with by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, let alone local government in England.

The Minister was very hazy on his expectations of the impact of the Bill on existing contractual arrangements, either retrospectively or going forward. I hope that he and the Government have very deep pockets, because I sense that this is not an idle threat; there are real, serious legal objections to the Bill and its implications and I imagine that a number of the bodies that are raising these concerns will take action over this. It is for that reason that I give the Minister a chance to exempt himself from that cost and trouble to the taxpayer, by pressing amendments 11 and 12 to a vote.

[The Chair]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, I remind Members, in dealing with such amendments, that the mover wants to respond too, and that they will have the opportunity to have a more wide-ranging debate on matters that have been raised in the stand-part section of this consideration. I ask them to keep succinctly to the topic in hand, or we will not have time to deal with all the measures that concern us.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I am sorry to reduce the agricultural wages case to the level of Dr Seuss, but do you agree, Sir Alan, that within the agricultural wages case it was found, in principle, that although agriculture is a devolved matter—that matter was won by the Government—the wages aspect is not? It was because it was a mixed Bill that there was the result that there was. This is quite different. This is a Bill about industrial relations and trade unions. It is quite simple and obvious that this a reserved matter.

[Chris Stephens]

This has been an interesting debate about the group of amendments on the impacts on the devolved Administrations and other public bodies. It is interesting that some know better than others the effects that this will have on those bodies. I shall respond first to the shadow Minister’s gentle rebuke on the SNP’s amendments only applying to Scotland. He indicated that he respects our mandate on that and I agree with his point that the group of amendments seeks to enforce what has been referred to as the respect agenda. We hear from the UK Government that they respect the devolved Administrations and other public bodies, but with these amendments we want to ensure that that takes place.

Like the shadow Minister, the SNP opposes all of the Bill and will be voting for many of the amendments and against the clauses. We agree on his point about solidarity; we may have different approaches, but I assure him that we are in solidarity with all workers in the UK regarding the Bill, although there may be some differences in how we want to achieve that. I would go as far as to say that if the Bill were introduced in another nation state, we would oppose it and would be raising it in this Parliament, as we do with any abuses of workers’ rights across the world. There is no contradiction in supporting the consent amendments in this group and those that want to take workers out of it.

I turn to the hon. Member for Gateshead’s contribution about English workers having fewer rights. The general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, commented about that in his evidence, saying that that was one of the dangers that the Bill would introduce. The Minister seems to indicate that it is settled that employment law is reserved, but that is not the case. A new clause is being introduced to the Scotland Bill. I do not want to touch on the Scotland Bill too much, but a new clause is being inserted for debate, it will be put to the parliamentary test and the parliamentary verdict on that is yet to be given.

Nor have the Government taken into account the fact that Scotland has a different civil and criminal law and a different legal jurisdiction. That was also mentioned in the evidence from Thompsons Solicitors. Given that the Bill touches on criminalising certain behaviour, more consultation with the devolved Administrations is required. I certainly take the view that a legislative consent motion is needed, as is consent across the board in the public services.

The Minister asked me to write to him in relation to the costs to the public sector in terms of individual contracts. I wrote to his colleague in the Cabinet Office on this, and I am still waiting for a response. My concern is that some of the Bill relates to the agenda of the TaxPayers Alliance, which I believe is based on ignorance of the issues. It does not even take into consideration the fact that public services actually gain income from facility time and, indeed, from check-off. That is being ignored. It is very dangerous indeed to interfere with the collective bargaining units that exist across the UK, which is what the Bill seems to do.

Our view of the Bill is that it is ideologically driven. The Government seem to want to implement their ideology in all parts of the UK, even those where they have no mandate, and on that basis we intend to press amendment 90 to a Division. We will also want to press amendments 84 and 85 when we reach the relevant clauses.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 3

Ayes: 2

---

Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

14:45

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 4

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Ballots: 40% support requirement in important public services

[Stephen Doughty]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, after “engaged” insert “solely”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 6 to 8 insert—

“the provision of essential public services.”

Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 7 and 8.

Amendment 9, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—

‘(2D) In subsection (2B) “essential public services” means those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.”

The amendment would define “essential public services” in accordance with the International Labour Organisation’s definition.

Amendment 10, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 13 to 21.

[Stephen Doughty]

We have already touched on aspects of clause 3, but there is a more substantive debate to be had on it. As Committee members will know, the clause seeks to introduce a requirement that in “important public services”, 40% of those entitled to vote must vote in favour of industrial action, and that there must be a 50% turnout. In certain important public services, that will mean that if 50% of members participate in the ballot, 80% of those voting must vote in favour in order for a strike to take place. For example, if 500 members are balloted, at least 250 members must vote in the ballot and 200 must vote yes for industrial action to go ahead.

As I have said, if the Government were serious about increasing participation, whether in important public services or anywhere else, they would be taking the measures that we are proposing. I certainly believe, and I am sure my fellow Opposition Members would agree, that the Government’s real agenda is to prevent public sector workers in particular, on whom the legislation will have a significantly greater impact, from raising legitimate grievances and opposing changes to their pay, pensions and rights at work planned in this Parliament. One might even suspect that the Government had such plans in their agenda for the months ahead.

While politics are clearly at the heart of the Bill and this clause in particular, the Government have other legal obstacles to manoeuvre. As I outlined in the debate on the last clause, many legal experts believe that treating abstentions as “no” votes for industrial action is undemocratic and potentially illegal, and conflicts with international standards. International supervisory bodies such as the International Labour Organisation state that only votes cast should be taken into account.

The next hurdle for the Government will be of particular interest to noble Friends and Members in the other place when they read the debates we have had on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Conservative manifesto in the 2015 general election referred to making provisions regarding only “essential public services”. That was also the specific term used in Her Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, delivered on 27 May 2015:

“My Government will bring forward legislation to reform trade unions and to protect essential public services against strikes.”

In a previous life, I was involved in drafting a line in Her Majesty’s speech. Obviously, it was subject to Her Majesty’s approval, and I am glad she delivered it. A great degree of rigour and attention is paid to the specific wording, so that Her Majesty feels confident with it and it reflects the Government’s intent very clearly. That is an important point.

“Essential” is the word used in International Labour Organisation conventions, and it has a very narrow legal definition. To quote an ILO general survey, the definition is restricted to services

“the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.

Transport services, public transport, public education, port authorities, postal services and others all fall outside that category. Given that, I very much suspect—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us when he gets to his feet—that the Government realised that the legislation was poorly drafted and that using those words would leave it vulnerable to serious legal challenge, so they sought to row back, instead changing the wording to “important” public services, as we now see in the Bill. Disturbingly, those public services are to be defined by the Secretary of State in as yet unseen secondary legislation.

A number of categories of services are referred to in the clause using very broad terms, such as “health services”. There is

“education of those aged 17 and under”,

which we discussed in the devolution debate; I do not want to go over old ground, but that causes particular issues for differing education systems across the UK. “Fire services” are referred to, as are “transport services”—in a very general sense, and we have already heard how those are excluded from the ILO definition. There is

“the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel”,

and “border security”.

Those provisions, alongside the consultation document, are so wide that they could apply to nearly every area of publicly funded activity. One might think that the Government have taken their chance not only to ensure that they can potentially avoid legal challenges—although I think this could still be subject to one—but to draw the definition as wide as possible so that everybody would be forced into the 40% threshold. What assessment has the Minister made of whether it is predicted that the other place will still feel bound by the Salisbury convention, given that the clause clearly breaches a Conservative manifesto commitment, let alone the specific text that was in the Gracious Speech?

What assessment has the Minister made of the effect that the proposals will have on women? We have discussed that at length already, but TUC research suggests that nearly three quarters—73%—of trade union members working in important public services, as defined by the Government, are women. I imagine that Committee members will vote on the proposals shortly; does the Minister think it is appropriate that they do not yet know for certain to whom they will apply? We have to take our responsibilities as legislators in this place very seriously. We do not know what this secondary legislation is, but the Government are again saying, “Trust us, trust us. We’ll be all right. We’re going to put this stuff down and you’ll be fine with it.” That is not acceptable. The Bill has been scheduled for some time; the Government have had plenty of time to introduce the regulations and they have not. What we know for certain, as I said, is that the proposals will impact on public policy areas that are wholly devolved, and that will have the implications we have discussed.

At this stage, it is also important to challenge one particular myth that is being peddled by those in favour of the Bill. It is a particular favourite of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) who, on Second Reading, suggested that unions are required to meet a 75% threshold in Germany. For the record, that is not accurate. Some German trade unions have adopted rules requiring 75% support for industrial action among members, but those are decisions taken by the union within its own democratic structures, not imposed by the state.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many trade unions in this country also have internal procedures whereby they will ask for a higher threshold on certain ballots for strike action in order to make sure that the result is overwhelming, and well beyond what is legally required?

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree absolutely. I think that sits alongside the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that the unions want to have a high turnout and that they want to be able to have as much confidence as possible among their members, because of the fact they cannot sanction members for not taking part in the industrial action as agreed. It is important to look at the German example, because statutory thresholds, as proposed by the UK Government, would actually be unconstitutional in Germany. We heard about international comparisons in the oral evidence, and the Bill, in so many respects—this is yet another one—puts us in a very serious place in terms of the international league of whether these measures restrict or infringe on long-established rights. Therefore, we will oppose the clause, because we think it is ill thought out, partisan, open to serious legal challenge, breaches the devolution settlement and will not do anything to better industrial relations.

Amendment 4 is a probing amendment that provides that the 40% threshold should only apply to those who are normally engaged “solely” in the provision of important public services or ancillary activities. We need to discuss this very important issue, and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on it. The amendment is designed to highlight the problems that unions will face when trying to determine whether the 40% threshold applies. It is not clear whether individuals who spend only part of their time providing important public services will be covered by the 40% yes vote requirement.

Let us take, for example, education unions planning to ballot staff in a school with a sixth form, where they might be involved in the provision of education to young people of different ages. Trade union officials will find it very difficult to assess whether staff who teach both pupils aged under 17 and those in years 12 and 13 are “normally engaged” in providing “important public services”. That will be particularly problematic where teachers’ work schedules vary during the academic year. It is just one of the many implementation problems that I do not think the Government can have seriously thought through if they intend to proceed with the Bill as drafted.

Amendment 5 is also designed to encourage debate. It provides that the 40% yes vote requirement should apply to those employed in the provision of “essential public services” rather than “important public services”. As I have said, the Government’s proposed restrictions extend well beyond the definition of “essential services” recognised by the ILO. The Government claim that the proposed thresholds are justifiable because they do not introduce a complete ban—some would beg to differ—on the right to strike in “important public services”. They therefore argue that the ILO standards do not apply.

However, the Employment Lawyers Association warned the Government against introducing thresholds to services not covered by the ILO definition of “essential services” in its response to the BIS consultation on balloting thresholds. The response continued:

“ELA cautions that if the provisions”—

in the Bill and any accompanying regulations—

“are not drawn as narrowly as possible then the Government runs the risk of a challenge on the basis that the imposition of the raised thresholds infringes Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any restrictions on the right to strike must not be greater than necessary to pursue a legitimate aim and…necessary in a democratic society.”

That is why it is important that we look at the ILO definition. It is very tightly defined, referring to public safety and so on. It is very clearly defined in terms of where things would be problematic. The Government are going well beyond that boundary. The ILO has criticised Governments who have introduced thresholds for industrial action ballots. The ILO committee on freedom of association has concluded:

“The requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike, particularly in large enterprises.”

The ILO has called on Governments who have imposed statutory thresholds to amend their national laws to bring them into closer conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Dare I make some international comparisons? The countries that it has gone after include Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. Does this country really want to be in that territory? Not only are we going well beyond what a near neighbour in the EU—Germany—believes would be unconstitutional, but we will be putting ourselves in the league of countries that are being criticised by the ILO, such as Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. That simply is not good enough.

I come now to amendment 6. The 40% yes vote requirement will apply not only to individuals directly involved in the delivery of important public services, but to individuals normally engaged in

“activities that are ancillary to the provision of important public services.”

As a result, hundreds of thousands of union members working in large parts of the private services sector are likely to be caught by the 40% threshold. The amendment would therefore delete the reference to ancillary activities. Again, it will be very hard to define and identify who is involved in such activities. The Government are clearly trying to apply the provision as widely as possible and certainly well beyond what the ILO would expect.

Further to amendment 5, amendment 9 would define essential public services in line with the ILO definition. We want the wording to mean

“services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.

We have some very serious issues for the Minister to explain. He needs to explain how these passages will be implemented. When we look at international legal comparisons, the potential impact of the measure, the breach that I referred to and the risk of legal challenge, we are experiencing many of the same challenges as we discussed under the last clause, and I hope that the Minister can explain his position.

[Jo Stevens]

We have heard numerous submissions in evidence to the Committee, both oral and in writing, that the Government’s definition of “important public services” is at odds with the definition of essential services used in international law, but if we go outside the legal technicality of this broad definition, there are many practical considerations to assess when it comes to important public services and I do not see that the Government have put any thought into those practicalities on the basis of the Bill as drafted.

15:00

First, knowing who is deemed to be an important public servant is not as easy as it may seem. The neat categories defined by the Bill might look simple on paper, but they are far less clear in practice and in workplaces up and down the country. My hon. Friend gave us an example about education establishments covering people who are under 16 and those who are over 16. How will that work in practice? How will this legislation work in a sixth-form college with a mix of students, where a teacher could be teaching at a number of levels and with different age groups?

The situation is further muddied by the order-making powers contained within these clauses, which mean that when we come to vote we still will not know what specific roles in each of the six sectors that are in the clause are covered. We are told that the 40% double threshold will apply to private companies supplying public services. It is ironic that the Government have been so desperate to reduce the public sector and outsource these services to private companies so that shareholders can profit, yet when it comes to a trade union dispute, the Government are desperate to bring them back into the public sector setting so that they can impose the double threshold on them. Will the provisions apply to private sector companies that provide goods and services to so-called important public services as ancillary services? Can the Minister tell us whether, for example, private sector commercial provision of school meals to state schools would be caught by clause 3?

Nuclear decommissioning has been included in the Bill, yet this is a heavily unionised sector with a history of excellent industrial relations. Its inclusion seems excessive and counterproductive. There was a suggestion in the consultation published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills that management, cleaning and other support services would be included within the definition of important public services, because without them there could be an adverse impact on service provision. It is clear that there is potential within those order-making powers to allow more and more roles within these sectors to be deemed as “important” and therefore subject to the double threshold. We will end up with threshold creep.

Given everything that we have heard today and in the evidence sessions last week, it bears repeating that it is not legitimate—Amnesty and Liberty witnesses confirmed this—to restrict a fundamental right because it may inconvenience the public or businesses. Of course, no-one wants that to happen, but on every measure we have seen the public support the basic right to strike as a last resort, and these measures make that much more difficult for a large body of working people.

Finally, the logistical and organisational difficulties, alongside the potential for increased costs that this measure presents to trade unions that want to ballot their members, are significant. The industrial landscape after the Bill will mean that some sectors in the same trade union will have different rules applied to them. In some large disputes, unions may simultaneously need to ballot members in “important” and, for want of a better term, “less important” services around exactly the same issues. With the powers that the Government are awarding themselves, who is “important” within those defined sectors could change from ballot to ballot. Have the Government thought about these practicalities? This is all alongside the newly empowered and defined certification officer, who will have new resources to seek out and penalise unions for any mistake around balloting and then charge them for the luxury of that investigation.

The Bill in its entirety introduces swathes of red tape for trade unions and this definition is a key factor in that red tape. Far from simplifying or modernising industrial relations, the Bill will frustrate and complicate them. The clause will create a mess. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether those who will have to clean up after it will be defined as ancillary services and subject to a double threshold too.

[Julie Elliott]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Alan. I want to speak in support of the amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends concerning the differences between “essential” and “important” public services. I totally agree with the comments from my hon. Friend, who has outlined the problems very clearly.

As written, these clauses unworkable in practice. Everything I have said so far in this Committee has been about the practicalities of the Bill and that is really where I want to start today, but before doing that, I want to talk about the definition of essential public services. It is a well established, well trodden path: everybody understands what it is. The Conservative manifesto and Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech both talked about essential public services. During our consideration of the previous group of amendments, the Minister said, “Of course, we respect the mandate of the commitments made in manifestos.” If that is what he believes, this flies in the face of it and is an absolute contradiction, so I would like to hear his comments on that matter.

The TUC is a representative body of 52 trade unions, most of which are not affiliated to a political party, representing almost 6 million people—the TUC expresses the views of a substantial body of people. On pages 2 and 3 of its written evidence, the TUC mentions that the Employment Lawyers Association

“has warned the government against introducing thresholds to services not covered by the ILO definition of ‘essential services’.”

The ELA clearly recognises that there will be problems with the definition. Page 3 of the evidence states:

“The TUC is concerned that the Bill does not define ‘important public services’. Instead the government plans to specify which workers will be covered by 40 per cent threshold in regulations. MPs will therefore have limited opportunity to scrutinise and amend new legislation which restricts the democratic rights of millions of UK workers.”

In oral evidence, Dave Prentis, the general secretary of the largest public sector union, Unison, talked about life and limb cover; but in their oral evidence some of the people who support the Bill did not seem to understand either what life and limb cover is or that it even exists. Dave Prentis’s evidence is highly pertinent. Once again, I feel that the Government are heading blindly into legal action. Recklessly changing the definition will cause major problems and ultimately could restrict, by the back door, the right of workers in the private sector to take what I regard as legitimate strike or industrial action.

The public sector has changed out of all recognition over the past 20 years. It now has substantial organisations, whether in local government, the national health service or other areas. There is a melange of different constructs, whether they are outsourced by contracts, let by bidding, that contain clauses with which some of this legislation might clash, or whether they are in arm’s length management organisations. Will people in cleaning services, for example, be deemed as essential or important, or will they be deemed as not important? Different cleaning services in a hospital might be treated differently. Someone who cleans a reception area might be treated differently from someone who cleans operating theatres. All of those things will come into the mix at every stage of every different industrial dispute. The cost implications have not been thought through.

