Immigration Bill (Third sitting)
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I remind everyone to switch electronic devices to silent? Also, for reasons I do not understand, we may not bring tea or coffee into the room.
We will now consider a motion to amend the programme resolution agreed on 20 October. The motion is on the amendment paper and stands in the name of the Minister. Standing Orders provide that he may make such a motion and that if any member of the Committee signifies their objection to it, the proceedings on it will lapse. If there are no objections, I call the Minister to move the motion.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 20 October be amended by making the following amendments to the Table in paragraph (2)—
(1) in the second entry for Thursday 22 October, in the third column, at the end insert “; No Recourse to Public Funds Network”;
(2) in the third entry for that day, in the second column, for “3.30pm” substitute “3.15pm”
(3) in the fourth entry for that day, in the second column, for “4.30pm” substitute “4.00pm”.—(James Brokenshire.)
Examination of Witnesses
Adrian Berry, Manjit Gill, Jerome Phelps, Don Flynn and Colin Yeo gave evidence.
The Chair
Q 191191 Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I should remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme resolution the Committee has agreed. We have until 1 pm for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Manjit Gill: I am Manjit Gill QC.
Jerome Phelps: I am Jerome Phelps. I am the director of Detention Action.
Colin Yeo: My name is Colin Yeo. I am a practising barrister at Garden Court Chambers. I am a specialist in immigration law.
Adrian Berry: I am Adrian Berry. I am the chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association.
Don Flynn: I am Don Flynn, the director of the Migrants Rights Network.
The Chair
Just before I call the first Member, I should remind witnesses that these are the Minister’s favourite sessions, because he is allowed to ask questions, rather than having to answer them.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Q 192 Thank you, panel, for coming to give evidence to us this morning. I want to ask about appeals, bail and enforcement action by immigration officers, and I will take them in that order. May I start with appeals, and ask for your views on the quality of the initial decision making by the Home Office—by UK Visas and Immigration—before we get to the question of appeals?
Manjit Gill: I can say something very briefly on the quality of initial decision making; others will probably want to comment. It is perhaps the most critical feature of the problem. The quality of initial decision-making is unspeakable. About the impact of the appeal provisions on children, I have particular concerns. I speak only in my individual capacity.
You may have come across decisions of the upper tribunal, and particularly of the president, Mr Justice McCloskey. In a case called “J.O.”—I can send you copies if need be—he severely criticised how the interests of children are dealt with in decision letters. They seem simply to pay lip service to the best interest duty. He basically tore the decision-making process to pieces in his decision. I do not know what steps are being taken in the Home Office to rectify that.
As regards other decision making outside children’s cases, the tendency is to put all the burden on the appellant. I can see that the appellant or the person concerned should bear the burden—initially, at any rate—of having to say something about why they should not be deported or removed pending appeal, but more must be done in terms of the actual inquiries made by the Home Office. I had better not say any more at this stage.
Keir Starmer
Q 193 Liberty has suggested that in the period April to June 2015, 39% of immigration appeals were allowed at the first-tier tribunal. Does that chime with your experience?
Adrian Berry: Yes. The annual figure for last year was that about 40% of appeals were allowed. It was slightly higher, I think, in the two previous years. That is indicative, perhaps, of the quality of decision making, but it does not necessarily capture the whole story in relation to the reasoning and how decisions are made. Decisions may survive judicial scrutiny but none the less be poorly reasoned and have an inappropriate or insufficient grasp of the detail of an individual’s circumstances. They are a genre of their own, in literary terms. You see a formulaic approach toward the appreciation of individual people’s lives that is dispiriting, when it comes to understanding what individual consideration is actually being given.
Keir Starmer
Q 194 Thank you. Do any other panel members want to comment on that question before I move on?
Colin Yeo: There is slight variation in the figures. Different types of case have different success rates. The overall figure is about 40%; it was a little higher in some previous years. However, for example, in the managed migration statistics, it is about 42% of appeals, and it is much lower in some other kinds of case, such as deportation cases. The success rate is much lower there. That compares to a success rate, I understand—I am not a tax specialist—in tax tribunals of about 25%.
Obviously, immigration cases involve profound questions about where somebody lives, or contact between parents and children or between spouses. It is very important that those decisions are right, and the fact that there is such a high success rate on appeal, which is, realistically, the best measure we have got of such things is a real concern.
The Chair
Before we move on, I think that Craig Whittaker wants to come in on that point.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Q 195 What percentage of those who apply actually go to appeal?
Colin Yeo: I do not think anybody has the statistics for that. There could be reasons why people do not appeal. Sometimes they are simply not realistically able to pursue it, because they do not have legal aid—
Craig Whittaker
Q 196 I understand that, but what I am trying to establish is that if it is 40% of those who apply, but the appeal process involves only 5% of all applicants, it is actually a relatively small number. I was just trying to put it into some perspective.
Colin Yeo: I do not have the statistics for that. I have never seen those statistics, either, so I cannot help the Committee. I am sorry.
Keir Starmer
Q 197 Let us move on to the question of appeal and the extension of the “remove first, appeal later” provisions, which is in the Immigration Bill. Will you give the Committee an indication of the practical differences between what is involved in appealing in country here and appealing once you have been removed, just in relation to the nuts and bolts of it? Some of us around the room are lawyers. Some of us have been involved in cases, but not everybody has, so will you give us a practical example of what actually happens if you are here, and what is envisaged, or what does happen, if you are removed, so that people get a sense of the difference between the two?
Manjit Gill: May I say something briefly on that? First, insofar as contact with your own lawyer is concerned, here, with or without the difficulties of funding—and there are enormous difficulties, as you have just heard—at least you can go and see your lawyer, and your lawyer can come and see you. You can get the witness statements sorted and give the instructions face to face. If you are having to give all those instructions from abroad, just imagine the practical difficulties and impediments to instructing your lawyer in the first place in order to prepare the case.
In children’s cases, how do you go about the process of getting an independent expert’s report? How is the child expert going to be able to assess the damage that will be caused by the separation—even a short-term separation—if the separation has already occurred? They are simply not going to be able to do it. Instead of having to prepare their reports from the point of view of prevention of harm to the child, they are going to have to do it from a removed location from the point of view of remedial action to remedy the harm that has already been done to the child by taking the father away and making him appeal from abroad.
Even if you manage all that and get to the appeal hearing itself, how are you going to give the oral evidence? A lot depends on how you come across to a court or tribunal. A lot depends on what happens in the courtroom. Here, we can all see each other and what is happening on people’s faces—who is a little bit upset, who is happy and so on. These things just do not come across when you have to do it through a video link.
Moreover, the tribunal does not allow a system of video links unless they have approved the actual source. They do not allow you to walk into an internet café or to use Skype. British embassies and high commissions simply do not provide the service. The Home Office does not pay for that service, nor does the tribunal; you yourself are going to have to pay to put in place a system whereby you can give oral evidence. There are a lot more things that I could say, but I am trying to keep it brief.
Keir Starmer
Q 198 Do any other members of the panel have any comments on the practical issues?
Adrian Berry: In addition to what Manjit has said, the difficulties include compiling exhibits, for example, behind a witness statement. If you are looking at getting reports, such as medical reports of actual treatment, or gathering documentary evidence of a life that has been led and you want to go over those documents with the individual in question, having those documents on the table in front of you, face-to-face in a live encounter, is very different.
Preparing an appeal is a rolling process. You are drafting statements and possibly re-drafting them, and looking at the statements of people writing in support and considering them against the documentary evidence that you are assembling—in a family life case, for example—and to do all that remotely is formidably difficult. In some instances, even in legal cases in the commercial court, the High Court in London has had to take evidence in Zambia, for example, for a complex commercial case, because it is difficult to do it over the internet or remotely. That sort of highlights the issue for us. If you are trying to run a case remotely about someone’s life, with a whole batch of documentary evidence that requires consideration in addition to assembling expert reports, there is a degradation of the quality of the job that you are able to do that cannot be compensated for.
Keir Starmer
Q 199 Following on from that, obviously some changes were made a year or so ago. Can the panel give us their view on the impact of the changes to “remove first, appeal later”? I think that there is an outstanding Court of Appeal case that it might be useful to know a little about.
Manjit Gill: At the moment, because there have been so few appeals, it is difficult to tell. Mr Brokenshire gave a written answer on 14 October in which he said, and he will know this far better than I do:
“From July 2014 to August 2015, more than 1,700 foreign national offenders have been removed under the deport first, appeal later powers, with many more going through the system. Of these, 426 have made an appeal against their deportation and 13 (0.7%) have been successful.”
You can see that having to go abroad and appeal from abroad inevitably results in impediments, which reduce the number of people who appeal at all and have an impact on the appeal rates of success. There may be other reasons, of course, and I fully understand that.
To answer your question, it is very difficult to tell what will happen. One thing that can be predicted with absolute certainty is that there will be even more burdens on the tribunals and even more delays in the system. At the moment, not only is the initial decision making by the Home Office bad but the tribunal system is under severe pressure. Courtrooms are being closed and not used. The number of hearings that are being run is being reduced. There have been massive delays even for in-country appeals. For out-of-country appeals, the delays are even longer. Just consider what the harm is going to be to separated families.
Moreover, this poses massive problems for the tribunals themselves. It is all very well to say that the problems caused by the new system will have to be remedied by the tribunals, but I do not know what the Minister of Justice thinks about that. Who is actually going to provide the extra money that will be needed to remedy the problems? Would it not be much simpler to speed up the appeal process in this country and let people appeal from here? If their appeals are so hopeless, they can be removed very quickly.
Colin Yeo: I acted in a relatively early case, and what happened is perhaps instructive. It was a gentleman who had committed a criminal offence, and he had received a sentence in excess of 12 months, so he fell under automatic deportation. He had been in this country since the age of six, however, and he was in his 30s. He was removed before he was able to appeal in the fairly early days of these new powers. He also had children in this country, and he had contact with those children before he was detained—before he went into prison. He also had some other children with whom he had managed to secure contact through the courts, and whom he had lost contact with because his ex-partner was unco-operative. He was simply unable to pursue an appeal. He was removed to a country far away, where he had not been since early childhood, and we simply lost contact with him.
That was a result as far as the Home Office is concerned, I am sure, because he has not pursued an appeal, there is no expense there and it is another foreign criminal removed. There were some children who were profoundly affected by that, however, as was he. He had been in this country for in excess of 20 years, and he simply had no opportunity to argue his case in front of an independent judge. That is, I think, a profoundly concerning outcome. In real terms, people are just not able to pursue an independent remedy. When you have got such poor-quality decision making in the first instance, that is a real concern.
The Chair
May I just make it clear—I am sure that we have not strayed on this—that we should not be talking about any active appeals? I do not think that we were; I think they were historic appeals. We just need to bear that in mind.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Q 200 On that point, Mr Yeo, I may have misheard you, and if I have, my apologies. The case that you just cited involved a gentleman whom I think you described as a foreign criminal. He had been through the prison system here and he had been deported. Is it, therefore, your assertion that Government should potentially put at risk people on our high streets in all our constituencies, towns and cities for such a person, or that they should allow them to conduct their appeal at least in their country of origin? If it is the former, that would strike me as a rather irresponsible stance for any Government of any colour to take—but I may have misheard you.
Colin Yeo: On my assessment, the gentleman had a reasonable case under the immigration rules that had been set by the Home Office.
Simon Hoare
Q 201 Sorry, I was not asking about the validity of his case; I was merely drawing attention to his status. Okay, his slate was wiped clean, but he had been a criminal, he had been found guilty and he had been jailed. Correct?
Colin Yeo: He had been, yes, but I cannot conduct that balancing exercise for myself about his danger to the public and so on; he never had an opportunity to put his case to an independent judge to prove that either way.
Simon Hoare
Q 202 With respect, Sir, he did, through an appeal post-deportation. Whether he availed himself of that opportunity would have been entirely up to him. Correct?
Colin Yeo: In theory, yes, but in practice I think it would have been rather hard for him to pursue an appeal from a country that he didn’t know, basically.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Q 203 Sir Keir highlighted the Court of Appeal case; I think I am right in saying that. Mr Gill, I believe that you were acting in respect of that case. Am I right in saying that some of the concerns that you have expressed to this Committee were considered as part of that hearing?
Manjit Gill: Some of the concerns were raised, but the way sin which the Court of Appeal dealt with things is this, and I certainly do not support any solution that puts people of this country at risk; nobody is suggesting that. If there was significant evidence of immediate risk to people, then it was accepted in the Court of Appeal—by me—that there might be some limited category of cases in which there would need to be an appeal from abroad, but that is a limited category.
Some of the concerns about the difficulties of the appeal process were raised, to get back to your point, but the way in which the Court of Appeal dealt with them—I do not particularly want to talk about individual cases, but since you asked—was to say, “Well, there may be those sorts of difficulties, but it will be up to the system to sort them out?” Now, what does that mean? Is the Home Office going to provide the money? Is the Minister of Justice going to provide the money? Who is going to sort it out?
James Brokenshire
Q 204 The reason I asked that question, Mr Gill, was that obviously a judgment was handed down in the Court of Appeal last week; I have certainly seen a note of that case. Does that judgment represent the current law in respect of the assessment of the principles of the Immigration Act 2014?
Manjit Gill: To the extent that the Court considered them. When one looks at the judgment, one sees that all the Court was saying is—first, it is very important to recognise this—that the test is not one of a real risk of serious, irreversible harm; definitely not the test. In fact, your own counsel conceded that at the hearing, but had not done so at any instance prior to that. The test remains one that asks, “Will there be a breach of human rights?”
Secondly, the Court said that the guidance that had been given to the Home Office staff was absolutely hopeless. That was sort of conceded by Lord Keen saying, on your behalf, that we will have to clarify the guidance. The Court said, “Well, it goes a good deal further than that”, and it was much more scathing in the hearing room itself. In other words, the Court was attacking the practice that is being operated at first-instance level within the Home Office. We await the guidance, so we do not know what guidance will emerge.
As to the practicalities of the appeal process and the difficulties of appealing from abroad, which I think is what you are asking me about, the Court said that in principle you could have an appeal from abroad. I have paraphrased those words; you will have to look at the judgment for more detail. But that does not mean that in practice the process necessarily works. On the practical problems, they said, “Well, there are practical problems, but that is something that will have to be dealt with.” That gets us back to those practical problems: who is going to sort out the delays in the system, who is going to ensure that the preparation is capable of being done, who is going to provide the funding for that and if a person has to be brought back for a hearing, which they contemplated but Home Office staff have not, who is going to pay for that? None of those problems is dealt with in the judgment because that is throwing them back on you.
James Brokenshire
Q 205 If I can take you back to my original question on the legal principles of the operation of the Immigration Act that you were challenging just then, the Court upheld the soundness of the principles in the context of human rights legislation.
Manjit Gill: I accepted, as did my co-counsel, Mr Richard Drabble QC, that you do not need an in-country right of appeal in every case. The Court of Appeal has noted that. There is no dispute about that, and I will tell you why it is accepted. The Strasbourg Court says that it is not imperative that in every case you need an in-country human rights appeal. You will certainly need it in article 2 and article 3 cases, which the Home Office accepts. There is no dispute about that; the issue is about article 8 cases. When the European Court uses the phrase “not imperative”, what it means is that you may well need it in a lot of cases but in some cases you may not.
That gets us back to which types of cases there are in which you can avoid giving people an in-country human rights appeal, and the question that was asked there. Supposing you have someone who is going to be a real danger to people on the streets—not just a low risk of reoffending but an Abu Qatada or someone who is going to immediately threaten to go around committing atrocities and so on. We cannot have that sort of person in the country pending appeal. I entirely accept that. Such a person should have to go abroad to appeal. It would depend on the individual case, of course, but I can see powerful arguments for saying such a person should.
We are not talking about such a person. We are talking about people such as the person Mr Yeo mentioned. To give a practical example, we mean someone who has been here since the age of six or seven, breaks up with his girlfriend, goes back to the flat and breaks the door down, frightens the girl but does not harm her, takes his belongings and goes. Quite properly, he gets locked up for a couple of years. That is a foreign criminal under the legislation. Should such a person, who may have been here for 25 years, and who may have a child from that relationship, then be forced to appeal from abroad? That is not an Abu Qatada-type character.
What is now being proposed is that the out-of-country appeal rights, which in principle can be had in a limited category of cases, should not be limited to that category but should be applied for everybody. That is contrary to a principle.
Craig Whittaker
Q 206 Just to clarify something you said, Mr Gill: this character broke down the door, scared his girlfriend a little bit but did not harm her, and got two years for that. Is that what you are saying?
Manjit Gill: I am giving you a practical example.
Craig Whittaker
Q 207 That does not sound practical to me. That is why I am asking the question. Which court in this country would give someone two years in prison for breaking down a door and scaring his girlfriend?
Manjit Gill: Mr Whittaker, I made up the example just now. I do not have a particular case relating to it.
Craig Whittaker
Q 208 So it is not true?
Manjit Gill: No. I am giving you an example, which I am sure you can add in, Mr Whittaker.
Craig Whittaker
Q 209 Well, it is a poor example in my opinion, Mr Gill, because actually that is not a relevant case. We are here to take evidence from you. Making stories up along the way is not evidence.
Manjit Gill: With respect, that is completely unfair.
The Chair
Order. I know that this goes right to the heart of the issue, but we have four other panel members and we have been speaking for quite a long time on this particular point. Going back to you, Mr Starmer, do you want to move on a bit?
Keir Starmer
Q 210 I have one final question, about support appeals, but I take the point, Mr Bone; if the panel members cannot deal with the question we can move on even more quickly. Asylum support provisions are being changed—specifically, the support provided after the exhaustion of the asylum process. Will panel members give an assessment of the quality of the decisions on support at the moment? Some briefings have suggested that the success rate of appeals against decisions on support was as high as 60%. Can any of the panel members deal with that? That is obviously a very high success rate; by success rate, I mean that the decision is either overturned, withdrawn or has to be retaken—in other words, the original decision is disturbed. Is that a figure that anyone can give any evidence about?
Adrian Berry: I cannot give evidence about the precise figure, but I have appeared at the Asylum Support Tribunal and conducted appeals against refusals of support. The existence of that remedy of a right of appeal is a vital safeguard. When asylum support is refused you are potentially dealing with someone literally being destitute, which is contrary to article 3 of the European convention on human rights in the sense of having a want of food, shelter and essential living needs. A vital safeguard is provided by having a merits appeal, where you can give evidence about your circumstances. Equally, the Home Office has the opportunity to present its case for why support should be refused within the statutory framework that allows you to moderate the provision of asylum support.
That is a vital safeguard. Anything that removes that right of appeal is removing not simply the idea of a right of appeal—it is a good idea to have independent judicial scrutiny of Executive decision making. It also leaves people hungry and without a roof over their head. So it is a fine example of a coincidence of social provision and proper scrutiny of Executive decision making.
Keir Starmer
Q 211 It is one thing to remove a right of appeal where there is a very low rate of success, but another to remove it where there is very high rate of success. Does the 60% rate I quoted, which has been given in papers before us, surprise you?
Adrian Berry: No, not at all. In my experience, it is usual to win them, if I may put it like that. I do not have precise statistics, but in the cases that I have been involved in before the Asylum Support Tribunal, if you have a point about the need for support, you have a point.
Keir Starmer
Q 212 Just as a general proposition, in relation to administrative decision making, a 60% success rate, or disturbance of the decision made, is very high, is it not?
Adrian Berry: Yes.
Colin Yeo: Before we move on from this topic, we have just been giving evidence, in effect, about changes that have already occurred under the 2014 Act. What is proposed in the Bill is an extension of those changes to all categories of immigration appeal. We are very concerned about that as well; it is one thing to talk about foreign criminals, risk cases and so on, as we have briefly, but it is another thing to apply that to migrants who are lawfully present in the UK. They might receive an incorrect decision from the Home Office, and we know that there is a reasonable number of those, with the appeals success rate at 40% or more. They will be forced to leave the UK for the duration of the appeal process, potentially leaving their children and spouse behind, losing their job and losing their home, only to win their appeal—if they can, despite having one hand tied behind their back in an adversarial process because they are abroad—and then be brought back. That seems to be an absurd thing to do to people who are lawfully present.
Some of the press releases from the Minister, for example, have talked about doing that to people who are unlawfully present. That is one thing, but the powers being taken in the Bill would apply that to all migrants. So it would not only be those who are unlawfully present; it would also be lawful migrants, where there is simply a mistaken decision by the Home Office. An appeal takes months at the moment—I have an appeal that has taken 18 months to get listed—and that has drastic consequences for a family in the meantime.
The Chair
Before we move on, does any other member of the Committee wish to ask a question on this particular point?
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Q 213 A number of you have mentioned the quality of the initial decision making; I think Mr Gill referred to it as being unspeakable. It would be useful for us to know—it would certainly be useful for the Minister to know—what it is that you think is making the quality of the decision making so poor. What sort of mistakes are being made? What do you think needs to happen to improve the quality of the decision making?
Colin Yeo: I have been an immigration lawyer for 15 years. When I started, people could use an immigration lawyer if they wanted. It was like using an accountant to do your tax return. It was an optional extra. These days, immigration law has become so insanely complex. The rules are an alphabet soup of non-sequential provisions where it is almost impossible to track what the requirements are. They are separated into different dependencies, which do not seem to match up properly. The rules are incredibly complex. Basically everybody needs an immigration lawyer these days, and the 2014 Act and now the Bill are expanding the number of people who require an immigration lawyer. It now includes landlords, employers, and migrants and their families. Although on one level I speak slightly flippantly because it is great for business for an immigration lawyer, it a crazy way to run a modern country in a global economy.
Anne McLaughlin
Q 214 Are you suggesting that the decision made initially is poor because the law is so complex and those who are making the decision are not equipped?
Colin Yeo: It is a combination of things. The Home Office officials are subject to rules that change almost weekly or monthly and are very complicated to understand. They are not helped by the applicants themselves, who have real difficulties trying to unravel the meaning of the rules, and the application forms and so on, which are incredibly complicated now.
Don Flynn: To add to what Colin said, it is commonly reported among the organisations supporting asylum seekers and refugees that they do encounter an entrenched culture of disbelief. The presumption very firmly in place within decision-making culture is that this is a bogus application. A steep slope is then presented to the individual asylum seeker to overcome that. In addition, most of us who have been around get hints that templates are being applied to the decision-making process. Rather than rigorous consideration of the individual cases, you get the sense that an Eritrean case or a Somali case is being fed through a particular filter. Occasionally, that shows itself by a decision that is so wildly inappropriate, without any reference to particular facts that have been put forward, which makes you think that this is a pro forma decision, rather than one that has addressed the solid facts that have been argued in the case.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I was going to move to a separate topic, if that is okay, Mr Bone.
Sarah Champion
Q 215 I would like to move to the subject of bail. How many cases are detained each year? How many are ultimately removed from the UK and how many are granted permission to remain?
Jerome Phelps: In 2014, 30,364 migrants entered immigration detention and 29,674 left detention. The Government publish statistics on outcomes for those who leave detention—53% were removed or deported from the UK last year, 7% were released on bail and 1% were granted leave to remain although, of course, others may have subsequently been granted leave to remain after release. These figures are interesting in the light of the Bill in that they show that bail is used fairly selectively by the tribunal. The Home Office releases 38% of detainees so it is not that large numbers of detainees are being released by the tribunal.
Sarah Champion
Q 216 Mr Phelps, could I stay with you? If the rest of the panel want to chip in, they may. There have been suggestions that provisions in the Bill would fuel more unlawful detention litigation. What is your view?
Jerome Phelps: Absolutely. Bail provides a crucial safeguard and one that is working reasonably well in the current system. As I say, it is not generating excessive numbers of releases. It is a vital safeguard, first, because the UK has the most unconstrained powers of detention in Europe. We have no time limit on detention, unlike the rest of Europe, and we have no automatic judicial oversight of detention. The ability of the courts to scrutinise decisions by the Home Office to deprive someone of their liberty is entirely dependent on that person’s ability to apply for bail. That ability is dependent on having an address. It is important to note that that is not out of any concern by the tribunal to reduce homelessness; the primary reason why people in detention have to provide an address to apply for bail are solid immigration control priorities of the Home Office, in that if somebody cannot provide an address, it is very difficult for them to reassure the courts or the Home Office that they will keep in touch and be detainable and removable if it becomes possible.
Although the explanatory notes are not particularly clear here, it appears as though the ability of a destitute detainee to access an address will be subject to a non-appealable, discretionary decision of the Home Office, which would effectively enable the Home Office—the detaining authority—to prevent significant numbers of migrants in detention from accessing the tribunal to apply for bail.
That will have two potential consequences. First, it will significantly increase the levels of frustration, alienation and probably non-compliance within the detention estate if people have no lawful route to challenge their detention. Secondly, and more pertinently to your question, it will force applications into the High Court, because there is no ability to challenge detention in the lower courts. The High Court is already reeling under the pressure of immigration and asylum-related cases. It is already receiving large numbers of unlawful detention cases, and the Home Office is already paying out around £3 million a year in compensation for unlawful detention. This seems like a very retrograde step that would force more cases into the High Court and would be likely to generate more findings of unlawful detention and more compensation payments. That is something that no one in this room would want, I am sure.
Sarah Champion
Q 217 Does the rest of the panel agree with that sentiment?
Adrian Berry: Yes. At the moment, the issue with the innovation in bail provisions proposed in the Bill is that there are difficulties with allowing, for example, the Home Office to vary a condition set by the tribunal. That is more than a cosmetic change. You have independent judicial provision for granting bail and for setting the terms after a hearing. A judge takes a view of what conditions should be imposed. The Home Office can then vary them at their own suit, possibly having lost the argument before an independent judge. You end up with a situation where conditions may be difficult to respect in practical terms, and that will have an impact.
The issue with the provisions in the Bill regarding bail goes beyond that, because it also deals with this idea of branding people as on bail when they have simply come to this country seeking admission. Hitherto, such people have been on temporary admission, which is a different sort of status. There is also an issue about the creation of a culture of presumption of detention and the presumption that you are on bail when, in fact, you have simply come to the country and sought admission, and you are lawfully here without any risk of absconding.
This rebranding is of a piece with the power grab, if you like, on the part of the Home Office against independent judicial scrutiny. What is really required is independent judicial oversight of bail at regular periods, so that you do not get into a situation where you have unlawful detention—in other words, where the detention is without legal foundation because it is unreasonable in most cases or it is contrary to the Home Office’s own policy. Without independent regular judicial oversight, you are going to have more unlawful detention cases and more compensation being paid out. As people have said, nobody wants that. It is not a good situation.
Colin Yeo: The Bill will have the effect of reducing scrutiny rather than increasing it. It turns independent hearings into, virtually, a charade. There is no point in having a hearing in front of an independent judge about whether you should be released and what the conditions should be, and arguing them out in court, when the Secretary of State has a power under the Bill to impose whatever conditions they want immediately afterwards. That reduces scrutiny heavily, and turns the whole thing into a charade, rather than increasing scrutiny, as we would like.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
Q 218 Am I right in thinking, though, that the Government are reviewing the whole issue of detention in parallel with this Bill?
Jerome Phelps: Yes, we understand that there is an internal review taking place, and the Stephen Shaw review into welfare and detention is reporting around now. In that context, we welcome the decision to announce the closure of Dover immigration removal centre as suggesting a very positive intention to use detention more smartly. I hope that that reflects the overall direction of travel and that the Bill does nothing to get in the way of that.
Simon Hoare
Q 219 I am not quite sure that that last bit was welcome news to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, but we will wait to see.
May I ask each of you to take up your fantasy job? Close your eyes and pretend you are the Home Secretary. It might be your nightmare job—I do not know—but let us suppose it is your fantasy job. We have heard a lot about something to do with principle, something to do with process and something to do with practicality. Imagine you had a clean sheet of paper. Would it be easier for the Government, effectively, to declare an amnesty for everybody who is here now and to start from scratch? Or could they go still further and have no controls at all—effectively, Schengen, but wider—with people just coming to the country as and when, and no longer coming when the jobs run out? That would seem a lot easier.
Don Flynn: The Migrants Rights Network come at this from the point of view that immigration is part of the world in the 21st century. However it is managed and governed by national authorities—we certainly concede that it needs to be managed and governed by them—it has to be conceded that migrants should have rights and are not simply subject to an authority that can push them from pillar to post, taking executive decisions about providing them with reasonable options about how they advance their life chances, without giving them an opportunity to state their own case. We think it is quite possible to lay down a set of principles to govern that. We know what rights migrants need in order to prosper, to feel a degree of security and to tackle the complex issues of integration and providing for the needs of their families. These have been set out in United Nations and International Labour Organisation conventions. A good starting point for us in terms of addressing immigration policy is to see how we can transpose those into national law and make them effective. That is the discussion we would like to see with Governments: how do we design an immigration system which acknowledges the inevitability, and even the necessity, of migration, and how do we do deals with migrants that are fair and allow them to prosper?
The Chair
For the purpose of Mr Hoare’s question, let us turn to Home Secretary Berry.
Adrian Berry: I represent a membership organisation, in which there is a spread of views on where immigration controls should be. I am not ducking the question when I say—
Simon Hoare
Q 220 What is your personal view?
Adrian Berry: My personal view is that of the organisation: there needs to be a fair, just and equitable system of immigration control, and there are a number of ways of achieving that. It is important not to create a situation where there is not a proper opportunity for people to migrate. Migration is part of the ordinary warp and weft of human society. Whether it is internal migration in a state, or migration across an international border, it is just as much part of the manifestation and optimisation of human fulfilment as leading a settled life. We need to have an appreciation of the fact that, in the current times and the current climate, migration is an ordinary part of life, and we need to design and operate policies which reflect that, taking into account the need for democratic control by states and, equally, the position of individuals. It is interesting that migration is often thought of as being about migrants, but, in the context of family reunion and children’s rights, as Mr Gill has identified, it is about British citizens who are settled in the UK and who may have formed relationships with people who are migrating to the UK. The question of what a good policy should be needs to take into account the fact that it profoundly affects the settled population as well as the cohort of people migrating. That is lost from our political discourse in far too many situations. We need to reinstitute and centralise the idea of it as ordinary and normal rather than abnormal.
Colin Yeo: That is quite a major amendment being proposed to the Bill that the Committee is considering. I am a lawyer, not a politician. I cannot say that I have particularly well-formed views about those issues, but what I do see, as a lawyer dealing with the migrants and their families who are affected by the laws passed by Parliament, is that those laws have human consequences. We meet broken families: children who have lost their parents, parents who have lost their children, spouses who have been separated. They are people whose lives have been ruined or significantly impaired by bad Home Office decisions, and by rules that are excessively complicated and that separate people rather than bringing them together.
Jerome Phelps: It would certainly be a nightmare scenario from my point of view; I do not envy the Minister his job for a moment. I think that I, as Immigration Minister, would face the inevitable dilemma of weighing the very strong public support for effective immigration control against the need to respect the rights of migrants, and to get some element of trust in the system among migrants. That is often a very difficult balance to strike.
On detention, actually, those two needs are often mutually supportive. I think that there are benefits to both migrants and to effective immigration control in having safeguards on the use of detention—having a time limit on detention conveys to migrants that it is a reasonable and proportionate power—and in developing alternatives to detention that resolve cases without the expense of detention wherever possible, so that it can be used genuinely as a last resort in exceptional circumstances where voluntary return and far cheaper and more humane alternatives are not possible.
Manjit Gill: The questions whether there should be a no-borders policy or an amnesty are, I think, better directed to social scientists. I do not really feel qualified to comment on those.
Simon Hoare
Q 221 That has to be the first time that a Queen’s Counsel has not felt qualified to comment on something.
Manjit Gill: I am not qualified to comment on many things, and I often say so candidly. As far as the practicalities and policies are concerned, all that I would ask, if I were occupying that unenviable position, is to ensure, in common with what has just been said, that policies that promote cohesion and human rights are developed. All immigration policy must consider, at the end of the day, how to respect the people who will actually be affected by it. How will their human rights be respected, and how will we build a more cohesive society? It is easy to say that, but actually doing it is much harder. I am not sure that I can say anything more concrete than that.
Simon Hoare
Q 222 Just to come back to Mr Gill, prior to my election in my present constituency, I fought Cardiff South and Penarth, which is my home city. Cardiff has always been a calm city, with lots of nationalities and no racial tension at all, but it was very evident in the 2010 campaign, when I stood there, that a number of the elders of very stable communities—Somali, Sikh, Hindu and so on—were saying, “The Government have to get a handle on this.” This is on your cohesion point. There was growing anxiety among people who had been here for a very long time, who had been accepted and who had an absolute right to be here. They were starting to feel uneasy that, because the problem had got slightly out of control, everybody was being put in the same bracket. Those struck me as interesting comments, coming from a community from which one might not have expected them. It certainly was not leading in any way to a more cohesive and calm society.
Manjit Gill: The questions of cohesion and support for communities are complex, as you imply. I recognise that, and I recognise that controls will probably need to be imposed. Those are questions for others. All I am saying is that in the imposition of those controls, you have to respect the individuals who are going to be affected and the human rights of those individuals, and do it in accordance with certain principles of law and policies that you have signed up to. That is all, and you can still build a cohesive society.
The Chair
Six Members are trying to get in, so just bear that in mind—we have 35 minutes to go.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Q 223 I have two questions, the first of which is on the Bill’s evidence base. I sent the Minister a number of questions, one of which Mr Gill referenced earlier, on the evidence base that the Minister was unable to answer. For example, one was about evidence relating to the size of businesses employing illegal migrants, as the Bill focuses largely on small and medium-sized enterprises. How strong does the panel feel that the evidence base is in the Bill?
Don Flynn: Perhaps I could help with that one. I think the answer is that the evidence base is not strong. Certainly in areas such as the position of migrants in the workforce, for example, it seems to be predicated on a whole series of assertions about migrants contributing to exploitation, unfair business practices and things of that nature. There has been a fair bit of research, and a new book has been published just in the last week or so looking at the relationship between forced labour and a whole range of issues. The position seems to be that as far as the UK is concerned, there is not a particularly strong relationship between immigration and those practices. Immigrants with insecure immigration status are not concentrated in workforces that only consist of illegal migrants. What is far more typical is that they are working alongside all sorts of other vulnerable types of workers and insecure workers.
The problem with this is that there is a point at which the illegal worker—the undocumented worker—actually tips over from being the criminal, as it is being phrased in the Bill, to being the victim of crime, the person whose situation is being taken advantage of. That requires a very different response from the one that seems to be being imposed—the requirement for strong policing and draconian threats of expropriation of earnings and whatever assets have been acquired. As I say, there are huge amounts of evidence at the moment—there is an industry as far as academia is concerned—looking at the situation of migrants in the labour force. It is very hard to see whether that sustains the sort of claims that underpin at least a couple of key sections in the Bill.
Gavin Newlands
Would the rest of panel like to comment?
Adrian Berry: If we look at the landlord and tenant regime and the right to rent that was introduced for a civil penalty regime under the Immigration Act 2014, there has only been a very modest pilot of that programme in the west midlands. It has not been expanded nationally and here we are, post-general election, with an augmentation of that regime to impose criminal sanctions on landlords and to provide for summary eviction of people who lack a right to rent without protection of the court. We struggle to see what evidence base there is for strengthening a regime that has barely been born. Perhaps business was left undone in the last Act because of an inability to secure political consent, but the innovations in this Bill that look at that particular regime cannot really have a base in evidence, because we do not know how the existing regime is going to work—it is just being brought in at the moment.
Jerome Phelps: On detention, there is certainly a real lack of evidence base. Reducing access to section 4—to a bail address—would clearly save a certain amount of money from the asylum support budget. What does not seem to have been considered is the extra spending on detention costs or long-term detention; the extra spending on unlawful detention compensation pay-outs, which goes to the High Court; and, potentially, the long-term extra spending of the Home Office on trying to track down people who have absconded because they have nowhere to live and they can no longer be traced.
Colin Yeo: If legislation is about solving problems, if we look at the appeals provisions and the immigration bail provisions, it is hard to see anything other than that the problems being addressed are the Home Office’s losing too many appeals and the Home Office’s losing too many bail applications, or not getting the conditions it wants. Those are not the right problems to be addressing, in my view, and it is not the right way to address them. We should be looking at the quality of decision making instead.
Gavin Newlands
Q 224 My second question is about enforcement. What concerns do you have about the new enforcement powers that immigration officers will be given, particularly in relation to their lack of training compared with police officers, and the lack of judicial oversight?
Colin Yeo: Very concerned. The best evidence base on this is the work of the chief inspector of borders and immigration, formerly John Vine and now David Bolt. In the reports that the chief inspector has put together, he has been very critical of the exercise of enforcement powers by immigration officers. In a couple of reports from March 2014, for example, he found that immigration officers were granted the power to enter business premises without a warrant in two thirds of cases, without justification; he also found unlawful use of power, ineffective management oversight, major variations in local practice and inadequate staff training across all grades—really serious concerns are being raised. Reports on removals and emergency travel documents are, again, very critical of Home Office management of the process and training. The idea that more powers should be given to people who are already exercising them in a very questionable way is somewhat dubious, in my view.
Craig Whittaker
Q 225 I want to clarify a couple of things that were said a little earlier. Mr Flynn and Mr Berry, you were talking about migrants in general, and I presume you were not talking about the vast majority of migrants who come to this country in a legal position. I just want to clarify that you were talking about potentially illegal immigrants, rather than the vast majority of immigrants, who are legal.
Don Flynn: I was talking about the general effect of migrants in the labour force, which is often cited as having a role in making conditions worse for UK workers. That has been particularly accentuated by what are called illegal migrant workers—there is an added emphasis there that it is causing wages to be forced down and exploitation to flourish.
Craig Whittaker
Q 226 So we are talking about illegal immigrants, then. I am a little bit confused about what you were talking about. I do not think that anybody questions for one minute that migrants play an incredible role in our country. Just for clarity, I wanted to make sure we knew whether you were talking about illegal immigrants—or potentially illegal immigrants.
Don Flynn: I thought I was addressing the position of people who seem to be vulnerable as far as the Bill is concerned, who will find themselves subject to additional powers of scrutiny and who are at risk of enforcement action being taken against them.
Craig Whittaker
Q 227 So potentially illegal immigrants, then.
Don Flynn: Yes. I would make the point that any of us who have day-to-day practical experience of this—I am continually coming into contact with people whose designation as illegal immigrants has come about not because of any action on their part, but because of a third party who has been involved in their case, typically a sponsoring employer who has not complied with some aspect of their responsibility to the Home Office.
Craig Whittaker
Q 228 The point I was trying to make is that it is still a very small part of the overall migration to this country, but that is not my real question. For my real question, I just want to take you back— I think it was you, Mr Yeo, who mentioned abuse within the system when we were talking about detention. I apologise if it was not you, but it was a while ago now. Is there any evidence that there is abuse within the detention centre? I am struggling to find any.
Colin Yeo: I do not think it was me who mentioned that.
Craig Whittaker
Do any of you have any evidence that there is any abuse in the detention centre?
Jerome Phelps: The most apposite evidence would be the series of finding by the UK courts of breaches of article 3 in relation to highly vulnerable mentally ill migrants in detention, who should not be detained anywhere except for under exceptional circumstances. Article 3, on inhuman and degrading treatment, is a very high threshold. Until recently there had never been a case of this, but in the past four years there have been six cases of desperately vulnerable people who have had complete psychiatric collapse in detention, to the article 3 breach level.
Craig Whittaker
Q 229 I do not want to undermine or belittle the six cases by any stretch of the imagination, but from the thousands who have been through the system in the past four years, which is what you mentioned, it is an incredibly small part. It would therefore be very difficult to say that the system is broken. Is that right?
Jerome Phelps: I do not think any of us have suggested that everyone in detention is abused. It is a small part but we have functioning safeguards, such as the bail system. What is concerning about the Bill is that it is removing some of those safeguards.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q 230 Could I follow up on Mr Newlands’ question about enforcement powers to which Mr Yeo gave a fairly powerful response? The provisions of the Bill give immigration officers what might be described as police-like powers. Could you reflect on the different way in which immigration officers are subject to challenge, scrutiny and oversight in the exercise of their powers in contrast with the police and the exercise of theirs currently?
Adrian Berry: My role in looking at enforcement is largely concerned with policy innovation rather than practice, because a lot of these things are not litigated in court. Immigration officers’ powers have grown piecemeal over the years through a series of legislative innovations, to the point where they now look like a parallel police force in respect of migration issues. In that context, there is not the same culture of scrutiny and oversight that one sees under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and with the Independent Police Complaints Commission and various other bodies. It is a developing situation.
Our concerns—whatever one thinks of the situation of the use of police powers by the police—is that this is a piecemeal accrual of powers without, if you like, a moment where it is recognised that you are dealing with a secondary form of police force. You need to develop not just the legislative framework, but the culture of scrutiny and good behaviour within an institution if you are going to have a police force. This sort of innovation—for example, the ability to enter private homes and search without warrant—can affect all of us. It is not just a situation of powers relating to migrants. Any investigation could come to anybody’s front door. The proper control and scrutiny of those sorts of powers is vital.
Paul Blomfield
Q 231 I wonder if anybody on the panel could develop that point about proper scrutiny. I am conscious, even within the regulatory framework that the police exercise, that careless use of police powers often has a much more significant impact in terms of community relations and tensions. I do not understand what checks and balances are in place for immigration officers. Which ones do you think ought to be in place?
Don Flynn: Presumably, one of the most important is the right of appeal if the seizure of property or evidence leads to an adverse decision—the possibility of challenging that decision through the appeal process. The sort of experience that we have had is with evidence of a breach of an immigration condition. Sometimes it is clearcut, but very often it is not. Very often the authorities think that it has emerged only after they have read a lot of private letters and diary entries. They might conclude that correspondence with somebody who, for example, acted as a sponsor at an early stage but subsequently turned acrimonious—arguments broke out—was evidence that fraud was used to support the application for a visa in the first instance. In the absence of an effective check on that—the ability to review it and to appeal a matter in circumstances where executive powers for administrative removal are much stronger—virtually any personal items or correspondences are regarded as evidence that will lead to a person being removed.
Colin Yeo: Again, I am thinking in terms of what problem the Bill is trying to address. In terms of enforcement, I am not sure what the ill or the problem is that needs addressing. No doubt, immigration officers would like more powers, but I am not aware of any evidence to show that they do not have enough powers as things stand. If we look, for example, at the ultimate end of enforcement, it is removals, basically. I have the statistics in front of me from the latest quarterly release. Enforcement by means of removal is falling year on year. That is not because officers did not have the powers at the start of that period. The powers are the same—in fact, they have increased under the 2014 Act. That is not the problem. The problem is making good use of existing powers and doing so in a lawful way.
The Chair
Thank you. I am conscious that we still have quite a lot of Members to get in, so I am going to move on—Kelly Tolhurst.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Just a quick one—Mr Yeo, you have used the phrase “bad decisions” a number of times. Could you clarify your definition of a bad decision?
Colin Yeo: A bad decision in an immigration appeal context will be, for example, when evidence that was put to an entry clearance officer abroad or to an official here in the UK simply is not looked at. For example, if that evidence had been properly considered, it would have led to a different outcome. There are more serious cases such as sham marriages, which are very much a topic of discussion at the moment. All practising immigration lawyers have come across cases in which couples are interviewed for hours at a time—sometimes 300 questions each—and not knowing the answer to questions such as the colour of the wife’s toenails or the skin cream she uses leads to a decision that it is a sham marriage and there is no genuine relationship. Those applications are overturned on appeal very often. No doubt, there are some genuine marriages of convenience, but those are bad decisions made on a flawed basis.
Kelly Tolhurst
Q 232 To follow on from that, do you regard a bad decision as something that has been overturned by an appeal?
Colin Yeo: That is the best measure a lawyer has to measure the quality of a decision.
Kelly Tolhurst
Q 233 Okay. So what do you think is required to enable decision making to be improved in such instances?
Colin Yeo: Clearer immigration law would be a big step in the right direction. Over the past four or five years, increasingly complex rules have been introduced with longer and longer applications forms, which are harder to understand for the applicant and for the poor Home Office official who is responsible for making these decisions. That is one problem. The evidential requirements are now incredibly complicated and are not obvious on the face of the application—you are required to submit documents in a certain format and so on. Frankly, there is also a culture of looking for reasons for refusal in some cases. Cases come across my desk in which I look at the papers that were submitted and then look at the decision, and it is very hard to understand how that decision can have been reached on the papers that were available to the official responsible. I guess they have limited time, or they are not applying their own training or policies properly, or something like that.
Don Flynn: Very quickly, on that point, I think that the right of appeal is the best mechanism we have for ensuring the quality of decision making. At the moment, there are still good grounds for concern about the quality of decisions, but at least it gives us an opportunity to put the decision maker’s reasoning and logic in front of a tribunal and examine it. It seems clear to me that in the absence of a right of appeal, there is simply no other mechanism that can be substituted; at least, if there is, the Home Office has not come up with it. Nothing will automatically improve the very worrying amount of poor decisions being made at the moment if decision makers are not required to justify them before a proper adjudicator.
Manjit Gill: The question that has raised itself more than once—how to sort out decision making and make the quality better—is difficult. One problem is that decision makers on the front line within the Home Office—I suspect; this is my guess—are told to use certain set phrases to pursue certain policy objectives. What tends to be lost in that process is a basic common sense and a basic use of discretion to take a phrase and apply it sensibly.
I will give you one very practical example. I had a case in which a lady who was here lawfully was driving a car for the first time after having passed her test. Unfortunately, she chose an automatic rather than a manual, and she ended up knocking somebody over. Because of her conviction—I cannot remember what the charge was, but I suspect that it was death by dangerous driving—she got a significant prison sentence; I cannot remember, but it was a few years. She was a perfectly nice, genuine lady with a child and a husband who were British citizens. Because of how the decision making is done, and because she only had indefinite leave to remain rather than being a citizen, she automatically got pushed into a process in which, due to the nature of the sentence—a lot of small offences often carry sentences that trigger these provisions—she ended up having a deportation process imposed on her.
Her husband phoned the Home Office, desperate to speak to the caseworker, who was very supportive and indicated that he had been told that this had to be refused. He had had a meeting with his superiors, who knew that they were going to lose on appeal when the case went to the tribunal. He said, “Don’t quote me, but that’s what is going to happen.” It duly went to appeal, and it was allowed, as it inevitably had to be. Why did they make such a decision in the first place? Because they are being pushed by other imperatives. The discretion is taken away from them. The chap who was dealing with it, the caseworker, probably wanted to say, “This is obviously ridiculous. Nobody is going to throw this person out.”
Kelly Tolhurst
Q 234 Can I make a comment? Thank you for that. I would say one thing. Every day, people in this country break the law, intentionally or unintentionally, and cause death, and it wrecks their lives—British citizens, who have a legal right to be here. I was not really comfortable with the way you tried to make a death caused by road accident a lower-level activity, because—
Manjit Gill: I’m sorry, that is not what I was saying. Death by dangerous driving is serious. I am not seeking to diminish the offence; please do not misunderstand me. What I am seeking to point to is the fact that sometimes these offences occur, for which someone is rightly sentenced, but that does not mean necessarily that they are to be thrown out of the country. People know that that is the position but they tend to be forced into a certain decision making.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Hoare. Gosh, I am surrounded by a lot of lawyers, which is not good for an accountant. There are two Members who have been patiently waiting. With the permission of the Committee, I will call them and see what time we have over for the rest. Mims Davies.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Q 235 Mr Yeo, I have read with interest your blog site, Free Movement. That is quite an interesting title. Why did you come up with that?
Colin Yeo: It is a term of description for European migration law essentially.
Mims Davies
Q 236 We now have a system of complex rules and, it appears, really complex cases. That seems to be the root of criticism today that we are dealing with very complex rules that do not seem to fit the very complex cases. There is a certain irony in that. The detention system that we have was created very much under the previous Government. We are seeking a clarification of matters. Would you not accept that was the case? If you are saying that things are getting too complex, is this not allowing people to be very clear about things going forward?
Colin Yeo: The current bail provisions in the 1971 Act are quite complicated. In a way, it could be said that schedule 5 of the Bill does simplify them. But it also introduces a radical change, which is simply to render redundant a bail hearing in front of an independent immigration judge. Schedule 5 gives the power to the Home Office to re-detain and to set whatever conditions the Home Office wants after one of those hearings. You wonder what the point of having a hearing is. If it is such a charade, the Home Office can do what it wants after anyway.
Mims Davies
Q 237 Is it not fair of me to sit here thinking that we have really got a culture that has grown up over the past few years of complex cases requiring complex rules? I suppose we are trying to work out whether we have a fair system, or whether we have a lot of people involved in complex cases, allowing abuse of the rules, without the Government giving a chance for people to have clarity on the rules. Do you see where I am coming from? It appears we have complex cases and potential abuse of the rules. Therefore, most people on the outside whom I speak to want to have a clear immigration policy. Those people coming in would expect the same.
Colin Yeo: A lot of cases are not necessarily complex but they are made complex by the rules. For example, for a spouse coming into the country, the previous rules required that you had to show adequate maintenance. That was a very straightforward rule in some ways and it was up to you how you evidenced that, and judges would judge it.
A new rule was introduced in 2012 requiring a certain level of income to be established. Along with that level of income of £18, 600 in most cases, more if you have non-British national children, is a plethora of incredibly complicated rules about exactly what documents are required to prove that. Especially if you are self-employed, it is very difficult to get the right documents together. If you have an internet bank account it is virtually impossible to get the letter from the bank that is required by the Home Office to certify those online bank statements. The rules make what could be quite straightforward, simple cases into very complicated ones, and unnecessarily so in my opinion.
Mims Davies
Q 238 That is very helpful. Quickly to Mr Flynn, you said that there is an element of templating that is coming here. Do you not believe that that is probably in some ways helpful, given what Mr Yeo has just said?
Don Flynn: I am certainly in favour of simplicity. When I first started giving immigration advice back in the 1970s, the immigration rules were a slim little pamphlet and the best legal text book was written by Handsworth law centre and was about 30 or 40 pages long. If you mastered those principles you were the best immigration lawyer in the country. The vast majority of issues were sorted out very quickly. What we have seen since then is a proliferation. Immigration rules are volumes now. They change every few months, and legal advice on how to interpret them is an industry on its own.
My point is that we manage immigration no better today, with all this complexity of rules, than we did in the 1970s, when there seemed to be more certainty and simplicity. I advocate getting as close as we can to the situation that existed in the 1970s, and we are not doing that in this Bill.
Mims Davies
Q 239 But we do lead more complex and complicated lives, and it appears that the people we are dealing with do as well.
Don Flynn: I do not actually believe that. I think that aspects of people’s lives are more complicated, such as the business of earning a living nowadays. In the 1970s, people got a job and stayed in it for 30-odd years until they retired; now they move around. You get portfolio workers, and there is an amount of evidence needed to ensure that you are on the right side of the law rather than the wrong side. You are dependent on far more people to support the evidence that you want to put in front of us.
That is certainly there, but the same fundamental principles govern people’s lives. People want to fit in. They want to get on. They need their lives to have predictable aspects that they can steer toward, and we have got further and further away from that. The business of being an immigrant nowadays is often like being a lost soul, wandering around trying to get orientated and find out exactly what your rights are, and getting into a bigger mess because it is impossible to get that information.
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt, but in order to get the next Member in, I must press on.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Q 240 I would like to ask the panel a more general question concerning a group of people who have not been mentioned yet: the great British public. Over a period of several years of knocking on doors speaking to many thousands of people, the issue of immigration has not failed to raise its head, hence the Bill before us. This issue comes up all the time. What assessment would you as a panel make of people abusing the immigration system?
Don Flynn: It certainly takes place; I am certain that that is the case. There is an industry out there. People know that there are flaws in the system, and there is an opportunity to make money exploiting all that. As far as individual migrants are concerned, as I implied in my earlier answer, I find most people are very honest. Most people want to work. They want a life, and they want to do all the normal things, but they find themselves in situations that they simply do not understand. They become—
The Chair
Sorry, Mr Flynn, but we have got two minutes left. Mr Berry.
Adrian Berry: There are clearly instances of abuse of immigration control. One driver is often the fact that, if you are a forced migrant because you are displaced from your home country by reason of persecution, there is no visa regime to enable you to flee persecution, and carriers’ liability penalties are imposed. Syrians, for example, cannot get a humanitarian visa to come to the UK to claim asylum, nor can an airline carry them, because it will be fined. So, unsurprisingly, to flee civil war in Syria, they are seeking the assistance of smugglers, which engages immigration control. That is a classic example of how a statutory regime interacts with forced displacement to produce what might be construed as abuse of immigration control by uncharitable persons.
Colin Yeo: No doubt there is some. One of my big concerns with the Bill is that it throws out the baby with the bathwater, because things like—
The Chair
I will stop you there. He was asking what abuses there are.
Colin Yeo: For example, it is one thing to deprive foreign criminals of an in-country right of appeal and to make them leave first; it is another to do that to people who are settled here and who have a good case under the immigration rules, and to force them to live apart outside the country while they attempt to pursue that appeal. Although I understand that the hope is that the Bill will address problems and abuse, unfortunately, it will also affect lawful and legitimate migrants, who often have British families. They will be approaching their MPs in future with these kinds of problem if the Bill becomes law.
Jerome Phelps: The most obvious example that we see in detention is people who are desperate to stay in Britain and who claim asylum because they do not feel that they have any other options. What is concerning about the Bill is that it appears to create another perverse incentive to do so. Asylum support bail addresses under schedule 6 will be available only to people who have claimed asylum. That is a potentially unintended consequence that should be taken seriously.
Manjit Gill: Of course there are abuses of different sorts at different levels—one must recognise that—but the response is important. The response must be proportionate, measured and tailored to the particular situation. That is the key issue.
The Chair
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank all the witnesses. Clearly, we could have gone on for much longer, but I appreciate all your comments.
The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Immigration Bill (Fourth sitting)
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Q 241241 We will now hear oral evidence from the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and the No Recourse to Public Funds Network. We have until 2.45 for this session. Welcome, witnesses. Please introduce yourselves for the record.
Councillor Simmonds: My name is David Simmonds. I am deputy leader of the London borough of Hillingdon, which includes Heathrow airport for those familiar with the immigration issues arising from it. I am the chairman of the asylum and refugee task group at the Local Government Association.
Paul Greenhalgh: I am Paul Greenhalgh, executive director for the London borough of Croydon’s people department. I am also the chair of the asylum taskforce of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services
Henry St Clair Miller: I am Henry St Clair Miller, manager of the No Recourse to Public Funds Network.
The Chair
Before we start, do not be surprised if the Minister asks questions, because he can at this session. It is helpful if you speak into the microphone, because the acoustics are not always so good in this room.
Mr Starmer, do you want to start?
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Q 242 Thank you, witnesses, for coming in and helping us this afternoon. I want to start with the provisions in the Bill to remove support from those who have exhausted their asylum process. Until now there has been an ability to remove the support, but it has been rarely used. There was a pilot 10 years or so ago and it has been used rarely since then. Can you give the Committee your view on why the pilot was unsuccessful? I think it involved about 116 families and the net result was that very few, if any, of those families went voluntarily, which was the intended purpose. There was a possibly unintended consequence, which was that very many more went off the radar, and all sorts of other consequences followed. So can you give us your own view as to why you think that pilot was so unsuccessful?
Councillor Simmonds: I am happy to lead on this. I think others may have technical comments about aspects of it. It is pretty clear that quite a tangled web of legislation needs to be gone through before support can be removed. Once it is removed in the formal sense, there are a lot of organisations that exist to provide support to families for the time in which they remain in the UK. There will pretty much always be, in my experience, other legal avenues that people can explore should one particular avenue be closed down.
The key concern that local government has is that the evidence from those pilots was extremely clear in that the withdrawal of support does not result in a significant incentive for people to leave the UK. The conclusion that follows is that we should not expect that withdrawal of support in future would result in any significant increase in the numbers departing. We would expect that the cost burdens, whether they fall on local authorities or on civil and voluntary groups in the wider sense, would remain.
Paul Greenhalgh: Barnardo’s did an evaluation of the pilot programme. Not only did people not leave but 35 families out of the 116 families went missing; in a sense, they decided to go underground. Some of those families abandoned their children to the care of local authorities, and that pilot led us to question the assumptions about behavioural change that underpin some aspects of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
Q 243 May I clarify one thing I think you just said? Did you say that a number of parents abandoned their children to the care of local authorities, so their children went into care?