It would be much safer, and would practically avoid the risk of litigation, if we stuck to the term “essential public services.” The Conservative Government have a mandate for that from their manifesto commitment and from Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. The term is well defined, unlike the alternative in the Bill, which will be incredibly difficult for MPs to scrutinise and will restrict the right of many people to take industrial action. Almost inevitably, the result will be litigation, which will cost taxpayers money. Every time the Government go to court when they have not thought proposals through—we saw many instances in the previous Parliament, particularly in the energy sector, where the Government lost cases—the cost of that litigation returns to the taxpayers, who fund Government court cases. I urge the Government to consider these proposals carefully. Although we disagree with the Bill’s substance, these amendments would at least make the clause workable. Also, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on his party’s manifesto.

[Nick Boles]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The amendments strike at the very heart of the Government’s objective in introducing a 40% threshold for strikes in important public services. I remind the Committee why we are introducing this measure. Nowhere is the impact of strike action more severe than when it takes place in important public services. The reason for that, and it is a thread that runs through all of the sectors listed as important public services, is that broadly—I accept it is not the case in every single detail—each of those services, as public services, operates as a monopoly in the lives of those who rely on it as users. That is not to say that, in time, people cannot put their children into a different school, secure an appointment with a consultant in a hospital trust outside the area in which they live, or find other ways to make the journey that they do every single morning and evening to and from work. It does mean, however, that when strikes happen, it is impossible for the vast majority of the British public who rely on those services to secure that alternative provision within public services. It goes without saying that the Border Force is itself a public monopoly—quite rightly so—and although nuclear decommissioning may involve contractors, thankfully we do not have competing nuclear commissioning regimes.

Where people and businesses rely on the services every day and where they have no choice of an alternative service provider, we believe that those services represent the important service sectors where the additional requirement of the 40% threshold is justified. That threshold ensures that strikes affecting services in those sectors can go ahead only when a reasonable level of support has been secured by the trade union. We are not banning strikes; the legislation is about making sure that enough members support the proposed action before it can go ahead.

The six sectors set out in the Bill as being subject to the 40% threshold have been chosen precisely because they are those where strike action has the potential to have the most far-reaching consequences for a significant number of people. Opposition Members discussed the difference between important services versus essential services. They are right that the ILO defines “essential services” and that that is an accepted definition, but it does so for the purposes of making it clear that it is therefore allowable to prohibit the right to strike in those services. The right to strike can be entirely prohibited in the sectors that the ILO has deemed to be essential, which include some but not all of the same sectors that we have listed—for example, firefighting services, the hospital sector, air traffic control, public or private prison services, electricity services, water supply services and telephone services.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

No, not at the moment. I will make my argument, and then I will be happy to take as many interventions as hon. Members wish to make.

Because of the ILO’s definition of essential public services as those where it is permissible to prohibit the right to strike we decided to clarify that clause 3 proposes not a prohibition or a strike ban but simply a threshold of support for a strike. That was intended to clarify that the services listed are not the same as those covered in ILO definition, but are important public services. To be clear, our manifesto named the four most important of those services to which clause 3 applies. We have an absolute manifesto mandate for the inclusion of fire, health, education and transport services. Since then, based on cross-government consultation, we have added border security and nuclear decommissioning. If Opposition Members want to argue that those two sectors are not important public services on which the public have good reason to rely, they are welcome to have a go. I accept that the sectors were not listed in our manifesto, but I feel pretty sure of what the public’s view will be of whether they should be included in the definition of “important public services”.

15:15

We will identify the people to whom the provisions will apply within the sectors in the regulations, and we have consulted properly on that. I suspect that Opposition Members would criticise us if we had just written in the Bill a precise breakdown of groups of employees within those sectors to whom the provision will apply without having consulted. We have consulted, and we received many responses. We will make clear proposals for who we expect to be covered by the provision before the Bill achieves Royal Assent.

[Jo Stevens]

Can the Minister tell us when those regulations will be published?

[Nick Boles]

I have consistently made it clear that it will be before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I cannot give the hon. Lady the precise timing. We do not know the precise timing of the Bill’s further parliamentary stages, because that is not entirely within our gift, but the regulations will come forward before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister has given a very convoluted explanation of why the wording was changed from “essential” to “important” public services, which does not bear scrutiny. Was it because he was worried that if he used the phrase “essential services”, it would be subject to legal challenge? On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central has just made, will the Minister commit to publishing the regulations before the Bill leaves the Commons and goes to the other place? It is important that the public see them.

[Nick Boles]

It is always interesting to describe an argument one disagrees with as “convoluted”. My argument was not convoluted; the hon. Gentleman just disagrees with it. His argument was not convoluted either; I just disagree with him. I have made clear when the regulations will be brought forward—before Royal Assent—and I do not think I need to say any more than that.

I turn to amendment 4. In the modern economy, many people work in roles that encompass several different tasks and responsibilities, so it is likely that some workers who contribute to the delivery of important public services do not do so for 100% of their time. None the less, if such workers were absent during strike action, their absence would undermine the service. For example, a deputy headteacher might teach for only part of their time, spending the rest of the time on planning and management. That is why the Government propose to include all those “normally engaged” in important public services within the scope of the 40% threshold. We believe that that phrase is easy to understand and correctly encompasses those whose absence would adversely impact the public service.

On amendment 6, we have included so-called ancillary workers in the scope of the 40% threshold because they are often central to the operation of the important public services cited. For example, while hospital cleaners and rescue centre call staff are not front-line surgeons or firefighters, their work is critical to ensuring that front-line staff can deliver the service. Their absence can make the difference between the ability to run a service and it shutting down during the period of strike.

As I said, the Government consulted on these issues over the summer, and we are currently analysing the responses. That will help us in preparing the regulations, and I will take all views into account as we develop the secondary legislation to implement the detail of the threshold. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 4.

[Stephen Doughty]

Although the Minister gave his explanation in funny terms, I find it unbelievable, quite frankly. It is a very convoluted reasoning. The reality is that the ILO defines essential services in a very restrictive way because the international legal consensus, and indeed the international human rights consensus, is that the right to strike and to freedom of association should be restricted only in very narrow cases. That is why it is a tight definition. It is intriguing that the Government have chosen to move away from that. They clearly want to expand the restrictions much more widely. I have already given the example of Germany, where such provisions would be unconstitutional.

I must take issue with the Minister’s unwillingness to give us a commitment on the publication of the regulations. He said that there was a consultation. Like all consultations on the Bill, it took only eight weeks rather than the usual 12. All the consultations were done over the summer to frustrate the input from sectors such as teaching, as many of the profession’s union members are away from school at that time. It is an odd situation, and a serious one for Parliament, that we are discussing severe restrictions on the exercise of people’s democratic rights, yet the Minister is saying, “Trust me. We’ll publish them. They’ll be all right. It’ll be fine.” The regulations should have been published alongside the Bill so that we could see what the Government intend. Is the Minister going to publish them 20 minutes before the Bill gets Royal Assent, if we ever get that far? That is simply not good enough, and I would like the Minister to consider publishing the draft regulations. We need to get some clearer intent before the Bill leaves the Commons, and certainly before it gets into the other place. For that reason I am keen to test the will of the Committee on amendment 5.

[Chris Stephens]

Is the hon. Gentleman as confused as I am? The hon. Member for Cardiff Central made a similar point about some of the services being covered under existing legislation, such as life and limb cover. I am beginning to wonder whether it is not just the Government witnesses who do not know about life and limb cover but the Government too.

In addition, does the hon. Gentleman not think that the 40% threshold is dangerous? The last time a Government introduced such a threshold they had a small majority and ended up out of power for 18 years. That might happen again.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is an intriguing historical example. The hon. Gentleman’s point is a good one. Large parts of the legislation have not been thought through and appear to have been drafted by people who simply do not understand how trade unions operate in the modern workforce. The witnesses the Government called forward certainly did not know that. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff Central and for Sunderland Central have made clear, there are serious practical implications. I would therefore like to press amendment 5 to a vote, with the clear message that we believe the Government should stick to their manifesto and to their own Queen’s Speech, and stick to the definition of essential services laid out by the ILO.

In the case of amendment 4, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 5, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—

“the provision of essential public services.”—(Stephen Doughty.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 5

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Amendment proposed: 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 9, leave out

“were entitled to vote in the ballot”

and insert:

“according to the trade union’s reasonable belief were employed by the employer in a trade dispute, and whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action,”.—(Stephen Doughty.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 6

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Amendment proposed: 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

“(2G) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.”—(Stephen Doughty.)

The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 7

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

“(2H) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services provided by the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”—(Stephen Doughty.)

The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 8

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 9

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Information to be included on voting paper

15:30

[Stephen Doughty]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

“(2B) The voting paper must state the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 15, in clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out

“reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue in the”

and insert “description of the”.

Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines to 38.

Amendment 17, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert?

“(2D) The voting paper must state whether the industrial action is intended to be continuous or discontinuous.”.

Amendment 18, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert?

“(2D) The voting paper must state whether the industrial action is intended to be continuous, and if so the intended date for any of the affected employees to begin to take part in the action or, if discontinuous, the intended dates during which any of the affected employees are to take part in the action.”.

Amendment 19, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41.

[Stephen Doughty]

We now come to another area of the Bill where I believe that the Government’s true intent is to frustrate the rights of trade unions to take action, to provide grounds for vexatious legal challenges and essentially, in the words of Sara Ogilvie from Liberty, to make their rights “illusory in practice”. While some aspects of the Bill are designed to stop industrial action going ahead in the first instance, others are there to frustrate the industrial action that does go ahead. This clause is very much in the latter vein.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West, who has briefly left the room, spoke powerfully in opposition to the Bill on Second Reading. He said that the Government were trying to tie up trade unions in blue tape, and I think he is right. Clause 4 will require trade unions to provide more information on the ballot paper, but unions are already required to ask members on the ballot about the type of industrial action they are willing to take—for example, strike action, action short of a strike, a work to rule and so on. Failure to comply with the clause would enable employers to apply for an injunction to stop the strike going ahead or for damages after industrial action has started. I am keen to see the burden and cost of Government regulation fall wherever possible, and the Government’s one-in, two-out rule is a good starting place. The Government’s own words in their statement online are:

“To reduce the number of new regulations for businesses, the government operates a ‘one-in, two-out’ rule. This helps prevent government policymakers from creating new regulations that increase costs for business and voluntary organisations.

Where policymakers do need to introduce a new regulation, and where there is a cost to business when complying with that regulation, departments have to remove or modify existing regulation(s) to the value of £2 of savings for every pound of cost imposed.”

As this is an example of a significant level of new regulation, I hope the Minister will rise to his feet and inform the Committee which two regulations applying to trade unions will now be removed. He does not want to do so at the moment; I hope he will come to that in his speech.

This additional blue tape and regulation risks making industrial relations in the UK worse, not better. With new regulation come additional risks of litigation, and to reduce that risk many unions are likely to include lengthy descriptions of the dispute on the ballot paper that go well beyond those defined in the clause. That will risk confusing members and confusing the issue when we should be having things as simple and straightforward as possible. It will also mean, in a similar vein to other parts of the Bill, that it is more difficult for unions and employers to resolve disputes and avoid the very strikes and industrial action that the Government say they want to avoid. Many unions may find it difficult to convince members that they should accept a settlement that does not deal with all the issues listed on the ballot paper. Unions may also be reluctant to reach an agreement on part of the dispute for fear that it will prevent future industrial action on other aspects of the dispute. Alongside the Government’s wider proposed changes—lifting the ban on the use of agency workers, for example—that will unbalance workplace relations, assisting employers to plan for future strike action by lining up agency staff.

I ask the Minister to explain why, if the Government’s stated intent to reduce regulation and avoid costs is as defined on their website, it is one rule for the business and voluntary sector and another for the trade unions. The effect of the clause will be to introduce a level of regulation that ties unions up in blue tape and causes a whole series of effects for them.

[Ian Mearns]

The principle that my hon. Friend is outlining is solid. The Government have a hard and fast “one in, two out” rule for business regulation. When organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses do consultations, their members say they would like less regulation but the organisations cannot put their finger on what they would like to get rid of. Things that would be difficult to get rid of normally come top of the list—VAT returns and health and safety regulations, which protect the employers as well as the employees in many respects. I am wondering whether my hon. Friend can tease out from the Minister what regulations on trade unions he would get rid of in order to impose this set of rules on them.

[Stephen Doughty]

I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The whole Bill seems to be about creating additional burdens, which will, quite frankly, make illusory a lot of the rights that trade unions and their members—ordinary workers up and down the country—enjoy at the moment and put those people at serious risk of not being able to execute those rights.

Let me turn to the amendments, which have been tabled to encourage debate. We will decide whether to press any to a Division when we have heard what the Minister says. Amendment 14 would require unions to state on the ballot paper

“the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates”,

but they would no longer be required to provide a detailed description of “every aspect of the dispute”—that very amorphous term that the Government are using.

Amendment 15 would require unions to provide a description of the trade dispute, rather than a

“reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue”.

In general, reducing and simplifying the information about the dispute that unions are required to provide on the voting paper would assist in the earlier settlement of disputes. As a result, workers would return to work faster. Disputes would be less likely to escalate, and there would be fewer legal challenges, reducing costs for employers and unions. That is an important point.

The Bill is muddying the waters around straightforward and transparent processes that already exist. Essentially, we are providing a very big space for the lawyers’ hands to come in and for a lot of cost to be expended on behalf of business, the public sector and trade union members. We should avoid legal proceedings wherever we can and encourage arbitration, negotiation and the reasonable settlement of disputes without recourse to the courts. All the proposals in the Bill will increase costs for all the parties involved.

Amendment 16, approaching things in a different way, would remove the requirement to describe the types of action short of a strike on the ballot paper. Amendment 17 would remove the requirement on trade unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action. Instead, trade unions would be required simply to state whether the proposed action is continuous or intermittent, which is perfectly reasonable. That would clearly set out whether it would be one long piece of industrial action or one with numerous parts to it.

Amendment 18 would remove the requirement on trade unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action. Instead, trade unions would be required to state when the industrial action was scheduled to start—in principle, that is reasonable—and when any discontinuous industrial action would come to an end. If we are going to start requiring unions to set out detailed explanations and timetables on how they will conduct the action and so on, action may be stirred up at earlier stages in disputes and people will be encouraged not to seek arbitration and reconciliation. Instead, conflict will be encouraged. Amendment 19, taking a slightly different approach, would completely remove the requirement on unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action.

The amendments are intended to tease out of the Minister how he sees this part of the legislation operating in practice and make him justify why it is necessary. Balloting is already a straightforward process. It is already clear what people are voting on and what types of action are being proposed. This part of the Bill simply seeks to muddy the waters and may result in a lot of expensive litigation.

[Jo Stevens]

I rise to speak in opposition to clause 4 and in support of amendments 14 to 19. From reading the clause, the Government appear to think that trade union members are not capable of understanding what they are voting on in a ballot on industrial action. That is a patronising attitude to working people, who do not lightly take industrial action; they consider carefully what they are voting for. They understand the issues. There is not one single shred of evidence of union members saying that they did not understand what they were voting on or why.

The Government propose changes to the law that will turn an industrial ballot paper from a succinct statement with a yes or no question to something resembling a legal disclaimer. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that the proposals are “counterproductive”. Employers’ lawyers have said that the proposals are vague and unworkable and that they will lead to legal challenges and expensive litigation. No one wants that—apart from the Government, it would appear.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, the purpose of the proposals appears to be to encourage court cases by employers. Witnesses to the Committee have said that they are not about information for union members, but ammunition for employers. Looking at the detail, the ballot paper must include

“a reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute”.

What does that mean? It has been criticised by lawyers across the spectrum for being so uncertain as to be meaningless. What is “reasonably detailed”? It is an oxymoron and it is contradictory. How will both sides of industry know whether something is detailed enough to be “reasonably” detailed or regarded as too detailed? Unions and employers will be in court every single time. What is “an indication”—a nod or a wink? This is not the language of statute, and I wonder whether it might come from the Prime Minister’s nudge unit. Anyone with any experience of industrial relations will know that the question of what is in issue in a dispute is often a matter of disagreement. This wording will further add to legal challenges.

The next requirement imposed by the Bill is to state

“the type or types of industrial action”.

What does that mean? We heard in evidence to the Committee that even Government lawyers themselves cannot explain it. The current definitions of “strike” and “action short of a strike” have been clarified by case law and amendments to statute over the years. They are now clear and well understood, so what are the “types” of action the Bill refers to? We are told that they include an overtime ban, for example, and work to rule, but those are not legal terms of art. Again, this will lead to expensive litigation and legal wrangling in the courts.

Finally, the union must state on the ballot paper

“the period or periods within which the industrial action or…each type of industrial action is expected to take place.”

Why should a union be required to state that information at the stage of the ballot, weeks before any action could lawfully take place, when they must in any event give notice of dates of action after the ballot is completed and before action takes place? The intention behind every single one of these provisions is to set legal traps for unions so that employers can run off to court and get injunctions to stop legitimate action.

Employers, however, do not want the provisions either. They fear the consequences. Employers’ lawyers have said they are concerned that unions will have to draw the descriptions on the ballot paper as widely as possible to give themselves legal protection. Unions will have to include every possible type of action they might take and set out every day on which they might take each type of action.

What is more, employers’ lawyers fear that to avoid legal challenges, unions will have to stick to every single detail spelled out in the ballot paper. They will not be able to resolve any issues in the dispute unless all issues are resolved, otherwise they will face legal challenge. They will have to take every type of action specified and on every single day specified, otherwise they will face legal challenge. How on earth is that supposed to reduce the number of disputes that take place? It will simply increase them.

Disputes will escalate. They will become more entrenched and more difficult to resolve, all because of these changes. That is why the CIPD says that the proposals are a “significant step back” that will “harden attitudes”. I invite the Minister to withdraw them, but if the Government persist with these counterproductive proposals that no one wants, they should be amended as we propose.

[Nick Boles]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to set out in more detail what sort of information we expect unions to include on the voting paper. I fear this may take a little time, but I want to address all the amendments tabled and why we will resist them.

I will start with first principles. We want unions to be absolutely clear with their members about what they are being asked to vote for, in order to ensure full transparency in any industrial action ballot. It is clearly in the interests of union members, as well as employers and the wider public who are affected by strike action, that those being asked to vote for such action can make a fully informed decision about whether to back it.

I remain concerned that merely requiring a trade union to state the trade dispute without requiring any further detail, as suggested in amendment 14, would not meet the objective of enabling members to make a fully informed decision. It would only require a very broad statement. In reality, it will in most cases mean that members have no more information about the dispute than they have from wider communications. It does not provide enough clarity for union members to determine whether they choose to support industrial action. That cannot be right or democratic.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

15:45

[Nick Boles]

I will continue for a second and then give way to the hon. Gentleman; I owe him one, because I did not see him trying to intervene earlier.

I have a couple of actual strike ballot papers in front of me. They are quite hard to get hold of, so I have not got a huge number. On one, the only statement on the paper was “impact of redundancies”, which did not clarify in which workplace, which group of employees was affected or when the strike was proposed. That ballot paper provided a very vague, short description. Another ballot paper provided a vague but incredibly broad statement about

“adverse changes to pensions, workload, conditions of service, including pay and pay progression, and job loss.”

Neither statement is particularly helpful to those voting on the ballot because not enough information is given about when that dispute would be resolved, so that is not obvious to the person voting. Being told the location of the site of the affected workers would not necessarily help members to know what matters are at issue, and neither would knowing that the dispute is about pay, for instance.

Let us not lose sight of the potential wider benefits of the proposed change. As now, the employer will receive a copy of the voting paper, so including better information about why the industrial action is proposed should have the added effect of helping to eliminate any misunderstanding, which can creep in in such circumstances, between unions and employers about exactly what issues remain in dispute. In turn, that should facilitate employer discussions with the trade union about how the dispute might be resolved, where possible without recourse to industrial action.

Turning to amendment 15—

[Chris Stephens]

Before he turns, will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

Of course. I was ploughing on and I did not mean to forget the hon. Gentleman. It is only because he is outside my peripheral vision—

[Ian Mearns]

You should take the blinkers off, Minister.

[Chris Stephens]

If the Minister wants to access other ballot papers, he should join a trade union. In my experience, when a ballot paper is issued, the trade unions are allowed to insert a sheet of paper that sets out fully the issues in the trade dispute, so why is the clause necessary?

[Nick Boles]

I would simply say that if they all do that, and I agree that that practice is welcome, it should hardly be difficult just to provide a few more details on the ballot paper so that when somebody’s vote is decided, it is clear what they have voted for or against. I promise Opposition Members that from now on there are no blinkers on this Minister, as I am sure that they will be happy to admit.

Let me explain why we have used the words “reasonably detailed”, because the hon. Member for Sunderland Central in particular thought that was a mistake. That specific form of words is used in clause 4 to take into account the particular circumstances of each trade dispute. If there is any more detail that a union could reasonably give on the ballot paper, the requirement is not satisfied. For example, if the issue is identified simply as “pay”, it may well be right to say that there are further details that the union could have included. Those details might include which year’s pay offer is in dispute, and which employees are covered by the offer. Again, that links back to our overall objective to ensure that unions provide clarity to their members about what they are being asked to vote for so that there is full transparency in any industrial action ballot.

We think it is much more helpful to union members if a trade dispute that affects them in different ways is articulated in sufficient detail so that everyone knows the point on which they are being asked to make a decision on industrial action and how each individual is affected by the trade dispute. However, we do not want to put unnecessary burdens on unions by asking them to include a long and detailed account of the trade dispute. That would be onerous and would dilute the very clarity that we are seeking to provide. That is why the clause does not require a “reasonably detailed” description of the trade dispute. It is about balance, and the Bill as currently drafted best achieves that.

Amendment 16 would not assist members to understand what type of action they are voting for. That is particularly important because there is no definition of action short of a strike. If we do not require a trade union to state on the voting paper what specific type or types of action it is proposing, a member will not know what action he or she is being asked to back. Even stating that the proposed action is action short of a strike does not help members to make a sufficiently informed decision, because there are various types of action that amount to action short of strike. Just using that phrase will not help members to understand what they are voting for. For example, a member may support industrial action that amounts to an overtime ban, but not a period of work to rule. If the voting paper does not specifically state which of these actions the union proposes its members take, how will they know how to vote?

Having said that, I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman made about there being a degree of uncertainty at the stage when the union is drawing up the voting paper about how the negotiations will continue to play out and therefore what action the union might subsequently take. Nevertheless, if the union has reached the stage at which it is asking its members to support a ballot for industrial action, it must surely have in mind a plan for such action. All we are asking in new section 229(2C) is that the plan should be disclosed to the union members. I do not believe that is unreasonable.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The Minister gave work to rule as one example of action short of striking. Can he define what work to rule is?

[Nick Boles]

My understanding is that it is working to the contractually committed hours and not being willing to work beyond those or in a different place, perhaps, than contractually committed. I am sure I can provide the hon. Gentleman with the legal or commonly accepted definition, but that is my understanding.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Would the Minister apply that definition to all workplaces?

[Nick Boles]

I do not think it is my job to apply it to any particular workplace.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause is about giving certainty to all involved in business: the employers and the union members, the people who are voting? I draw the Committee’s attention to the submissions of Dr Marshall and, in particular, David Martin, who said:

“Communication with the workforce is fundamental”.––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 16, Q42.]

The clause is a sensible evolution in the legislation and is just about ensuring clarity for all involved.

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she is absolutely right. In a sense, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland has, perhaps unintentionally, made my argument for me—I do not have to understand what is proposed on every single ballot paper; I am the mere Minister in this. The people who have to understand it are those being asked to vote on whether to strike—which, if they choose to, will have huge direct personal effects on those being asked to strike, as hon. Members have pointed out—or being asked to co-operate with an overtime ban or anything else. It is they who need clarity about what is being proposed, and that is all we seeking to ensure.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I am not giving way again; I need to make some progress.

On the period for proposed industrial action, a union member may be fully supportive if he or she knows that it would take place in late November or early December, but not if it was to take place, say, over the Christmas period. Trade union members may want to consider the proposal in relation to their personal circumstances, as well as their work. Amendment 19 would simply not meet that objective, because it would preserve the current situation, in which there is no requirement whatever to provide any information in the voting paper to union members about the timing of industrial action.

I have similar concerns about amendment 17. Simply knowing whether industrial action is to be continuous or discontinuous, without any further information about timing, does not help a member to understand when such action might take place. Indeed, I doubt whether the words “continuous” and “discontinuous” in the context of industrial action mean very much to a lay person. Surely it is the time period that is the key to ensuring that members have clarity about when action is due to take place. Of course, it is also important that employers know whether the proposed action will be continuous or discontinuous. That is why the notice of industrial action, which a union must provide to an employer under section 234A(3)(b) of the 1992 Act before taking such action, must include a statement to that effect. Crucially, however, that notice must also contain details about the intended dates for such action. Indeed, that is its purpose: to tell the employer exactly when the action will happen. That is in contrast with proposed new section 229(2D), which requires a union only to provide an indication of when the expected industrial action would take place, not a specific date or set of dates.

That brings me to amendment 18. To require a union to state whether the industrial action is intended to be continuous and to state the intended dates would be to require it to specify a particular date on which the action is to start—for example, from 15 October. That would be very restrictive; indeed, it is much more prescriptive than the requirement under clause 4, which, in this example, would just be to indicate the period of industrial action as being in, say, October. That would give a union the flexibility to start such an action on, for example, 1 October, 15 October or 25 October, and for it to last for, say, one day, one week or longer—subject, of course, to the union providing 14 days’ notice to the employer and the action taking place within the four-month time limit of the mandate.

I have even more concern about a union’s ability to meet the proposed requirement to specify that the action is discontinuous, together with the intended date for such action. That combination of words would effectively require a union to state up front and before it has even secured a mandate for action the precise dates on which such action is planned or intended. It would be much more difficult for a union to predict such dates so far in advance, and they may well turn out to be unreliable. For example, if the union finds that it does not want to take action starting on or specifically on those precise dates because negotiations are ongoing, it would no longer have a ballot mandate. The dates would need to be reliable or the union would risk misinforming members. Making a union set out its plan in such detail, so early, means that the dates would be very likely to change.

Having said that, let me be clear: it is entirely reasonable to require a trade union to specify that the action is discontinuous, together with the intended date for such action, at the point when it is serving notice of intended action to the employer under section 234A(3)(b) of the 1992 Act, as is the current position. However, to suggest that a union should articulate the precise dates on which it will take particular action so much earlier in the process is an entirely different proposition, and one I cannot support for the reasons I have outlined. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Stephen Doughty]

The debate has been interesting. As the Minister will appreciate, the role of the Opposition is to table amendments to expand on a series of issues, not necessarily to push them all to a vote. The debate has been helpful in eliciting from the Minister various responses about the intent behind clause 3.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central said about the concerns of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and employers’ lawyers relating to the clause. I agree with her that, in many respects, the clause, the Government’s intent and, I would gently say, some of the Minister’s comments can be seen as patronising to trade union members. The suggestion that there is widespread ignorance about the disputes on which members are balloted and that they are somehow under the Jedi powers of their union steward masters is a fantasy. If Members speak to any ordinary trade union member or person affected, they will find that people are very clear: they know what issues are affecting their pay and pensions.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

In most unions, by the time strike action is taken, a local dispute will usually have been taken to a regional level, and if the matter was not resolved at a regional level, it will have been taken to a national level. That is certainly what happens in large private industry, particularly the steel industry. I imagine that there are such cultural norms in most trade unions.

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree. It is important to recognise something that Government Members seem to have lost in this debate: the vast majority of trade union members and workers, whether in public services or the private sector, will seek to resolve disputes through very reasonable mechanisms, such as talking to line managers, colleagues and others in the management of a firm or public service, before they reach the stage of even contemplating industrial action or disputes. Most people act in a human way and want to resolve things as easily as they can. It is only when frustrations build up and concerns are not listened to—for example, on health and safety or fundamental disputes with the Government about restrictions on pay or pensions—that things reach the point where industrial action is considered. I say gently that the Government do not appear to understand how things operate in practice.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me ask the Minister about an insertion that goes out with the ballot paper. Can he think of an example of any trade union that would not include with the ballot paper an insertion fully stating the trade dispute?

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, I can barely think of any possible examples in which a trade union would not explain the progress of negotiations and what might be going on and feed back to its members what is happening in a workplace.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

As a former trade union officer with the Community trade union, I was part of the National League of the Blind and the Disabled section, which deals with blind and disabled workers who work in Remploy factories—

[Ian Mearns]

Who used to work in Remploy factories.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Sadly, that is right. My section also dealt with blind and disabled people working in sheltered workplaces, including at Ayresome Industries in Middlesbrough. As well as union officers, the unions brought in, over a prolonged period, signers and Braille writers to ensure that those employees were informed of the situation and the exact nature of any dispute.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very important example. The Minister selectively looking at a couple of ballot papers proffered to him by his officials is simply not reflective of the wide degree of communications and engagement that will go on when trade union members—workers in a firm or a public service—are considering industrial action. It goes back, again, to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West: why would trade unions want to be hoodwinking people into action? How would they then convince them to take part in it? It is just nonsense.

16:00

[Ian Mearns]

This is a very important point. Surely, in an industrial dispute there are people who will agree down the line with the union stance, others who are more ambivalent and some members who are against. When a union informs its members and updates them about what has been transpiring in the course of a dispute, members who are against taking industrial action will pass on any misinformation from their union to an employer and the employer will undoubtedly take legal action against the trade union for misinforming the workforce. Therefore, we are clearly seeing a measure here which is not necessary.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead makes a very good point. Also, as I said, the amendments encourage some clarity from the Government on the issue of timetables. I think the Minister said that—surely, they have in mind a plan. Actually, most trade unions operating in a dispute are trying to find a resolution from the start: industrial action is a last resort. We have to say that again and again. I imagine that in many circumstances there is no plan—they are hoping that management or Government, whoever it might be, will come forward with a reasonable solution through means other than industrial action to solve a dispute.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole premise of the Government’s argument about this part of the Bill comes from a belief that the unions are very top-down, imposing what is going wrong in the workplace, or what workers have a problem with? Whereas actually, the reality of industrial disputes is that problems arise from the bottom, from something that union members are not happy with, which the union officials are trying to sort out and resolve. If that fails, it is the union members that pressure for industrial action, often as a result of consultative balloting in the first place.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is exactly the point. Indeed, as with many other parts of the Bill, it looks like it has been drafted by people who simply do not understand how trade unions operate in a modern industrial setting. It is based on assertions, ideas and myths that have been created, often by the Minister’s colleagues. I remember the Minister for the Cabinet Office using some very colourful language in this area. It does not reflect actual practice and I hope, given that the Minister is trying to set out the case for this, that he will explain whether the Department has received widespread, conclusive evidence of ignorance, with people writing in saying, “We don’t understand what’s going on, the Government must legislate”. Where is the demand for this legislation, other than in the theoretical towers of Victoria Street?

With that, I seek the Committee’s view on amendment 14 and the wording of disputes on a ballot paper. Also, in the spirit of wanting to encourage the Government to foster negotiation and allow the maximum time to achieve resolution of disputes, I wish to press amendment 19, which would remove the requirement for timetables altogether, to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 10

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Amendment proposed: 19, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41—(Stephen Doughty.)

Division 11

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 12

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Information to members etc about result of ballot

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not intend to detain the Committee long on the clause because we have discussed part of it, but I do want to raise a couple of points. Under section 231 of the 1992 Act, trade unions are already required to inform members and relevant employers about the results of ballots—how many votes were cast, how many members voted yes and no, and the number of spoilt votes. Clause 5, as we have said, would add to the information that trade unions are required to include. They would be required to inform members and employers of the number who were entitled to vote in the ballot, whether the number of votes cast reached the 50% turnout requirement, and, if the 40% threshold applies—although, of course, we have no idea where that will apply at the moment—whether that was met.

As with many measures in the Bill, and as I outlined in the debates on previous clauses, the Government are simply seeking to introduce additional administrative requirements, which are unnecessary and designed to disrupt and deter trade unions from effectively representing their members. We will oppose this clause, for it is another example of that blue tape which, if it were proposed for any other organisation, would rightly be regarded as needless bureaucracy, and I am sure the Government would be wanting to call it out as such.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 13

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Information to Certification Officer about industrial action etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am getting more and more tied up in the Government’s blue tape. Much like clauses 4 and 5, this clause is designed to deter and disrupt trade unions by burdening them with additional requirements.

I am sure that we will have at a later stage an extensive discussion of the role of the certification officer, given the clauses and provisions through which the Government are attempting to expand it. This clause also touches on that issue because it will require trade unions to report to the certification officer on whether industrial action has taken place in the last 12 months, the nature of the disputes, what action was taken and the turnout and ballot results. If trade unions fail to comply, they may face severe financial penalties. Not only does this measure create significant new administrative burdens for trade unions, which do not necessarily gather those data centrally, but many are rightly asking why this new duty is necessary and what purpose it will serve.

As I hope members of the Committee know, though I am sure they will be enlightened at later stages, the certification officer is an independent agency with responsibility for regulating trade unions and employers’ associations. I am concerned, as are others, including some who spoke to the Committee during the oral evidence stage, that the role of the independent certification officer risks being politicised in a wide range of ways through the Bill. This is just one of them. I would like some assurances from the Minister, even at this stage, that the Government are aware of those concerns. Will the Government seek to ensure the integrity and separation of the certification officer? We have already heard how the role will be blurred between investigator, manager of data, executioner of orders and many other things, blurring all the principles of natural justice. It would be good to hear some assurances from the Minister.

This comes down to whether the Government think it is appropriate that an agency of the state, albeit a currently independent one, should gather detailed information about private disputes between employers and unions. Although trade unions have been vocal in their opposition thus far, I believe that many businesses and employers, if they were aware of the full implications of this clause, would object to detailed information about their workplace operations being published online and a permanent record of disputes being retained. We all know about the media organisations that harvest as much information as they can from centrally published databases and so on. I suspect that quite a lot of mischief could be caused by attempting to portray certain employers in ways that I think they would feel uncomfortable with.

[Ian Mearns]

That is an important point. Many employers will reflect that this would not do them a great deal of good in the public gaze. Strikes are often—almost without exception—symptoms of poor industrial relations within the workplace. Many employers, where those industrial relations have broken down to such an extent, may be rather concerned to find that the Government are proposing that detailed information about their workplace operations will be open to public scrutiny. That may well not be good for the very people that the Government are trying to protect here: businesses.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very important point. While we heard oral evidence from the CBI and the BCC on a range of issues, they did not seem to be as strident and as certain in their views as on other aspects of the Bill, despite this potentially having a significant impact on businesses and employers. It would appear, I have to say, that their formal consultation with their members was perhaps more limited than one would expect for organisations that seek to represent industry and businesses up and down the country. I find that quite surprising, given the impact that this could have on disclosing information.