Paul Greenhalgh: They abandoned their children, so those children were taken into care by the relevant local authorities. I am not sure how many families that applied to, but it applied to some of those 35.
Henry St Clair Miller: The only thing I would add is that people who were around at the time felt that there was a lack of Home Office engagement with the families in that process up to the point when support was withdrawn. Perhaps engagement was not of the nature necessary for families to know their options and understand the consequences of not engaging with Home Office requirements. Should the Bill go ahead, one of the unknowns is exactly what Home Office engagement with the families would be. We might see again the likelihood of asylum support being withdrawn at the end of the process. We want to know exactly what that engagement will be to minimise the risk described by my colleagues.
Keir Starmer
Q 244 Back in 2008, Mr Duncan Smith—obviously he is now in a different role—described it as a “failed policy”. That may explain why it has not been used since the pilot. Do you disagree with that conclusion?
Councillor Simmonds: It manifestly did not work at the time. Therefore, if we were to revisit that as an approach, we would need to think very carefully about how it could be made effective. That would require a different approach on many, many levels.
Paul Greenhalgh: I agree with that comment. We have been working with the Home Office to explore areas in which we wonder whether further safeguards might make such an approach more effective.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q 245 On that point, Mr Greenhalgh used the phrase behavioural change. I think we all understand what the Government are trying to achieve, but you do not believe that the Bill does that. What should be in the Bill to get the behavioural change that the Government are trying to achieve?
Paul Greenhalgh: One of the difficulties with the Bill as currently framed is that there will be a number of what we would perceive as unintended consequences. They are twofold, mainly around our duties to provide support and care in certain circumstances arising from the Children Act 1989 and the Care Act 2014. Mainly, section 17 of the Children Act is something that would come into play in these sorts of cases.
At the moment, 80% of those cases are funded by no recourse to public funds arrangements as a result of a Children Act assessment. As a result of the current drafting of the Bill, a lot of families who would receive no further support as a result of their asylum status being confirmed would come to the local authority if they were about to become destitute. The local authority would be bound to make a human rights assessment and, if there are children involved, a children in need assessment. Those assessments take some time, so if a family are at immediate risk of destitution, we would have to put immediate measures in place.
So the first of our significant concerns is that this could result in a huge increase in demand on local authorities, which would in effect be a cost shunt from the Home Office to local authorities in an unfunded way. The other consequence is the danger that people will not come to local authorities but will go underground, and therefore be more at risk of exploitation and less able to be supported by the authorities.
If those are our concerns, we think some measures need to be put in place to provide appropriate safeguards. First, there should be a clarification of assessment processes, to reduce the burden falling on local authorities and the difficulty for families of having to go through what at the moment are two assessment processes. If the assessment process could be streamlined, that would be one improvement to the Bill.
The other significant issue is funding and the extent to which, however we frame the Bill, it will result in more cost to local authorities to support people on an interim basis. If there is recognition that those costs are a new burden, and if there is engagement between local authorities and the Home Office to work together on a practical level to support those families and help them to engage, we could see some of the intention of the Bill working more effectively.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Q 246 Perhaps I could just pick up on that last point and ask the witnesses about that engagement. Are you engaging with the Home Office and working through some of those details that you suggest may be needed?
Paul Greenhalgh: We are. We had meetings with Home Office officials during the consultation period. We put in a joint response, and 48 local authorities sent in individual responses. The feedback from Home Office officials is that there was a consistent response from local authorities. We made it clear that we were very happy to continue to work with Home Office officials, and we have been doing that. We have had three technical meetings so far, and we are trying to work through how we can try to address together those issues that I have raised.
Councillor Simmonds: I thank the Minister for making himself available for those discussions. The one challenge that we have found at a political level is that there are sometimes differences of opinion between officials in different Government Departments. For example, on Children Act duties, traditionally we have had feedback from the Home Office that broadly says, “We are seeing people through our role in asylum and immigration, which we are here to manage.” Those in the Department for Education would say, “We’re not interested in that. We see them as vulnerable children, and therefore the duties are absolutely and unambiguously clear, and at the highest possible level.” The more consistency that we can get on some of those challenges, the better.
James Brokenshire
Q 247 No doubt we will come on to the detail of some of the cross-governmental work that is taking place.
In your responses to the 2005 pilot, you expressed your thoughts on what occurred 10 years ago. Obviously, the world has moved on; other provisions exist in respect of identifying people, and encouraging or supporting them to depart. Also, the proposals in the Bill are different on the balance of engagement, with the onus being put on the family to show that there is a genuine obstacle to their departure, rather than the family not co-operating and the Home Office evidencing that. So a different approach is being taken. Do you see some of those differences as being relevant in the context of the effect and workability of the new proposals?
Henry St Clair Miller: I guess that sometimes that is where the local authority position arises. We are not within the Home Office; we are not Home Office enforcement. So, sometimes it is difficult for us to comment on the barriers, in terms of leveraging return or indeed enforcing return.
I guess that local authorities working in this area have had a kind of old-fashioned approach to it—that we should end up with actual outcomes when we look at immigration enforcement. The outcome might be a grant of status, if that is appropriate, or it might be a removal.
It is often said that things such as a lack of documentation and a lack of engagement from the families are among the key reasons why removal rates are very low. Yet from the outside—from a local authority perspective—we have seen other reports about how things are organised for immigration processes in some of the caseworking teams, the barriers to processing cases, the delays in deciding applications and possible challenges to making sure that cases that have recently been refused are tasked to removal teams. I guess that we have always thought that there is scope to work with the existing framework, whether that is a family returns policy or an enforcement policy.
Notwithstanding all that, we can see why Home Office officials want to leverage compliance to some degree. We understand why it is thought that the tools proposed in the Immigration Bill will help to do that. From a local authority perspective, we are trying to work in that context, particularly if the Immigration Bill becomes law, while ensuring that the remaining safeguards—we provide a safety net for the most vulnerable—are retained where necessary. Of course, the unknown—the risk—is how many people do not go and what the burden is on the local authority. Indeed, that risk is not only about numbers and referrals but about cost, because we carry the cost burden of financial support, which goes on at the moment for more than two years on average.
Immigration, as you know, is a complex area of work. Lots of different approaches work, and we have been keen to work out with Home Office officials which are the best tools to do this in the work that we have done.
James Brokenshire
Q 248 Obviously, we have talked about the new burdens assessment. Do any of the other witnesses wish to come in?
Paul Greenhalgh: More broadly, we are keen to build partnerships with the Home Office and other relevant Government Departments. We see room for improvement in the way we engage together on identification and compliance in voluntary returns, and potentially on family engagement and supporting family returns. In the context of a new piece of legislation, it is important that we make that surrounding partnership work more effective.
Councillor Simmonds: I have little to add to that. The bottom line, from a local authority perspective, is that if people are not entitled to support and should not be in the country, they need to leave. The challenge is that, although a lot of the debate—understandably, in the context of the Bill—is about the rights or otherwise of individuals, the balance is that local authorities have a set of duties. For the most part, they are general duties. We are blind to a person’s immigration status. A child is a child, and we have a responsibility under the Children Act 1989 to intervene where appropriate. Any intention to remove entitlements or rights from certain individuals needs to be balanced by a recognition that that does not remove the local authority’s duty in those circumstances to provide support.
Keir Starmer
Q 249 May I go back to a couple of answers that were given? First, on streamlining the assessment process, I think that you mentioned two assessments. Is the first the assessment for asylum support in the first place and the second the assessment for the local authority, or are there two local authority assessments?
Paul Greenhalgh: There are two local authority assessments. When people come to local authorities for support, they often come because their situation has worsened and they need support to avoid destitution. Often, it is about accommodation and subsistence support. The local authority, under section 17 of the Children Act, has wider obligations to consider the welfare needs of the child in whatever circumstances. When people have gone through an asylum process, we need to conduct a human rights assessment to determine whether ending support would be a breach of their human rights, before we complete the children in need assessment. That is a burdensome process for local authorities and for families.
Keir Starmer
Q 250 I just want to pick up a second point. Evidence has been given that the objective is that people leave, and therefore there is no burden on anyone to provide any support, but the evidence from the 2005 pilot seems to show pretty strongly that if that is the objective, this is not the way to achieve it. The likelihood is, therefore, that local authorities will be picking up the burden of supporting families, particularly those with children—children are children, in this.
You talked about a cost shift. What is the cost increase when asylum support is swapped for putting a child or family who are not going to go voluntarily—a child may not have any choice at all—on local authority support? It seems to me that under these provisions the cost will go up, because you take someone from one regime to a regime for which they have to go through two assessments, which someone has to carry out, and be put on to temporary support and further support. They could have become more destitute and so need more support. Am I right in thinking that this is not just a cost shunt—you are not simply moving cost x from the Home Office to the local authority but shifting and increasing it, so the cost to the taxpayer goes up?
Paul Greenhalgh: Potentially, yes, under how the Bill is currently drafted.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Q 251 I want to drill down on the shift of the cost burden from the Home Office to local authorities. We already know that schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 broadly limits access to local authority social care for families anyway. Is there not a mechanism between local authorities and the Home Office that is triggered when a family present themselves and it becomes clear that they are in this country unlawfully, so that they get deported and the local authority does not have to shoulder the burden of the cost?
Henry St Clair Miller: I think you are referring to the exclusions from social services support under schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, whereby if a local authority is working with someone in an excluded group—a failed asylum seeker would likely fall within the excluded groups—the authority is instructed to provide support only if it is necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of human rights. It is that exception to the exclusion that gives rise to the human rights assessment, which can be quite time consuming for a local authority.
When you work in this area you have to be quite specific about each client group. It is true that an asylum seeker who has already put in an application has been through the courts, and the courts have decided that there would be no human rights breach in returning the family to the parents’ country of origin. The best interests of the child will have been looked at within that, and the courts will have decided that. It should then be possible for the local authority to follow the same line within the human rights assessment and opt to say that no assistance is required other than a return to the country of origin through assisted voluntary return.
It is a little bit different in our experience, because a lot of the applicants go on to put in further representations under the UK’s immigration rules. That is often on the basis of article 8 human rights and on the basis of there being children. Once the application goes in, there is a legal barrier to that family leaving, and it is impossible to enact schedule 3 to withhold support if the family is destitute.
Craig Whittaker
Q 252 I am a little confused. Are these families not here unlawfully—has it not been deemed through the court process that they are failed asylum seekers, or whatever category they are in, and so they are staying in the country unlawfully anyway? Are you saying that local authorities traditionally ignore that process and go beyond that? Why would you continue to offer support?
Henry St Clair Miller: At present failed asylum-seeking families are not a group within our cohort. We are usually working with visa overstayers who have been in the UK for many years undetected—possibly with safeguarding concerns about the welfare of children after long periods of forced dependency for the family. In our experience, these people are usually at the beginning of the process of applying for leave once we have come into contact with them. That is quite different from people who have been in the asylum process and all appeal rights have been exhausted. At the moment, we do not see so many of those cases.
So I assume—not I assume—it is the case that if you were looking at schedule 3 and Humans Rights Act assessments, you would have regard primarily for the decisions of the court in that equation.
Craig Whittaker
Q 253 So the cases that you are primarily dealing with do not apply to the Bill, because the Bill talks about removing support for those who have gone through the process and are deemed to be unlawful immigrants.
Henry St Clair Miller: It is both. Sorry—I will try again and then I will give up. It is both, because you are also looking at measures to tackle illegal migration in the UK such as landlord checking and the rest, which might give rise to more of those.
Paul Greenhalgh: Our concern is about families who have been given that status in terms of how the Bill is currently drafted. The onus will be on the families to leave rather than there being an enforcement to their departure. While they are still in this country, local authorities still have legal duties to them under the legislation that we have previously cited.
Councillor Simmonds: It is probably worth giving you some figures. When we look at the numbers for local authority responsibilities in providing support to irregular migrants, around 80% of those who are supported are those under the section 17 Children Act responsibilities. The remaining group tend to be with care needs under the Mental Health Act and the Care Act, so the vast majority will be entitled to support through their status as families with children, and there will always be further legal avenues by which they can regain that entitlement should one avenue be closed off.
Sarah Champion
Q 254 I have just a small question. Currently, when someone has failed their last appeal, what is the average time before they actually get deported? I just want an idea of the timescale in which they would be destitute.
Henry St Clair Miller: I have not learnt of that particular statistic, so I do not have an answer.
Sarah Champion
Q 255 Ball park. Is it hours, weeks, months?
Henry St Clair Miller: It is tentatively months. The main thing, whether it is data from our NRPF Connect database or independent research, is that the time on support for an individual case is currently well above two years. That is a statistical fact. I cannot determine the exact timescales from an actual refusal or how many claims are made within that period. I guess there is a concern for local authorities that, if we have to engage these safety net responsibilities, there should not be an assumption that it will be just short term. Obviously, we are very keen to work with the Home Office to try and reduce the time. I think we are making progress and I think the Home Office has been good in respect to hearing about our difficulties, so this may change, but I can only give the stats that we have currently.
Sarah Champion
Q 256 So, to clarify, if this legislation is enacted, your assumption is that a family would be without any support for a couple of months.
Henry St Clair Miller: It is hard to define this. I am saying that, when support is engaged under the safety net, historically it has not been something that is over and done with in a couple of months. Historically, it has taken longer to resolve the issues.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Q 257 Does the Committee have any reason not to accept the figures in the Home Office’s August consultation document? I am referring to the public consultation on reforming support for failed asylum seekers and other illegal migrants. I am looking at the figures given for the scale of the situation: an estimated 15,000 refused asylum seekers with an estimated cost of £73 million. Do you accept those figures or have any concerns about them?
Paul Greenhalgh: We broadly accept those figures, yes.
Chloe Smith
Q 258 That is very helpful. Thank you. I will preface my next question with a sentence from the UNHCR website:
“If the asylum system is both fast and fair, then people who know they are not refugees have little incentive to make a claim in the first place, thereby benefitting both the host country and the refugees for whom the system is intended.”
If we are looking at 15,000 refused asylum seekers, with an associated cost that we might all agree on, does the panel think that we ought to do everything we can to reduce that number and those costs, to be able to fulfil the obligations to refugees that we all want to fulfil—the Prime Minister has set out that we want to—towards refugees coming in from other parts of the world at present, who of course have recourse to public funds, because they are under the temporary relocation scheme?
Councillor Simmonds: Yes, entirely. If we look at the Syrian programme, which is under way at the moment, people coming with humanitarian status will have rights, and the expectation is that they will be able to access fully UK public services but also will be expected to work.
Picking up on the point about the numbers, there is a survey that is probably the most up-to-date one, because I do not think we have any national data on the number of people who are here irregularly as migrants under one status or another. The Greater London Authority commissioned a study. It is from 2007 and it gives the most recent national figure. It estimated that the number of irregular migrants—this is people with a number of different statuses—was between 417,000 and 863,000.
In terms of the numbers at present, we know the organisations that participate in Henry’s body. There was a survey recently, in January this year, and it put the number at around 2,154 households, supported by the 34 authorities that provided detailed information, at a cost of £613,872 per week. Clearly, that is a significant cost to UK taxpayers for people who will fall into a number of different groups; not just failed asylum seekers but visa overstayers and various other categories.
Chloe Smith
Q 259 Would you just kindly repeat that number and say what the unit is?
Councillor Simmonds: Yes. So, we were talking there about 34 authorities that are supporting 2,154 households who are irregular migrants, and the cost—the quite detailed costing of that—is £613,872 per week.
Paul Greenhalgh: Which aggregates to £32 million for those 34 authorities.
Henry St Clair Miller: And includes 3,825 dependants.
The Chair
I do not know whether any of the witnesses has those figures in a table, because it is very difficult to take them all down. If you could write to us, I would like to circulate them to the Committee.
Chloe Smith
Q 260 Would the rest of the panel like to make any comment on this notion of having to reduce our undesired costs to be able to do more for those who most need it?
Paul Greenhalgh: Absolutely, and we would want to do that to ensure that the relevant safeguards are in place, particularly for children in families.
Henry St Clair Miller: I agree with that, yes.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q 261 I would just like to follow up a little on some of the witnesses’ answers to the Minister’s questions about the interaction that you have had with the Home Office. Mr Greenhalgh, you said in relation to the 2005 pilot by the then Labour Government that it not only failed but was counter- productive, in that it drove many people underground and made compliance more difficult. From the discussions that you have had with the Home Office, do you know what different measures the Home Office is putting in place that will mean this time it is different, and are you confident that that is the case?
Paul Greenhalgh: I spoke about the complexity of the current assessment system when families need to come to local authorities for support. So, as the Bill is currently drafted, we believe that the number of families that would inevitably come to local authorities for support would increase significantly.
One of the questions that we are exploring with the Home Office is whether it is appropriate to leave the legislation around the Children Act as it currently stands, which we then have to apply to those families, or whether we take migrant families without status out of the Children Act and provide support for them through schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. There are some advantages to that, in terms of the potential for establishing a new simplified assessment system, for providing support in a way that takes more account of the family’s immigration status and for being more explicit about the fact that it would result in a clear new burden on the local authority, which would need to be funded. That is one mechanism that we are in discussion about.
Paul Blomfield
Q 262 I will come to funding in a moment, if I may. I was particularly interested in the issue of compliance. You pointed out that the previous pilot had been counterproductive. What indications have you been given in your discussions with the Home Office that you think, in terms of the policy objective, that it will be different this time?
Paul Greenhalgh: We still have concerns about the assumptions about behavioural change and the extent to which families will take responsibility for removing themselves from the country. That is why, in addition to the technical discussions about where changes might be made to the Bill or not, we think that that needs to go alongside closer partnership working between local authorities and the Home Office, to ensure that families who are no longer getting support and who need to think about removing themselves from the country have a more joined-up approach from the local authority and the Home Office working together. We think that that would make it more effective, more user-friendly and clearer for people and more nationally consistent, and so would present the potential for a series of arrangements that could be more effective than the Bill as currently drafted.
Paul Blomfield
Q 263 You are describing your aspirations for how it might be more effective, but I am thinking of where you have got to in your discussions with the Home Office. You have said that there is a constructive engagement. As we stand at the moment, in terms of what has been agreed, would it be unreasonable to say—I do not want to put words in your mouth—that there is nothing that gives you confidence that this would be any different from the pilot in 2005?
Paul Greenhalgh: No, I would not say that, actually. I think that there are some interesting ideas on the table. I think that we are seeking further assurance around the extent to which those new possible technical arrangements would provide the assurances that we think need to be in place, in terms of both safeguarding children and recognising the cost to local authorities.
Paul Blomfield
Q 264 On the cost, it is about that assurance. Representing a large northern city, I am conscious that local government has taken a disproportionate hit, particularly in areas where we have a concentration of asylum seekers. I am keen to know whether you have assurances from the Home Office that all the additional costs will be met. Yes or no will do.
Councillor Simmonds: The straight answer is no, partly because the Bill is still under debate. As a politician, I am really clear that there needs to be a decision one way or the other. Either we are willing to identify people to remove them from the country, or we need to make provision for their support while they are here. What we cannot do is say that they have no recourse to public funds. That just means that the UK taxpayer picks up the cost through a different route, which is local authority support. That is the thing that needs to change.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Q 265 In my constituency and across my county of Kent this summer, we have seen very high numbers of unaccompanied minors. I understand that it has been an issue not just for Kent but for some of the surrounding local authorities. How do you feel that the Home Office has engaged with you with regard to dealing with that particular problem over the summer, and how do you see things moving forward?
Councillor Simmonds: The Local Government Association has put forward a proposal, supported by colleagues in the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, for a national scheme to address the concerns in Kent. The existing legal framework allows other local authorities to assist voluntarily, but we know if somebody is an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child and to take a very simple example it is likely when they become a care leaver that they will go to university, that means, following the Barking and Dagenham judgment, that the local authority where they are will pay the full foreign student fees for them during their time at university, which is a massive and entirely underfunded cost. It is clear that other local authorities have said, “We are perfectly willing to assist, but we need some assurance that there will be funding available.” Some limited amounts have been put forward by the Home Office to help, but it is clear that we need a national scheme.
My view, and the view of others who have been involved with this issue for many years, is that we would achieve much greater economies of scale by doing that rather than leaving authorities like Kent in a situation where, essentially, they have to pay whatever providers wish to charge them, because they have no option. Other areas that perhaps could assist are not going to be willing to do so, because they are being asked to do so on an unfunded basis.
Kelly Tolhurst
Q 266 Do you think that the Home Office has been good at engaging over this period and is committed to delivering this?
Councillor Simmonds: I have met the Minister to talk about this. I know Edward Timpson, the other Minister at the Department for Education who is responsible there, the Local Government Association and others have been involved in discussions on this for some time. We have put a proposal out. Essentially, the decision that needs to be made is whether that is something that is going to be locally led, or, given the asylum issues involved, whether the Home Office would feel more comfortable with it being led nationally, such as by the National Asylum Support Service. Pending a decision on that, we are in a position to press the button.
Kelly Tolhurst
Q 267 Do you feel, at the moment, particularly in the south-east—and perhaps if you have knowledge of the whole of the country—that the pressure we are currently seeing with unaccompanied minors is greater than the perceived pressure that may come due to some of the measures in the Bill?
Paul Greenhalgh: My sense of that is no. Kent is currently the authority with the largest number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It currently has 800. Croydon is the—[Interruption.] Okay, I think it is 800, but David has a different view. It is somewhere between 800 and 1,200. Croydon is the next biggest authority in terms of the number of unaccompanied asylum seekers. We have 370. I think that those figures are small compared with the impact that the Bill would have with regard to removing support from families with that status.
Councillor Simmonds: It is important to be clear, though, that because the Children Act 1989 makes the local authority at the port of authority the responsible body, it falls disproportionately on a small number of places. If you are a port, or indeed, a local authority such as Leicestershire, with motorway services where lorries travelling from ports tend to deposit people, you may end up with a significant population, and their rights derive from the fact that they are unaccompanied children, so their asylum status is not strictly relevant to that. They gain those rights by virtue of the fact that they are unaccompanied, at which point the Children Act and Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 kick in.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Q 268 Is the natural corollary of quite a lot of the discussion about the pressure on local government finance to see some change in the Children Act?
Councillor Simmonds: Paul will have a professional view about that. Clearly, what is not sustainable is to say that people have a portfolio of rights, but there is no funding available to fulfil any of those obligations. So it would be possible—I think the provisions in the Bill could conceivably do it—to say that certain individuals are removed from any consideration under the Children Act. The issue that we would have, of course, is that other avenues will then generally be pursued. One of the common problems for local authorities—I speak from a lot of personal experience—is that as one avenue is closed, another one opens up, so we would need to make sure that any provisions that were envisaged of that nature were extremely comprehensive. It would be a challenge for parliamentarians collectively to say that we are going to walk through the Lobby and say, “We are determined to remove a group of children who are in the UK from being considered as children and view them simply as illegal immigrants, and therefore, not entitled to support.” I suspect that, on a cross-party basis, Parliament would have a challenge in getting that through and finding that it could be supported easily.
Simon Hoare
Q 269 We heard in earlier evidence that, when the final refusal comes, virtually everyone, it has been suggested, suddenly goes underground, beneath the radar. Clearly, that is not the case because a lot of people turn up at the doors of town halls across the country. What percentage of those who are refused do you reckon the Government deal with?
Councillor Simmonds: Almost all, but in various different categories. In the last year for which we have figures, about 12,500 people were removed by the Home Office and processes of immigration control. The rest will, under one category or another, by and large, be entitled to some form of support. It is quite common. There is a case that my authority is involved in: a young man applies for asylum, is refused, appeals, is refused, is taken to the removal centre and then says, “Actually, I’m a child. I’m not an adult. According to the passport I presented when I applied for asylum, I am a child.” He has now been released, via the Home Office, into the care of my local authority.
The Chair
Order. I am so sorry to interrupt a witness but that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I apologise to the hon. Members who were not able to get in. I thank the excellent witnesses. We could have gone on for longer but we were beaten by the clock.
Examination of Witnesses
Peter Grady, Karl Pike and Andrew Hewett gave evidence.
The Chair
Q 270 We will now hear evidence from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the British Red Cross. I am afraid that for this session we only have until 3.15 pm. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Peter Grady: I am Peter Grady, legal officer at UNCHR.
Karl Pike: I am Karl Pike, the refugees and asylum policy and advocacy manager at the British Red Cross.
Andrew Hewett: I am Andy Hewett, the refugee development manager at the British Red Cross.
Sarah Champion
Q 271 I have three questions. What types of non-asylum cases would be affected by the repeal of section 4(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and can you quantify the number of cases potentially affected?
The Chair
No conferring.
Andrew Hewett: I do not have the exact figures but our understanding is that the majority of people on section 4 are asylum cases. We could come back to you with some figures and an update on that if that would be helpful.
Sarah Champion
That would be very helpful.
Peter Grady: I do not have figures for you but it is our understanding that stateless persons could also be affected by the section 4(1) revisions.
Sarah Champion
Q 272 What could the consequences be?
Peter Grady: For stateless persons, if they are denied support?
Sarah Champion
Yes.
Peter Grady: They could be driven to destitution. There is that risk, just as there is for others. One of the concerns we outlined in our briefing is that there appear to be no replacement support provisions for stateless persons under section 95A, for example. There is a concern that if section 4 is withdrawn, there would not be a replacement form of support or a dedicated support that could benefit stateless persons in the UK.
Sarah Champion
Q 273 So there would be no other avenues for them?
Peter Grady: There might be other forms of support, as we heard recently, through local authorities in their obligations to individuals, including on human rights grounds, but not through section 4.
Sarah Champion
Q 274 What obstacles to leaving the UK do refused asylum seekers and other irregular migrants face? Which of those should justify eligibility for the proposed section 95A support?
Andrew Hewett: We see examples every day. The British Red Cross supports over 7,000 destitute people a year, some of whom will be able to apply for section 4 support. Some of them will then experience real practical barriers to leaving the UK. I have got some examples. One real, very recent example: a Palestinian male claimed asylum in 2004. He became appeal rights-exhausted the following year, 2005. He applied for assisted voluntary return through the voluntary return scheme; he applied for section 4 support. He was not able to progress his application for voluntary return because there is no direct route into Palestine. Therefore, he was not eligible for section 4 support. He cannot find a solicitor to make a stateless application, so he is really stuck. He has literally spent the last 10 years homeless and destitute in the UK, having pursued every legal avenue. So there are some real practical barriers with challenges to returning people from particular countries that have no embassies in the UK or those with no viable route of return or other practical challenges with documenting or proving their nationality. Where people have proved that they have done as much as they possibly can to effect their own voluntary departure and there are some obstacles in their way, absolutely that needs to be considered.
Sarah Champion
Q 275 The Bill allows extension of support where there is a genuine obstacle, so how do you think genuine obstacles should be defined in the Bill?
Andrew Hewett: We can provide some examples, but I think it would be more useful for the Home Office to consult on what the genuine obstacles should be and define them. At the moment, genuine obstacle is not really defined anywhere, so it is open to interpretation and we see some cases approved, but others are refused because they have not met that threshold. We need further clarification, but certainly where people have tried to pursue voluntary return and there is a bureaucratic or embassy issue, that is one credible example. There are others and we can come back to you with those, but that is the one that springs to mind.
Sarah Champion
That would be helpful.
Karl Pike: There is a list of countries where assisted voluntary return is not possible, which I imagine you have seen. It is fairly extensive—there are quite a few countries on it. That would be a good place to start for the people who should definitely get support. There is also a common problem that Andy knows quite a lot about, which is embassies that will not provide travel documents to a person on the basis that they no longer have original ID. Ethiopia is one.
Andrew Hewett: If you are an Eritrean national and the Home Office contests that you are from Eritrea—perhaps it says that you are from Ethiopia—you would be expected to attend both the Eritrean and Ethiopian embassies and almost go through the process of applying for a passport. Then the Home Office would want to see written confirmation from that embassy as to why it cannot issue you with a passport.
Practically, you could make an appointment at the embassy, go down there and go through the process, but neither of those embassies currently provides any written confirmation. So some of those people are in positions where they have to take an independent witness with them and then that person provides a witness statement to say, “Yes, the person did attend. This is what happened at the embassy” because there is no viable way of getting that confirmation from the embassy. The Home Office does not commonly accept those witness statements. These people are in an incredibly difficult situation. They have done everything humanly possible and followed every instruction, but there is some other barrier preventing them from meeting that very high threshold.