[Jo Stevens]

Perhaps I can help the Committee because, before I came to this House, I conducted industrial relations on behalf of the business of which I was an owner with a recognised trade union. I would certainly not have wanted detailed information about the disputes, very few of which took place over a 26-year period, to be publicly available online for anyone else to see. This raises not only issues of reputation and industrial relations between businesses but also issues of commercial sensitivity that would adversely affect businesses. I am sure that is not what the Government want.

16:15

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree. Many businesses and employers would have concerns if that were a consequence, unintended as it may be, of the legislation. There are some fundamental issues at stake in terms of the confidentiality of these types of dispute and the potential that this will prevent negotiations and concerns being dealt with in the most sensible, consensual and private way to come to a resolution.

[Ian Mearns]

We can imagine a situation where industrial relations have broken down to such an extent that, in order to embarrass an employer, the wording on the ballot paper and the information alongside it, given the detailed nature of many industrial disputes, could be written in such a way as to create commercial problems for a company. Would my hon. Friend agree? The role of the certification officer in publishing this information could also have a detrimental impact if confidential commercial information were directly related to an industrial dispute.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, and it would be a strange situation were we to find a Minister in a future Committee sitting able to find many examples of ballot papers to read from, casting all sorts of aspersion on the conduct of businesses in industry and the public sector up and down the country.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

A potential example that we would certainly not want documented or in the public view is a trade union dispute between GCHQ and its employees. Would the Government really want that information published?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can think of all sorts of other examples. Again, the implications of this do not seem to have been properly thought through. Will the Minister briefly comment on who has requested this? Who has said they want this? Have employers, businesses and public servants up and down the country been banging on the Minister’s door saying, “We want this information out there in the public domain,” as the Bill would require?

This would not only add to the regulation of trade unions and the implications for employers; new powers for the certification officer would inevitably be followed by additional costs. The wide extension of the certification officer’s power will have significant fiscal implications. What assessment has the Minister made of the likely cost implications of the certification officer having to gather this additional information? Will it come from existing budgets, will new moneys be provided or will it be cost-neutral?

In any other sector, I am sure the Government would attack such burdensome regulations as needless officialdom that should be done away with in a bonfire of bureaucracy. Does the Minister agree that legislation affecting trade unions should be held to the same standards?

[Nick Boles]

There the hon. Gentleman goes again with his blood-curdling language. I have been described as introducing “an executioner” of trade unions. The simple truth, as ever, is a lot duller: we are just trying to beef up the certification officer’s role so that it can be a modern regulator of trade unions.

The certification officer will have no greater and no more expansive powers than other regulators—indeed, rather less in some examples. We also want more transparency for everyone about industrial action undertaken by unions. Effective regulation and transparency help to improve confidence in how institutions are run, which can only be a good thing. It is slightly surprising to hear the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues argue against transparency, as if somehow the public interest is better protected by keeping things secret. That is a surprising position for the Opposition to take.

We will discuss the detail of the certification officer’s role later, and I do not want to anticipate that. This debate is about the information that trade unions are required to provide to the certification officer about industrial action. That is an important requirement, because the timely provision of good quality information is a key component of ensuring effective regulation. It gives more confidence to those affected by industrial disputes, which is of course why trade unions are already required to provide certain information every year to the certification officer. That is set out in section 32 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and annual returns submitted to the certification officer are already available for public inspection. I do not remember any proposal coming forward from the previous Labour Government to alter the fact of those annual returns or of that availability. If industrial action is taken during the period of the return as a result of a successful ballot called by a union, the clause requires that union to include certain information about the action in its annual return to the certification officer.

[Jo Stevens]

Can the Minister tell the Committee who exactly has asked for the provision? We are not aware of anyone, neither employer nor union, who has asked for it.

[Nick Boles]

I have news for the hon. Lady: the Government sometimes act because they have received a mandate—and a majority—at a general election on a clear proposal in their manifesto. That clear proposal was to reform the role of the certification officer. The Government have also, during the term of the coalition Government, had a longstanding commitment to transparency in the public interest and we are not ashamed to continue that in the clause.

The union will need to provide details about the nature of the dispute, the nature of the industrial action and when the action was taken, as specified by clause 4. One of the ways in which we seek to achieve a more effective role for the certification officer is by ensuring that he has full information about any industrial action proposed and taken by a union. We want to achieve that through increased transparency in the annual return to the officer. The clause also requires a union to provide the certification officer with details of the outcome of any ballot for industrial action, if the union has called a ballot during the period of the annual return. That requirement applies whether the ballot was successful or not.

Accurate information presented in a transparent manner about industrial action proposed and taken by a union helps to demonstrate to union members, and to the wider public, that unions are properly regulated and fully accountable for their actions. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 14

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Two weeks’ notice to be given to employers of industrial action

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephen Doughty]

If the administrative burdens—all the blue tape—were not already sufficient to halt industrial action, make the rights of trade unions illusory and disrupt the activities of their members, and even though the ballot thresholds are rarely used elsewhere in our democracy, the Minister has yet another legislative weapon in his armoury to render the campaigns in the run-up to industrial action, which are often used to seek agreed settlement and avert strike action, impotent. Clause 7 seeks to extend the notice period that unions must provide to employers before industrial action can take place from seven days to two weeks. That is excessive and unnecessary, because trade unions are already required to provide at least one week’s notice of a ballot, allow at least two weeks for the ballot and then announce the result before giving two weeks’ notice of action. In practice, at least five weeks will pass between the start of a balloting process and any industrial action.

It is important to understand that, because the actual practice, rather than the academic approach that the Department appears to be taking to trade union activities, is what matters. Members of the Government gave all these examples in their oral evidence of people being able to prepare for disruption and everything else. Obviously those of us on this side of the Committee would want people to have the maximum amount of information and awareness with which to do that, but five weeks is a long time. Of course, in most industrial disputes such things would have been under discussion for some time. There would be an awareness of tensions and potential problems. There may have been consultative ballots in the past and evidence that there may be disruption. Industrial action is always a last resort.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Clause 4 has been agreed by this Committee, and is therefore likely to go forward to Report. The important point is that, because of clause 4, employers will be informed of the proposed start date of the industrial action when the people involved in the ballot receive a copy of the voting paper. The notice is already in the Bill, so this is yet another unnecessary measure.

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree. In fact, I was just about to make that very point. Because of clause 4, employers will know when industrial action, if it is agreed upon, would start before the ballot is run. The information is there. There is already the five-week period, which is lengthy, and most people would consider it reasonable. Again, I believe that this measure belies the Government’s real intent. In my view and the view of the Opposition, the extended notice period will serve no legitimate purpose other than giving the employer additional time to organise the agency workers that the Government want to allow them to undermine the strike or industrial action, and to prepare for the legal challenges and the lawyers’ charter that the Bill provides.

[Seema Kennedy]

The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have made great play of the fact that Government Members have very little experience of trade union activity. Personally, I accept that; I do have not very much. But I do have experience—as does my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk—of running a small business. There is cost, inconvenience and, most importantly, damage to the employee’s goodwill when they go to law. The idea that we are all rushing off to lawyers is a misunderstanding, certainly of what I would have done as an employee and of what the majority of British businesses do.

[Stephen Doughty]

I regularly speak to many small businesses up and down my constituency. I have a very positive relationship with them, and I have a good degree of understanding of the challenges they face. As I have repeatedly said in this Committee, we want to avoid situations in which industrial action takes place. That is not under dispute in this debate or in our discussion about the whole Bill, but we believe the Government are going too far on the restrictions on reasonable rights.

[Jo Stevens]

Is it not the case that the litigation to which the hon. Member for South Ribble referred is actually brought by employers, not by employees or trade unions? It is employers who bring injunctions against industrial action.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend speaks with a great degree of legal experience and expertise from her previous career. That is indeed the case, and it is a very important point to make. I believe this is just a case of providing opportunities to undermine, rather than seeking resolution and negotiation in a consensual manner. It again provides the potential for protracted disputes, which means that amicable settlements will be more difficult to achieve. If the Government were serious about promoting positive industrial relations, dialogue, agreement, conciliation and arbitration, they would not simply be extending time, which is already extensive, on the basis that people will be shocked if there were a tube strike tomorrow. People know well in advance if such things are happening, and it is deeply patronising to suggest otherwise.

[Nick Boles]

We recognise the important part that negotiations play in reaching resolution of disputes between unions and employers. Even where such negotiations have been ongoing for some time, reaching the point at which a union serves notice of an intention to take industrial action signals to an employer that the matter has now escalated to a critical level. With a valid ballot mandate having been secured—which in itself is a prior signal that the matter is escalating—serving notice is the last stage in the process before a union can take industrial action. It is therefore also the employer’s last opportunity before the industrial action takes place to reach a negotiated solution. This is when continuing dialogue between the parties becomes even more important.

We recognise that, which is why the clause allows a longer period of time during which the trade union and the employer can discuss and strive to reach an agreement on how best to resolve the dispute without recourse to industrial action. That is why in clause 8 we are also removing the need to take some industrial action within four weeks of a ballot. A negotiated settlement is best for the employer, the public, the union and its members, and we are keen to promote every opportunity for such discussion to take place.

16:30

[Ian Mearns]

Does the Minister accept that intransigence and the refusal to negotiate in a proper manner by employers is also a form of industrial action?

[Nick Boles]

I am realistic; I understand that there are times when unions feel they have no option but to take industrial action. As I have said, nothing we are doing is stopping that, but let us not lose sight of the scale of disruption that strikes can cause, not only for employers, but for members of the public. It is only right that those whose lives are affected are confident that the legislation provides every opportunity to avoid such disruption, if at all possible. Providing a longer period of time for the notice of the intention to take action is an important part of that process.

Some unions must agree with that, because there are instances where they have chosen to give two weeks’ notice voluntarily, such as in October 2014, when nursing staff provided more than three weeks’ notice of a half-day strike. It is only fair that employers and members of the public who rely on services have the certainty of having a decent amount of time to make contingency arrangements and that both parties to a dispute have more time to continue negotiations. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Chris Stephens]

I am still debating in my head whether the clause is insidious or whether, again, it relates to the Government’s view on Jedi-like powers. This morning we discussed trade union officials having Jedi powers to convince trade union members who did not participate in the ballot to participate in the action. Does it take 14 days for those Jedi-like powers to dissipate? I do not know, but I have concerns about the clause that relate to the ever-increasing number of statutory redundancy notices being issued. The limit has been changed to 45 days, which makes it difficult for the trade union to organise and complete its ballot process within the timeframe that the Government are setting out, and that will lead to more balloting. When a trade union gets notices from an employer that there is to be redundancy, the first thing the union will have to do is trigger the mechanisms for balloting before it has even had a discussion with the employer.

The proposal also treats the public with contempt. There seems to be a suggestion that the public are somehow not aware that a trade union has served notice of industrial action to an employer, but the trade union will notify the media of that to get the discussion going with its members. Indeed, some parts of the media that are not friendly towards trade unions and are perhaps more friendly towards the Government will use that publicity too.

The population out there is not made up of hermits. I think the real purpose of changing the notice period from seven days to 14 days is to ensure that momentum is lost in support of an industrial action. In reality, the notice period starts when the employer is notified that the trade union intends to ballot for industrial action. Under existing law, employers are more than adequately able to prepare with the seven-day notices, so I am opposed to the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 15

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Expiry of mandate for industrial action four months after date of ballot

[Stephen Doughty]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 8, page 4, line 14, leave out “four months” and insert “twelve months”

The amendment would extend the period before any new ballot would be required, and reduce the risk of incompatibility of the provisions with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – an issue addressed by the Government in its memorandum on the Bill.

As we have discussed, Opposition Members believe that many of the measures we have scrutinised risk making industrial relations worse, not better. Clause 8 is no exception to that rule. Existing legislation provides that so long as industrial action starts within four weeks of a successful ballot, the mandate for it remains intact for as long as the dispute with the employer exists. The changes brought about by clause 8, however, will mean that trade unions are no longer required to start industrial action within four weeks. Where industrial action, whether continuous or discontinuous, lasts for more than four months, the union will be required to reballot.

The clause will have two effects. First, it will create substantial legal and administrative costs for trade unions, which spend significant sums of money on ballots to ensure the very participation that the Government say they want to encourage. I do not see that the Government appreciate the impact this will have—perhaps I am suspicious that they do—on unions in terms of costings.

Secondly, where ballots meet the Government’s thresholds, the measures will actually intensify disputes, leading to more sustained industrial action at the outset as unions try to settle disputes without the need to reballot, given the financial implications. That is a real threat, and one that I do not believe the Government have given consideration to. Again, if their intent is to prevent industrial action and strikes, why are they introducing this sort of measure? This inevitably risks worsening employment relations and creating more disruption for the wider public, which none of us wants.

The additional risks posed by the clause to industrial relations, coupled with the fact that the number of days lost to industrial action are at a historic low—my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead pointed out that the days lost to industrial action today are barely one hundredth of those lost in the 1970s, with nearly two thirds of actions lasting only one day—mean that many are rightly wondering what the purpose of the clause is.

I gently suggest to the Committee that the Government’s focus for the proposals is some particular public sector disputes relating to the Government’s proposals on pay and pension changes. In those disputes, trade unions have often relied on one ballot mandate to organise a succession of strike days over 12 months or so, to limit the immediate impact in the short term but make clear their concerns over a period and encourage the Government to negotiate on the matter. However, under the Government’s proposals, after four months, unions will be required to reballot, even if employers refuse to engage in genuine negotiations and the dispute remains unresolved. I believe this has more to do with silencing the critics of Government who want to raise legitimate grievances about pay, pensions and conditions at work.

[Jo Stevens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause is designed to allow employers to effectively sit out a dispute and refuse to negotiate in order to force a union to reballot, at considerable cost? For big public sector unions with hundreds of thousands of members, the costs are significant. In contrast, unions will feel forced to bring forward any planned strike days in an attempt to secure an earlier settlement.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed; that is a likely intent of this. When coupled with the measures on check-off and political funds, the Government are essentially chopping off funding for trade unions and then massively increasing their costs by this measure and the other regulatory burdens imposed by the Bill. Rather than imposing additional restrictions on workers’ ability to strike, the Government should engage in genuine negotiations with trade unions.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes an important set of points. I have a real concern: the Government have stated time and again that the whole thrust behind the Bill is to avoid disruptive industrial action, but it seems to me, particularly where complicated industrial disputes cover many different workplaces, that the proposals in the clause could significantly increase the potential for unwelcome wildcat action, where members’ frustrations boil over and they just walk off the job.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a risk. Undoubtedly, when the Minister gets to his feet he will talk about ballot mandates from a long time ago legitimatising action years down the line. There is a genuine sympathy with that concern, which is why I tabled amendment 24, which would extend the period before a union would be required to reballot its members from four months to 12 months. The amendment would be likely to assist the resolution of disputes and significantly reduce the administrative cost burden for trade unions involved in protracted disputes, while avoiding the problem that the Minister will undoubtedly refer to as motivation for the clause.

It is a question of reasonableness in all these matters. Most unions want to ensure that there is a strong mandate for action if it is required, which is fair, but four months is such a short period. Given the costs involved, it reveals a different intent behind the Bill and will discourage good industrial relations.

[Chris Stephens]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Bill is potentially a rogue employers’ charter? Such employers will use tactics to continue to delay the negotiations. On that basis, if the four-month limit is coming up, they will not deal with the trade unions.

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely, and, combined with the other measures by which a vexatious employer might wish to frustrate the balloting, the wording and everything else that we have already discussed, that creates a very difficult set of circumstances that will fundamentally render illusory the right to strike, to freedom of association and to withdraw labour in furtherance of a dispute. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

[Nick Boles]

As we draw towards the end of the first day of line-by-line consideration of the Bill, we are reaching a point where the shadow Minister could do my bit as well. He could make my arguments: he anticipates them and knows exactly what I am going to say before I say it. It would be vastly to the entertainment of the Committee were we to allow him to do so, but I might be fired.

We simply want to ensure that industrial action is based on a current mandate on which union members have recently voted, and that those members are still working for the employer where the industrial action is proposed. It should not be a legacy mandate based on a vote undertaken many months or years previously.

I would not want to disappoint the shadow Minister by not doing as he anticipated and reminding the Committee of certain recent strikes that caused great disruption to members of the public but were based on very old mandates. There were strikes by the National Union of Teachers in July and March 2014 that were based on mandates from June 2011 and September 2012. In October 2013, there were strikes based on a mandate from November 2011. It just is the case that there is current practice of holding strikes based on very old mandates. That is what we are seeking to address with clause 8.

We specify that a ballot mandate has to have an expiry date, which both frees employers from the current situation where strike threats are made for which the original balloting took place some years earlier and removes the resultant long periods of uncertainty, not only for employers but for union members and members of the public.

[Stephen Doughty]

For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister clarify where the four months come from? Why four months?

[Nick Boles]

In deciding how long the mandate should last, it is important that we strike a balance. As I have said, we must remove the uncertainty, which can currently last years. That must be balanced with the need to provide a reasonable amount of time for constructive negotiations to take place. Of course, I am delighted to see that, through the amendment, the Opposition are open to the idea of testing the concept of a time limit to the mandate. The question, as the hon. Gentleman has just asked, is why we have decided on four months, rather than the 12 months that he proposes.

We consider that a four-month period balances the objective of, on the one hand, ensuring that strikes cannot be called on the basis of old ballots and, on the other, allowing sufficient time for constructive dialogue to take place. A period of 12 months would tip the balance too far in favour of the unions to the detriment of everyone else—not just employers, although employers would still have the threat of strike hanging over them for a considerable length of time. Union members should have certainty on the period during which they might be asked to take industrial action. That is particularly important given the consequential effect on their pay. Twelve months is simply too long to expect people to live with such uncertainty. If members have moved jobs, it might not even be the same group of people affected.

According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, annual staff turnover in 2014 was 13.6%, which means that after 12 months, on average, nearly 14% of the workers who voted for a strike might no longer be in the same job. That must call into question whether the union has a truly valid mandate.

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister is quoting statistics that cover industry and employment in the UK, which includes people who are, by design, on short-term contracts where turnover is built into the system. By the nature of their employment rights, not having two years to protect their employment, such people will probably not go on strike in the first instance. The statistic is being skewed by a group of workers who will have no effect on the likelihood of a strike in another instance.

16:45

[Nick Boles]

Let us not forget that people’s perceptions of a dispute can change over time. It is only right that unions check whether industrial action still has the support of their members. Leaving it for a year before a union checks that it still has a mandate is simply too long. In fact, any of the circumstances about strike action are likely to have moved on after four months.

I think we are all agreed that constructive dialogue is important. Negotiation is key to resolving disputes satisfactorily. A four-month time limit on the ballot mandate should not impact on the parties’ ability to negotiate a settlement. Indeed, negotiations may well be more focused when an employer has greater clarity about the trade issues in dispute and where a union has a strong and recent mandate for industrial action.

[Chris Stephens]

During the course of a dispute, trade unions will be contacting their members and having workplace meetings on every part of the process. I do not get why four months is necessary. The Minister seems to suggest that trade unions do not contact their members during that four-month period.

[Nick Boles]

Obviously we disagree on this, but the fact is that this is not only about union members—some of whom may have moved on or changed their mind—although they are incredibly important to the process. It is not only about employers, although they are also incredibly important to the process because they can lose a great deal of money and perhaps even customers as a result of strike action. This is also about members of the public who rely on services and need to know that there might be a bus strike if a ballot in support of strike action took place three months ago. No one will remember the strike ballot and its result if the period was 12 months.

Let us not forget that, crucially, the period of four months is not the only period during which negotiations will take place. Indeed, such negotiations should have started long before a union seeks a ballot mandate. Let me also be clear about what the clause does not do. It does not prevent strikes. If a union has legitimately secured a clear, decisive, democratic ballot mandate for industrial action from its members, and the dispute cannot be resolved by negotiation, that union’s members can strike. It also does not prevent unions from seeking a further ballot mandate if the dispute is ongoing when the ballot mandate expires. New subsection (1A)(a) specifically provides for that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth to withdraw the amendment.

[Stephen Doughty]

While I sympathise with some of what the Minister said, I fundamentally do not see the argument for a four-month period. This is a matter of interpretation. Twelve months provides a much better period; four months is far too short and will encourage disputes. Indeed, as many Members have said, it could encourage wildcat action, which we certainly would not condone and I am sure the Government would not want. With that in mind, I seek to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 16

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Barclay.)

16:50

Adjourned till Thursday 22 October at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

TUB 28 UNITE - further submission

TUB 29 RMT

TUB 30 Tony Wilson, Managing Director, Abellio London and Surrey

TUB 31 Cllr Darren Rodwell, Leader, London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Council

TUB 32 Communication Workers Union (CWU)

TUB 33 National Union of Teachers (NUT)

TUB 34 CollegesWales/ColegauCymru

TUB 35 North Lanarkshire Council

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Albert Owen, †Mr Gary Streeter

† Abrahams, Debbie (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

† Atkins, Victoria (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)

† Bardell, Hannah (Livingston) (SNP)

† Churchill, Jo (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)

† Coyle, Neil (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)

Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† Heaton-Jones, Peter (North Devon) (Con)

Hinds, Damian (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)

† Lynch, Holly (Halifax) (Lab)

† Milling, Amanda (Cannock Chase) (Con)

† Opperman, Guy (Hexham) (Con)

† Patel, Priti (Minister for Employment)

† Phillips, Jess (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)

† Scully, Paul (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)

† Shah, Naz (Bradford West) (Lab)

† Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

† Thornberry, Emily (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)

† Vara, Mr Shailesh (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)

† Whately, Helen (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)

† Wilson, Corri (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)

Marek Kubala, Ben Williams, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 20 October 2015

[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

09:25

New Clause 8

Review of childcare tax credit amounts

‘The Secretary of State must at least once a year review the level of the Childcare element of the Working Tax Credit entitlement sums to determine whether it is appropriate to increase or decrease any one or more of those sums.’ —(Emily Thornberry.)

This New Clause would require the Secretary of State to review the childcare tax credit entitlement sums.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Like housing, the cost of childcare has weaved its way through these debates, as we have considered a Bill that places significant new burdens on working families with children. The rising cost of childcare is not a new phenomenon, but it has certainly made life more difficult in recent years for working parents, who have seen their incomes largely flatline, whereas the cost of childcare has been going up.

According to figures compiled by the Family and Childcare Trust, the costs for preschool children have increased by 20% in real terms over the past decade. Between 2007 and 2013, the proportion of families who said that they found it either difficult or very difficult to pay for childcare increased from 18% to 26%. In the past five years, as prices have continued to outstrip wages, the trend has worsened to the point where the average family will pay an additional £1,500 a year in nursery fees compared with what they paid in 2010.

The impact on families with the lowest incomes, regardless of whether they work, has been particularly alarming. Children living with parents who have to pay for childcare are now a third more likely to live in poverty once those costs have been taken into account. The Bill, which attempts to redefine poverty by focusing on whether anyone in a household works, instead of on how much working households can earn, will effectively ignore the problem. That does not make it any less real, however, for real families in the real world, and it should not blind the Committee to the fact that there is a lack of consistency in the Government’s approach, which seeks to impose strict requirements on parents to support themselves solely through work while providing less and less support to cover the costs of the childcare that would make work an option.

It is significant in that context that 41% of parents who responded to a survey carried out by Citizens Advice last year said that the cost of childcare either prevented them from working at all, or, if they already worked, prevented them from increasing their hours. That will not be helped by a promise to increase the number of hours of childcare available, as long as the promise simply remains a promise and is, frankly, no more than an unfunded commitment. We have discussed that commitment at length during previous debates in this Committee and the fact that the Childcare Bill, which is currently making its way through the other place, is a four-page Bill, which does not increase the confidence of Opposition Members that this pledge is realistic.

The most obvious concerns—I will not rehearse them all this morning—are that the extension is inadequately funded; that the Government have yet to outline their plans for increasing the number of childcare places to meet any increase in demand; and that we have had no indication that any additional support will be made available for single parents who will be expected to be available for work as a result of measures in this Bill. It seems telling to us that when we put forward an amendment saying effectively that no parent should be forced to work unless adequate childcare is in place, Government Members felt it necessary to vote against such a reasonable amendment. That group of people will be hit particularly hard by the regressive four-year freeze on working-age benefits and tax credit, which clauses 9 and 10 provide for. I remind the Committee that single parents make up 56% of families receiving both working tax credit and child tax credit. If the extension of free hours is inadequately funded—I would welcome any evidence to the contrary—it is inevitable that the out-of-pocket costs parents are forced to pay will increase as sharply in the next five years as they have in the past five years.

Freezing the level of working tax credit, under which working parents can claim reimbursement for up to 70% of their childcare costs, is particularly counterintuitive if the aim is to make work pay, as the Government continue to insist it is. If we assume that childcare costs will rise at the usual pace over the four years during which the payments are frozen, the amount that working parents will be able to claim for support with childcare costs will fund fewer and fewer hours each year. In those circumstances, the only option for many parents will be to cut back on the hours they work, which would seem to be at odds with the underlying principle of the so-called Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Parents who take such a step, which the Bill as it stands would make an entirely logical choice, will leave themselves open to harsh penalties under the sanctions regime if they find themselves unable to work altogether.

New clause 8, which would require the Secretary of State to undertake an annual review of the childcare element of working tax credit, would not require that the sums involved necessarily be increased, but would simply acknowledge that a four-year freeze in all benefits and tax credits is an extreme measure that will tie the Government’s hands in all circumstances. Economic growth may, for example, significantly exceed expectations over the next four years—that seems unlikely, but it is possible. Were that to happen, the freeze might prove unnecessary and more extreme in its effects, widening the gulf between the incomes of low-income families and the costs they are expected to cover.

It might also be the case—this seems somewhat more likely—that the promised extension of free childcare will not materialise according to the Government’s plans. In that scenario, significant costs will continue to fall to parents, whether they are working or looking for work. I would like to think that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State would be open-minded enough to admit that tax credit payments specifically earmarked to cover working parents’ childcare costs might need to increase at a level that was adequate to ensure that those costs remained affordable. If the intention behind the Bill is, as the Government say, to give people an incentive to work and to ensure that work always pays, more flexibility is surely called for.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

A very good morning to the Committee.

The new clause seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State would have to review the level of the childcare element of working tax credit annually, and that that review would be used to determine the maximum rate at which that element was set.

By way of background, I should say that the childcare element, like a number of other elements of tax credits, has never been automatically increased as part of an annual review, but we do keep it under review. Indeed, since its inception in 1994 as part of family credit and disability working allowance, it has increased from a starting rate of £40 per family towards the costs of childcare to its present-day level, where the Government contribute 70% of childcare costs up to £175 a week for one child or £300 a week for two or more children. Under universal credit, as the Committee has discussed, that will increase to 85% of childcare costs.

In addition, the Government have taken significant steps to increase support for childcare for working families, including by extending free entitlement to childcare for working parents of three and four-year-olds to 30 hours—an increase on the 15 hours allowed for in the last Parliament—and by providing for 15 hours of free childcare a week for two-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds. We also have the forthcoming introduction of tax-free childcare, which will benefit up to 1.8 million working families by up to £2,000 per year per child, or by up to £4,000 per year for disabled children.

[Emily Thornberry]

I have been sitting here processing what the Minister has said, and I believe that she told the Committee at the outset of her speech that the Government have kept the cost of childcare continually under review. If that is right, there is not a huge gap between us. Given the alarm that is spreading across the country over cuts in benefits and whether working families will be able to make ends meet, would it be a good idea to give a commitment today that the review will happen annually? We would not need to discuss the matter any further.

[Priti Patel]

We take the view that the new clause is not needed. The childcare element has never been included in formal annual uprating reviews, and the Bill does nothing to change that. The Government already keep the level of the childcare element under review, as we have said. We are committed to helping families with childcare through some of the areas to which I have already alluded. On that basis, the new clause is not needed and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

[Emily Thornberry]

This was largely a probing new clause, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Changes to age of eligible claimants of housing benefit

‘(1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 130(1) insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make provision about eligibility for housing benefit in respect of the age of a claimant except by primary legislation.”.’—(Hannah Bardell.)

This New Clause aims to ensure that any changes to the age of eligible claimants for housing benefit must be made by primary legislation rather than regulation. The Government intends to withdraw entitlement to housing benefit from 18-21 year olds and it is understood this change would be enacted by regulation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Entitlement to housing costs element of universal credit for 18-21 year olds—

‘(1) Entitlement to the housing cost element of Universal Credit shall not be restricted for those 18 to 21 year olds who fall into the following categories—

(a) those who have previously been in work;

(b) a person who lives independently;

(c) those with a disability or mental health problem receiving Employment Support Allowance or Income Support;

(d) those with dependent children;

(e) pregnant women;

(f) those who are owed a rehousing duty under—

(i) section 193 of the Housing Act 1996;

(ii) section 9 of the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003;

(iii) section 73 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014;

(g) those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are being assisted by local authority housing teams;

(h) those who are living in statutory or voluntary sector homelessness accommodation;

(i) those who have formerly been homeless and have been supported by voluntary or statutory agencies into accommodation;

(j) those who have formerly been homeless between the ages of 16 and 21;

(k) a person without family or whom social services have found that a home environment is not suitable for them to live in;

(l) care leavers; and

(m) those leaving custody.

(2) Within three months of section [Entitlement to housing costs element of universal credit for 18-21 year olds] of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must, by regulation, provide definitions of—

(a) “a person who lives independently”;

(b) “risk of homelessness”; and

(c) “a person without family”.’

To ensure that 18-21 year olds who meet one of the listed conditions are entitled to receive the housing cost elements of universal credit.

[Hannah Bardell]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Streeter. As I will be changing brief for the Scottish National party, this will be the last opportunity I have to speak on this subject. I will be moving to Business, Innovation and Skills, where I hope to continue the work that I have done.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Leaving so soon?

[Hannah Bardell]

Indeed; what can I say?

The SNP fully supports the intention behind Labour’s new clause, and we seek to prevent any young person from being locked out of the housing system due to age. We heard our youngest Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), speak passionately in her maiden speech about the fact that she would be the only 18 to 21-year-old in the UK who would be supported in housing under the Conservative Government’s proposals. We have already said that we will support Labour’s new clause 10, because we share the concerns of the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury.

The SNP is concerned that the Government’s intention to remove young people’s access to support with their housing costs could lead to an increase in youth homelessness. According to Crisis, youth homelessness is already on the rise, with 8% of 16 to 24-year-olds recently reported as homeless. In four years, the number of young people sleeping rough in London has more than doubled. In a written answer on 14 September the Government confirmed they would restrict 18 to 21-year-olds from access to housing benefit. Their rationale, which we believe is deeply flawed, was cited as a wish not to allow young people to slip into a lifetime of benefits. The Government may not realise that it is not simply a matter of people deciding to have to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over their head; many young people are not able to live at home with their parents for a variety of reasons. The fact that the Government are already squeezing the pockets of working families and families with more children will make it even harder for parents to afford to keep their children at home for longer.

Of the 19,000 18 to 21-year-olds who will be affected by the change, 60% are in social housing, all of whom will have been subjected to the stringent eligibility test and only deemed a priority by the local authority because they are in need. The remainder of those eligible for help live in the private rented sector and receive the shared accommodation rate—the lowest rung of housing benefit, according to Shelter, barely enough to cover a room at the bottom end of the market.

We have seen the increase in housing costs across the UK, which has locked out this sector of society. That is frankly wrong. The Government have failed young people by failing to provide economic opportunities and stability in the workforce. Growing numbers of talented young people are left unemployed. The Minister cannot simply say, “Stay at home, and your parents will look after you”, because that is regressive and smacks of a lack of vision. Many young people cannot live at home and housing benefit is the only thing that stands between them and homelessness. Between 2010 and 2014 Crisis helped to create 8,120 tenancies in the private rented sector for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, with support from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The SNP believes it is unfair to restrict entitlement to a benefit based solely on age rather than on evidential grounds. We support Labour’s wish for a blanket ban on the Government restricting entitlement based on age, but as the answer to a written question on 14 September confirmed, it looks likely that the Tories are intent on locking young people out of this lifeline. That is why we have tabled new clause 12, which would provide restrictions related to vulnerable people who may be impacted. I recognise that the Government have said that they will bring forward exemptions for particularly vulnerable young people, but the full details of that proposal are not in the Bill. We tabled the new clause to ensure that young people in the circumstances that I have described are protected.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that it is very important to look closely at what the Government say counts as vulnerable? One can imagine them saying that they are going to look after vulnerable youngsters, but their definition will be restricted. For example, they may include young people leaving care but not anyone else. We need to be careful, because Opposition Members’ definition of vulnerability may be different from what Ministers are trying to get away with.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady must have read my mind. I was just coming on to the point about care leavers and those who have experienced violence or abuse. As the hon. Lady says, the categorisation of those who are vulnerable must be a unified approach. We must be in agreement on that throughout the House. Some young people may be unable to live with their parents because of relationship breakdown—for example, if they have been thrown out because of family circumstances such as a parent remarrying—or because of their own lifestyle choices or sexuality, but they might find that difficult to prove. Many young people who have found themselves homeless are currently supported into accommodation funded by housing benefit, either by a local authority or by a homelessness organisation. Without that support, those vulnerable groups will be homeless and unable to meet housing costs. Housing benefit helps those people live independently when living at home is no longer an option, and removing it could leave people choosing between returning to a destructive family home or the street.

Accepting the new clause would at least show that the Government were serious about their commitment to protect the most vulnerable, which we must have within the law. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and I urge hon. Members to support our new clause 12 as well as Labour’s new clause 10, to ensure that vulnerable young people can access housing support to keep them off the streets.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

As everyone always says, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.

[Emily Thornberry]

She means it!

[Jess Phillips]

I really mean it. It is an honour.

As soon as I heard of the plans for the removal of housing benefit from those aged 18 to 21, I was understandably alarmed. There are many reasons why, and I have discussed with colleagues on the Government Benches. I took to my feet in Prime Minister’s questions and asked the stand-in Prime Minister, the Chancellor, to guarantee that certain vulnerable groups would be exempt from the changes. I highlighted to him then, as I do to the Committee now, that every year, Women’s Aid conducts a survey of residents to provide socio-demographic information about a sample of women residents living in refuge services in one day. Last year, on that one single day, 132 women living in refuges were aged 18 to 20. In Birmingham, women aged 18 to 21, who had been beaten and tortured, raped and belittled, made up 25% of all residents living in Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid refuges. Almost all will have received housing benefit to live in the refuge and stay safe. That gives an idea of the number of women in that group.

Anyone who has ever worked in supported accommodation with victims of domestic violence will know that that group—those living in refuge—represent the tip of the iceberg of those living within the community and suffering the same thing. As an example, in the last year that I worked in refuge, 800 people came through our refuge services, and 8,000 were rehoused in the community. That means that around 10% were in refuge. From those figures, we can see how many people within the community are fleeing violence. If we take the idea that 25% of those people are aged 18 to 21, the Committee will see my concern.

Up and down the country there are young people who simply cannot live with their parents, such as abuse victims, care leavers and kids whose parents have died, moved away or simply do not want them to live with them. Those are people with little or no earning power, no networks and no safety net. I want the Government to answer this simple question: where will those people live?

09:45

In response to my parliamentary question, the Chancellor assured me—I was grateful to hear it—that the vulnerable people I referred to would be exempt. Bravo to him for that. He stated that again in his Budget statement. However, even in new schedule 1, tabled by the Minister, the detail of who will actually be exempt is a bit too thin on the ground. The charities working in the field are still not sure. I am still not sure, and I have worked in the field for many years.