Sarah Champion
Q 276 So, for clarity, you think that that needs defining either in guidance or in the Bill?
Andrew Hewett: Absolutely, it needs crystal clear clarification and definition.
Karl Pike: We would like “genuine obstacle” to be defined in the legislation rather than allowing it to be subject to the regulations after the Bill has been voted on.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
Q 277 I want to ask you the question that I missed the opportunity to ask this morning. We have a lot of problems with our immigration service—it sounded terrible at some stages this morning—and I wondered whether you had any relative knowledge of immigration procedures and enforcement in other countries. How do we compare with some of our European partners?
Peter Grady: Which aspect of immigration and enforcement procedures?
Rebecca Harris
Poor decision making, slow decision making, labyrinthine—does anyone know of an exemplar European nation that does things well?
Karl Pike: There are so many different parts of it. To be fair to the Home Office, certainly the speed of decision making is potentially better than in some European countries. France is an obvious example. People often say that countries such as Sweden have better processes of return and support for asylum seekers, particularly for assisted voluntary return. It is a bit of a mixed bag.
Peter Grady: I agree. To credit the Home Office as well, here—from UNHCR’s perspective at least—the quality of asylum policy is generally of a high standard. As Karl has mentioned, it is certainly a mixed bag when looking at other national asylum systems—whether of pros or cons.
To give just one example, credibility assessment is something we have worked on with a number of states. It is absolutely fundamental to asylum decision making. There are positive aspects of how it is conducted here, in terms of some of the infrastructure and policy that I mentioned before, but there are still issues for us and we need to work with the Home Office to develop training and strengthen decision making in the area. It is not unique to the UK—credibility assessment is, across the board, in a number of different countries, a challenging area for asylum decision making. So it is a mixed bag and it is hard to pull out one state and say, “This is the perfect state for asylum decision making.”
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Q 278 Earlier today, we heard that cases are getting more complex—the rules are more complex. Does that really just affect the people who are caught up in the system having more complex issues? You have described people unable to get paperwork, because they are caught up in the politics between countries.
Karl Pike: Those are not new issues. Obviously, potentially we are going through a unique period in the movement of people, so the numbers of decisions that the Home Office is having to make are gradually increasing. It is not like the level of the early noughties, but it is certainly increasing. In a lot of these countries, sometimes the systems that they have clash with the systems that we have, and that seems to cause the Home Office difficulties.
I will just give you an example about a Syrian national which someone told me about a couple of days ago. It is a family reunion case, and they were trying to bring a child over. The Home Office wanted a birth certificate; the family did not have a birth certificate, so they had to go to a local civil organisation in Syria to get a new one, but the way in which they issue those in Syria means that they date them from the date of issuance, so the Home Office said it must be bogus, because it was dated 2015. Silly little cultural things such as that often get in the way, and that is what we mean by complexity, because that is just one example of one person from one country, and there are hundreds.
Mims Davies
Q 279 We heard earlier on from the director of Migrants’ Rights Network—I hope I quote him correctly. We talked about complexity and potential abuses in the system. He said that there are flaws with the system and people want to exploit that. Is it your experience that people are trying to exploit this lack of knowledge between countries and the complexity of laws and nations? Or is it really, as you say, that there is a significant change in the way in which people are living or trying to group together and that countries are trying to catch up with that?
Karl Pike: The only thing that I would say to that is, from my experience of meeting people in the system, it is not fun. It is an incredibly difficult experience to go through and being destitute is not fun, and it is a problem that is getting worse. I have not personally encountered anyone in the course of our work, or in previous work, who was obviously gaming the system.
Andrew Hewett: Operationally, we support more than 14,000 people a year through 56 towns and cities in the UK, offering information and support to asylum seekers and refugees. The vast majority do not exhibit behaviour that would lead us to be concerned that they were exploiting the system. They present with genuine needs, and there are real issues. If the cases are becoming more complex, it is possibly because conflict is becoming more complex. We are moving away from state declaring war on state to a much more complicated, multifaceted situation involving different factors and different factions within regions. It becomes much more difficult for asylum seekers to prove who is persecuting them, where they are being persecuted and whether or not they could be safely returned to a region of their country, because the situation is so complex and so rapidly changing. We are perhaps seeing an increase in the complexity of cases, but it is being driven by what is happening on the ground and it reflects the nature of those conflicts.
Mims Davies
Q 280 In terms of the Home Office, we have heard two different things. One is that it is catching up and doing quite a good job where it is able to make the right decisions with the right paperwork, and that things are speeding up. The other was a criticism this morning about templating. There was, perhaps, a perception that situations in certain countries were being stamped on other individuals from that country to make decisions easier. What do you think is the reality of the situation?
Andrew Hewett: My understanding is that the Home Office still looks at every case on a case-by-case basis. It looks at the evidence that that case presents, and it makes a decision based on that evidence. I echo Peter’s remarks. The Home Office has made great improvements in clearing the backlog of cases that it has historically been dealing with and making more effective decisions more quickly. The big challenge for us is what happens to people at the end of the asylum process, particularly if their cases are refused. There is a challenge to them returning to their home country, because the current legislation means that they are commonly left destitute and homeless. That leaves them with little option other than to go underground, because there is no official means for them to support themselves.
Karl Pike: The decision making goes directly to the appeals issue in the Bill, particularly asylum support appeals. If you look at the stats, there is bad decision making. Well over 60% of cases for asylum support are granted on appeal, or the Home Office changes its decision on the way to appeal.
Mims Davies
Q 281 But is that because more evidence comes to light, or is it because you are saying that there is bad decision making?
Andrew Hewett: We have plenty of examples where somebody applies for asylum support and their application is refused because the Home Office does not believe that they are destitute. What tends to happen is that that person will approach a charity and ask them to write a letter of support to say that, yes, they have seen this person and they can confirm that they are street homeless or destitute. That letter is normally enough to win the appeal. It does not make any sense; if that letter was available earlier on, the case might not have had to go to appeal. There is an awful lot of time and resources wasted in those cases. I urge the Home Office to undertake a deep-dive assessment of the cases that have gone to an asylum support tribunal and that have been overturned on appeal, and to look at the reasons why. Is there any opportunity to change or amend policy to prevent more similar cases from going to appeal? If 60% of cases are being overturned, or are being withdrawn by the Home Office, we cannot credibly sit here today and tell you the reasons why that may be, but it seems as though work has to be undertaken to enable us to understand that.
Mims Davies
Q 282 In that case, if this is a complex situation and is getting more complex, and people may or may not end up destitute, are you as an organisation making it clear to people that once they get into the process, they could end up on the wrong side of it? That is, if they can go home—if there are reasons why they should not be here—should there be some onus on all the groups supporting that situation to say, “This is not as easy as you think, and it may end up causing more harm to you and your family than good?” Can you explain that at that point?
Andrew Hewett: Absolutely. From our perspective, we do a great degree of what we call parallel planning. When we meet people who are in the asylum process, we work with them to ensure that they understand what could happen to them if they get a positive decision on their case, and what could happen to them if they get a negative decision. It becomes very hard for us to continue to engage with people after they get a negative decision if the policy makes them homeless and destitute. Ideally, we would want some time to go through it with them, because we may have built up an element of trust. We could perhaps do more to explain some of the difficult choices that people have, but it becomes increasingly difficult if a person becomes homeless. Maybe they have a friend who can put them up somewhere in a different town or city, and they end up sofa surfing. We tend to lose contact with them—the Home Office certainly loses contact with them—and that cannot be in anybody’s interest.
Mims Davies
Q 283 But we heard from some organisations yesterday that sometimes the first conversation about the fact that it can go wrong happens after it has gone wrong. That is why I am asking the question about such a good organisation as yours—to ensure that the whole round is explained to people.
Andrew Hewett: I can absolutely confirm that that is our position. I also believe that that is the position of most organisations in the sector.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Q 284 I have sat here for two days listening to people say that so many things are wrong with the system as it is at the moment, some of them picking faults with the Bill. I understand that UNHCR, for example, thinks that discontinuing support is unlikely to encourage people to go home. I do not know whether the panel shares that view. If you can justify that, I would like to hear your comments. Secondly, what therefore is the panacea for this?
Peter Grady: Sorry, what was the second part of that question?
Byron Davies
What is the answer to this? What is the solution?
Peter Grady: That might be a bit more difficult. Jumping to the first question, on whether the proposed changes will meet their objective, it was noted in our evidence that we had concerns whether removing support would meet the objective of encouraging return, or disincentivising staying, particularly for families of refused asylum seekers. I know that that has been discussed in some detail in this Committee, for example the section 9 pilot that was undertaken, so I will not go into that, but it is also UNHCR’s own experience, in exchanges and general discussions with colleagues and in some of the studies that we have conducted in the past.
To go back to some of the work that we have done on alternatives to detention, we have also looked at some of the drivers for compliance and issues surrounding absconding. There was a study, to go back a bit to 2006, in which that issue came up.
Byron Davies
Q 285 Where was this?
Peter Grady: It was a global study conducted by Ophelia Field for UNHCR. It looked at a range of countries, but in that context, it was the Netherlands, which had introduced a measure to withdraw support after 28 days. It was observed that in that context, people would go underground immediately before the 28 days ended. It was not encouraging contact with the authorities, which undermined their efforts to return those people.
Karl Pike: I think we would agree that withdrawing support in the way proposed would not lead to people leaving. I will not go over the previous pilot, but the evidence from that is quite clear. On solutions, we are looking to propose some and work with the Government. For instance, if you lengthened the grace period beyond 28 days for families, it might allow people longer to consider their options—
Byron Davies
Q 286 Or to disappear.
Karl Pike: Well, when is it more likely that someone is going to disappear—if they are supported for longer so that they can talk about what they are going to do, or if support is completely withdrawn? The evidence from the last pilot was that more people absconded.
Peter Grady: May I add something, Chair?
The Chair
May I just say that we are going to run out of time and Members are not going to be able to ask their questions? But carry on.
Peter Grady: Very briefly, in terms of solutions it is worth looking at the family returns process. As far as we have observed, as least, it is an effective way of engaging with those at the return end of the spectrum. It has been seen to be successful, and increasingly so over the years. From the statistics I have looked at, more recently, at least, in 2012 to 2014 we had 76% of people leaving without an ensured return, up from 50% from the period of 2011 to 2012. It is worth considering.
Rebecca Harris
Q 287 On that point, if support were withdrawn only if people refused to engage and they were therefore encouraged to continue to engage, would you support that? Would you support a policy in which people are ensured continued financial support provided they are engaging?
Peter Grady: Yes, I would think so. Obviously we would need to look at the details, but at least from what we have seen it is a core element that there is continued engagement with authorities. That can be undermined if you withdraw support, because they then look elsewhere for it.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Q 288 We will be looking at amendments in the next couple of weeks, and you have all of us sitting in front of you now. If you could be granted one wish for an amendment, what is the primary thing you would say we should amend in the Bill? You never know, it might happen.
The Chair
It is one wish.
Karl Pike: Appeals should be allowed for section 95A. In cases where it is refused, we should have the right to appeal. The appeal success rate is so high at the moment that not having it is clearly going to hide very bad decision making, and those people will come to us because they will not have food or clothing.
Andrew Hewett: I am going to take my wish, as well, so we have two as the British Red Cross. For me, it is the grace period. If you really want to engage people in some of the difficult and complex decisions you might have to make, people will need to be fed and have a roof over their heads while they are considering those. It is very difficult to do all that within 28 days so we will be supporting a move towards a longer grace period of 90 days, to enable those discussions and consultations, and explore and exhaust all possible avenues during that time.
Peter Grady: If I had my one wish, to step away from this issue—although I would argue that it is within the scope of the Bill—it would be for the introduction of a time limit on detention. There are detention provisions there. We see that as being an area where it would help to ensure compliance with what UNHCR views as being international standards relating to detention. That is something we would strongly welcome.
Keir Starmer
Q 289 I will try to do this in one question. I want to draw together some of the examples you have given to make sure that I have understood the evidence. This is about the appeals for support. Let us say you have a case where there is a genuine obstacle to removal—for example, an Eritrean person who, for one reason or another, cannot get the right document to put before the Home Office. They are considered not to be destitute when they are, so the decision is made that they are not going to be given support. They then come to see you and you, the charity, provide them with a letter, so they have something that is almost certain to win on appeal, and they will at least get their support. If this Bill goes through, they are exactly the kind of person who will be stuck with a bad decision and no support, notwithstanding the fact that they are destitute and have a genuine obstacle to removal. It is simply tough on them.
Karl Pike: Yes. It might help you to know that Eritreans are the largest single group of destitute people this year.
Keir Starmer
Q 290 But it is just tough on them. We made the wrong decision, and though they have a piece of paper that means they would win on appeal, it is just tough. That is the effect of the Bill.
Karl Pike: Yes.
Andrew Hewett: They will be made homeless and destitute. That makes it even more difficult if they want to progress to a voluntary return programme.
Kelly Tolhurst
Q 291 You mentioned that you think the removal of support will drive people underground. Can you explain to me what you regard to be underground and how that works?
Karl Pike: From the pilot, people absconded. I do not know whether the Home Office followed it up with any further research as to where they had gone, but people often assume it means they can end up working illegally somewhere and potentially being quite badly exploited. This Bill creates an offence of illegal working as well. If all the provisions are the same, some people might end up absconding and end up in prison for illegal working six months later.
Kelly Tolhurst
Q 292 So having that description and taking into consideration the other parts of the Bill that focus on illegal working, do you think that that measure might aid individuals being able to continue to engage, rather than being driven underground because of the threat from the other parts of the Bill?
Karl Pike: I do not know. It is hypothetical.
The Chair
Order. I am so sorry; we have run out of time for the Committee to ask questions. Can I suggest to the two organisations that if they want to put anything in writing to the Committee—anything you do not think we have got round to discussing—feel free to do so. Thank you for coming.
Examination of Witnesses
Rachel Robinson, Keith Ashcroft, Rebecca Hilsenrath, Steve Symonds and Saira Grant gave evidence.
The Chair
Q 293 We will now hear oral evidence from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Amnesty International, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Liberty—I hope. Welcome, everyone. I will ask you to introduce yourselves formally for the record, and I warn you that the Minister is allowed to ask questions at this session, which he enjoys enormously. Thank you, witnesses. Please introduce yourselves formally.
Rachel Robinson: I am Rachel Robinson from Liberty.
Keith Ashcroft: Keith Ashcroft, lawyer from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Rebecca Hilsenrath: Rebecca Hilsenrath from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Steve Symonds: Steve Symonds from Amnesty International UK.
Saira Grant: I am Saira Grant, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.
Keir Starmer
Q 294 Thank you, panel, for coming to give evidence to us this afternoon. The Bill proposes to make changes to the support that is provided to individuals who have got to the end of the process for their asylum claims. It extends the changes to the appeals process in terms of removal first and appeal afterwards. It introduces an offence of illegal working that applies to employees and expands the enforcement powers of immigration officers. Can the panel tell us what they think the human rights and equalities implications of those major changes are?
Rachel Robinson: In the broadest terms, Liberty is seriously concerned about the societal discriminatory impact of various proposals in the Bill, which bring immigration control in-country or increase in-country immigration control in terms of the rental sector and in terms of the creation of an offence of illegal working and the new offence of driving while an illegal immigrant. We are extremely concerned about the impact of the proposals on race relations and community cohesion. At the same time as these proposals are being introduced, elsewhere in the Bill, we see proposals that strip away access to appeal rights, that shift control over immigration bail from the judiciary to the Executive and that create a hostile environment, with serious implications for the most vulnerable people in our society.
At the same time, we also see the creation of an offence of illegal working, which is liable to push people into exploitative employment situations; the removal of mainstream asylum support from many families; proposals designed to freeze assets; and proposals that involve closure of bank accounts. There are serious human rights implications for the very most vulnerable people in society and discriminatory impacts together with removal of oversight.
Rebecca Hilsenrath: The Equality and Human Rights Commission supports provisions that set out to tackle unlawful working, particularly in relation to the exploitation of those whose status is uncertain, but we do have concerns. We have reviewed the Bill as a whole and we have particular concerns about the proposed reforms in relation to measures to introduce eviction powers and the reform of appeal provisions for support for failed asylum seekers. We can come back in greater detail, but broadly speaking we do not believe that due consideration has been given to obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child. We have concerns relating to article 6 in both cases and article 8. We also have an overriding concern about the equality impact assessments undertaken in relation to the Bill. We understand that they are still under way, but the failure to provide proper evidence about equality impact at this stage undermines the ability of parliamentarians to properly debate the provisions in the Bill.
Keir Starmer
Q 295 Is that just a timing question, or does it go beyond that?
Rebecca Hilsenrath: We have not seen them, so it is very difficult to comment. My understanding is that what has been produced touches on financial implications but not equalities.
Keir Starmer
Q 296 Other panel members, what are the human rights and equality implications of these measures in particular?
Steve Symonds: In brief, for the reasons just outlined and others you have heard in your evidence sessions, I think we would generally say that they increase the likelihood of human rights abuse and they reduce the safeguards accessible to people to try to remedy or safeguard themselves from those abuses.
Saira Grant: I agree with that. I would add that the entire target of the Bill, as of the 2014 Act, is to create a hostile environment, purportedly for unlawful migrants, but, actually, what we are really concerned about and what we have already seen happening is that it targets all migrants: lawful migrants here and, indeed, citizens of this country.
Our concern is that there will be many abuses of human rights. Many people will be unlawfully targeted and discriminated against and the Bill provides no redress. That is completely lacking for those people who are unlawfully targeted by the provisions.
Keith Ashcroft: Just to echo what Rebecca said, we have real concerns about the withdrawal of support for failed asylum seekers with children and also some concerns about the extension of the deport first, appeal later provisions, which, as you know, currently apply almost exclusively to foreign national ex-offenders. We have some questions about whether it is proportionate to extend the provisions to cover those who simply wish to appeal on human rights grounds against a refusal to enter or to remain.
The Chair
I will ask Mr Hoare to come in in a minute. I should have said at the beginning to the witnesses that we will finish at 4 pm, not 4.30 pm as you may have been told originally. We want to get through as many questions as possible.
The other thing is, when it gets to 4 pm, there will be bells ringing. It is not the fire alarm; we will have to go and vote. You will see us all rush off at that time, so please do not be offended by that.
Simon Hoare
Q 297 Ms Robinson, has Liberty ever welcomed an immigration Bill?
Rachel Robinson: I am afraid that I have not been there long enough to give you an accurate analysis of that. What I can tell you is that we have seen the same failed approach tried and pushed in many immigration Bills, so inevitably we raise many of the same concerns. What we see in parallel is a failure time and time again to address problems in the Department that are identified time and time again in various reports.
Simon Hoare
Q 298 I think we will take that as a no.
Let me ask you another question; it may come out crudely, but it is not intended to be crudely phrased. A phrase you used in your answer to Sir Keir struck me: “members of our society”. That was a phrase that you used once or twice in your opening remarks. We are talking here about those who have failed a process—a fair process. That could be debated, but let us say for argument’s sake that it is a fair process. Therefore, by definition, one can presume that the people for whom permission has been refused have not welcomed that decision, but in point of fact and without being rude about it they are not “members of our society”; they are members of the societies of other countries. Where does our duty end in those circumstances?
Rachel Robinson: Liberty would certainly argue that while people remain in this country, they should be treated with the basics of dignity and respect; they should have the human rights framework applied to them. That does not mean that enforcement action should not be taken against them—this is not an argument about not having a functioning immigration system. This is how we treat people who remain in our country. We would argue that the provisions set out in this Bill will lead to an increase in destitution, including among children, because this Bill specifically targets children and families with young children. In addition to provisions that cut asylum support for families with young children, we now see the removal of mainstream support for those individuals, and that is deeply worrying.
Simon Hoare
Q 299 And that assertion can be evidentially substantiated?
Rachel Robinson: I am sorry—what assertion?
Simon Hoare
Q 300 The assertion that you have just given us.
Rachel Robinson: That this is specifically targeted at children? Well, the provisions in the Bill would lead to the automatic removal of section 95 support for families with minor children, who are currently covered by an exception to the current scheme, so yes, it is targeted at children.
Simon Hoare
Q 301 Chair, may I just ask a general question? If all members of the panel wish to answer it, that is entirely up to them. I am certainly taking Ms McLaughlin’s line, which I thought slightly pinched my earlier line of questioning this morning. In the ideal world and you have a blank sheet of paper in front of you, would you prefer to see an amnesty for those who are here today illegally and effectively start from scratch, or would you just prefer to see an open borders process and let the market decide how full the country can and cannot be?
Rachel Robinson: This is entirely outside the remit of Liberty’s work. Liberty comments on human rights and human rights protections, and whether they are available to people in this country. We do not take a view on how immigration works; we do not take a view on immigration more broadly than that.
The Chair
Shall we just go down the panel? There are five people; four organisations. Perhaps one from each organisation.
Rebecca Hilsenrath: I certainly agree that that is not within my remit to comment on, but I would say, and I started off by saying—
Simon Hoare
Your personal view.
Rebecca Hilsenrath: Well, I started off by saying that we support the idea of tackling illegal working and particularly protecting those who are exploited because of their status. But to consider, for example, the question of those who have failed in their application for asylum, I do not think that the commission or I would argue for one moment that they should not leave the country. We are simply debating the period between the failure of the application and the exit.
What the Bill says is that in order to be able to claim for support when you have children and are without the right of appeal, you have to be both destitute and able to fulfil a requirement, where the burden of proof is on you, to show that there is a genuine obstacle to your leaving the country. That suggests that being genuinely destitute is not sufficient, but in fact the European convention on human rights says that being destitute ought to be sufficient. The convention on the rights of the child also requires the Government to put the rights of the child at the heart of their policy making. We are looking simply at that window of destitution between failure in the application to remain and exit from the country. We do not debate in the slightest that the failure should implemented by removal.
Steve Symonds: Perhaps I can comment on the first question that you asked. It is important that the Committee understands that it is not just people who have been failed through a process that the Bill will have an impact on. There are children born in this country without any status. There are children who come here when they are very young and remain in this country without any status, many of whom are entitled to British citizenship but do not have access to be able to get it. There are people who have leave quite legitimately and wrongly have their leave curtailed, and who, because of the previous Act, have had their appeal rights withdrawn—no administrative review remedy was set up when those rights were withdrawn. Also, as Saira mentioned, there are British citizens who may be impacted because their children or their spouses are removed from the country, or cannot be reunited with them. There are British citizens who do not have passports and are not able to satisfy a landlord that they are, indeed, entitled to be here and therefore entitled to rent.
There are many aspects of the Bill that have an impact on people who should not be going through any process, those who may be entitled to a process but have had it curtailed or wrongly ended, or those who would be at the start of any process, if it was available for them, at the very time that the Bill will start to impact them adversely, potentially with human rights consequences.
Saira Grant: Steve has given a few examples that I was going to give. That is the important point. You said at the start that these people are not members of our society, they are at the end of the process, they have failed, but as Steve has just outlined to you, there is a real misunderstanding about the people we are talking about. So many are children who have grown up here, who know no other country but who do not have regularised status, through no fault of their own. So many are family members.
The Office of the Children’s Commissioner recently did an in-depth study on the family migration rules and their impact. It discovered that many people without lawful status are the mother of a British child or the wife of a British husband. We are not talking about those in the backs of lorries, who have failed the process and therefore should now be demonised and exploited. Many measures of this Bill are targeting and creating a hostile environment that is unnecessary and will have so many repercussions on regularised black and minority ethnic community members and British citizens, and it will have an impact on our social cohesion.
Simon Hoare
Q 302 Can I come back very briefly? I was interested in what you were saying because you made that point in an earlier submission. You are right to be worried about the social cohesion perspective. I suppose I look at it from the other end of the telescope. Do you agree that if everybody in society, irrespective of colour or creed—I put that in inverted commas—had safe knowledge that their neighbours and the people who lived in their communities were all bona fide, were all legitimate, were all citizens, or had right to remain in this country, it would ease the growing tension in many communities? That, in fact, of itself eases what in many communities is a growing tension—a tension between the settled, legal immigrant community and the illegal immigrant community. In my judgment, that is causing quite a lot of tensions in towns and cities across the country.
Saira Grant: You raise a very interesting and valid point, but I do not think that the answer is to create more suspicion and mistrust among members of civil society. It goes back to border control at the start; it is the Home Office’s responsibility, not that of civil society to be policing each other’s immigration status. We need to go back to the beginning. If the Home Office was making correct decisions, issuing correct visas and making it easier for people to lawfully go through the process, we would see a reduction in the numbers of those who are now irregularly here.
Sarah Champion
Q 303 Ms Grant, have you or your organisation had time to assess the west midlands pilot on landlords? Are you able to come up with some recommendations of how the pilot could be strengthened or any weaknesses in the Bill?
Saira Grant: Sure. You will be aware—I hope that Members are aware—that our organisation did an independent study of its own as well. We have sent copies of the report around. I have had a chance to go through it, although not in as much detail I would have liked, because it only came out on Tuesday, but looking at the evidence that they provided in the evaluation, it matches and mirrors a lot of the claims we have been making.
The first point to make is that the terms of reference are very different from our evaluation, because the emphasis is not on tenants; it is about landlords and the understanding that landlords have. Discrimination that we found has been alluded to—cases through mystery shoppers of indirect or potential discrimination—but that has not been the focus, and the tenants who are part of the survey are again a very low number, mainly students, so a very different group of people.
Something that really strikes me is to do with whether the reason behind these provisions is to ensure that those who do not have status do not stay in the UK and are encouraged to leave. If enforcement is the aim, look at what the results show: the claim is that 109 people have been “caught”, if you like, as a result of the right to rent checks, but break that down and at best you are looking at 15 people who directly came through the right to rent checks inquiry line and who came to the Home Office’s attention. That in itself is a very interesting statistic, because, of the 109 people, 94 actually had status and the right to remain, but the inquiry was made because landlords could not understand the complexity of immigration status. From the 15, it is really interesting. That is direct, but then we have a breakdown of the 109: 25 people had barriers to removal, 15 were progressing family cases, nine were granted leave by the Home Office and a further four had judicial reviews.
Whichever way you look at it, all of those who have outstanding legal cases need to reside somewhere. Because of the way we have changed our immigration rules, people might not have section 3C leave, which continues their leave, but if they have outstanding legal cases and therefore a barrier to removal, what is supposed to happen to them? Are they now just supposed to be destitute?
Going through their evidence, I would say that there needs to be a longer evaluation period; it needs to be not over the winter period, when no one really moves tenancies; and it needs to look at the impact on tenants, not just landlords. How can we possibly have a roll-out announced on the same day as the publication of this evaluation?
Rebecca Harris
Q 304 It is not particularly on this point. Within the provision of the Bill, do you think that there is sufficient resource and support for landlords to be able to make the assessment?
Saira Grant: No, quite the opposite; the Bill is now going to criminalise landlords, which will exacerbate the sense of “I don’t want to rent to anyone who looks or appears different.” Landlords have said that the code is hard to understand. I understand that the code is being revised—I see the Minister shaking his head, but I am looking at the evaluation and quoting from it, Minister. So no, there is not any further provision, but what we do have is a situation that will exacerbate discrimination, and that is not being tackled at all in the Bill. And I am not quite certain why the haste. Why are we rushing to strengthen the provisions before the provisions of the 2014 Act have bedded down and we have even looked at the impact properly?
Sarah Champion
Q 305 My final question is about immigration officers. Their remit is being extended, so that they will become more police-like in their areas and in their reach. Do you think that there is enough oversight and independent scrutiny of immigration officers in the Bill or existing legislation to ensure that they act responsibly?
Saira Grant: No, I do not and that is a real worry. So many enhanced powers are given—arrest without warrant, especially the driving licence provisions, no warrant needed to enter premises and to search people—and it was interesting that in your earlier evidence session when the police were talking about it. These powers are not just given to the police, but given to immigration officers and to anyone designated by the Secretary of State. There is no regulatory framework for immigration officers that I can see. It is extremely concerning that ever increasing powers are given to immigration officers, with no checks in place to prevent any kind of abuse of those powers.