As has been well rehearsed in the Committee when we have debated a number of other amendments, we are on unsafe ground if we allow this issue to be dealt with in regulations rather than in primary legislation. I want to see definitive legislative exemptions for the following groups: care leavers, young parents, people living in supported accommodation such as refuges or young people’s homelessness services, victims of domestic and sexual violence who are fleeing violence and being rehoused in the community, those moving on from supported accommodation and young people at risk of homelessness. It may well be the Government’s plan to do so.

I am being all nice to the Government today. As I said in last week’s sitting, I praise the Department’s move to exempt those in supported accommodation from the benefits cap introduced in the last Parliament. However, in order to offer safety and comfort to the young people I have outlined and the hard-working and cash-strapped local organisations and charities that support them, Opposition Members would like the certainty of legislation.

I would very much like to work with the Government to get this right and to protect those who need protecting. How can we debate and vote on the Bill on Third Reading without knowing whether homeless young people across our constituencies will be protected? Will the removal of housing benefit without proper legislative guidance for councils not undermine the homelessness duty in every local authority area? As someone who has worked in supported accommodation services, I can guarantee that without guaranteed access to housing benefit for those leaving refuges and hostels, this welfare reform will slow down young people’s recovery from homelessness. It will create bed-blocking in specialist services and will mean that supported accommodation beds are not available to others who need them. We are turning people away from those beds at a phenomenal rate—hundreds of people every day in my local authority alone.

The Government’s so-called living wage, of course, will not apply to this group of people. If we are to sign up to the idea of it actually being a living wage, we must also sign up to the idea that those who do not get it therefore cannot afford to live. We must put down in black and white exactly how we are going to mitigate that, especially for the vulnerable and abused. I ask the Government, with grace, to look at the evidence being provided by the brilliant alliance of youth homelessness charities, a copy of which I have sent to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor pretty much every week since I have been here, and to reconsider how they manage the situation. I ask for primary legislation rather than regulations, to offer security and simplicity to all those in both the statutory and voluntary services dealing with these cases.

[Priti Patel]

May I begin my remarks by thanking the hon. Members for Livingston and for Birmingham, Yardley for their thoughtful contributions? This is an important area, to which the Government naturally want to develop the right approach.

I should like to make two points. The change in housing support debated thus far refers specifically to the new youth obligation that will be introduced from April 2017, the purpose of which is to help young people to develop the skills and experience they need to get into work. Specifically, from day one of their claim, young people will benefit from an intensive period of work-related support, which will include job search support, interview techniques and structured work preparation. After six months, having built up their work preparation and received support to help them to get into employment, they will have the choice of applying for an apprenticeship or traineeship, of gaining the work-based skills that employers value, or of taking up a work placement. The youth obligation will be integrated with universal credit, ensuring that those moving into work will be better off and supported.

With regards to the housing changes, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley was right in her comments and in the representations she has made to the Government. She has heard that the Government are focused on protecting vulnerable people.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury made a relevant point about the definition of vulnerability. We want to ensure that we get that right, so we are currently working with a wide range of stakeholders to understand those vulnerable groups. That work needs to be completed for robust policy and, importantly, for support, measures and exemptions to be put in place to help those groups. That work is still under way.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley touched on a number of stakeholders, some of whom we are working and engaging with. Should she like to present others to the Government, we would be very happy for her to do so.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will those consultations be completed before Report and Third Reading?

[Priti Patel]

I will be honest: I simply do not know, so I will find out and come back to the hon. Lady on that.

The hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Livingston touched on the various groups that cannot rely on the stability of a family home. We are focused on that and want to do everything we can to help those young people. That is the reason for the exemptions to protect the vulnerable. We are discussing the policy with landlords, housing associations and charities, who provide a unique perspective on the groups discussed.

I hope we can work together on stakeholder engagement. As I have said, that work is under way and the policy will not be introduced until next year, which gives us time for the detailed approach we absolutely need. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Livingston to withdraw her new clause.

[Hannah Bardell]

We will not withdraw the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 54

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 9

New Clause 15

Repeal of Tax Credits Regulations 2015

‘(1) The Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 are repealed.’—(Emily Thornberry.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Emily Thornberry]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause gives hon. Members the opportunity to put the Government out of their misery and abolish the changes they believe they wish to make on tax credits. The Government claim that they have a mandate to impose massive cuts to tax credits, which will blow a hole in working families’ budgets in a few months’ time, but they have no such mandate. The Conservative party went into an election this year with a vague aspiration to reduce welfare spending by an abstract figure of £12 billion which, because of an almost complete lack of specifics, almost no one took seriously. Of course, the Prime Minister made clear that he was not going to touch tax credits, so he has broken his promise to the people. Those people will not forget.

The cuts to tax credits that the Government recently introduced undermine one of the bedrock principles of welfare reform, which we thought was shared by all the parties, which is that hard work should be rewarded. Indeed, when Gordon Brown introduced the new rules and payments, he did it so discreetly that many people probably did not even know that it was a politician that had made the decision. He discreetly redistributed income, he discreetly made it right that work should pay and that, instead of the taxman taking taxes away, the taxman would give people money in their pay packet in order to make sure that they could work, hold their heads up high and support their families. I remember speaking on the doorsteps about tax credits to many people who asked the classic question, “What did Labour ever do for me?” I would explain about tax credits and they simply thought that it was something to which they were entitled. Now they will realise that it was a political decision. When they get their letter at Christmas from the Chancellor telling them that they will be losing £1,000 or £2,000, what a happy Christmas it will be for these poor families. The letter will be care of this Government, who were not elected with a mandate to do that.

The view that hard work should be rewarded was shared by all parties. Between them, the 11 Conservative members of the Committee represent 40,000 working families with children who will be hit by the cuts. Some 4,000 working families with children will be affected in Louth and Horncastle; 3,900 working families with children will be affected in Bury St Edmunds; 4,300 working families with children will be affected in North Devon; 2,500 working families with children will be affected in East Hampshire; 4,700 working families with children will be affected in Cannock Chase; 2,600 working families with children will be affected in Hexham; 2,700 working families with children will be affected in Witham; 3,500 working families with children will be affected in Sutton and Cheam; 3,100 working families with children will be affected in Elmet and Rothwell; 5,700 working families with children will be affected in North West Cambridgeshire; and 3,000 working families with children will be affected in Faversham and Mid Kent. That is a large number of families and a large number of constituents. I ask those Members to consider that very seriously when deciding what to do this morning.

The impact will be immediate. There will be no transitional measures—the funding simply stops. As I said, families will find out over Christmas that they will suddenly lose more than £2,000 a year. We are talking about families for whom that amount of money can make the difference between keeping their head above water and not. Conservative as well as Opposition members of the Committee will find desperate families coming to see them, probably not even appreciating that they have been on what the Tories call “welfare”. They have been dependent on the state in order to ensure that their work pays. Indeed, some may even have been tempted to vote Conservative on the basis that it was a good idea for the welfare bill to be cut, not realising that they would be affected, and thinking that it would affect some other family that they know nothing about, a long way away or down at the bottom of a council estate, that they would never come across. They believe they are doing the right thing, doing what the Government expect, what their morality expects them to do and yet, nevertheless, they will be penalised. It will be down to them to help pay off the deficit and the debt caused by bankers and the international financial crisis at a time when the Government believe that their priority ought to be cutting taxes paid by the richest in order to allow them to pass on their riches to the next generation. The Government have changed the tax rates in order to give tax breaks to the richest, and they have decided that the people who should be penalised are those who can hardly fight for themselves, and who are doing their best for themselves and their families.

10:00

The debate has gone back and forth as different estimates have suggested the effects on different people in different circumstances. The House of Commons Library found that the average impact across all affected families can be roughly estimated to be a reduction in the tax credit award of £1,300 between 2016 and 2017, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that some families will face an annual loss more than £700 greater than that. Of course the Government’s estimates are much rosier. The Chancellor has insisted that the so-called national living wage will help to compensate for the losses to working families, but of course that increase in the minimum wage will not happen until after the cuts to tax credits hit, and in any event the Chancellor could not provide any hard evidence to rebut the conclusion of the IFS that, even in the best-case scenario, increases in those families’ wages would not make up enough; in fact, they would make up only a quarter of families’ losses as a result of tax credits. In aggregate, the IFS has said the wage increase is not big enough.

Another important point is that it is not targeted at the same group. For example, the rise in the minimum wage may well help single people in particular, but it will not necessarily help families, and it certainly will not help the self-employed. That is a simple truth, which has sometimes seemed at risk of being lost in the thickets of debates in which statistics are traded back and forth almost continuously. The Conservative peer Lord Ashton of Hyde acknowledged as much when he said last month that

“the trouble with this subject is that we could sit swapping statistics all day long”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 September 2015; Vol. 764, c. 1641.]

That seems true enough. As helpful as statistics can often be in helping us to quantify the impact we can expect a cut to have, talk of average families is difficult in a context like this, where the amount that families will lose will vary so widely, depending on their circumstances.

Perhaps I could tell the Committee about a friend of mine who got in touch with me this morning. There are many great joys in having children, but one that people perhaps do not think about immediately is the new circle of friends one makes. One of my best friends has a child who was born two days after my eldest son. She is a remarkable woman, one of the leading artists in this country, but she found herself on her own. Painting away and doing her best, she took up a bit of teaching and tried to keep her head above water. She said to me this morning, “Good luck, Emily. You must fight this, because tax credits were a lifeline for me and my family.” Although her child is now grown up and she does not need tax credits any more, she remembers what a difference they made to her. I remember what a difference they made to her and what a difference they make to families now, who will be affected by these changes after Christmas.

Let us step back for a moment and ask ourselves whether pulling the rug out from under working families is really a fair way to cut spending on welfare. After all, along with making work pay, fairness has been the principle repeated ad nauseam by Government Members, almost to the point where the concept seemed to have been stripped of any meaning at all. If we consider the reality of the enormous gap between what the Government have told us they want to achieve with their welfare reforms and the effects that these cuts will actually have if we allow them to go through, we see a policy that fails whichever way you look at it. It is a failure in the Government’s own terms, it is a failure in economic terms, and, above all, it is a failure in moral terms.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Has she read the article in the British Medical Journal last week, which looked at the impact on child poverty? It stated that an extra 200,000 children will be plunged into poverty, but it also looked at the effect on child health. The UK already has the highest rate of child mortality for under-fives, which can be directly attributed to the additional child poverty that is faced in this country. The implications of this are really significant.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There are many arguments against the tax credit cuts, and although it is tempting to rehearse all of them this morning, another debate is going on elsewhere. Essentially, I cut down a long speech to a short one to make the main points.

I was talking about the policy being a failure in moral terms, as my hon. Friend illustrates well. The focus today might be down in the Chamber, but members of this Committee have the real power. They have in our hands the power to do the right thing and to put the interests of working families in their constituencies ahead of the interests of their party. They have in their hands the power to put the interests of children in some of the poorest working families first, remembering that, even as things stand, two thirds of children in poverty have a parent in work. How much worse will it be after they have suffered the cuts to tax credits?

I am sure that Conservative Members who have an interest in this field are, deep down, genuinely and gravely concerned. When we put the new clause to the vote and when their Whip holds up the piece of paper saying no, will they look aside, think about the thousands of their constituents who will be so greatly affected by the Bill and vote with their conscience, vote the right way, and stop this now?

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady has made a powerful speech. I will not drag out my comments on a painful and frankly despicable assault on our society. Much has been said about tax credits and I would like to give a bit of a Scottish flavour to the debate.

Since the election campaign and throughout this Parliament, the SNP has opposed the Bill in its entirety and the cuts to child tax credits in particular. It is important to highlight the findings of the IFS, that it was “arithmetically impossible” for families to do better with the limited increase in the living wage. We are talking about an attack on low-income families and vulnerable working families. In Scotland more than 500,000 children live in families that rely on tax credits to make ends meet; 350,000 of those children will feel the impact of the cuts as much needed tax credits are stripped away from more than 200,000 low-income families.

The austerity measures proposed by the Conservative Government are disproportionately harming the poorest and most vulnerable households while giving tax breaks to the better-off, thus increasing inequality, not closing the gap. Much has been said about families claiming benefits and families in work as if they were different people, different sections of society, but the reality is that the majority of people who will be affected by the provisions of the Bill are families in work.

The changes are regressive; they take proportionately more from low-income households and give to the richer ones. Planned cuts to tax credits increase the burden on the working poor and the children living in such households. The IFS has found that 63% of children living in poverty are in working households—I repeat: 63% of children living in poverty are in working households. The increase in the minimum wage for people aged 25 and over, which has been wrongly branded a living wage, is nowhere near enough to offset the cuts. The changes run contrary to the Government’s own policy of making work pay and they weaken the incentives to work, because the impact of cuts will fall disproportionately on low-income working families. This is not war on poverty; this is war on the poor.

[Priti Patel]

I am speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who has been paired for the clause.

It is clear that we are going to disagree on this clause. I will speak about the tax credits changes in the context of the new deal presented by the Government in the summer Budget. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stated at the time, the deal was to move Britain from a high welfare, high tax, low wage economy to a low welfare, low tax, higher wage economy. I know that I am rehearsing arguments that hon. Members have heard previously, but spending on tax credits more than trebled in real terms between 1999 and 2010; at the same time that increase in spending did not address issues of poverty. There was a 20% rise in poverty at that time.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Priti Patel]

No, I will not give way.

[Debbie Abrahams]

On a point of order, Mr Streeter. The fact is that child poverty was reduced during the period the right hon. Lady is referring to, and so was pensioner poverty. Not to have the opportunity to challenge those points is a question for the Chair, I believe.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that is not a point of order, but the right hon. Lady has skilfully made her point, and there is of course an opportunity for others to speak after the Minister, should they wish.

[Priti Patel]

I will restate my point. Nine in 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits. That was reduced to six in 10 in 2010 following the coalition’s reform in the last Parliament. The present reforms will reduce that and take tax credit spending back to where it was in 2008 and not, as Opposition Members suggest, to a world without tax credits. Alongside the tax credits changes, we are introducing the national living wage, which, we have clearly heard, Opposition parties do not support. That will be worth more than £9 an hour by 2020.

[Emily Thornberry]

With great respect, the right hon. Lady is talking nonsense. Of course we support wages going up by whatever means that can be done. What we do not support is the ridiculous associated rhetoric suggesting that the proposals are somehow taking over or working on the national living wage campaign, which is based on a completely different set of statistics. It is typical of the Conservative party to try to confuse people and confabulate as it is doing. Of course we support increases in wages.

[Priti Patel]

It is typical of the Labour party to scaremonger and distort some of the facts that we have heard, as well.

The national living wage will be worth more than £9 an hour by 2020. The increase in the personal allowance is part of a single thought-out and coherent plan to ensure that people keep more of their money, rather than having more of their income taxed. The new national living wage means that someone working full time on the current national minimum wage will have a pay rise of nearly £1,000 gross next year, and about £5,000 by 2020. Of course, the personal allowance will go up from £11,000 to £12,500, which means a typical taxpayer will pay more than £1,000 less income tax by 2020.

The Opposition have given illustrations of their view, and I want to give illustrative examples of how families will benefit over the course of the Parliament when the welfare and tax changes announced in the Budget are taken fully into consideration. The income of a couple with two children where only one parent is in work on the current national minimum wage will increase by £2,480. The income of a lone parent with one child working 35 hours at the current national minimum wage will rise by £1,500. A family with two children where the parents are working 35 hours a week on the national minimum wage will see their income increase by £5,500. And a single person with no children working 35 hours on the current national minimum wage will see their income rise by more than £2,000.

There will also be a wider ripple effect in the economy, which is growing, through the national living wage pushing up wages above the current national minimum wage. As we have discussed, not just in this clause but in previous ones, we are committed to doubling free childcare for three to four-year-olds and providing £5,000 of support in childcare for working parents.

No analysis has taken into account those factors from 2016, with the wider ripple effects, which are set to benefit more than 3 million working people. On top of the uplift in the free childcare, there is the £2,000 per child that working families and parents will be entitled to through tax-free childcare.

10:15

[Neil Coyle]

On childcare, will the Minister explain how families with children older than the qualifying age will benefit from that policy?

[Priti Patel]

They will benefit from tax-free childcare. That will be available for families whose children are at school—basically, those who are still school age. That is a Treasury policy.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will that cover school holidays?

[Priti Patel]

My understanding is that tax-free childcare will cover after-school clubs and school holidays, but I will get clarification—[Interruption.] Well, I will give the hon. Lady clarification.

The point I would like to make is that, as we discussed in the previous sitting, the Government have a very strong record on childcare provision, tax-free childcare and support for disadvantaged two-year-olds. The fact that we have been spending in excess of £5 billion on supporting childcare provision for working families should be welcomed by all parties. It is sad that political parties choose to point-score about childcare provision.

We are clearly going to disagree on the content of the new clause. I have highlighted how the increased personal allowance, the national living wage and the welfare changes announced in the summer Budget will provide support for working families. For the reasons I have set out, the new clause is not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill, and I urge the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to withdraw it.

[Emily Thornberry]

We will not withdraw the new clause, Mr Streeter.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 55

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 9

New Clause 16

Exemptions to changes in child tax credit and child element of universal credit

‘(1) The limit on the number of children for which child tax credit or the child element of universal credit can be claimed, as provided for clauses 11 and 12 of this Act, do not apply in the following circumstances—

(a) where the number of children exceeds two because the third (or subsequent) child was part of a multiple birth at the same time as the second qualifying child;

(b) where a third (or subsequent) child becomes a member of a household as a result of being fostered or adopted into that household, or enters the household as the result of a kinship care arrangement;

(c) in exceptional circumstances as defined by the Social Security Advisory Committee, including but not limited to—

(i) the claimant becoming unemployed;

(ii) the death of one of the parents in the claimant household; and

(iii) one of the parents in the claimant household leaving the household following a breakdown in relationship.

(2) No limit shall apply to a household where any child or qualifying young person is disabled.

(3) No limit shall apply to couples with dependent children who if living in separate households would not be affected by the limit.

(4) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, establish an appeals process by which an individual can appeal a decision as to whether an exemption set out in this clause applies in their individual situation.’—(Emily Thornberry.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 56

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 9

New Clause 17

Review of application of sanctions

‘(1) The Secretary of State must before the financial year ending 31 March 2016 provide for a full and independent review of the sanctions regimes attached to working-age benefits, including but not limited to Jobseekers Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Income Support, to determine whether they are effective and proportionate for meeting the Government’s objectives.

(2) The terms of reference for the review must include consideration of—

(a) the application of sanctions to lone parents with dependent children;

(b) the application of sanctions to claimants who are disabled;

(c) the effectiveness of sanctions in moving claimants into sustained work; and

(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State considers relevant.’ —(Emily Thornberry.)

To provide for a full, independent review of the operation of the sanctions regimes attached to out-of-work benefits, to determine the effectiveness of sanctions in moving claimants into sustained work as well as any adverse impacts on particular groups.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Emily Thornberry]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is about having a review of the application of sanctions. Many shadows have fallen upon our discussions over the past few weeks. This particular shadow is whether there is a link between welfare reform and work. What happens to people who do not live up to the requirements imposed on them?

Too often in recent years the Government’s focus has been on a target-driven approach that has assumed that anyone out of work simply lacks willpower. The cornerstone of that approach has been the sanctions regime. The Committee might remember that the previous Minister for Employment, who lost her seat at the last election, took the view that

“people who get sanctions are wilfully rejecting support for no good reason”.

The evidence, however, had she or any of her colleagues cared to look, suggests otherwise.

As the Minister frequently reminds us, and as I am sure she will remind us again today, it is true that conditions have always been attached to the social safety net since unemployment benefit was first introduced in 1911. Nevertheless, the Government mislead the public when they fail to acknowledge that the sanctions regime introduced as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 marked a radical departure from the history of the welfare state and from the entire principle of evidence-based policy making.

The official justification of the Department for Work and Pensions for sanctions remains that

“they are there to encourage claimants to take reasonable steps to find employment or move closer to the labour market”,

but its own impact assessment for the 2012 changes acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence for the proposed approach achieving that. Since then, of course, extensive evidence has emerged that demonstrates that sanctions are deeply counterproductive if helping people into work is really the intention.

The number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance has fallen since 2012, but that has coincided with a significant rise in the number of people whom the Office for National Statistics classes as economically inactive—not unemployed or claiming jobseeker’s allowance, but statistically almost non-people. Interestingly, many of those economically inactive people, if asked why they have become economically inactive, give their reason as being discouraged. So that is their reason—they have been discouraged and so dropped out of the labour market altogether. I would have thought it was important to do some work on what “discouraged” means and on the experiences of those discouraged people, because there might well be a clear link between cause and effect.

Research published in January by Oxford’s Professor David Stuckler found that, of those sanctioned between 2011 and 2014 who subsequently stopped claiming benefits altogether, only 20% said that it was because they had found work. According to the professor, all those people were sanctioned and 80% of them then stopped claiming benefits, but not because they had found work. So they are all off the jobseeker’s allowance statistics and are no longer unemployed. In some ways, therefore, perhaps there has been some success.

To the extent that increased sanctions have had an identifiable impact at all, it has been to increase dramatically the levels of hardship and poverty in recent years, as illustrated most starkly in the extraordinary rise in food bank use. I do not know how many Members were at the Trussell Trust breakfast this morning, but one of the stories I heard arose because the trust has started to give medical advice at some of its food banks. It was giving medical advice to a nurse who had a condition that meant she needed to take various pills. The nurse in her knew that she had to take the pills regularly, but the mother in her knew that, because their tax credits had been wrongly taken away and they were in great need, she had to give the food in the cupboard to her children. So she was taking the pills without having eaten anything and was causing herself more harm. There are hundreds of thousands of these stories and unfortunately things seem to be getting worse, not better. We understand that last year, a million people took advantage of food banks. One has to wonder what would happen if they were not available. According to the 2014 survey by the Trussell Trust, 83% of food banks said that the new sanctions regime had caused an increase in the number of people needing their help.

Another very odd thing about the sanctions regime, which would be addressed if the new clause were accepted, is that different towns and villages have different numbers of people going to food banks and different levels of sanctions. There is one jobcentre where in one month, 40% of people were on sanctions. If there are such extraordinary variations happening within the system, there is clearly unfairness. If individuals within jobcentres are given powers and exercise them with a wide element of discretion, that discretion will clearly be exercised differently in different jobcentres. In some areas there will be more strain on food banks, let alone on the poorest and most vulnerable who continue to be sanctioned.

[Neil Coyle]

It might surprise my hon. Friend to learn that part of the strain on the resources of the food bank in Southwark, which is provided by Pecan as part of the Trussell Trust’s network, comes from people in work. Some 10% of that food bank’s users are working, and the Government have just made that a whole lot worse with their tax credit changes.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend is right. The range of people going to food banks is very alarming. It is not enough to say, “Oh well, it’s because people know that there are food banks now. They didn’t know about them in the past, but now they do, and they are going in because it’s free and taking a can of beans, but they don’t really need it.” That may be how some Government Members feel that people behave. There is another point of view, which is that to go to a food bank is completely humiliating. It is the worst.

I raise my own personal experience again. After my family got thrown out by the men with the bowler hats and went into social housing, I remember my mother used to get boxes of food from friends. It was embarrassing, but it was the way we kept things together; there were no food banks at that point. I remember that one of the food boxes always used to include Campbell’s meatballs. My mother kept them under the stairs and threatened us that if we did not eat what was on our plates, we were going to have to eat the meatballs instead. They may still be under the stairs for all I know. But at least those boxes of food were delivered to our door, instead of my mother having to go out to ask for food. That is humiliating for anybody, for heaven’s sake.

What the Government’s sanctions regime has brought us is increased hardship and suffering, with no tangible gains in the likelihood that those affected will move into work as a result. If we could be confident that all this suffering was resulting in something good, that there was meaning and that people were moving into work who would not have moved into work otherwise—can the Conservative party show us some real evidence of that?—that would take some of the edge off the terrible stories that we hear, which show that the sanctions regime is simply unfair. How on earth do people manage if they are living from hand to mouth, have no savings and have exhausted the support they can ask for from their families and friends, but then are sanctioned a third time and given nothing for three months?

10:30

Last year, under sustained pressure, the Government commissioned a review, which was carried out by Matthew Oakley, of the impact of some sanctions on some people, but it was notable more for its limits than for its findings and recommendations. To begin with, the terms of reference limited Oakley to considering only sanctions imposed on people claiming jobseeker’s allowance, and only in cases in which sanctions were imposed as part of mandatory back-to-work schemes such as the Work programme. In other words, it looked at only about a third of the sanctions imposed on people claiming a single out-of-work benefit. It did not look at the specific circumstances of disabled people, single parents or anyone sanctioned by jobcentres.

Recognising those limits, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions stepped in with a report, which was published earlier this year. The report offers the most comprehensive, fair and judicious overview we have had for some time. In the first of its 26 recommendations—after seven months, the Government have still not responded to them—the report said the Department for Work and Pensions should

“establish a broad independent review of benefit conditionality and sanctions, to investigate whether sanctions are being applied appropriately, fairly and proportionately, in accordance with the relevant Regulations and guidance, across the Jobcentre Plus network.”

I cannot see what is wrong with that. If the Government are dragging their feet, is it possible that that is because they have something to be afraid of? If they have nothing to be afraid of, why do they not answer the Select Committee’s report for a start, and why do they not establish a broad, independent review of benefit conditionality? It is the conditionality—allowing decisions to be made under discretion—that is causing the most difficulties. Why should the Government be afraid of looking at whether sanctions have been applied appropriately, fairly and proportionately, in accordance with the guidelines, if they are so confident that everything is hunky-dory? Clearly, everything is not hunky-dory.

The Government’s inordinate delay in responding to the Select Committee’s inquiry does not inspire much confidence that its advice will be heeded. New clause 17 would take the decision out of Ministers’ hands, requiring them to submit to a full, genuinely independent review of the sanctions regime. Under the new clause, the review would need to establish what the regime was intended to achieve and whether the available evidence supported the current approach.

Despite years of pressure, Ministers have repeatedly resisted efforts to have a full inquiry. In new clause 17, we offer them an opportunity to reconsider; in fact, we offer them an opportunity to provide for an inquiry in law so that they can no longer duck and dive, trying to avoid collecting evidence on this fierce and unfair regime. We urge the Government to support the new clause. If they will not, we would ask them simply: “What are you afraid of?”

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am very pleased to support the new clause, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech.

I have been campaigning on this issue for more than two years. I started when a constituent came to me and told me that he had been going through the work capability assessment process when the nurse conducting it said, “I think you’re having a heart attack. You need to go to hospital.” Off he trotted, and he was okay, but, two weeks later, he got a letter through the post saying that he had not completed the assessment so he was going to be sanctioned. That was how this all started for me. I thought, “Possibly this is just a one-off,” but then I heard more and more cases not only from constituents but from people right across the country. That corresponded with the introduction of the new sanctions regime at the end of 2012 as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

People on not only employment and support allowance but JSA were being sanctioned. Sometimes that was for being a few minutes late. I have heard other examples of increasingly unreasonable reasons, such as people being sanctioned for attending their mother’s funeral or, absurdly, for going to a job interview. That is the ridiculous state the sanctions policy is in.

I have also heard of another worrying category of reasons, which can only be described as fabricated. I still have an email from a constituent saying that he had been sanctioned because he had not attended an interview with his adviser. He came to my office and showed me the evidence that he had not seen that specific adviser but he had seen another. He asked how he could possibly be sanctioned.

I wondered what on earth was going on, but it all fell into place when another constituent came to see me. He had been an adviser in various Greater Manchester jobcentres for more than 20 years. He was so appalled with what was going on that he had to tell me. He said that there were targets for sanctions that are part of the performance monitoring for jobcentres. The aim is to get people off flow, and sanctions were the way to achieve that.

My hon. Friend mentioned the recent inquiry, but before that the Work and Pensions Committee undertook an inquiry into the role of Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system. When the then Minister came to the Committee I asked whether she would undertake a more detailed, independent inquiry. The Select Committee thought that she had agreed to that. Paragraph 100 of its report states:

“We strongly believe that a further review is necessary and welcome the Minister’s commitment to launch a second and separate review into the broader operation of the sanctioning process.”

As we know, there has been a bit of backtracking on that. The report concluded:

“Our evidence suggests that many claimants have been referred for a sanction inappropriately or in circumstances in which common sense would suggest that discretion should have been applied by JCP staff. DWP should launch a second, broader, independent review of conditionality and sanctions, to include investigation of whether the process is being applied appropriately, fairly, proportionately and in accordance with the rules, across the Jobcentre network.”

That was an all-party report indicating that the situation was very worrying.

In addition to those very serious ethical issues, there were and still are concerns about the numbers of people affected, and in particular the meteoric rise in the use of sanctions for employment and support allowance claimants. Between December 2012 and 2015 jobseeker’s allowance sanctions were 3.6 million, including 1.7 million adverse decisions. In the case of ESA sanctions—remember, those affect people who have been found not fit for work—from November 2012 to March 2015 there were 245,679 sanctions, including 68,400 adverse. That compares with the June 2010 to October 2012 period, when there were 60,363, including only 27,919 adverse. That is more than a doubling in ESA sanctions.

As my hon. Friend said, the regime is particularly punitive. A sanction is for a minimum of four weeks and can be for up to three years. The Government have said that it is very unlikely that people will be sanctioned for three years, but I am afraid it has happened. It particularly affects young and disabled people and lone parents.

During 2013-14 it became clear that although no other benefits, for example housing benefit, were meant to be affected, they were. As soon as someone was sanctioned, they were automatically having housing benefit and other benefits stopped. That exacerbates the position of people already on incredibly low incomes.

[Emily Thornberry]

Might I take advantage of this moment to point out that, when my local law centre takes up appeals on sanctions, it has a 100% success rate?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Cases are often overturned on appeal, but for someone on ESA—that means they are not well—going through that process is traumatic and can exacerbate the condition. I will come to that in a moment.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Oakley review, which reported in July 2014. It looked specifically at the JSA sanctioning. It was an important step, but there were still many unanswered questions, which is why the Select Committee wanted to look at it in more detail.

I am aware of the dreadful circumstances of food bank use to which my hon. Friend has alluded—in my area, 60% of food bank use is attributed to sanctions. More shockingly, I am aware of the reports of accidental deaths following sanctions. Those have been included in coroners’ reports, so I do not mention them lightly. David Clapson was one particular case. He was a former soldier who gave up his job with BT to care for his mum, who had dementia. When she died, he wanted to get back to work and signed on at the jobcentre. He missed an appointment with his job adviser and was sanctioned. He was diabetic. Without the £71.70 a week from his jobseeker’s allowance, he could not afford to eat or put credit on his electricity card to keep the fridge where he kept his insulin working. Three weeks later, David died from diabetic ketoacidosis caused by a severe lack of insulin. He was 59. A pile of CVs was found next to his body. The coroner said that, when he died, he had no food in his stomach. His sister, Gill Thompson, has campaigned tirelessly to get an independent review into sanctions. The petition she started has more than 211,000 signatures to date.

David is not the only person to have died following sanctions. There have been 49 peer reviews following the death of a claimant, but the DWP is still not prepared to release the details of whether sanctioning was involved. I hope Ministers reconsider that.

The Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry reported in March. If anything, the Opposition’s concerns from the previous inquiry worsened. The negative impacts on poverty, including child poverty, debt, physical and mental health, were reported. The Committee was given the example of a woman who had discharged herself when she was in hospital because she was frightened of being sanctioned.

There is evidence that the sanctions targets were driven by targets to get claimants off-flow, distorting the JSA figures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has mentioned, the team from Oxford analysed data from 376 local authority areas and found that 43% of JSA claimants who were sanctioned left JSA. As my hon. Friend said, 80% did so without having a job.

The main recommendation from the Select Committee was for a more detailed independent inquiry. Matthew Oakley said that he expected that to happen. I am at a loss as to why the Government are dragging their feet. Surely that is the very least we should do for the people who have lost their lives following sanctions and for their relatives. I hope the Committee will do the right thing and support the new clause.

10:45

[Hannah Bardell]

My colleagues have spoken very passionately on the new clause and the Scottish National party absolutely supports it. It might be interesting for the Committee if I shared some of Michael Adler’s report on benefit sanctions and the rule of law. In his concluding remarks, he says:

“We now come to the question of whether benefit sanctions are compatible with the rule of law. My conclusions, and I must stress that these are my personal conclusions and that other people may wish to take issue with them, is that they are not.”

The SNP has, for a very long time, in Committee, on the Floor of the House and publicly, opposed the sanctions regime and called for a root-and-branch review. Much of that is highlighted in Mr Adler’s report. He notes how

“the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee (2015) reiterated its previous call for a comprehensive, independent review of sanctions and for a serious attempt to resolve the conflicting demands on claimants made by DWP staff to enable them to take a common-sense view on good reasons for non-compliance. The Committee concluded that there was no evidence to support the longer sanction periods introduced in October 2012 and recommended the piloting of pre-sanction written warnings and non-financial sanctions. Sadly, these recommendations seem to have fallen on deaf ears and to date there has been no response from the DWP to the Report.”

I encourage DWP to give us its thoughts on that and why it cannot take that on board.

Mr Adler also says in his report:

“Vulnerable claimants are most likely to be sanctioned and, despite the availability of hardship payments, many of those who are sanctioned experience enormous hardship. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of them end up becoming homeless, using food banks and resorting to crime.”

As DWP has said, sanctions are supposed to be part of a benefits system that gets people back into work and helps people. How can that be the case when someone of that credibility suggests that they are damaging society so badly?

I have not yet been in office for six months, but at least 25% of the workload coming through my constituency surgery and office is down to people who have been sanctioned. One of those is someone who suffers from Parkinson’s and who was treated appallingly by a representative of DWP. I am fighting that case and I have taken it up on the Floor of the House. I urge DWP and Ministers to look again at the sanctions regime and how it is treating vulnerable people in our society. It is not encouraging them back into work and it is not helping their families. We must have a root-and-branch review and listen to the Committees of the House on which Members across the political divide sit so that we can have a sensible approach to treating the most vulnerable.

[Priti Patel]

Let me start by saying that the Government keep the operation of the sanctions system under constant review to ensure that it continues to function effectively and fairly. Where we identify an issue, we will act to put it right. It is therefore unnecessary to embed the implementation of a review in the Bill. The Government have made a number of improvements to the JSA and ESA sanction systems following recommendations made by the independent review led by Matthew Oakley only last year. That improvement work is continuing to ensure that the Oakley recommendations are acted on in the right way where possible. In addition, we are taking the opportunity to ensure that the ongoing improvements in the review are built into the design and delivery of universal credit.

We have not only responded promptly and positively to the recommendations, but have gone further. We have improved the clarity of the JSA and ESA hardship application process, and made improvements to the payment process to ensure that payments are made within three days. We have carried out a review to check that our systems are operating effectively in respect of housing benefit, and that housing benefit is not impacted when a sanction is applied. We have introduced an improved claimant commitment for JSA jobseekers on the Work programme. We have also revised guidance to encourage jobseekers to share that claimant commitment with their provider. That will ensure that jobseekers understand what is required of them—their responsibilities both to Jobcentre Plus work coaches and Work programme providers—and that providers are clear on any previously agreed restrictions for the jobseeker, helping them to design tailored support.