Sarah Champion
Q 306 Do the rest of the panel members share those concerns?
Steve Symonds: I do. I would add this: I have followed immigration legislation over many years in different capacities, and I cannot think of a Bill over the last 15 to 20 years that has not extended the powers of immigration officers. I cannot think of a time when that has not been questioned in Parliament, and when the answer has not been that there will be better oversight, training and supervision this time. Actually, I cannot think of a time when it has resulted in a more efficient and effective system, let alone fewer concerns about instances of abuse of those powers.
It strikes me as inappropriate to be constantly expanding powers when, as has been referred to in an earlier session—the first session you had this morning—even the inspectorates themselves constantly refer to lack of management records of how the powers are used, inconsistencies in how they are used and inconsistencies about the guidance to officers about how they should be using the powers. We should stop giving more powers and concentrate on the ones that have been given now, at a minimum, and get those right before thinking ahead to expanding the range of powers given to officers and the expectations on those officers, who are much pressed and who no doubt find it difficult, given the range of legislation and guidance pressed on them. Sort out what they have got now before thinking of moving ahead. Oversight is not going to be the answer. I am not criticising oversight, by the way—I am all for it—but it will not provide the answer.
Rachel Robinson: Can I come in on the point about enforcement powers? I echo many of the points made by other speakers, but I add the very serious nature of the problems with the use of enforcement powers identified by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. A report covering an inspection period ending in 2013 found that in terms of, for example, the power to enter business premises without a search warrant, officers in 59% of cases lacked the required justification to exercise that power. In a further 12% of cases, there was not sufficient information to determine whether justification was there, so in only 29% of cases was the power being used properly. Yet, in the Bill, we see a massive extension in how intelligence is used by immigration officers.
We have had similar concerns from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration about the approach to so-called intelligence. One example given in a recent report involved a raid on a fast food restaurant. The intelligence for that raid was that previous raids on fast food restaurants had uncovered irregular workers. That is not intelligence; that is a generalisation and a stereotype. We have serious concerns about how the powers are being used, and we urge the Government to consider looking again at those powers, how they are being used and whether there are ways to make them more effective, safer and more accurate, rather than giving immigration officers a whole range of new powers.
Rebecca Harris
Q 307 You might want to reassure our witnesses that we had a housing officer as witness who thought that giving housing officers the responsibility to ask anyone to verify who they were might reduce problems with prejudice and so on. My question to all of you, with your expert knowledge of this area, is what measures you think we should be introducing to encourage people with no right to remain in this country to leave, or ensure that they do so when they refuse. What would be your solutions to that problem, if this is not the answer?
Rachel Robinson: What we see in the Bill is a shifting of responsibility from the Home Office to private citizens, when what we should be seeing is an improvement in processes within the Home Office. I think that the Committee has had ample evidence that the provisions in the Bill are liable to undermine enforcement of the immigration rules by making it more likely that people will abscond. The Committee has heard ample evidence on the provisions on asylum support.
We would say that the solution is not to foist immigration powers on members of the community with no training or expertise and expect them to carry out the functions that the Home Office has failed to carry out effectively itself. The solution is for the Home Office to do its job better.
Rebecca Hilsenrath: We start by wishing that an equality impact assessment had been produced; it might have helped to look through the draft provisions with a closer eye on equality impact. In terms of general proportionality, you could take the same approaches and consider whether, in fact, the same measures could be looked at through the lens of greater compliance with human rights legislation. If we look, for example, at the provisions giving private landlords eviction powers where tenants have been found to be disqualified from renting, we do not really understand why that process cannot involve a review by the court instead of being, as it is at the moment, enforceable as a court order.
Rebecca Harris
Q 308 Do you think your alternative would help to encourage people who have no right to be here to leave the country?
Rebecca Hilsenrath: I do not understand why it would make them less likely to leave the country. We do not understand why under clause 14, in mixed tenancies where some tenants are lawful and some unlawful, the court cannot consider transferring the tenancy to the lawful tenant. We do not understand why there is not an obligation on the court to do so where that would be reasonable. You could look again at all these policies through the lens of proportionality. A proper impact assessment would have helped the Government to do that.
Rebecca Harris
Q 309 But you have not given us any measures that you think would be more successful in getting people who have no right to be in this country to leave. I am looking for your solutions to the problem. You are telling me what you do not like about the legislation, but I would like your solution; what would better help people who have no right to be in this country to leave.
Rebecca Hilsenrath: I do not think that it is within our remit to suggest more effective solutions. I was simply suggesting that if these are—
The Chair
Can I butt in? I am really sorry, but we have got about five Members who want to get in, with less time than we expected. If you have not got a remit to talk about it, perhaps we should move on. I guess that no one else on the panel is going to answer that question, are they? No.
Craig Whittaker
Q 310 I want to challenge Ms Grant, but first I will declare an interest, as I did on Tuesday. You have said that it is not right that landlords have to deal with the complexities of people’s immigration status. In fact, we had Mr Smith on Tuesday from the Residential Landlords Association, who said that the sector was made up of amateurs and accidental landlords. Let me just ask you what is so complex about taking an ID, which the majority take anyway. Do you not think it might enhance the situation for landlords along the way?
Saira Grant: I did not say that it was not right; I said that it was difficult. I will explain, because that is the second part of your question. Taking an ID is not difficult. If you have a passport, it is very easy. You can show your passport, and we do show passports in many situations, including when getting tenancy agreements. The complexities arise when somebody’s immigration status is not clear cut and they do not have a British passport. I was pointing to the evidence that backs that. In the Home Office’s own evaluation, the landlords’ checking service was contacted 109 times, because landlords said, “We do not understand what we are seeing. We do not understand this document, this biometric card or this historic stamp in this passport.” Out of those 109 inquiries, 94 people had the right to remain. That demonstrates that it is not me—
Craig Whittaker
Q 311 May I just point out to you that that is no different from anyone else in this country who wants to rent any property? I had the same situation myself only three weeks ago. First, living in Yorkshire, I had to be in London on a particular day, otherwise the property went. Secondly, I had to have all the relevant checks in place. If I did not, the property was given to somebody else. How is that discriminating against somebody, when that situation is already in place?
Saira Grant: That is exactly the point. If you do not have your documents to hand—say you are one of the 17% of British citizens who does not own a British passport, so you cannot show that—what happens is that there will be somebody else ahead of you in that queue, but that is not the discrimination I am talking about. I am talking about the difficulty landlords are having in assessing immigration status, as the evaluation demonstrates. It is not me saying that; it is what the evaluation demonstrates. The discrimination I am talking about and which we found was when landlords said to us—almost a third of landlords who responded to our survey said this—“This is really worrying for us, £3,000 is a hefty civil penalty. We do not really want to rent to anybody who sounds foreign, looks foreign or has a foreign accent. It is just not worth our while.” That is leading to discrimination. That is the problem. The scheme is set up in such a way that you do not need to be a racist landlord; you just need to be a cautious one to say, “If I have a choice, who am I going to rent to? Somebody I am not sure about or somebody who has a British passport.”
Craig Whittaker
Q 312 Trust me, as a landlord, you have to be cautious anyway.
Saira Grant: I am sure you do.
Mims Davies
Q 313 I just wanted to pick up the line about entitlement, which is running through the conversation this afternoon—people feeling that they will get to a point at which they are entitled to be here. This question is for Ms Grant: does your organisation explain to people that there may be a point at which they feel they are entitled to be here, but they will not be? Do you go through the process of what could happen to them? We heard from the Red Cross earlier that it does that, but some organisations do not and it is adding complexity to complex cases.
Saira Grant: Absolutely. We run an irregular migrants helpline to give legal advice. The best advice we can often give is to say to somebody, “You have to leave the UK.” We spell out their entitlements, their rights and what the process is, and then we refer them to the voluntary returns scheme, to the Red Cross or to whichever organisation is appropriate. Absolutely, it is in nobody’s interest to have people who should not be here remaining here, and it is not in their interest either. The destitution we see is heartbreaking, but if they have come to the end of the legal process, we have to give them fair advice. We are a legal organisation.
Mims Davies
Q 314 So fairness on all sides. That is very helpful. This question is for Ms Robinson: we have heard this week from some sectors, such as hospitality, that in some areas, exploitation of illegal migrants does happen. Do you think that the Bill unfairly shines a light on exploitation of workers? I am confused about why you do not see that there are some areas where it is easier to exploit people than others.
Rachel Robinson: Are you asking whether some areas of the Bill—
Mims Davies
Q 315 You were saying that people do a “finger in the air” job and just turn up at restaurants, for example. However, we heard evidence on Tuesday that certain sectors, such as the building trade or hospitality, were more likely, in some cases—with bad employers—to find workers and exploit them. This Bill provides an opportunity to protect people, would you not agree?
Rachel Robinson: Parts of the Bill are a movement in the right direction, such as the new director role, which is not something that we have briefed on, but other parts create cause for concern on this very issue. I am thinking in particular of the offence of illegal working. The Committee has already had lots of evidence, which we agree with, that this measure is likely to drive people underground and could strengthen the hand of rogue employers who have another sanction to hold over the head of employees. It could prevent victims of trafficking and exploitation from coming forward.
Mims Davies
Q 316 Finally, we heard this morning from the director of the Migrants’ Rights Network who said that there were flaws in the system that could be exploited. Are there any provisions in the Bill that you believe are the right ones in terms of not allowing people to be exploited?
Steve Symonds: In general, I would say that the Bill fails on that account. Perhaps it comes back to the earlier question that I was shy to answer, and we then moved on. I think legislation is not the way forward to address the concern about trying to get through to people who have no entitlement to be here, who often find themselves in miserable circumstances, who are at risk of exploitation and who perhaps do need to make that decision and leave. The answer to that is going to be that you have to have a more consistent, efficient system that ensures people feel they have a fair hearing. That includes making sure they have access to proper advice—the sort of advice that Saira has mentioned—and it includes access to legal aid.
I used to provide immigration advice to people. One of the first things you would do would be to talk through their options, and, if they had none, explain that to them. That is how you start to turn this around. That is going to take time, and if we are starting with the illusion that we will ever get to a world where there is nobody here who has no entitlement to be here, and we are always going to be legislating on the idea that somehow we can by law create the environment where there is no one here who should not be here, we will never get to that solution.
So we need to come back to management and supervision of policies that need to be clear, consistent, simple and readily understood by those who exercise them and by those who advise upon them, so that people understand what is their true position, feel that they do go through a fair process and can make a sensible decision at the end of it.
Mims Davies
Q 317 Do you think Amnesty gets that messaging right in terms of explaining to people that there is a fair system, but they may not feel at the end of the process that they get a fair outcome? Are you as a group telling people all the bad stories, the good stories and the realities? In essence, no system will ever get it completely right and you have to highlight when we do get it right. Are you spending your whole time explaining when we get it wrong?
Steve Symonds: I will say two things in relation to that. In relation to individuals, we do not provide any immigration advice at all. We are not regulated to do that, so we are not entitled to do so. We are not saying the sorts of things to individual people that JCWI through its advice work can do. In terms of the generality, we do point out the other side, perhaps not as much as some people would like, but we have to also accept and acknowledge that we see headlines in our newspapers regularly that we would feel are entirely critical and are not themselves balanced, so one of our jobs is clearly to ensure that there is some balance in the discussion. That means we have to more closely point the finger where things have gone wrong, and I think that it is perfectly appropriate and necessary for us to do so, and that is what we will do.
Mims Davies
Q 318 In terms of the view that the welfare group has, Ms Grant, do you think the same? Are you are able to tell the good and bad stories so that if people do come here they have a fair view that the system can be perceived to be kind to some people with a perceived entitlement and less kind to others? That could be down to what we heard earlier—because of the complexity of the cases. If you cannot get your documentation, it may seem that the system is unkind to you, but you may be caught up in a political issue locally rather than this being an unfair system.
Saira Grant: Sure. Yes, we try to be as candid as we can, but it is very hard, when you have legislation, media talk and a political environment that is constantly talking about hostile environments, to say to people, “This is a welcoming country that is very fair.” That makes our job very difficult, especially so when people have made valid, legitimate applications and there are delays in getting those applications processed. They are in limbo in the meantime. The system has delays within it, and then there might be a wrongful decision, a bad decision, as you have heard before.
Mims Davies
Q 319 Would you say the system is better than it was five years ago in terms of being timely?
Saira Grant: Decisions are faster, but the quality of decisions has not improved.
Mims Davies
Q 320 Is that because the cases are more complex?
Saira Grant: No, because the culture really has not changed at the Home Office. I know it is making strides to change, but I can see from the appeal determinations the percentages are pretty much the same. Overall, 40% of appeals are successful. It was 44% two years ago. So there is a slight shift—these are tribunal figures—but overall it has not changed. Decision making is faster, but within the tribunal system delays have increased in terms of appeals being listed. We have appeals being listed a year from today, so there is a long wait for people and that limbo creates a lot of uncertainty and a lot of problems.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated to the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witnesses for coming and answering questions.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Charlie Elphicke.)
Trade Union Bill (Seventh sitting)
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are switched off or set to silent mode? That goes for members of the public as well. I point out to both sides of the Committee that we are only on clause 8. We have 22 clauses and a heck of a lot of business to get through. There are a lot of Government and Opposition amendments to deal with, and we have four sittings of the Committee left.
I say to the Opposition that this is an opportunity for them to highlight the key components of the Bill, get the message out there and seek change. I say to the Government that this is an open-ended Committee stage, and if we do not advance enough, an application may be made for an extension of Committee time. I would not like to see that happen. We need to get to the point and have less repetition, although we know it is warranted by both sides of the argument. It is essential that we speed up a little bit if we are to deal with the issues at hand, because I know there is some quite big stuff coming at the end of our considerations. Without further ado, we will continue line-by-line consideration.
Clause 8
Expiry of mandate for industrial action four months after date of ballot
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 8, page 4, line 16, after “Subsection 1” insert
“and section 233(1) (a) of the 1992 Act, as amended by this Act”.
The amendment would ensure that any re-ballot or renewal of mandate, or the first ballot, is not prejudiced in any way by any unofficial action that may have taken place.
I take on board what you said, Sir Alan, and will attempt to move at a brisk pace to make progress. However, this Bill has very serious implications, and we need to ensure, as the Opposition, that it receives adequate scrutiny, particularly given many of our objections to it.
Amendment 75 is a probing one, to understand the implications of unofficial actions that may have taken place for a union’s ability to conduct subsequent ballots. The law currently prevents a union from running a ballot for industrial action if its members have previously taken unofficial action, or what some would determine “wildcat” action, in a dispute. That can limit a union’s ability to seek to resolve an ongoing trade dispute and ensure that its members’ democratic wishes are given effect. The amendment would ensure that a prior unofficial call to action would not prevent the union from running a subsequent ballot.
Obviously, I do not condone unofficial actions or actions outside the law, but we need to accept that they take place. We have explored many circumstances in our considerations of the Bill in which wildcat action may in fact be encouraged by the Government’s legislation. I do not want that to happen, and I am sure the Government do not want that to happen, but it is a potential consequence.
It is important that we understand the implications of unofficial action for trade union members engaging in legitimate ballots and wanting to have legitimate discussions about action they might take. Will the Minister clarify the impacts of any unofficial action that takes place before a first ballot or between a first ballot and any subsequent reballoting? We discussed the timing of that at great length, but I would like some clarification.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
I will endeavour to be as pithy as I can. The merest raised eyebrow on your part, Sir Alan, will cause me to sit down quickly.
I appreciate the shadow Minister’s desire to ensure that the occurrence of any unofficial industrial action does not affect a union’s ability to rely on a mandate that it has legitimately secured or to seek a further such mandate. I hope to provide him with assurance on that point.
In order to have the support of a ballot and for the union therefore to benefit from legal protection, a number of provisions first need to be satisfied, one of which is that industrial action has to be called by a person specified or specifically described in the voting paper—that is to say, a union. That ensures that any industrial action not under the control of the union can be subject to legal action by an employer, which is necessary to prohibit so-called wildcat strikes and to prevent such disputes from snowballing. The fact that unofficial industrial action is not legally protected does not affect a union’s ability to secure a valid ballot mandate or to call official industrial action on the basis of a valid ballot mandate. That is the current position, and the Bill does not alter that. I trust that that assists the hon. Gentleman, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for that clarification. It is helpful to have it read into the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 9, page 4, line 37, leave out
“or encourages its members to take part in,”.
With this amendment, I hope to cover some of the Opposition’s concerns about clause 9. We have also tabled a series of other amendments, and we look forward to hearing the arguments of Scottish National party Members on their amendments in due course.
We come to the “Franco-style” sections of the Bill. They are not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). This clause, above all others, has served as a recruiting sergeant to those outside this place who are implacably opposed to the Bill. The Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee condemned it, and a coalition of concerned leading civil liberties groups—Liberty, Amnesty International and the British Institute of Human Rights—gave extensive evidence, including in oral form, to this Committee, and said that they have many concerns about this part of the Bill. The clause, which has all the hallmarks of being penned in the Secretary of State’s hand, would be unforgivable at the best of times, but on the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the document embodying Britain’s most fundamental freedoms, I believe it represents an alarming and daring attempt by the Government to stifle the legitimate rights of ordinary working people.
The clause will introduce a new restriction on picketing activities by trade unions and their members. Any failure to comply with those overly prescriptive requirements will expose trade unions to legal challenges. Employers will be able to apply to court for an injunction to prevent or impose restrictions on a picket, or even for damages if, for example, a picket supervisor fails to wear an armband or inadvertently misplaces their letter of authorisation. I am sure we will discuss the specifics of some of those issues in due course.
If hon. Members thought the Government’s proposals stopped there, they would be wrong. Over the summer, the Government ran a very short consultation. We have already discussed the concerns that many of those affected by the clause have about the consultation process, which many echoed in oral evidence. They said that on this issue, in particular, the consultation was insufficient, given the scale of the changes.
The TUC highlighted a range of additional restrictions on union pickets and protests, including—these were mentioned in the consultation—a requirement that unions publish picket and protest plans 14 days in advance, detailing where, when and how they plan to protest and whether they propose to use social media, Twitter and Facebook accounts to draw attention to their campaign. We heard the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead about the potential for secondary tweeting and wildcat Facebook action. We can have some fun about this, but the reality is that it is very serious because there are significant implications for police time, as we heard in the police evidence. In my view, it simply does not make sense.
There are also new criminal offences prohibiting intimidatory conduct on picket lines, even though such an offence already exists. Again, I clarify that we in no way condone intimidatory and inappropriate actions by individuals involved in protest or picketing. Those actions need to be dealt with appropriately, but the fact is that those offences already exist.
We understand that the Government are considering whether to direct local authorities to use antisocial behaviour orders against union members participating in pickets and protests. I have always been a big supporter of ASBOs, but they were designed with specific behaviour in mind. To extend them to activities that are—
Nick Boles
On a point of order, Sir Alan. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a whole lot of questions that were asked in the consultation document, none of which has any application to any of the clauses in the Bill or any of the new clauses or amendments tabled by the Government. Is it in order to discuss a whole lot of entirely speculative questions that are not dealt with in the Bill?
The Chair
Minister, how the hon. Gentleman approaches the amendment is down to him. I ask him to be concise in his endeavour to search for the truth, or falsehood as it may be. However, it is his time and he is moving the amendment, so he is in order.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Sir Alan, for that clarification. Of course, if the Minister did not want me to stray on to that type of territory, it would have been helpful if the Government had published their responses to the consultations. They undertook many consultations over the summer, but we have not seen the responses to them. We have not seen secondary legislation. We have not had a lot of the clarity that is required. We are being asked to discuss the Bill and its implications largely in the dark. There were whispers from some in the media that the Government planned to withdraw some of these changes. So that we do not discuss things unnecessarily, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified those issues in his remarks.
As I have said before, what question are these proposals trying to answer? Picketing activities are already heavily regulated in the UK by an extensive range of civil and criminal laws. Trade unions must comply with the requirements for peaceful pickets in section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and act in accordance with the accompanying code of practice. Unions and their members are also—this is very important—subject to a range of laws on public order, highways, protection from harassment, criminal damage and so on. It is a criminal offence already for pickets to use violence or intimidate individuals or their families, to follow individuals from place to place, to hide work tools and to watch and beset an individual. Those are certainly not activities that I or any Opposition Member would endorse, but they are already covered under the law.
The view from the police representatives—from the Police Federation and from the National Police Chiefs’ Council—during the oral evidence sessions was clear. They do not see a need for these extra powers and, if the Government introduce them, that carries a significant risk of stretching their limited resources further still.
The Government, just as the London Fire Brigade representative did in his submission, have sought to rely on evidence gathered during the recent Carr review, even though the Government’s own impact assessment, on page 5, confirmed that
“this evidence could not be substantiated.”
Further to that, Carr decided that he was unable to make evidence-based proposals or recommendations for change as originally instructed because of
“the increasingly political environment within which”
he
“was operating coupled with the lack of a significant enough body of evidence to support any recommendations for change.”
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultation document acknowledged that most pickets conform to the guidance set out in the existing code of practice. The RPC’s recent review of the Government’s impact assessment found that
“there is little evidence presented that there will be any significant benefits arising from this proposal”.
Leading civil liberties groups, which I have already mentioned, recently issued a joint statement criticising the Government’s proposals. They stated:
“The government’s plans to significantly restrict trade union rights—set out in the Trade Union Bill—represent a major attack on civil liberties in the UK…Taken together the unprecedented measures…would hamper people’s basic rights to protest and shift even more power from the employee to the employer. It is hard to see the aim of this bill as anything but seeking to undermine the rights of all working people.”
At a time when, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the thin blue line is being stretched thinner and thinner, the Government’s proposals risk diverting scarce police resources from tackling serious crime. I deal with, for example, many issues relating to extremism. I have had examples of that in my constituency. We have had lengthy discussions with the Government about the policing of the activities of extremists on social media and so on. That is where police efforts should be directed; they should not be directed towards matters such as this, which are already covered under existing provisions. As I said, the existing law provides for the police to crack down on illegality and breaches of the peace, all the while protecting the rights of trade union members to engage in peaceful picketing at the entrance to their workplaces. I fear that the Government are seeking to stack the deck against those who want to take part in peaceful, lawful pickets, by moving the goalposts, potentially placing those people outside the law. That, fundamentally, is why we will oppose clause 9.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Alan.
Just before I came to this room for the Bill Committee, there was an urgent question on human rights in China, put down by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), I think. It is interesting that that question should exercise Members of this House to such an extent, when often some of them are less interested in the human rights of people in the United Kingdom. The clause is at the core of some of the most offensive aspects of this pernicious Bill. It clearly shows the extent of the prejudice and contempt in which the Government hold trade unions, trade unionists and working people.
I want to echo some of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth about the Government’s consultation. The consultation document was published in July and it dealt with protests related to pickets. I understand the Minister getting vexed because we have not yet had the response to the consultation, but clearly the Government were thinking about something when they included a requirement for publication of picketing and protest plans, and, in the bullet points under that heading, that the union should give notice of whether
“it will be using social media, specifically Facebook, Twitter, blogs, setting up websites and what those blogs and websites will set out”.
So as well as giving notice that social media were to be used, the union would have to give notice of what it was going to say in support of a picketing protest. That attitude has all the hallmarks of an authoritarian regime.
Authoritarian regimes across the world—China has been mentioned this morning—might give little thought to restrictions on their citizens’ human rights, but it is a disgrace that our Government should consider such action in the United Kingdom reasonable. Citizens in the UK are covered now by the law of the land. We are all—everyone—required to keep the peace; and we have a police force to ensure that the peace is kept in an appropriate manner. Trade unionists and workers are all part of the citizenry and are covered by those same laws, so why do we need additional draconian measures to restrict workers’ and trade unions’ right to lawful demonstration?
In the 1980s Mrs Thatcher described the Argentinians as “the enemy without” and trade unions and trade unionists as “the enemy within”. I wonder whether the clause is the 2015 Conservative Government conducting unfinished business on behalf of one of the Prime Minister’s predecessors. The Prime Minister and his colleagues in Government want to pretend that times have changed and that the so-called “nasty party” that attacked the rights of gay people, workers and others is no more. The clause puts the lie to that pretence.
The Government party, through this legislation, retains its mantle, I believe, as the nasty party. The party and the Government consider their own citizens to be the enemy. The clause is not only not necessary, the law of the land already protects us all from unreasonable and unlawful public demonstrations. No, it is not necessary.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a YouGov poll conducted last month, indicating that a majority of the public feels that it is a waste of police time to be engaged in this manner? In addition, a majority of respondents who stated they voted Conservative also held similar views.
Ian Mearns
I am not surprised because the vast majority of our adult population goes to work for a living. Whether they are members of trade unions or not would not stop them in extreme circumstances trying to exercise their right to withdraw their labour if they felt their employer was being unreasonable. The legislation is not necessary but it is highly offensive. Workers and trade unionists are the backbone of this country, the so-called hard-working people that the Tory party pretends to bother about and represent.
The measure of a civil society is how it respects the rights of its citizens, and how those without power and wealth are able to challenge those with power and wealth. With this legislation—particularly this clause—the Government have demonstrated precisely where they stand on the issue of human rights and freedom. Their fundamental position is to oppress and restrict the weakest, the most vulnerable and those without, in order to protect at all costs privilege, wealth and inequality.
The restrictions in the Bill on picketing are a disgrace and threaten to increase tensions on picket lines by singling out workers who are merely exercising their democratic right to withdraw their labour. It is, therefore, no surprise to learn that the human rights organisations we heard from last week—Liberty and Amnesty International—have said the provisions in the Bill represent a major attack on civil liberties in the United Kingdom.
It is not only human rights organisations that are uneasy about the proposed arrangements on picketing. Substantial concerns have been raised on the practicalities of the arrangements, some of which have been communicated first hand to this Committee. I draw on evidence provided to us last week by Deputy Chief Constable Hall of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who said:
“In the majority of cases, there is no real need for the police to be involved with industrial disputes and picketing. Indeed, our stance is that we would wish to avoid it if we can. Many pickets and industrial disputes run without any contact or involvement with policing.”
He went on to say:
“There are provisions in the Bill for police to be notified of picket lines, and my reading of that is that, in pretty much every instance, we would be notified of industrial disputes and picketing. My position is that I do not see that as absolutely necessary, simply because we would expect those picket lines to be self-policing as far as possible. Involvement of police beyond that should be the exception, rather than the rule.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 93, Q242.]
That gives us a clear insight into his opposition to the proposals on those grounds.
Deputy Chief Constable Hall is not alone in that. The Police Federation added similar concerns that the already overstretched police force would not be able to cope with increased levels of supervision of pickets and continue to do its job effectively, as it is already struggling due to limited resources at present. Its statement articulately expresses that sentiment:
“As we have seen in recent weeks, some forces may not even be able to investigate burglaries in future...This proposal for officers to more intrusively supervise strikes indicates more clearly than ever that what we need is a wide-ranging debate to inform both the future direction of the police service and the public’s expectations as to what we are able and simply unable to do. Police officers join the job to keep the public safe and lock up criminals but doing that job effectively is getting close to impossible for many officers around the country.”
It is not just the police force that has concerns about the lack of resources. The general public—the very people who those on the Government Benches claim to be putting first by implementing the Bill—agree. We have heard about the YouGov survey and the TUC figure that three quarters of the public believe it is a bad use of police time for workers taking industrial action to have to give the police 14 days’ notice if they intend to carry a loudspeaker or banner on the picket line; I happen to agree.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Government’s own Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultation document acknowledges that most unions are already conforming to the guidance set out in the code of practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that this whole raft of new restrictions is therefore entirely unnecessary?
Ian Mearns
I could not agree more; I was just coming on to that very point. There is already legislation in place that those on picket lines must, and do, comply with. That “peaceful pickets” legislation is outlined in section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and unions must also follow the relevant code of practice. If that legislation were breached on a regular basis, I could see why the Government would feel the need to push through this Bill, in order to safeguard workers and the public, but unions do comply with existing legislation. Even the Government’s own BIS consultation document supports that statement, finding that most pickets do conform with guidance in the code of practice. In that case, why do the Government believe the legislation is so necessary? Are they not using a legislative sledgehammer to crack a very small nut?
Furthermore, as the Regulatory Policy Committee’s recent review of the Government’s impact assessment of the measures on picketing found,
“there is little evidence presented that there will be any significant benefits arising from the proposal”.
Given that such organisations have failed to find any need for the proposal or any significant benefits arising from it, why is the legislation being rushed through the House at such a pace? As we heard, we have not had much time to go through the Bill line by line, despite its importance.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share the concern held by many, including me, that if unaltered, the clause will lead to more blacklisting within the community?
Ian Mearns
That is a concern, because the use of blacklists by some employers—I will not tar all employers with the same brush—has had a devastating impact on hard-working families.
The results of the public consultation have not yet been published. I refer to my earlier comments about the overstretched police force. Do Government Members believe that policing peaceful picket lines, monitoring wildcat tweeting and using wider controls on social media are the best use of police time? As I see it, the proposal merely serves to stack the already skewed balance of power in the workplace further away from employees by adding unnecessary caveats to their right to withdraw their labour if they are upset by the actions of their employer.
Jo Stevens
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Government Members seemed perturbed by our opposition to their proposals on picketing during the evidence sessions last week. They did not seem to understand how a picket line could be assembled because of an incredibly serious issue and yet be done with good humour and within the law. I am sure many of our colleagues across the trade union movement would be happy to visit a picket line with them, to show them what happens there. As with much of the coverage of trade unions in the papers, the headlines do not match the reality.
As we have heard, there are already strict rules for picketing and adherence to the code of practice, which even the CBI, the Government’s own witness, admitted last week generally “works well”. In the minority of cases in which there is an issue, the police already have sufficient powers to deal with any sort of suggested intimidation or abuse, because such actions are illegal. Picketing is not illegal—so far. It is therefore completely unnecessary to bring forward increases in regulation and bureaucracy that will waste police time. That is why so few witnesses supported the Government’s proposals in the evidence sessions or could say why such clauses are needed given the current laws.
Nick Boles
Before I address the detail of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, let me state clearly that the Government recognise peaceful picketing as an entirely lawful activity. People must be able to exercise their rights to assemble and to freedom of expression. The Bill does not change any of that. The law has been developed in order to protect such rights. It provides unions with statutory immunity against claims for damages to enable individuals to peacefully persuade others to break their contracts.
The rights to assemble and to freedom of expression are rights that apply to all of us. That is the whole point. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that right should not be exercised by some at the expense of others. We cannot defend picketing being used as an opportunity to intimidate people who exercise the same rights to freedom of expression and of assembly, which, in their case, is the right to disagree with the union’s position when it is in dispute with the employer and to go into work.
The Bill will require unions to supervise picketing. The main requirement is to appoint a picket supervisor. That provision is in the code of practice on picketing, which states:
“Wherever picketing is ‘official’ (i.e. organised by a trade union), an experienced person, preferably a trade union official who represents those picketing, should always be in charge of the picket line.”
The code also states that picket organisers should ensure that
“the pickets understand the law and are aware of the provisions of this Code, and that the picketing is conducted peacefully and lawfully.”
That provision has been in the code of practice for more than 20 years, and no representation has ever been made that expecting people to abide by it represents an infringement of their freedom. The code provides further detailed guidance on the functions of the picket supervisor that, if followed, should result in peaceful picketing.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and his hon. Friends have said that unions already adhere to the code of practice on picketing, and we have always agreed with that point—indeed, the consultation made that clear—but it does not always happen. For example, Transport for London told the Carr report:
“Conduct on the picket line towards employees not participating in industrial action can be aggressive. The word ‘scab’ is often used. Frequently we have seen swearing and shouting directed at an individual”.
Such behaviour is just not excusable. The picket supervisor therefore plays an important role in ensuring that pickets understand that such behaviour is not in accordance with peaceful picketing.
Jo Stevens
Can the Minister tell us whether any arrests were made in that TfL example?
Nick Boles
I do not have that information to hand, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady, and obviously to copy in the rest of the Committee, on that question.
The appointment of a picket supervisor comes from the code; it is not new. The other provisions in the code will continue to guide the picket supervisor and the pickets to ensure that the conduct of picketing is peaceful. Where the picketing is peaceful, the union’s statutory immunity will not be compromised. I make it clear that an individual who breaks the law on the picket line is responsible for their own actions—the union is not responsible—but it is important that we take steps to ensure that picketing activity does not resort to intimidation in order to obtain support for a dispute.
The amendment would instead limit the appointment of a picket supervisor only to picketing that is organised directly by a union. Surely there should be no distinction between whether the picketing is organised or supported by a union. The law should apply to all picketing, without exception. The amendment would undermine the intended purpose of this clause by allowing a union to encourage picketing activity among its members without the supervision that I believe is necessary for the reasons I have set out.
The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question on whether the clause will prevent a union from expressing, online or somewhere else, solidarity in general terms with industrial action conducted elsewhere in the country, possibly by another union at an employer where the union expressing solidarity is not involved. The answer, of course, is no—that is freedom of speech—but where a union is encouraging picketing activity among its members without supervision, the application of this clause will be necessary. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Stephen Doughty
We will discuss some of the other issues on this subject in detail when we consider the following groups of amendments. I appreciate the Minister’s clarification on the specific question that amendment 26 seeks to address.
There is a fundamental problem here, and I hope the Minister will elaborate on it in his further comments. What evidence base is he using when he talks about these examples of intimidation? No Opposition Member condones intimidation or other such activities—indeed, people carrying out such activities should be prosecuted under existing laws—but what percentage of overall picketing activity in the past year or five years does he believe has resulted in such activity? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central made a good point, and we have also heard a good point on the dispute between the London fire brigade and the FBU. The commissioner could not give us facts on whether FBU members had been arrested or prosecuted, but I understand that an agency worker was in fact arrested for potentially violent actions towards an FBU member. There is a big problem with the way in which this issue has been characterised.
The Royal College of Midwives was clear on the implications of this clause and the associated provisions:
“We believe the intention is to frighten and confuse midwives from exercising their right to protest for fear that they will make a simple mistake and be prosecuted.”
I am glad for the Minister’s clarifications, but we need to consider the overall impact of this clause and the related provisions.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Stephens
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 9, page 5, leave out lines 1 to 13 and insert—
‘(3) A picket supervisor is required to show a constable a letter of authorisation only if
(a) the constable provides documentary evidence that he or she is a constable;
(b) the constable provides his or her name, and the name of the police station to which he or she is attached; and
(c) the constable explains the reasons for the request to see the letter of authorisation.
(4) If a picket supervisor complies with a constable’s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was complied with.
(5) If a picket supervisor fails to comply with a constable’s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was not complied with.
(6) Information about the identity of a picket supervisor and any information relating to the production of a letter of authorisation shall be retained by the police only for the purposes of giving evidence in legal proceedings directly related to the picketing to which it is connected.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt neither a member of the public nor an employer shall be entitled to request a picket supervisor to produce a letter of authorisation.”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 5, line 5, leave out “police” and insert “Chief Constable”.
The amendment would ensure there is a single, senior contact within the police force for communicating information about picketing.
Amendment 29, in clause 9, page 5, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).
Chris Stephens
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
This is a bad Bill, and clause 9 is a bad clause. Some of the difficulty that many hon. Members have had with the Bill has been over whether to oppose it totally or try to amend it. The fact that Amnesty, Liberty and the Blacklist Support Group have major concerns about infringements of civil liberties, and their consequences, has already been mentioned. Amendment 104 is intended to make things a little clearer to the police and the trade unions.
First, we want to remove the words “any other person” from the clause, and we believe that there will be serious consequences if that is not done. It is not clear who that other person is. It could be anyone; but who would it be? It would not be a friend of the trade union movement, that is for sure. It would not be a nice, cheerful person who supported the trade union movement. It would not be George and Zippy from “Rainbow”, Rod, Jane and Freddy or even—perhaps more appropriately—Bungle. It would probably be someone with the personality of the Lannister family in “Game of Thrones”—anyone who watches that programme will understand where they would come from politically—or perhaps Biff Tannen from “Back to the Future”, which was mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday.
I am using humour; but things could be somewhat more sinister. The other person wanting to know the information might, for example, be a member of a fascist organisation—of one of the organisations that we know share the names of trade unionists and other people on websites. A friend of mine, Iain Titherington, who is a constituent of the shadow Minister, has appeared on a website, Redwatch, for his trade union activity and for being a secretary of Searchlight Cymru. The provision is designed to target people.
We believe that giving employers details of picketing would lead to more blacklisting. We know from recent court cases that employers are still being taken to court over such serious issues. We heard from Dave Smith of the Blacklist Support Group about the possible consequences for an individual who is put on a blacklist.
Professor Keith Ewing’s written submission to the Committee contained important remarks on the principles of liberty in relation to the clause:
“It is a fundamental principle of law in this country that people are free to go about their business without being stopped by the police, unless they are suspected of having committed an offence, in which case they may be arrested. Indeed so important is this principle that it was regarded as a ‘constitutional’ principle by a Scottish court. At common law, the police have no right to stop, detain or search individuals, though there are a number of statutes that provide clear exceptions to this.”
The evidence went on:
“It is important fully to comprehend what is being proposed by the Trade Union Bill (clause 9), quite apart from the legitimate concern about armbands, badges and the like: A picket supervisor engaged in lawful activity (indeed in Convention protected activity) may be required by a police constable (whether or not in uniform) to produce a written document (the letter of authorisation); It will be necessary for this purpose for the police officer to stop and detain the individual, for as long as it takes for an exchange to take place…The demand may be made by the police officer even though the individual in question has not committed a criminal offence, and is not suspected of having committed an offence.
Failure to provide the letter of authorisation is not an offence, but there is no right on the part of the supervisor to ignore the constable’s demand, meet it with a testy reprove, and move on. This is because failure to provide the letter of authorisation will have legal consequences, in the sense that the picketing may thus be rendered unlawful and actionable at the suit of the employer.”
Professor Ewing continued:
“Moreover, it is striking that there are no formalities or safeguards to be complied with when the demand is made to see a letter of authorisation. This contrasts with the stop and search powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Terrorism Act 2000. In these cases the police officer may be required to provide…documentary evidence that he or she is a constable, if the latter is not in uniform; his or her name and the name of the police station to which he or she is attached; the object of the proposed search; the reasons for using the power; and a record of the search after it has taken place. An individual stopped while engaged in lawful and Convention protected activities might reasonably expect to have at least the same level of procedural courtesy as someone stopped while suspected of criminal or terrorist-related activities.”
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is doing an excellent job as a member of the Night’s Watch, because clearly winter is coming for the trade union movement; that is very much what the Bill is about. I support many of the arguments that he has advanced about the implications in relation to policing around pickets. Were he to press amendment 104 to a vote, he would gain our support, because as he has said, unions are more than willing, as things stand, to co-operate with the police during picketing activities, but if the clause is passed as drafted, there will be many vulnerabilities—for example, in relation to whether people are able to show the letter of authorisation; they may have misplaced or lost it. These are very significant legal changes, and the amendment is straightforward. Essentially, it is asking police officers to follow, when asking to see a letter of authorisation, basic formal processes that simply mirror the Police and Criminal Evidence Act guidelines, so it would certainly enjoy our support.
Let me speak to our amendments 28 and 29. Amendment 28 would require trade unions to inform the chief constable of the identity of picket officers, rather than, as the Bill states, the police more generally. That is because it is unclear at the moment whom the trade union would be expected to inform under the Bill and it is excessive and unjustified that trade unions should be legally required to inform the police more generally of the picket supervisor’s name and contact details, which could deter responsible individuals who might otherwise have been willing from volunteering to co-ordinate pickets.
Worryingly, there could be risks for the police in being expected to compile and retain information about trade union activists. That brings into consideration the concerns expressed about blacklisting. It was important that we heard what the police representatives had to say. The police do not want to be put in the middle of this. They do not want to be in the invidious position of being expected to enforce and interfere in this way as an arm of the state when their role is to police by consent and act in a neutral way to ensure that all the individuals’ rights are respected. I certainly believe that the clause would result in excessive monitoring of union activities and is likely to breach trade union members’ rights to privacy as protected by article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
Those are not idle concerns. They have been resoundingly explored, particularly by UCATT in the construction sector, but also by others, who have shown what has happened in the past in relation to blacklisting. I would therefore like to understand from the Minister when he responds to the amendments why the Bill is drafted such that it has this very general definition of “the police”. Does he not accept that there are serious implications not only for the police but for those attempting to comply with the law if it remains in that general state?
Amendment 29 would remove the requirement on unions or the picket supervisor to inform the police of where the picketing will be taking place. The reason for that is not that we do not believe that people should know where picketing is going to take place, but because the 1992 Act already provides that picketing must take place
“at or near the place of work”.
That is a pretty specific definition; it is pretty clear. And why would pickets want to be occupying a place not outside the workplace where the dispute is taking place anyway? I believe that the additional requirement is unnecessary and there is a risk that unscrupulous employers will mount legal challenges if the trade union does not provide a very specific, accurate location or if the picket has to move a short distance. I can foresee that if a picket had to move from one location to another because of inclement weather, or to ensure access along a road or so on—the picket is trying to be reasonable, comply and do things sensibly—an employer acting in a vexatious manner might mount an injunction or challenge because the exact location was not specified as required in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Ian Mearns
The Minister said in his intervention that many of the suggestions in the consultation do not appear in the Bill, but does my hon. Friend share my concern that, even so, they could come forward subsequently as regulations?
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, I do share that concern, because, as we have seen, the Government have not published the regulations in respect to the Bill and they have not published the consultation responses. It is clear that they are trying to bring about much of this in as much darkness as possible. That is of great concern to all those who will be affected.
In conclusion, I re-emphasise that we will be happy to support the hon. Member for Glasgow South West should he seek to press his amendment.
Nick Boles
Before I move on to the detail of the amendments, I will highlight again that the main requirements of the clause relate to provisions that are already in the code of practice on picketing, that they have been in that code since 1992 and that almost all unions since then have seemed to be perfectly happy to abide by them. In relation to police contact, the code says:
“Whether a picket is “official” or “unofficial”, an organiser of pickets should maintain close contact with the police…In particular the organiser and the pickets should seek directions from the police on the number of people who should be present on the picket line at any one time and on where they should stand in order to avoid obstructing the highway.”
The code goes on to say:
“He should have a letter of authority from his union which he can show to the police officers or to the people who want to cross the picket line.”
Obviously it was drafted when there was less recognition of the possibility of a female picket supervisor. We might want to amend that in future.
Nick Boles
I want to make a little more of my argument, but of course I will be happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention in a bit.
I turn first to amendment 28. To require in law that a picket supervisor contacts a senior-ranked police officer for this type of issue would be novel. I can find no precedent for such an approach. I am concerned about the potential practical difficulties for a picket supervisor being required to make contact with such a senior-ranking police officer as a chief constable, especially given that the purpose of the requirement to inform the police is so that they know which individual to contact in the event that a problem arises on the picket. That might be, for example, if the picket supervisor is absent from the picket at exactly such a moment.
There are only about 45 chief constables in Great Britain and they each have a wide portfolio of responsibilities. A picket supervisor may well not be able to contact a chief constable and, even if he or she did, the chief constable may not be able to respond quickly enough in such a scenario. That in turn could lead to problems for the union: for example, uncertainty as to whether a chief constable had indeed been informed could lead to doubt about whether the picketing can proceed and to legal challenge. That is why there is a broader reference to inform the police in the clause. That is more flexible. It will meet the objective and ensure that there is minimal delay for all concerned while still fulfilling data protection requirements. It is also important to recognise that that reflects the language of the code, which, to our knowledge, has not caused any problems.
There has been some commentary in the media about data protection concerns. The police are bound by the Data Protection Act 1998, including the principle that personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. Any concern that the police have mishandled such data can be brought before the Independent Police Complaints Commission for its consideration. Complaints on data handling can also be brought to the Information Commissioner.
Jo Stevens
I do not accept that the Government are simply transposing the existing code of practice provisions into legislation. Even if I did accept that point, why is primary legislation necessary if, as the Minister suggests, the code of practice does not cause any problems and everybody is happy with it?
Nick Boles
I do accept that this is a matter of legitimate debate, but there are all sorts of laws on the statute book that almost all citizens in the country abide by almost all the time, and that does not mean that we do not think those laws should be on the statute book. Laws are there not just to deal with the general behaviour of most people, but to deal with the extreme behaviour of a very small number of people in very rare circumstances. It is because most unions have abided by these provisions so happily and successfully that we feel it is reasonable to expect all unions in all strikes to abide by them. I fail to see that this is an egregious step. When we were drafting the Bill, I was clear to my officials that I did not want to go further than the existing code. I believe we have satisfied that in the Bill, so I fail to see the hon. Lady’s concern.
Ian Mearns
Surely the sort of extreme behaviour in exceptional circumstances that the Minister is talking about is already covered by aspects of the criminal law.
Nick Boles
That is certainly true of a whole range of criminal offences, but it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to root out the specific failure in some cases—I accept they are rare—to inform the police of when pickets are going to happen and whom the supervisor is, and to ensure that the supervisor is readily contactable. It does not infringe the liberty of anyone who currently accepts all these provisions and has done since 1992.
Nick Boles
I am just going to move on, because we are never going to agree on this issue. I have stated my argument, and Opposition Members have stated their argument.
Let me move on to amendment 29 and the proposal of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth to remove the requirement to inform the police where picketing is to take place. Knowing the location of where picketing is to take place will help the police ensure that sufficient resources are available in the event of problems arising on the picket line. It will help the police to respond quickly and resolve any problems. This is not new. The code of practice on picketing sets out that a picketing organiser should establish advance consultation with the police and—I have already directly quoted from it—seek directions on where they should stand to avoid obstructions of the highway. The combined effect of those provisions is that the police will know where picketing will take place.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that such advance notification could restrict the right to assemble. I assure the Committee that the Government fully recognise the right to assemble, but we also recognise other people’s freedom and their right to go about their business and move freely. Such rights need to be balanced, and the provision in clause 9 achieves that balance.
Amendment 104 seeks to amend the effect of clause 9 in a number of different ways, which I will address in turn. The purpose of clause 9 is to require union supervision of picketing. The appointment of a picket supervisor is the main mechanism by which that is to be achieved. The picket supervisor should rightly be a trade union official or a member of the union who is familiar with the union’s approach and the reasons for the industrial dispute with the employer.
The amendment would remove the clarity that the picket supervisor should be an official or a member of the union. It would have the effect of removing the provision that the picket supervisor to be appointed must be an official or trade union member who is familiar with the code of practice on picketing. This important point came up earlier in the debate, and I say again that the code sets out practical and pertinent guidance to ensure that picketing is conducted peacefully and lawfully. A picket supervisor’s familiarity with the code represents sensible and practical preparation for someone about to undertake the role of picket supervisor.
The amendment would further remove the requirement to inform the police of the picket supervisor’s name and contact details, and of where the picketing will take place. I have already referred to the importance of the police’s understanding of whom to contact, particularly if a problem arises on the picket line. Knowing where the picketing will take place will enable the police to attend quickly, should they need to. The shadow Minister made a good, sensible argument about the strain on police resources; indeed, that was reflected in the evidence given to the Committee. I would simply say that the adherence to these very measured and sensible provisions—about having a picket supervisor who knows what the code of picketing says and who has told the police his mobile phone number and where the picket is going to be—is what will minimise the need to call on police resources. If everything is there quickly and easily in the event that a problem arises, the need for the police to supervise, unless there is a problem, is removed.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Would the Minister expect that information to be given to the police in writing, or by electronic means?
Nick Boles
That is a very good question. I imagine that the picket supervisor could communicate with the police in whatever form they wanted. I promise to check that point.
Amendment 104 further removes from the clause the requirement for the union to issue the picket supervisor with a letter of authorisation. It also removes the requirement to show that to a constable or any other person who reasonably asks for it. As I have already mentioned, the letter of authorisation relates to the picket so that it is clear that the picket is lawful. The removal of the letter of authorisation would create uncertainty about whether the picket has been authorised by the union. It would also make it more difficult for the union to show that it has complied with the requirement to appoint a supervisor.
The other substance of the amendment proposes to insert new requirements for the constable in relation to any entitlement to see the letter of authorisation. It sets out that the constable would need to provide their personal details, to which police station they are attached, the reasons to see the letter of authorisation and a written record whether the request had been complied with.
Our intention in clause 9 is that this letter authorises the picket, not the picket supervisor. Therefore, it does not need to contain the name and personal details of the picket supervisor. I would like to reflect again on whether that is articulated as clearly as it could be in the Bill.
The police will already have been informed of the name and contact of the picket supervisor so that they are able to respond quickly should a problem occur. All uniformed police officers carry a warrant card as proof of identification and authority. Those generally include a photograph of the holder as well as the holder’s name, rank, warrant number and a holographic emblem to mark authenticity. A requirement for a written record would appear an additional and unnecessary burden when considering this in relation to a letter of authorisation for a picket.
I am aware that the entitlement to see the letter of authorisation by any person who reasonably requests it has caused some concern. I am grateful for the insights provided by hon. Members and will reflect on those further. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Glasgow South West to withdraw the amendment.
Chris Stephens
I agree with the shadow Minister that winter is coming. The Minister has not addressed issues relating to blacklisting and, like the hon. Member for Cardiff Central, I am very concerned about the approach that occurs in guidance and, whether we agree or not that it is interlocked, it will have other consequences for legal proceedings. I do not believe the Minister has addressed the concerns and consequences of that and feel obliged to press for a Division.
Question put, that the amendment be made.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 9, page 5, and line 2, leave out from “union” to the end of line 3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 9, page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (6).
Amendment 31, in clause 9, page 5, line 14, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘(7) A picket supervisor must take reasonable steps to be contactable by the union and the police, and be able to attend in person given reasonable notice.”.
Amendment 32, in clause 9, page 5, line 14, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 33, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, leave out subsection (8).
The amendment would remove the requirement for the picket supervisor to wear identification.
Stephen Doughty
I detect a chink of summer in the Minister’s comments, particularly on what he said about reflection and the interesting revelation that people could communicate with the police electronically.
Nick Boles
I just thought that the hon. Member for Sunderland Central asked such a cunning question. I am sure she will be delighted to have it confirmed that the picket supervisor can inform the police by any means of written communication.
Stephen Doughty
That is indeed revealing. I hope that sets a precedent for discussions we might have in due course. [Interruption.] Let us see where we go. Perhaps we can persuade the Minister. We will need more clever questions.
Chris Stephens
I assume the Minister believes that emails in relation to picketing will be safe and secure.
Stephen Doughty
Perhaps the Minister would like to confirm that in his remarks. Before we discuss the amendments, I want to reiterate the point at the heart of the debate. As the Minister says, we already have the picketing code, which many people comply with, and we have been clear that many of the potential offences that the Minister seeks to avoid are already covered in law. My fear is—I genuinely ask the Minister to reflect on this—that whatever the Government’s intentions are, the reality is that others will seek to exploit parts of the Bill as drafted to make the rights of others illusory.
We heard from Liberty in the oral evidence sessions that many aspects could be used by others to try to bring injunctions and proceedings. Ultimately—this goes back to our debate on the gagging law—many are frightened about potential non-compliance with the law. The RCM made that clear:
“We believe the intention is to frighten and confuse midwives from exercising their right to protest for fear that they will make a simple mistake and be prosecuted.”
That is the fear of many people who are not experts in trade union law and the existing legal provisions. Let us remember that the overwhelming majority of those who engage in such activities would never contemplate the intimidation or other unsavoury activities that the Minister outlined.
Amendment 27 would remove the requirement that the picketing supervisor must be a person familiar with the provisions of the code of practice on picketing. It is not that I hope that people are not reading and understanding it, but I believe that that requirement is excessive and creates a risk that unions could again be exposed to legal challenges because a picket supervisor could not answer a random question about the code of practice even though the picket activities they were supervising were peaceful and otherwise lawful. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister about the intention behind this measure, because it could be misused by those who would seek to make rights illusory.
Amendment 30 is on the letter of authorisation. It would remove the requirement on picket supervisors to show their letter of authorisation to constables who ask to see it. We have discussed that already, but I have concerns that the interaction between a police officer—a “constable” as defined in the Bill—and an individual could form the basis of a future legal challenge by the employer and that that could again put the police in an invidious position. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West covered the circumstances in which others could demand to see the letter. Fascist organisations or others could seek to use potential loopholes in the Bill to cause frustration to those going about exercising their rights reasonably.
Amendments 31 and 32 are important. Proposed new section 220A(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 will place a duty on picket supervisors to be either constantly present at a picket or able to attend at short notice. The Opposition believe that that would place an onerous responsibility on picket organisers, especially when pickets are scheduled to take place overnight as well as during the day, so the amendments would remove that requirement. Here again there is potential for a really unreasonable requirement to be placed on those who otherwise seek very much to comply with the spirit and intent of the existing code of practice and this law if it is to be enacted. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on those points.
Nick Boles
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to explain how the code of practice works and why we think it is appropriate to ask for familiarity with it. The code has been in place since 1992. It sets out the principles and the legal requirements that underpin picketing, and it sets out guidance that, if followed, will mean that the picketing will be considered peaceful. To my knowledge, these provisions have not given rise to concern for the past 20 years or so.
The Bill requires the picketing supervisor to be familiar with the code. In the Government’s view, familiarity with the code represents sensible and practical preparation for someone about to undertake the role of picket supervisor. However, familiarity does not mean an ability to quote verbatim every single provision of the code; it means a broad familiarity with the provisions of the code and the reasonable requirements it places. The code itself is not onerous. It has not given unions cause for concern, so we believe that a supervisor’s familiarity with it is helpful and supportive of the shared aim of peaceful picketing.
Let me move on to amendment 30. As I said, clause 9 introduces the statutory requirement to appoint a picket supervisor and to issue that person with a letter of authorisation so it is clear that the picket is lawful. Removing that requirement, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman, would make it more difficult for unions to show that they have complied with the requirement to appoint a supervisor. It may also cause confusion on the picket line about whether the picket supervisor has indeed been appointed and whether the picket is legal.
We are aware of the sensitivities around union membership. I would like to underline the fact that the entitlement for any other person to be shown the letter is currently restricted to those with reasonable cause, and in my view that arguably means the employer at whose workplace the picketing will take place. It would be very difficult for a random passer-by to show reasonable entitlement. However, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s explanation. I will reflect on the concerns raised, and I will return to this issue on Report.
Ian Mearns
How would a picketing supervisor in possession of such a letter know who is a random passer-by and who is a legitimate representative of the employer, unless they are carrying some sort of letter to say they are so?
Nick Boles
As I have indicated, we will return to this issue on Report after reflecting on it. That is a very helpful contribution, and I will ensure our reflections take it into account.
Amendment 31 is on the requirement for the picket supervisor to be present or able to attend at short notice, and to be readily contactable. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth proposes a new text that supplies a reasonable test of those requirements and removes the phrase
“While the picketing is taking place”.
Let me explain how the provision should work in practice. The current legal text balances a clear statutory requirement with allowing sufficient flexibility for it to work in the real world. It does that by enabling the picket supervisor to be absent, provided that he or she is able to attend at short notice, which is why it is linked to the requirement for the picket supervisor to be readily contactable by the union or the police. The effect of these measures is that the picket supervisor does not need to be present at all times. In fact, they positively enable the picket supervisor to be absent, provided they are able to attend at short notice if necessary.
I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would result in the requirement becoming legally less clear. A lack of legal clarity will likely result in more litigation and higher legal costs, most probably for unions.
Stephen Doughty
I appreciate the Minister’s very helpful clarification. For the record, can he state what he believes short notice would mean, in general terms? Would the picket supervisors have to turn up within 15 minutes, or would they have a couple of hours for travel if, for example, they had gone home for the night and had to come back? We need to recognise the practicalities.
Nick Boles
What I might do is move on to amendment 32 and come back to that point after I have taken a bit of in-flight advice.
Amendment 32 would entirely remove the requirement for the picket supervisor to be present or readily contactable. It is important that one or other of those positions is the case, because the picket supervisor will act as the main point of contact to ensure picketing remains peaceful. The Government want to tackle the intimidation of non-striking workers, and the appointment of a picket supervisor to oversee picketing is an entirely appropriate and proportionate way of ensuring that unacceptable behaviour on a picket line does not occur. It will ensure consistency in the way picketing is conducted, and ensure that picketing remains peaceful, as currently required by law. Removal of the requirement for the picket supervisor’s presence or their ability to be contacted to return would render the requirement for union supervision ineffective.