We have made significant improvements to the decision-making process to ensure that doubts about actively seeking work are resolved quickly. The vast majority of decisions are now made within 48 hours, including consideration of good reasons. Our systems are ensuring that, when decisions are made in the jobseeker’s favour, their benefit payments are transferred to them using faster electronic payment systems to ensure that payment reaches their account on the same day.

I would like to touch on a couple of the points hon. Members have made. Sanctions were discussed in Committees in the previous Parliament, and there have been many debates about sanctions in the Commons Chamber and in Committees. Each month, more than 99% of ESA claimants comply with the requirements that are asked of them with regard to sanctions, and the individuals are asked only to meet the requirements that they agree with their advisers. That includes consideration of any health conditions, disabilities or health impairments.

[Neil Coyle]

There are individual examples. A man with a visual impairment and who has a guide dog was sanctioned for non-compliance. He did not know what the agreement said, because he was never sent it in an accessible format—he never had a Braille copy of the agreement. That was raised with the Royal National Institute of Blind People. A case was raised with Mencap of someone with a significant learning disability who never understood what the agreement meant, could not comply with the proposals that he had supposedly agreed to, and ended up being sanctioned. Does the Minister agree that those examples do not reflect a system that she has described as effective and fair? Where is the Department’s review of accessible formats provision?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is right to give those examples. What happened is not right. He mentions accessible formats. I will go away and report back to him on that, but what happened in that case is simply not right—that should not have happened to someone with a visual impairment.

The Department is considering the contents of the Work and Pensions Committee report and looks forward to working with it not just on that, but on future reports.

I come back to my point that, with all our policies, we will keep the operation of the sanctions system under review. We are focusing our efforts on continuing to improve the process on JSA and ESA to ensure that the agreed recommendations can continue to be delivered in the existing universal credit live service and embedded into the design and build of the emerging universal credit digital service. On the basis that we have a system of continually reviewing the sanctions system and are looking at it with regard to the universal credit live and digital services, I urge the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to withdraw the new clause.

[Emily Thornberry]

We will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 57

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 9

New Schedule 1

‘Further provision about social housing rents

Part 1

Provision about levels of rents

Tenancy of existing social housing

1 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a tenant of social housing in England if—

(a) the tenancy begins after the beginning of 8 July 2015,

(b) the accommodation was social housing during the period starting with the beginning of 8 July 2015 and ending with the beginning of the tenancy.

(2) This paragraph does not apply if paragraph 3 applies.

(3) The registered provider must secure that the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant in respect of—

(a) the first relevant year, where the tenancy begins before or at the beginning of the first relevant year,

(b) the part of the relevant year in which the tenancy begins, where the tenancy begins after the beginning of the first relevant year and not at the beginning of a later relevant year,

(c) the following relevant year, where the tenancy begins as described in paragraph (b), or

(d) the relevant year, other than the first relevant year, at the beginning of which the tenancy begins,

is no more than would be payable if the tenant were paying rent at the higher of the social rent rate and the assumed rent rate in respect of that relevant year or that part of a relevant year.

(4) The social rent rate, in relation to the rent payable by a tenant of social housing in respect of the first or a subsequent relevant year, is the rate found by—

(a) determining what would have been the rate of formula rent for that social housing at the beginning of 8 July 2015,

(b) determining the rate of that rent when expressed by reference to a period of 12 months (if necessary), and

(c) at the beginning of each relevant year (up to and including the relevant year in question), making a 1% reduction in the rate.

(5) The assumed rent rate, in relation to the rent payable by a tenant of social housing in respect of the first or a subsequent relevant year, is the rate found by—

(a) determining the rate of the rent that—

(i) was payable to the registered provider by the tenant of that social housing at the beginning of the relevant day, in a case where the relevant day falls after 8 July 2015 and the tenancy that exists at the beginning of 8 July 2015 does not come to an end before the beginning of that later day,

(ii) was payable to the registered provider by the tenant of that social housing at the beginning of 8 July 2015, in a case where the relevant day is 8 July 2015 or the tenancy comes to an end before the beginning of a later relevant day, or

(iii) is likely to have been payable to the registered provider by a tenant of that social housing at the beginning of 8 July 2015, if there was not a tenant at that time,

(b) determining the rate of that rent when expressed by reference to a period of 12 months (if necessary), and

(c) at the beginning of each relevant year (up to and including the relevant year in question), making a 1% reduction in the rate.

(6) If—

(a) the tenancy comes to an end after part of a relevant year to which sub-paragraph (3) applies has elapsed, or

(b) sub-paragraph (3)(a), (b), (c) or (d) ceases to apply in relation to the tenancy after part of the relevant year in question has elapsed,

sub-paragraph (3) has effect in relation to the part of the relevant year falling before that time with a proportionate reduction in the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations define “formula rate”.

(8) Regulations under sub-paragraph (7) may, in particular, make provision by reference to—

(a) standards issued by the regulator under section 194(2A) or 198(3) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (the powers of the regulator to set and revise standards relating to levels of rent) providing for the determination of social rents, or

(b) guidance issued by the Secretary of State relating to the determination of social rents.

Tenancy of new social housing

2 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a tenant of social housing in England if—

(a) the tenancy begins after the beginning of 8 July 2015, and

(b) paragraph 1(1)(b) is not satisfied as regards the accommodation.

(2) This paragraph does not apply if paragraph 3 applies.

(3) If the tenancy begins before or at the beginning of the first relevant year, the registered provider must secure that the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant in respect of the first relevant year is the amount that would be payable by the tenant if the social rent rate applied during that relevant year.

(4) If the tenancy begins after the beginning of the first relevant year, the registered provider must secure that—

(a) the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant in respect of the part of that relevant year falling after the tenancy begins, where the tenancy begins after part of a relevant year has elapsed,

(b) the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant in respect of the following relevant year, where the tenancy begins as described in paragraph (a), or

(c) the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant in respect of the relevant year, where the tenancy begins at the beginning of a relevant year,

is the amount that would be payable if the social rent rate applied during that period.

(5) If—

(a) the tenancy comes to an end after part of a relevant year to which subsection (3) or (4) applies has elapsed, or

(b) sub-paragraph (3) or (4)(a), (b) or (c) ceases to apply in relation to the tenancy after part of the relevant year in question has elapsed,

sub-paragraph (3) or (4) has effect in relation to the part of the relevant year falling before that time with a proportionate reduction in the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant.

(6) “Social rent rate” has the same meaning as in paragraph 1.

Tenancy of affordable rent housing

3 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a tenant of social housing in England if—

(a) the tenancy begins after the beginning of 8 July 2015, and

(b) the accommodation is affordable rent housing (see paragraph 4).

(2) If the tenancy begins before or at the beginning of the first relevant year, the registered provider must secure that the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant in respect of the first relevant year is the amount found by—

(a) determining the rate of the market rent for that social housing when the tenancy begins, and

(b) determining the amount that is 80% of the amount that would be payable in respect of a year if that rate had applied during the year.

(3) If the tenancy begins after the beginning of the first relevant year, the registered provider must secure that—

(a) the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant in respect of the part of that relevant year falling after the tenancy begins, where the tenancy begins after part of a relevant year has elapsed, or

(b) the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant in respect of the relevant year, where the tenancy begins at the beginning of a relevant year,

is the amount found by determining the rate of the market rent for that social housing when the tenancy begins, determining the amount that is 80% of the amount that would be payable in respect of a year if that rate had applied during the year and (if necessary) reducing that amount in proportion to the part of that relevant year that elapsed before the tenancy begins.

(4) If the tenancy begins after the beginning of the first relevant year and not at the beginning of the second or third relevant year, the registered provider must secure that the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant in respect of the relevant year following the one in which the tenancy begins is the amount determined under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) (disregarding the proportionate reduction) reduced by 1%.

(5) If—

(a) the tenancy comes to an end after part of a relevant year to which sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) applies has elapsed, or

(b) sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) ceases to apply in relation to the tenancy after part of the relevant year in question has elapsed,

sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) has effect in relation to the part of the relevant year falling before that time with a proportionate reduction in the maximum amount of rent payable to the registered provider by the tenant.

(6) The market rent is to be determined using a RICS valuation method.

4 (1) This paragraph has effect for the purposes of paragraph 3.

(2) Affordable rent housing is accommodation identified by regulations made by the Secretary of State as accommodation that may be let as social housing at an affordable rent.

(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, make provision for identifying accommodation that may be let as social housing at an affordable rent by reference to an agreement or arrangement relating to the provision of social housing by a registered provider.

(4) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) may, for example, make provision by reference to—

(a) an agreement relating to the exercise of a power under section 5 or 19 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (powers of the Homes and Communities Agency as regards the provision of housing or other land and financial assistance);

(b) an agreement relating to the exercise of a power under section 30 or 34 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (general and subsidiary powers of the Greater London Authority);

(c) an agreement between a local authority and the Secretary of State under section 11(6) of the Local Government Act 2003 (agreement about capital receipts payable to the Secretary of State).

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations define “affordable rent”.

(6) Regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may, in particular, make provision by reference to—

(a) standards issued by the regulator under section 194(2A) or 198(3) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (the powers of the regulator to set and revise standards relating to levels of rent) providing for the setting of rents at up to 80% of market rent in certain cases or circumstances, or

(b) guidance issued by the Secretary of State relating to the setting of rents at up to 80% of market rent in certain cases or circumstances.

(7) “RICS valuation method” means a method for determining market rent that complies with standards for valuation published from time to time by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Part 2

Exceptions, exemptions and enforcement

Exceptions

5 (1) Part 1 does not apply in relation to a tenant of social housing if—

(a) the accommodation is low cost home ownership accommodation;

(b) the accommodation is both low cost rental accommodation and low cost home ownership accommodation (see section 71 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008).

(2) Part 1 does not apply in relation to social housing that consists of or is included in a property if, where the property is subject to a mortgage or other arrangement under which it is security for the payment of a sum or sums—

(a) the mortgagee, or a person entitled under the arrangement to be in possession of the property, is in possession of the property,

(b) a receiver has been appointed by the mortgagee, by a person entitled under the arrangement to do so or by the court to receive the rents and profits of that property and that appointment is in force, or

(c) a person has been appointed under or because of the mortgage or the arrangement to administer or sell or otherwise dispose of the property and that appointment is in force.

(3) If a registered provider’s interest in property that consists of or includes social housing—

(a) was mortgaged or made subject to an arrangement other than a mortgage under which the interest in property was security for the payment of a sum or sums, and

(b) is sold or otherwise disposed of after the coming into force of Part 1 by—

(i) the mortgagee or a person entitled under the arrangement to do so,

(ii) a receiver appointed by the mortgagee, by a person entitled under the arrangement to do so or by the court to receive the rents and profits of the interest in property, or

(iii) a person appointed under or because of the mortgage or the arrangement to exercise powers that consist of or include the sale or other disposal of the interest in property,

Part 1 ceases at that time to apply in relation to that social housing.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for Part 1 not to apply in cases prescribed by the regulations.

(5) Regulations under sub-paragraph (4) may in particular make provision about—

(a) tenants of a description prescribed by the regulations;

(b) tenancies of a description prescribed by the regulations;

(c) accommodation of a description prescribed by the regulations;

(d) accommodation which satisfies conditions prescribed by the regulations, including conditions relating to the funding of its building or refurbishment;

(e) events of a description prescribed by the regulations.

(6) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (5)(a) may include provision about tenants whose income exceeds, or whose household’s incomes exceed, an amount prescribed by the regulations during a period prescribed by the regulations.

(7) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (5)(e) may include provision about periods during a tenancy when the rent payable is temporarily reduced or waived.

Exemptions

6 (1) The regulator may issue a direction mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) in respect of a private registered provider if—

(a) the condition in sub-paragraph (4) or (5) is satisfied, and the Secretary of State consents.

(2) The directions are—

(a) a direction that Part 1 does not apply in relation to a private registered provider specified in the direction;

(b) a direction that Part 1 is to have effect in relation to a private registered provider specified in the direction as if paragraph 1(4)(c) or (5)(c)—

(i) were omitted,

(ii) required the lesser reduction specified in the direction, or

(iii) required the increase specified in the direction;

(c) a direction that Part 1 is to have effect in relation to a private registered provider specified in the direction as if—

(i) in paragraph 3(4), “reduced by 1%” were omitted,

(ii) paragraph 3(4) required the lesser reduction specified in the direction, or

(iii) paragraph 3(4) required the increase specified in the direction.

(3) The regulator may specify in a direction—

(a) the period during which it is to have effect, and

(b) the social housing in relation to which it is to have effect.

(4) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the regulator considers that complying with Part 1 would jeopardise the financial viability of the private registered provider.

(5) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the circumstances of the private registered provider satisfy requirements prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) The regulator may publish a document about the measures that the regulator considers could be taken by a private registered provider to comply with Part 1 and to avoid jeopardising its financial viability.

(7) The Secretary of State may issue a direction mentioned in sub-paragraph (8) in respect of a local authority if the condition in sub-paragraph (10) or (11) is satisfied.

(8) The directions are—

(a) a direction that Part 1 does not apply in relation to a local authority specified in the direction;

(b) a direction that Part 1 is to have effect in relation to a local authority specified in the direction as if paragraph 1(4)(c) or (5)(c)—

(i) were omitted,

(ii) required the lesser reduction specified in the direction, or

(iii) required the increase specified in the direction;

(c) a direction that Part 1 is to have effect in relation to a local authority specified in the direction as if—

(i) in paragraph 3(4), “reduced by 1%” were omitted,

(ii) paragraph 3(4) required the lesser reduction specified in the direction, or

(iii) paragraph 3(4) required the increase specified in the direction.

(9) The Secretary of State may specify in a direction—

(a) the period during which it is to have effect, and

(b) the social housing in relation to which it is to have effect.

(10) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the Secretary of State considers that the local authority would be unable to avoid serious financial difficulties if it were to comply with Part 1.

(11) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the circumstances of the local authority satisfy requirements prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.

(12) The Secretary of State may publish a document about the measures that the Secretary of State considers could be taken by a local authority in order to comply with Part 1 and to avoid serious financial difficulties.

Enforcement

7 The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the enforcement of requirements imposed by or under this Schedule, including provision applying Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 with modifications.

Part 3

General

Regulations

8 (1) Regulations under this Schedule must be made by statutory instrument.

(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Schedule is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Guidance

9 (1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about determining, for the purposes of paragraph 1(5)(a)(iii), what rate of rent is likely to have been payable by a tenant of particular social housing at the beginning of 8 July 2015.

(2) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under sub-paragraph (1).

Interpretation

10 (1) In this Schedule “the relevant day”, in relation to social housing, means—

(a) 8 July 2015, or

(b) if the Secretary of State consents to the use of a different day (“the permitted review day”) in the case of that social housing, the permitted review day.

(2) A consent given for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) may be a consent given for a particular case or for a description of cases.’—(Guy Opperman.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Extent

Amendments made: 180, in clause 24, page 23, line 11, after “22” insert—

“and (Further provision about social housing rents), (Provision about excepted cases), (Rent standards) and (Interpretation) and Schedule (Further provision about social housing rents)”.

This amendment is consequential on the addition of the new clauses and the new Schedule. The new clauses and the new Schedule extend to England and Wales (and apply in England).

Amendment 129, in clause 24, page 23, line 22, after “18” insert “and (Transitional provision)”.

This amendment means that the new clause in amendment NC13 has the same extent as clauses 16 to 18 (England and Wales and Scotland).

Amendment 130, in clause 24, page 23, line 22, at end insert—

“( ) section (Expenses of paying sums in respect of vehicle hire etc.) (expenses of paying sums in respect of vehicle hire etc.).”—(Guy Opperman.)

This amendment is consequential on NC14, the new clause ‘Expenses of paying sums in respect of vehicle hire etc.’ The new clause extends to England and Wales and Scotland.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Commencement

Amendments made: 181, in clause 25, page 23, line 27, at end insert—

“( ) section 21;

“( ) paragraph 6 of Schedule (Further provision about social housing rents) and section (Further provision about social housing rents), so far as relating to paragraph 6;”

This amendment and amendment 182 secure that clause 21 and paragraph 6 of the new Schedule, which contain provision about exempting registered providers, or modifying the requirements that affect them, come into force for all purposes when the Bill is enacted.

Amendment 182, in clause 25, page 23, line 43, leave out “to” and insert “, 20 and”.

Amendment 183, in clause 25, page 23, line 43, after “22” insert—

“and (Further provision about social housing rents), (Provision about excepted cases), (Rent standards) and (Interpretation) and Schedule (Further provision about social housing rents), so far as not brought into force by subsection (1),”—(Guy Opperman.)

This amendment is consequential on the addition of the new clauses and the new Schedule. The new clauses and the new Schedule come into force on Royal Assent for the purpose of making regulations and on an appointed day or days for other purposes.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title

Amendment made: 92, title, line 3, leave out “social mobility” and insert “life chances”.—(Guy Opperman.)

This amendment amends the Title to change the words “social mobility” to “life chances” to make the terminology consistent with that used in the Bill.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

10:57

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

WRW 75 Bournemouth Churches Housing Association (BCHA)

WRW 76 DisabledViewUk

WRW 77 Framework Housing Association

WRW 78 Sovereign Housing

WRW 79 Camden Council

WRW 80 Your Housing Group, Devonshires Business Advisory Services (DBAS)

WRW 81 Citizens Advice Scotland

WRW 82 Liverpool City Council

WRW 83 The Children’s Society - further submission

WRW 84 Cllr Chris Penberthy, Cabinet Member for Co-operatives and Housing Plymouth City Council

WRW 85 Equality and Human Rights Commission

WRW 86 Scottish Campaign on Welfare Reform (SCoWR)