I move on to amendment 33, while I still wait for inflight advice.
Nick Boles
I am always happy to take assistance from the hon. Gentleman. I know that he means it with a generous heart.
Ian Mearns
May I take the Minister back to the information he gave the shadow Minister about using “any means” to communicate the intention to picket to the appropriate authorities? I can imagine the scenario—and the Minister might want to think about ruling some of this out—where an ingenious trade unionist or picket supervisor uses semaphore, Morse code by means of an Aldis lamp, invisible ink on best vellum, Native American smoke signals, or even, as I have witnessed on a Remploy picket line of GMB workers, British Sign Language. It may well be that “any means” is not appropriate; it will have to be a means that the appropriate authority can understand.
Nick Boles
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I think I did make it clear that it needs to be any means in writing, though his last example provides an interesting question. Nevertheless, the position would be any means in writing.
I was waiting for in-flight advice and I fear that the hon. Gentleman is not going to be any more satisfied than I am by the advice that I have received, which suggests that short notice means that the picket supervisor needs to be there promptly to deal with issues should they arise. The real point is whether we are opening up to greater legal challenge than is currently the case. Therefore, the question is, does “short” provide more or less clarity than “reasonable”? My argument is that “reasonable” is more capable of multiple interpretations, and therefore debate, challenge and legal costs, than “short”, which does have a common meaning in the English language that we all understand. Of course, it will inevitably depend on the circumstances and the particular situation of the picket. If it is held in the middle of the night, “short” would probably be interpreted differently from how it would be if held during working hours. I think it is better to stick with “short” rather than move to “reasonable”.
Finally, because I am worried that I am taking too long, Sir Alan, I move on to amendment 33. Clause 9 requires the picket supervisor to be easily identifiable as such to the pickets, the employer and other workers. It presents clear, tangible confirmation that the union has complied with the picketing supervision requirements and provides a clear point of contact on the picket line. Therefore, it creates confidence that there is someone who is familiar with the code and who supervises the picket so that it is conducted peacefully.
Wearing a badge or another identifiable item of clothing will balance our objective to ensure that picketing can take place in accordance with the right to assemble, while providing confidence for non-striking workers to be able to go into work. That balance is what is important here.
I point out that the code suggests that all people on the picket should have some kind of badge or identifiable piece of clothing. That is not something we have had objections to over the years, but we feel it would not be reasonable to require that in statute of everyone. Given the picket supervisor’s particular function and responsibilities, it seems reasonable to require that. They do not have wear armbands. A badge, a baseball cap—I am sure we can think of many ways for people to identify themselves as picket supervisors.
Stephen Doughty
Before the Minister concludes, I hope he understands the serious concerns around this and the potential implications, and why it has been a matter of contention, given the historical persecution of trade unionists. It would be helpful in relation to all these amendments if he was clear. He has indicated this broadly in his remarks, but will he be clear that nothing that the Government propose to do here is intended to serve as a litigator’s charter for people who would not reasonably be required to be a party to any of these disputes? I hope he is reflective and considers some of the matters, but would he please be crystal clear for the record, because it will be important for how the Government’s intent is considered in future?
Nick Boles
I am happy to offer the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. We are very pleased that most unions in most cases are happy to abide by the provisions of the picketing code. We simply want to make it clear that the code should be abided by in those few local situations, of which the unions perhaps do not have knowledge, where it is not. We certainly do not want to be opening up greater opportunity to challenge legitimate strikes or industrial action that have been arrived at through legitimate ballots. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen Doughty
I appreciate the Minister’s comments and am glad that he appears to be in a reflective mood. I am content to withdraw the amendment, but I will do so on the basis that the Minister and the Department will consider the matter carefully. If additional clarification can be provided on the face of the Bill, on Report or elsewhere, that would be welcome. Otherwise, Opposition Members or our colleagues in the other place may want to return to the matter. The legislation needs to be crystal clear. This part of the Bill has some serious implications, and they must be clear in law. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 10, page 5, line 39, leave out
“has expired under subsection (2) or”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 35, in clause 10, page 5, line 43, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 5 on page 6 and insert “it has been renewed”.
The amendment would define an opt-in notice as expired if on its expiry date it had not been renewed.
Stephen Doughty
We are starting to make some progress through some meaty issues. Clause 10 deals with the Government’s extensive proposals around political funding and how unions operate. We discussed such matters at length on Second Reading. We heard significant evidence from the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation and from several unions that contribute to and maintain political funds. Although there was some japery from Government Members during that evidence session, it is important to understand the historical significance of the Government’s proposals, which go well beyond what even previous Conservative Administrations have considered and well beyond the bounds of cross-party consensus on political funding. The existing legislation governing trade unions that want to contribute to political parties or engage in certain political activities is clear, rigid and tough, and rightly so. The Opposition would not want it any other way and neither would the trade unions or the trade union members with whom I have spoken or who have given evidence.
As defined by section 72 of the 1992 Act, a trade union wishing to undertake such activities must establish a political fund. Before doing so, trade unions are legally required to ballot their members to ask, through a political fund resolution, whether they agree to the union maintaining a political fund. Trade unions are also required to ballot their members every 10 years to determine whether the trade union should retain the political fund. Union members currently have the right to opt out from their subscriptions being used for political fund purposes. Let us be clear that that relates not only to union subscriptions or affiliations to the Labour party, but to all the activities covered by political funds. Members can opt out at any time. It is important that the Committee understands that, because the idea that unions are somehow giving this money away with members having no democratic role is simply not the case.
The Government’s proposals in clause 10, however, replace that arrangement with a new requirement on union members to opt in every five years if they agree to their subscriptions being partly used to fund political parties or, as could be encompassed by the Bill, party political campaigns. Union members will retain the right to opt out from paying into the political fund at any point.
The Minister said earlier that I was potentially pre-empting comments that he was going to make, and I might do so again now. He might try to dress up the clause as an attempt to bring things into line with the situation in Northern Ireland, but it is important for the Committee to understand that it goes beyond the current practice there, which requires union members to agree to paying into the political fund only once. They are not required to renew their opt-in.
The Minister might also try to argue that the clause is about levelling the playing field with the duties that apply to companies that make political donations, but, again, it goes well beyond that. Part 14 of the Companies Act 2006 requires companies to get the authorisation of a shareholder resolution before making political donations of £5,000 or more. However, shareholders do not have a right to opt out of company political expenditure, and nor is there an opting-in arrangement.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I ask again: what is the Government’s real intention? Committee members should be left in no doubt that the purpose of requiring trade union members to opt in to political funds as required by the clause is simply a nakedly partisan attack aimed at damaging the finances of the Labour party. Such a move is designed to ensure the inevitable by gifting the Conservative party an ever greater financial advantage than is already the case.
Chris Stephens
I would argue that it is more sinister than that. Does the shadow Minister agree that the clause is also about a trade union’s capacity to use its political fund for general campaigning?
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, I believe that to be the case. I have heard some clear evidence from unions that maintain political funds and, although affiliated to the Labour party, undertake other activities, as well as from those that are not affiliated to the Labour party but maintain political funds. The Government have already taken forward extensive regulation relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the gagging Act and so on. A lot of unions believe that activities will fall under those provisions and are worried about how they will comply.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? He seems fearful that the clause will result in less funding for the Labour party, but if that is the case, there must be people who are currently donating through this mechanism but do not want to.
Stephen Doughty
It certainly will lead to less money for the Labour party—that is very clear—but not because people do not want to give money. Union money is some of the most transparent and openly gifted in politics. Were I to discuss the funding of the Conservative party at length, I am sure you would rule that out of order, Sir Alan, but it well merits a debate on the Floor of the House. If I remember correctly, in the previous Parliament, the former Member for Banbury could not read out his entire Register of Members’ Financial Interests because it would have taken him longer than the 10 minutes he was allotted.
The fact is that the Government are seeking to frustrate the genuine giving of money to political funds, some of which is then used to contribute to the Labour party. The reality is that people lead busy lives or, for example, are part of a widely dispersed workforce, as USDAW made clear to me. The fact that the transitional period to comply with one of the most major changes in trade union law for generations is only three months underlines the Government’s true intentions.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was absolutely right to raise this issue with the Prime Minister while she was acting Leader of the Opposition. She asked him to commit not to go ahead with these changes unless there was cross-party agreement. Is the Minister prepared to get to his feet and withdraw these measures and engage in genuine cross-party talks about the funding of party politics? I suspect not.
It is not acceptable for the Prime Minister to be curbing funds given transparently to the Labour party by hard-working people throughout the country while turning a blind eye to donations to the Tories from various corporate sources and hedge funds. If the clause stands part of the Bill unamended and the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will mark the abrupt end of the long-standing consensus in British politics that the Government should not introduce partisan legislation unfairly to disadvantage other political parties.
As Members will be aware from the oral evidence sessions, in 1948 Winston Churchill cautioned against taking such steps. He said:
“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached either between the leaders of the main parties or by conferences under the impartial guidance of Mr. Speaker.”—[Official Report, 16 February 1948; Vol. 447, c. 859.]
Even Margaret Thatcher, a Prime Minister whose term was defined by her opposition to the trade union movement, considered proposals such as those set out in the Bill to be too extreme. She said:
“legislation on this subject, which would affect the funding of the Labour party, would create great unease and should not be entered into lightly.”
[Interruption.] I know you are asking me to come to a conclusion, Sir Alan. I will be there in a matter of moments. She was right. The Bill and the clause are creating great unease, and I find myself agreeing with the person who I suspect spurred the Minister and I into politics in the first place, although of course for very different reasons. In the light of that, we are looking carefully at the SNP’s new clause, which we will come to in due course, and which would put the Churchill convention into the Bill.
In conclusion, the clause will restrict unions’ right to freedom of association and their ability to engage in political debates, and it will create huge administrative burdens. It is widely known that opt-in processes reduce participation—for example, our approach to auto-enrolment for pensions is based on an opt-out model, given the clear economic evidence.
Amendments 34 and 35 are probing amendments that can be used to argue that members should not be required to submit repeated opt-ins. I hope the Minister will give us his thoughts on them in due course.
The Chair
Before the Committee rises, I repeat that we are only up to clause 10 of 22, and we have a host of important discussions to come. The point of Committee stage is to question parts of the Bill before it goes back to the Floor of the House on Report. There are a lot of important things on the Government and Opposition sides that have to be dealt with.
Before the next Committee, I want the Whips to talk to each other. It is likely that this Committee will rise early this afternoon because there are a number of votes taking place from 4.30 pm. That restricts the Committee’s time and means that we have only two more sittings next week to deal with the remainder of the Bill, which I am not sure will be satisfactory. I ask the two Whips to meet in consultation with the other Opposition group to see whether we can get a bit of speed, so the questions can be answered as fully as possible.
Trade Union Bill (Eighth sitting)
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 35, in clause 10, page 5, line 43, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 5 on page 6 and insert “it has been renewed”.
The amendment would define an opt-in notice as expired if on its expiry date it had not been renewed.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Good afternoon, Sir Edward. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see the speed at which you got here today to be on time.
I wish to speak in support of amendments 34 and 35, which were tabled in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. This Government and the previous Government, which the Conservative party was part of, have made great play of their desire to get rid of red tape, but the Bill is full of red tape and this clause makes it extremely difficult for trade union members to contribute to political funds.
In all the evidence we heard last week on political funds, no one said that they were a problem or that there were any problems associated with them. Further than that, the thrust of the Bill and these clauses is all about the links to funding the Labour party. That is important from my point of view, but we must not forget that political funds are used for other campaigning measures. Two of the most prominent campaigns that I was involved in during my time working for a trade union were the campaign to stop needle injuries for clothing and textile workers and the campaign to promote recognition of the subtle signs of domestic violence taking place and causing people to lose days at work. Political funds are used for a much broader range of things than just helping to fund the Labour party, although obviously that is an area that I am very concerned about.
The clause is politically motivated. To limit the ability of a political party to raise funds legitimately through its affiliated trade unions is nothing less than scandalous. It goes against 100 years of common practice, where any changes in this area have historically been agreed between parties through cross-party talks. If this is what the Government want to do, then instead of just taking a sledgehammer to what has been common practice all these years, they should call for cross-party talks and have a serious discussion about some of the issues in these clauses.
As it stands, the opt-in works. Because it works, no one is calling for change—except the Government. There is no problem with the opt-in. When I administered part of a political fund in my previous life before entering Parliament, no one raised a problem with it. If people wanted to opt out after they had opted in, that simply was not a problem. They contacted us, and we opted them out. I have to say that very few people choose to opt out, and that is bearing in mind that members of trade unions are not just Labour party supporters—they vote Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP, and some even vote Conservative.
That said, let us look at the detail of the clause and the amendments. I firmly believe that the Government’s proposals are not workable; the thrust of the amendments is to make them workable. Our amendments are clear and straightforward and would extend the time limits to a more realistic timeframe. Almost 6 million people are members of trade unions in this country. It is absolutely ludicrous to think that unions could physically sign up, by paper, nearly 6 million people in three months. I do not know what resources the Government think trade unions have, but that is not a workable option. It is impossible. By default, the Government would not be giving the opportunity for trade union members to sign up, because it would be impossible for trade unions to make their full membership aware within the timescale set out in the Bill.
There are obviously issues around using electronic means to sign people up—we will come on to that in our consideration of later amendments, when I will go into more detail—but it would have a significant impact on the Bill if we were allowed to use e-means to sign people up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth outlined, the Bill goes way beyond the Companies Act 2006. That Act covers political donations from companies, which the Conservative party gets most of its funding from. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friends would bring the Bill into line with existing legislation, in particular in relation to the 10-year ballot to decide if a trade union holds a political fund or not. Let us remember that trade unions do not have to hold political funds, although I think they all do.
The existing legislation, which has been there for many years, is very workable. It is a well trodden path, and there are no problems with it. The way to make the opt-in measures practicable is to have sensible time limits and link them to existing legislation. Even the Minister has said, with regard to the code of conduct, that these things work well. Let us simplify the Bill and bring it together with the existing legislation. The bureaucratic nature of the Bill at the moment means that it simply will not work in practice. Removing the time limits would make it a workable piece of legislation, although I would still disagree with it.
Legislation covering the operation of political funds should be fair and reasonable, to be in line with all international agreements covering the rights of trade unions, freedom of association and a union’s ability to engage in political debates. This is key: we must allow unions the freedom to engage in political debates. As it stands, the Bill will not do that, so I urge the Government to support our amendments. If they want their Bill to be workable, bringing in sensible time limits is the only sensible way forward.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. The clause represents nothing less than a cynical attempt by the Government to restrict the political rights of millions of working people in this country. The Government claim that trade union members will retain the right to opt in to political campaigns if they so wish, but in reality they know that this will effectively end trade unions’ ability to represent their members’ political aspirations.
Let us be clear from the outset: trade union political funds are not and never have been solely about donations to the Labour party. Indeed, a significant proportion of the TUC’s member unions—unions such as the Fire Brigades Union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the National Union of Teachers, the Public and Commercial Services Union, NASUWT and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers—are not affiliated with and have no connection to the Labour party. There are, however, many millions of members across such unions.
Trade unions represent those members’ interests in the workplace. They negotiate wages, health and safety, conditions of service and various terms of employment. However, workers’ interests do not end in the workplace. They have family lives and interests outside of work. Workers care about the quality of their children’s education. They care about housing conditions, the quality of our health service, our public services and many other aspects of everyday life that cannot be negotiated with an employer. Trade union political funds exist for that very reason: to campaign on those topics and areas of interest.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear” campaign, for example, is about tackling the intimidation of and violence against shop workers, but it has nothing to do USDAW’s funding of the Labour party. It is a very important campaign that I have attended representations of. USDAW is concerned that it will fall within the scope of this measure, as a result of the legislation.
Ian Mearns
I concur entirely with my hon. Friend.
Every single trade union member is fully entitled to participate in the democratic processes of the union of which they are a member. The policies that the union may campaign on are democratically decided by those members through the trade union’s internal democratic structure. The Government, and their friends in places such as the Daily Mail, try to portray union political funds as personal gifts from people such as Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis or Sir Paul Kenny, designed to buy influence in the Labour party. I know all those individuals, and none of them has ever told me what to do. I maintain my independence from them. I listen to them closely and carefully, but I have never received an instruction from any one of them.
By contrast, the Conservative party, which last year alone received nearly £29 million in private donations from the rich and powerful, has no concept of the unfairness of this measure. I will compare and contrast, because the money siphoned into political campaigns and political parties such as the Labour party is very open and transparent in its transmission and its source. It comes from the very small individual weekly or monthly donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of trade union members. That money is easily trackable and auditable.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this measure would cause a great imbalance between the influence of corporate donors and sponsors who wish to influence politicians or political parties and the influence of the ordinary person on political life and political campaigns? Ordinary working people, such as nurses, midwives and teachers, are often the backbone of society.
Ian Mearns
I could not agree more. This measure seeks to undermine the political armoury available to the ordinary citizenry of this country. By comparison, the Conservatives, the party of government, get their money from direct donations by large corporations and middle-ranking organisations. They siphon money into the Conservative party, but we do not know where the small donations come from—by small donations, I mean donations up to £7,500. People donating to the Conservative party via the United and Cecil club do not have to declare who they are if their donation is less than £7,500. That is not open or transparent. Another middle-ranking organisation that siphons money into the Conservative party in a similar way is the Midlands Industrial Council. Again, we do not know the origin of its donations under £7,500.
The millions of trade unionists who will potentially have their political voice stifled by this clause continue to donate to the Conservative party inadvertently. Every time they buy a Melton Mowbray pork pie or a Ginsters pasty or meat slice, they are making very small but regular donations to the Tory party. If they buy their clothes at Next, their car through Auto Trader, their bread from Warburtons or even indulge in an occasional Soreen malted loaf, they will be making a small donation to the Tory party. The clause aims to stifle direct donations to political parties and/or campaigns on one side, but no action is being taken on the other side, because that would not be in the interest of the party of government.
Trade union funds are the weekly pennies, tuppences, 10 pences and 20 pences contributed by millions of working people, and those funds are audited and regulated by the Government’s certification of trade unions. Every last penny has to be accounted for. The policies for which those funds campaign are not the whims of trade union barons; the funds are used to campaign and promote policies agreed by workers through their democratic organisations. I am trying to put on record the gross unfairness of the measures within this clause.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I indicated to Sir Alan that I wanted to speak on this group of amendments, to give a general overview of clause 10.
Our view is that the provisions in clause 10 are a democratic and constitutional outrage, for two reasons. Before I was elected, I was secretary of the Scottish National party trade union group, which has a total of 16,000 members from all trade unions. Some of them have decided not to contribute to the political fund of whatever trade union they are in, while others do. It is important that they have that choice. The trade union movement is having a discussion about whether it should be funding one political party or individual candidates who support its aims and objectives. The important point is that it is up to trade unions and their members to have that debate. I am concerned that clause 10 will not only interfere with donations to political parties, but ignore the Churchill convention, with clear constitutional implications.
First, it is important for our society that trade unions make a contribution to the political life of the country, and our society has been better for it. We should be looking at political funding arrangements across the board and in consultation with all parties, not just slipping in these measures as part of the Bill, which is why the SNP has tabled a new clause, which we will come to later.
Secondly, to return to the points made by the hon. Member for Gateshead about political funds being used for general campaigning, as it stands, clause 10 is clearly a way of preventing the trade union movement from engaging in such campaigning. It is important to mention some of the other organisations and campaigns that have received trade union funding. There have been health and safety campaigns, which are very important. HOPE not hate and other anti-fascist and anti-racist organisations have received the majority of their funding from trade unions. As the general secretary of the PCS trade union indicated, funding has gone to campaigns on public service provision and keeping public services in public hands.
Our position is simple: we oppose clause 10 and will join anyone to ensure that it is defeated.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
You were not with us this morning, Sir Edward, but the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth gave a broad introduction to the provisions on the political fund, as well as addressing the amendments. I do not want to take long because we are trying to save time. The arguments made by the shadow Minister and other Members betray a strange lack of confidence in their appeal to union members. It seems to me odd to suggest that the only way they can secure the donations of union members is by somehow relying on the inertia that prevents a union member from exercising their opt-out.
The hon. Gentleman talked about pension contributions and auto-enrolment. One of the main reasons for introducing automatic enrolment into a pension is that it is pretty hard to persuade individual savers, particularly young people on relatively low wages with lots of other immediate demands on their cash, of the benefits of a pension that they are not going to receive until 40 or 50 years in the future. Yet we all know that, both in their direct personal interest and in the public interest, it is important that they save for a pension. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the appeal of the Labour party and its policies is so distant or vague that it is not possible to persuade individual union members that they have an immediate, direct and personal interest in ticking a box and opting in.
Although I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, the Opposition betray their own defensiveness rather than making a strong argument.
Chris Stephens
I would gently point out to the Minister that many trade unions currently have a system whereby members have to tick a box for the political fund. Indeed, my own trade union, Unison, gives the choice of ticking a box next to either the affiliated section, from which funds go to the Labour party; the general political fund section, which I happen to tick; or for no political fund arrangements at all. Some trade unions already offer the option through ticking a box, so why is the change necessary?
Nick Boles
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I think has made my argument for me. All that we are requiring is that every trade union member be asked to tick a box to contribute to a political fund, rather than being given an option to tick a box to get out of it. Since he is happy to do that and happy for others to do the same, it does not seem particularly onerous.
Amendments 34 and 35 deal with the opt-in renewal notices for political funds. It must be right that a member decides whether to contribute to a political fund and has an opportunity to renew their choice; the question is over what period. In this country, it seems that renewing political choices every five years is becoming a normal pattern, which is why we suggest five years in the Bill. We have provided that members can renew their opt-in at any time in the three months before a renewal date, reducing the burden on unions of different renewal dates for different members. The Bill also provides that members who have recently decided to contribute will not have to renew their opt-in again shortly afterwards. If a member opts in six months before a renewal date, they do not have to renew again at the next renewal point. Amendment 35 would undermine that provision, which is meant to help unions to manage the opt-in process.
Clause 10 creates a workable system of opt-in and renewal for trade unions with political funds. The amendments would work against their effectiveness for unions and their members, so I urge that amendment 34 be withdrawn.
Stephen Doughty
I am not seeking to press amendments 34 and 35 to a vote, but I want to be frank with the Committee: we know what the Government are up to. Most people out there in the country know what the Government are up to. The Government have a very presentable representative in the Minister, who comes across as a model of reasonableness and everything else, but he has some more sinister elements behind him—[Interruption.] Not here! I should clarify that I was not referring to the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot, who is equally as respectable. I am referring, of course, to the sinister elements hiding out in the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and elsewhere, who clearly intend to break the consensus on party funding in order to undermine the funding of the Labour party and political campaigns that might target the Government and their policies, while not opening their own funding arrangements to the same degree of scrutiny.
The SNP inquired as to why I had photos of Margaret Thatcher and the former Leader of the House and Member for Richmond (Yorks) on my desk. In Cabinet minutes from 1984, the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, said that
“legislation on this subject, which would affect the funding of the Labour Party, would create great unease and should not be entered into lightly”.
The former leader of the Conservative party, a respected figure in the House, said in a submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
“The question of trade union funding of parties is not a matter of direct concern to the Conservative Party. We recognise the historic ties that bind the trade union movement with the Labour Party.
The Conservative Party does not believe that it is illegitimate for the trade union movement to provide support”.
Those are important points that exemplify how extraordinary the Government’s move is. It moves away from that consensus. They can of course impose their will on us, as they have a majority in the House, but that is not one of the principles of the democracy in which we operate. I hope the Minister will go back to those more sinister elements outside this room and urge them to rethink the measure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Nick Boles
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 10, page 6, leave out lines 6 to 12 and insert—
‘(3) The first renewal date—
(a) for a trade union in relation to which a political resolution is in force on the commencement date, is the date falling five years and three months after that date;
(b) for any other trade union, is the date falling five years and three months after the first date following the commencement date on which the union passes a political resolution.”
This amendment is intended to improve the drafting as regards the “first renewal date”, and in particular to make it fit better with section 93(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (amalgamations) where that section applies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 36, in clause 10, page 6, line 8, leave out “five years” and insert “ten years”.
The amendment would make the first renewal date for a union‘s political fund established before the Bill comes into force 10 years and three months rather than five years and three months.
Amendment 37, in clause 10, page 6, line 10, leave out “five years” and insert “ten years”.
The amendment would make the first renewal date for a union‘s political fund established after the Bill comes into force 10 years and three months rather than five years and three months after the ballot.
Amendment 38, in clause 10, page 6, line 13, leave out “five years” and insert “ten years”.
The amendment would make all renewal dates for unions’ political funds after the first renewal date 10 years rather than five years.
Government amendment 96.
Nick Boles
Amendment 91 is a minor amendment to clause 10 that fixes the first renewal of an opt-in to a political fund so that it is three months and five years after the date of the political resolution. The language is more precise than the current drafting, which refers to the date that a political fund is established or the date of a ballot. The revised wording also reflects the language used in the provisions of the 1992 Act dealing with amalgamations. To be clear, this is a technical point and there is no change in policy. It should make it easier for unions to understand and apply the law in this area.
Amendment 96 deals with how the new opt-in provisions apply to the amalgamation of the unions. It fixes the first renewal date where two or more unions join together. We have ensured that renewal dates will be fixed by reference to the date of a political resolution. This means that where two unions amalgamate, the first opt-in renewal date for the amalgamated union will be the earliest of the renewal dates of the different amalgamating unions. That will ensure that all union members will be subject to the same renewal dates, which will be administratively easier for the unions concerned.
I now turn to Opposition amendments 36, 37 and 38, which would replace the opt-in renewal date from five to 10 years. Our aim is to promote greater transparency for union members. We want members to make an active choice based on a recent and up-to-date decision. We do not believe it is right that a union member makes the decision to opt in to a political fund and is not asked to do so again for as long as 10 years. That could not be judged a recent active choice.
Chris Stephens
During consultations on the Bill, did anyone object to having a trade union ballot in 10 years and want one every five years? What is the purpose of that? I would have thought that 10 years, which is two electoral cycles, would be sufficient.
Nick Boles
I certainly accept that there can be different, legitimate views on this question. As I said in response to the previous debate, given that our system seems to be moving towards regular five-year cycles of political decision making, we felt that it was, if nothing else, neat to have a five-year cycle of decision making about contributions towards political funds.
A five-year renewal date balances the need for unions to have certainty about how much income they have for political activities against the need to ensure that a member’s decision to contribute remains current and relevant. We are also taking steps to remove the burden of different renewal dates on unions, and ensuring that future renewal dates are kept the same for all members of any union. We are therefore allowing for a five-year renewal notice to take place any time in the three months before the renewal date. The Bill also provides that where members who opt in during the six-month period before the five-year renewal, they should not have to renew their opt-in again at the renewal date. That prevents, for example, new members who have made a recent decision to contribute to a fund from having to renew their opt-in again very soon after.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Were we to move to a system of contracting-in to the political levy with five-year renewals, what is the case for retaining the political fund ballot every 10 years? Will the Minister do away with that?
Nick Boles
We have no plans to change that. If the hon. Lady wants to table proposals at the next stage in the House, I will be happy to engage with that question. Since she has not done so, I am not in a position to engage with it directly now—I am not sure it would be entirely in order to do so, although it is a perfectly legitimate question for her to raise.
To conclude, renewing the opt-in decision every five years will ensure that members’ decisions remain current.
Stephen Doughty
I do not have a lot to say about Government amendments 91 and 96, because we fundamentally oppose the principle of the clause and all associated measures, and intend to vote against it when we come to that point.
As the Minister has pointed out, Opposition amendments 36, 37 and 38 go with the status quo, sticking with the 10 years and three months provision as it is. That is obviously a matter for debate, although I am not sure that the Minister is making a strong argument. He certainly did not adequately respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West about who has requested the change.
When combined with the other measures, this appears like another attempt to prevent this money from reaching political causes and parties.
Chris Stephens
Is the shadow Minister aware of anyone who wants to change from 10 to five years?
Stephen Doughty
No, I am not aware of that. The point that has been made consistently to me by the unions and others who would be affected is that, of course, people can opt out at any point. The idea that people make political choices only at a fixed point every so many years is wrong. People can change their political affiliations and views about political campaigns their union might be engaged in or running—whether they were well run or had a good purpose—and that might cause them to decide at some point to decide to opt out of the fund. Obviously, I hope they do not but that is a choice they can make. They can do that, unlike shareholders in corporations, who cannot opt out once their company is making donations to the Conservative party, for example—let alone the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, which horrified me. I am a fan of Soreen malt loaf and had no idea that I was unwittingly contributing to the Conservative party through that. The Government are fond of declaratory statements on ballots; perhaps there should be one on every malt loaf, saying, “Be aware that you are giving to the Tories.”
The whole debate exposes the inconsistencies that the Bill creates.
Ian Mearns
I used to be rather fond of Soreen malt loaf, until I discovered the awful truth. I think it could have a public health warning: “Eating Soreen malt loaf could be detrimental to your health service.” [Interruption.]
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a witty observation, and I heard the Government Whip—
Stephen Doughty
Yes, we are going to do that. The Government Whip suggested we have another slice, but I am pretty sure I will not be having any further slices of malt loaf.
As I said, I do not have a lot to say about the Government amendments, which are technical and in the spirit of the Government’s intentions, which we oppose; but I would like to test our amendment 36, on keeping the relevant period at 10 years, in a vote.
Amendment 91 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 36, in clause 10, page 6, line 8, leave out “five years” and insert “ten years”.—(Stephen Doughty.)
The amendment would make the first renewal date for a union‘s political fund established before the Bill comes into force 10 years and three months rather than five years and three months.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 10, page 6, line 23, at end insert “or by electronic means”
The amendment would allow opt-in, renewal and withdrawal notices to be given via electronic communications.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—“Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots for industrial action—
‘(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote by electronic means for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.
(2) In this section “electronic means” means such electronic means, including means of secure voting electronically in the workplace, as is, or are determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(3) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (2), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
(4) For the purpose of subsections (2) and (3), a means of electronic voting satisfies “the required standard” for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable:
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) votes cast are secret; and
(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(5) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1):
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
(6) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (5)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (5)(b).
(7) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
The new clause would permit electronic voting in ballots for industrial action.
New clause 2—“Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots—
‘(1) The provisions in section [new clause 2] apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.
(2) The electronic means adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) must also be capable of allowing union members to vote in ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”
The new clause would permit electronic voting in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action..
New clause 4—“Secure workplace ballots for industrial action—
‘(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote in person at their place of work by means of a secure workplace ballot for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.
(2) In this section “secure workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. These may, but are not required to, include electronic means and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union to ensure that the required standard is satisfied, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), a workplace ballot satisfies “the required standard” if, so far as reasonably practicable:
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) those entitled to vote can do so in privacy;
(c) votes cast are secret; and
(d) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(4) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1):
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
(5) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (5)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (5)(b).
(6) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
The new clause would permit secure workplace ballots for industrial action. These can involve electronic or non-electronic means.
New clause 5—“Workplace balloting and voting for trade union elections and other matters—
‘(1) The provisions in section [NC4] shall apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.
(2) The arrangements adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) shall allow union members to vote in workplace ballots for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”
The new clause would permit secure workplace ballots in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action.
New clause 6—“Methods of voting in ballots for industrial action, trade union elections and other matters—
‘(1) Voting in a ballot or election carried out to meet the requirements of the 1992 Act as amended can be carried out by postal ballot, electronic means, secure workplace ballot or a combination of these methods.
(2) The combination of methods is to be determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot.”
New clause 8—“Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means—
‘(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);
(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).
(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2):
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(5) In this section:
(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and
(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable:
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) votes cast are secret; and
(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
Stephen Doughty
In this group, new clause 8 was tabled not by me, but by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. However, I am sure that we will debate it, because the effects are similar.
I want to outline the rationale for tabling the amendment and new clauses. I think it will help the Committee if I make it clear that amendment 39 relates to the use of electronic methods under clause 10, but the new clauses are about matters we have already discussed on balloting, and other related matters such as the extension of the provisions to other ballots, and combination ballots.
Throughout the oral evidence and our line-by-line consideration of the measure, the Minister has sought to dress up the Trade Union Bill as modernisation, but the Government’s continued refusal to introduce e-balloting and secure workplace balloting demonstrates that they are not serious about modernisation. The Government seem more hellbent on legislating to try to ensure they are a relic of our industrial past.
The nature of our country’s economy now—and it is likely to be in decades to come—is such that the insatiable pace of technological progress must be embraced. As a modern progressive, I am entirely comfortable with that. Indeed, recent figures from Ofcom show that to be the case in households across the UK, with 83% of people now having access to broadband and 66% of households owning a smartphone. I listened with great interest in the Chamber yesterday to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who we know is one of the sinister architects of the Bill, sitting in the shadows of the Cabinet Office. He extolled with great alacrity the benefits of the Government Digital Service and the digitisation of Government services. He gave specific examples, such as the online sell-off of shares in Lloyds, which the Government are disposing of.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office a question yesterday, that there are things left wanting in the progress of the Government Digital Service. The fact is, however, that the Government seem very willing to move ahead with online and electronic systems in other areas for what are often complex legal or financial services. Clearly, high levels of security and assuredness are required when citizens are taking part in those processes.
The case for an online option in balloting grows stronger still: e-balloting can be safe and secure, much like online banking. As we heard during the oral evidence sessions, e-balloting is already used for a variety of purposes by organisations in both the public and private sector, such as J.P. Morgan Asset Management, Lloyd’s of London, Chevron and, of course, the Conservative party, which recently selected its London mayoral candidate using e-balloting.
Our new clauses contain safeguards to ensure safety. Under each of those, the balloting process, whether electronic or secure workplace balloting, would be overseen by an independent scrutineer. Before the ballot is run, the scrutineer would confirm that the proposed method of voting met the required standard. The standard requires that: all members who are entitled to vote must have an opportunity to do so; votes must be cast in secret; and the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised. That required standard is the same as the one set out in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004.
The new clauses would allow unions to use postal ballots alongside electronic or secure workplace voting if they believed it necessary to ensure everyone has the chance to vote. That would ensure that members who may be absent from work due to sick leave or maternity, paternity or adoption leave can vote. The new clauses would also allow unions to provide members with a choice of voting methods, including postal and electronic balloting and secure workplace balloting. We call that a combination ballot, where a maximum number of means are used to ensure maximum participation in and engagement with the democratic process the Government say they are so keen to support.
The new clauses place duties on employers to co-operate with the union and the scrutineer during a ballot or election, mirroring duties that already apply to employers during statutory recognition ballots held under schedule A1 to the 1992 Act. For example, employers should ensure that firewalls do not prevent union emails from reaching members and that websites are not blocked. It is common practice in workplaces holding elections to staff associations or information and consultation forums for employers to work with balloting agencies to ensure that firewalls do not block email communications.
Safe places should also be provided for voting free from surveillance by management. That is important, given the concerns we have heard about blacklisting and issues of data protection and sensitivity that would certainly apply when it comes to secure workplace balloting. Employers would also be under a duty to ensure that union members can vote free from interference or constraint. That mirrors an existing duty on unions and is therefore even-handed. If an employer failed to comply with those duties—for example, by intercepting members’ voting papers or emails relating to the ballot—the union would have a complete defence from any legal challenges that it had failed to run the ballot properly.
I want to turn to safe and secure workplace ballots. We have set out the issues clearly and concisely in our new clauses; I now want to go into the detail of this option. In addition to using electronic voting, workplace ballots should be permitted for statutory union elections and other ballots. Importantly, the 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule A1. Workplace ballots of this nature are secure and are overseen by the qualified independent persons or QIPs. The individuals and balloting agencies permitted to act as QIPs for statutory recognition ballots are generally the same as those that act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots.
Until March 2015, 233 ballots for statutory recognition had been held, 61 of which involved a combination ballot—very much like what we propose in our new clauses—including both workplace ballots and postal ballots for those absent from work when the ballot was taking place. Five ballots had been held on the basis of workplace-only voting and 157 postal-only ballots had also been organised. An analysis of Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout tends to be significantly higher, as one would expect, in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace, where average turnout was 88%, and in combination ballots, where the average turnout was 86.9%. The average turnout in postal-only ballots was 71.6%.
There is no evidence that individuals felt pressurised to vote in support of union recognition where workplace ballots took place. Workers voting in postal-only ballots were more likely to vote for union recognition than those voting in the workplace. In 66% of workplaces where there was a postal-only ballot, workers voted for statutory recognition, compared with 60% of workplaces using workplace-only voting and 56% of workplaces holding combination ballots. Nor is there any evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way where ballots take place in the workplace. It is important for the Committee to note that the CAC has received a total of only seven complaints of unfair practices by employers or unions during statutory recognition ballots since 2004, when new protections were introduced. Of the complaints that the CAC were asked to decide upon, five were made by unions and one by an employer, but none were upheld.
I can think of no organisation besides trade unions where technological change and progress is not merely discouraged, but prohibited by proscriptive legislation. Trade unions must be allowed to modernise and bring balloting into the 21st century. This would not only serve to boost turnout and participation—vital reason though that is, given the arbitrary thresholds the Government are introducing in this Bill, which are rarely used elsewhere in our democracy, not even in recent referendums—but improve trade union democracy. Not only that, but the use of postal-only ballots can unnecessarily extend the voting period, which can be detrimental to good industrial relations, as it prolongs the period of the dispute. The use of faster and more efficient balloting methods, such as e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, could assist in the earlier resolution of disputes, as ballots and subsequent negotiations would take place more quickly.
Just as the arguments for the introduction of e-balloting and secure workplace balloting for trade unions grow stronger by the day, the Tories’ unsubstantiated opposition on the grounds of safety looks weaker and weaker. I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister—although I undoubtedly will—but I am sure he will repeat his line that he is not against e-balloting in principle, but that the Speaker’s Commission provides evidence of concerns about safety. The commission’s report did raise concerns over security, but also said that these could and should be overcome and that online voting should be an option for all electors by 2020—that is, for the general election, let alone trade union ballots. Furthermore, the commission reported on evidence from the Open Rights Group, which argues that electronic balloting is less safe than voting via the ballot box in general or local elections.
The Minister sought to rely on that evidence when he appeared before the Committee to argue that trade union ballots cannot be run safely online. However, the ORG’s evidence was based on a comparison between general election voting in polling stations and online voting. The ORG made no comment on the safety and security of wider forms of online voting. The Minister said in his evidence to the Committee:
“Frankly, internal elections in organisations to choose office-holders have to meet a much lower test than elections that involve the withdrawal of labour, the closure of services and great disruption to the public, so we are right to attach a higher level of demand”.––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 166, Q413.]
I find that rather staggering, because it is not clear to me why trade unions are the only organisations in the UK that are required by legislation to use postal-only ballots for elections and ballots. This suggests that the Government are more interested in interfering in the democratic decision making of trade unions, rather than being genuinely concerned about the safety of balloting systems.
Ian Mearns
My hon. Friend referred earlier to the fact that the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London was elected using a form of e-balloting. I wonder about the double-standard put forward by the governing party. They say it is perfectly legitimate for electronic voting to be used for one of the most important political positions in the country, but not for a potentially small industrial dispute in a remote part of the United Kingdom.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. If the Government were genuinely concerned about the levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate to require all bodies to use postal-only ballots, and they would re-run the election for the candidate for Mayor of London using a postal-only ballot.
I simply cannot understand the Government’s argument, and nor can the public. On the one hand, the Government say that they want to increase participation, that we need to ensure that everybody has their say, and that strikes and actions must not take place without everybody’s consent. But they will not extend the most simple modern methods to allow people to participate in a democratic process, which is their right as established in many conventions—indeed, in this country’s historic laws and principles. The Government seek to deny unions the right to exercise that franchise. It simply does not make sense.
It certainly does not make sense, given that secure workplace balloting is already used, as I have described. Why can it not be extended to industrial action ballots and other elections that unions undertake? It is certainly bizarre, given that I can list 40 or 50 different organisations that use e-balloting. The Electoral Reform Society and others have produced plenty of evidence that such methods can be used securely, safely and effectively. They meet all the tests that any Government, employer or union would want to apply to ensure they are safe and secure on both sides. The Government’s arguments and their refusal to engage do not make sense. I hope, given that the Minister said that he will reflect on other parts of the Bill with the best of intentions, that the Government will look at this issue again. I hope they look favourably on our new clauses and commit to supporting them, or at the very least pledge to introduce Government amendments mirroring ours on Report.
I turn briefly to the specifics of the amendments and new clauses. Amendment 39, which I have not touched on in detail so far, relates to the section on political funding. It is absurd and ludicrous that the Bill requires individuals or their authorised agents to deliver opt-in, renewal or withdrawal notices to the trade union head office or branch office personally or by post. The amendment would enable trade union members to renew their opt-in via email or online. Most trade unions are concerned that they will have just three months—we will come on to that issue—to sign members up to their political funds after the Bill comes into force. If members do not opt in within three months, they will no longer be considered valid contributors. That is unworkable and unreasonable, and in practice it will mean that many trade union members who want to pay into the union political fund will be prevented from doing so.
The provisions also fail to recognise that trade unions will be required to revise their rule book to comply. Many trade unions hold their rule-making conference once a year, every two years or, in some cases, every five years. It is therefore unreasonable for the Government to expect trade unions with a political fund to convene a special rule-making conference within three months to comply with the legislation. For many trade unions, it would be simply impossible to book venues and make the relevant logistical arrangements in time. The costs are likely to be astronomical, representatives might not be able to secure the time off to attend the conference and there might be problems with quorums and so on. Again, they will not be able to use electronic methods. People will have to hand in a hand-written notice to a head office or a branch office. Again, it reveals the Government’s true intent. If the Minister does not want the public and trade union members to believe that that is the intent behind the Bill, why does he not go some way towards a compromise and provide methods to encourage the maximum participation, both for opting in to political funds and for ballots?
I have detailed the new clauses. Briefly, for the Committee’s benefit, new clause 1 would permit trade unions to decide to use electronic voting for industrial action ballots. For example, union members would be able to vote online, on smartphones or via secure phone lines. They would also be able to vote electronically in workplaces using secure laptops or electronic booths. New clause 2 would permit unions to use electronic voting in other statutory elections and ballots, including the election of general secretaries, political fund ballots and ballots on mergers. New clauses 4 and 8 would permit trade unions to decide to use similar electronic means to those in new clause 1, or workplace ballots, similar to those used in statutory recognition ballots, for industrial action ballots. In workplace ballots, union members would be able to vote using paper ballot papers and secure ballot boxes in a secure location at the place of work. New clauses 5 and 6 would permit trade unions to use electronic and workplace ballots for all other statutory elections and ballots.
This comprehensive set of amendments and new clauses is about bringing trade unions into the modern age, as the Government say they want to do, and being able to use modern methods that are already used elsewhere and are seen to be successful. Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the Government would wish to oppose them.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I accept that electronic voting is gaining widespread political support, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of the evidence that was put to the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, particularly the evidence from the Open Rights Group. The Guardian commented:
“The chief fear of many is that…electronic voting would make electoral fraud easier, not harder. In the worst-case scenario, rather than forging ballots”—
an individual—
“could simply flip a switch and win the election with no trail in sight.”
The executive director of the Open Rights Group, Jim Killock, said:
“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it. Accountability in most software systems means a clear audit trail of who did what, which of course would violate the basic question of secrecy.”
Regardless of that, the other part of that argument is that the system has to be made so secure and the voting equipment has to be trusted to such an extent that accountability is open to doubt.
Stephen Doughty
On the basis of that argument, I have to ask whether the hon. Gentleman considers the election of his colleague, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), as the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London to be unsound in some way.
John Howell
I thought the hon. Gentleman would ask that question, so I thought of an answer. The answer is that I am not suggesting that anything at all was wrong with that election or, indeed, other elections that have used electronic voting, but I urge extreme caution where it is applied to elections that are enduring and on a statutory basis.
To finish—I wanted this to be only a brief intervention—I go back to Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group. He said:
“Given the vast numbers of machines that are infected by criminally controlled malware and the temptation for someone to interfere in an election, internet voting is a bad idea.”
Nick Boles
Will my hon. Friend tell us where he unearthed those comments from Jim Killock to ensure that Hansard can record that for all Members?
John Howell
I am grateful to the Minister. Part of it comes from my role as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on design and innovation—it did a lot of work in this area before the election—at the time that the Speaker’s Commission was working, and part of it comes from an article in The Guardian. The Minister will appreciate that, as a lively reader of The Guardian, I pick up these things wherever I can. I can probably give him the exact date on which the article was published, if he wants to know that.
Chris Stephens
We are not talking about an election, though, but a ballot, which will be a binary choice. It will either be yes or no. What specifically would concern the hon. Gentleman about introducing electronic balloting in a case of industrial action or to confirm or otherwise the political fund arrangements of a trade union?
John Howell
I think there is a great deal of similarity between using electronic means for an election and for this sort of statutory balloting. The thing that most concerns me is that, as in the words of the Open Rights Group that I just quoted:
“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it.”
The question is how we deal with the problems of security and particularly of accountability.
Stephen Doughty
I think that it is important to test this point. The hon. Gentleman is referring to decisions that have statutory implications, are regulated and so on, but these methods are also used by major financial institutions. For example, the Nationwide Building Society, the Yorkshire Building Society, J.P. Morgan and others—
Stephen Doughty
At their annual general meetings, which are often taking very serious and significant decisions, which are bound by the financial law set out by this House, those organisations are using these systems, so what is the problem? Why is this the only part of our democracy that is not able to use them?
John Howell
I think that a number of hon. Members want to intervene. First, does my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble want to intervene on me, as she could not intervene on the intervener?
Seema Kennedy
Sir Edward, I apologise. I am a relative novice, including on interventions. Are you aware that in the last year alone, online banking fraud has increased by 48%? Hon. Members are talking about the use of electronic methods in the financial and banking sector.
The Chair
Order. I am not aware of anything, especially not in The Guardian. When you say “you”, you are addressing the Chair. Anyway, you have got the message.
John Howell
I think that that question was directed to me, Sir Edward. I am aware that online banking fraud is up by 48%. That is an example of what I am talking about—
John Howell
Not at the moment. If we look at Barclays bank, for example, we see that the level of tolerance of this is phenomenal. It is frightening to see that; in fact, it makes one wish to change one’s account straightaway.
In answer to the question asked some time ago by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth about other organisations that use these methods, I fully accept, as I said at the beginning, that electronic balloting—electronic voting—is gaining wider and wider significance and acceptability. However, the organisations using these methods are approaching that in a systematic way. All I wanted to say at this point was that tremendous caution needs to be exercised. I shall finish again with the opinion of Mr Killock that
“internet voting is a bad idea.”
Dr Cameron
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to speak on clause 8. At the outset, I declare again my interests as a member of Unite the union and a former representative of Unite.
We are having a very interesting debate, but we must put it in the context of modern times. This is the way events are moving. It is what the public expect and want, and trade union members are very used to voting electronically or using electronic means in many realms of their lives. We therefore have to ensure that as a society and in this legislative process, we are modernising and it is in kilter with society.
I seek to question whether people’s opinion is based on evidence. Perhaps they are right to some degree to suggest caution, but is it based on evidence from such ballots having taken place in other realms, such as the candidate selection for Mayor of London, which has already been mentioned. However, there does not appear to be any evidence from these actual cases that anything untoward has happened. All of this, apart from being grounded in modern society and the way we live our lives, has to be grounded on an evidence-based approach rather than an opinion-based approach.
Our amendment advocates electronic and workplace balloting. Currently, all ballots and elections in trade unions must be conducted on a fully postal basis. Unlike major companies and other membership organisations, including political parties, trade union members have not been allowed to vote online. We cannot continue to leave trade union members behind; the system must be modernised. I was pleased to hear earlier that the Minister accepts electronic contact and communication in other areas relevant to the Bill.
Ian Mearns
One of the pleasures and privileges I have in the House is being Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. In the previous Parliament, from time to time we were presented with e-petitions from the official Government website. Of course, the Government accepted that those petitions had been signed in accordance with the rules and strictures, and that 100,000 online signatures were enough to secure a debate on a particular subject in either Westminster Hall or the main Chamber. Her Majesty’s Government accept the security of online petitioning; why not online balloting?
Dr Cameron
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, to which the Minister must respond.
A 2014 Electoral Commission survey involving adults aged over 18 found that 42% of respondents felt that online voting would increase confidence in the way that elections are run in the UK by either “a lot” or “a little”, so there seems to be a level of public confidence. Those views were particularly prevalent among younger age groups. It is extremely important that younger people are able to engage in political parties, whether through joining those parties or though joining trade unions with political funds. I would like to see young people being encouraged to vote and make their voices heard. That way, methods such as postal voting, which might appeal more to other age groups, just as online voting appeals to the young, do not skew results towards certain sectors of society. Again, I emphasise the importance of personal choice for individuals in voting, as in every other aspect of our lives.
Ian Mearns
The hon. Lady has highlighted the fact that voting by post is becoming quite cumbersome and difficult. In Gateshead, there are fewer post boxes than there used to be and fewer daily collections. The Government really need to think about online voting, which would give trade unionists the right to take part in the important internal democracy of the trade union movement.
Dr Cameron
Hear, hear. I agree with that well-made point. We are in a modern age and have to keep up with the times. That includes looking at all the options. All the evidence—not opinion—appears to show that the safety of online voting has not been undermined. It should be considered seriously.
Workplace ballots should be permitted for statutory union elections and ballots. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons. The procedure exists to give people choice. Fundamentally, that is what we need to do in this age. The public and society expect to have a choice of postal, workplace or electronic voting. They expect us to consider that seriously and rationally when we discuss these important issues.
According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way, particularly when ballots take place in the workplace. There has been a total of seven complaints about unfair practices by employers or unions during statutory recognition ballots since 2004, when new protections were introduced. Five of those complaints were made by unions and one by an employer, but none of the complaints was upheld. The Government indicate that electronic voting is not safe or that there should be caution. However, thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 secure online ballots annually.
Chris Stephens
Surely that is the point. These e-ballots are independently scrutinised. The trade union is not running the ballot; it is appointing an independent scrutineer to carry out the ballot on its behalf. I hope that will persuade others on this issue.
Dr Cameron
That is another well-made point. The report by Electoral Reform Services indicates that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting and that there are risks associated with both. Essentially, there will be a level of risk in any balloting process.
In conclusion, we are in a modern age and we want to engage people from all aspects of society. We must give people choice that is in line with their everyday lives. Yes, there has to be an element of caution, but that has to be evidence-based, not based on opinion. We have good evidence that electronic voting is already working in many spheres of our lives. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Julie Elliott
I will try to be brief. Amendment 39 addresses electronic communications in regard to political funds. Electronic communication is essential in order to hit the Bill’s deadlines. As I have said before, there are almost 6 million trade union members in this country, and to communicate effectively with that number of people, and to get them to participate in a ballot, purely through the post is unrealistic.
The Bill says “either personally” and several other things. I am not sure whether the Government understand the way in which trade union branches are organised. Small workplace branches at the end of the street or in a place of work are few and far between. I have been a member of various branches in my several decades as a member of three different trade unions. At certain times I have been a member of a workplace branch, a branch particular to Sunderland, as I am at the moment, and, for many years of my career, a national branch based in London. Are the Government suggesting that travelling to the other end of the country is a reasonable thing to expect someone to do?
In evidence last week the Government showed a misunderstanding of who trade unions represent. Quite a number of trade union members are retired, because people do not stop being a trade union member when they retire. By virtue of being a retired member of society, such people are on a very limited income. In fact, many members that trade unions represent are on very small incomes. Do we really expect those people to be left seriously out of pocket when fulfilling their legitimate right to take part in a ballot to decide whether they want a political fund?
Moving on, electronic communication is absolutely common working practice in 2015. In every other arena, this Government want people to communicate electronically. I sat in a Committee Room for many weeks during the proceedings of the Welfare Reform Bill of 2012, in which the then Government introduced online applications for universal credit and discussed them for many other benefits. The Government therefore think electronically is a reasonable way to communicate sensitive personal information, the secure transmission of which leads to people getting the money that they need to live on, but they do not deem electronic communication acceptable for the communication of whether someone wants to contribute to a political fund. A debate was held just yesterday about registering to vote, which involves incredibly sensitive information such as national insurance numbers and dates of birth, but the Government view the electronic transmission of such information as acceptable.
We have also talked about the acceptance of online banking in this country. The hon. Member for Henley did not take my intervention, but regarding the 48% increase in banking fraud, I wonder what figure that is a percentage of. I think the hon. Gentleman was a tax adviser in his former life, and most tax returns—what more sensitive information is there than a tax return?—are done online. It is unbelievable to say that electronic communication is not widely accepted, is insecure and does not transmit information that is far more sensitive than a trade union member’s indication of whether they want their union to have a political fund.
Moving on to e-balloting, ballots and getting them right are absolutely key. As has been said previously in Committee, the balloting process is crucial. Everyone wants the result as quickly as possible, and an accurate result is essential for all sides to feel that procedures have been adhered to properly. In the evidence sessions, Opposition Members explored the fact that internal political ballots take place all the time, including for the Conservative mayoral candidacy in London. I also have much experience in secure workplace balloting, which is commonplace for recognition voting under right to recognition legislation. It is up to trade unions, their members and employers to decide in which format they want a ballot to take place, which varies enormously depending on whether the workplace is nine-to-five with people sitting at computers all day or a shift-pattern, industrial workplace. The range of balloting arrangements is enormous, but certification officers are always happy with such arrangements, and there are few challenges.
Secure workplace balloting is less disruptive and is over much more quickly than the methods proposed in the Bill. Let us not forget that trade union members could be taking part in a ballot that could affect their income. Many trade union members are low-paid workers, so the decision to lose a day’s pay is a significant decision that they would not take lightly. From the employer’s side, the quicker that it gets a result and thus a conclusion to what will have been by that point protracted negotiations will be to the benefit of all. I really cannot see why the Government are so opposed to e-balloting or secure workplace balloting.
Surely the aim of any part of the Bill is to get the maximum participation possible. That is what it should encourage, in line with the compliance measures for thresholds earlier in the Bill. On the one hand, the Bill seems to say, “We absolutely want almost everybody to take part in the ballot,” but on the other hand, it says, “We want to do everything to discourage and dissuade people from taking part by putting every possible obstacle in place.” This morning, the Minister acknowledged indirectly that electronic communication in other parts of the Bill is acceptable. I struggle to understand the Government’s opposition to our amendment and new clauses.
Chris Stephens
Sir Edward, you said you are not a reader of The Guardian. This summer, I wrote a piece for the Morning Star—a newspaper I commend to all Members.
Chris Stephens
The article was about my thoughts on the first 10 weeks of Parliament. The headline was “Bizarre, Surreal, Orwellian”, which I think sums up quite nicely some of the arguments we hear from the supporters of the Bill, who talk about modernisation but will deny trade union members the right to use e-balloting.
I hope the Minister will explain why, in response to every written question I have asked him, a written answer comes back with a link to a website. If it is okay for him to do that to me, it is acceptable for a trade union to email its members with a link to a ballot paper. It is independently scrutinised. Companies such as Electoral Reform Services and MyVoice have been able to do that, and there have been no concerns about those ballots.
Nick Boles
Before getting into the meat of this, I start by emphasising how important line-by-line deliberation on the Bill is. We have been, and still are, very keen that every Opposition Member—it is particularly important for Opposition Members—can exploit that opportunity. We also, however, have a timetable agreed by the usual channels, and I am keen that all parts of the Bill, all amendments to it and all new clauses receive the same level of scrutiny, so that nobody can claim the Government somehow prevented the Bill from receiving that scrutiny. As a result, I will not deliver the more detailed response that had been prepared. My response will relate to the amendment and all the new clauses in this group, so that we can make some progress.
Where we started from in drafting the Bill was, in a very sense, very simple. We started by suggesting that all the new decisions we were asking union members to take should be communicated according to the existing methods provided in the legislation. It may have been naive of us to think that position would be unchallenged, but it was for no more sinister—the word used by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth—reasons than that. We were simply reflecting existing provisions in the Bill.
Since the Bill was published, there has been a great deal of debate in public, in evidence sessions and now in Committee about the question of alternative methods of voting—in particular, e-balloting. From the very first time that was raised, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that we have no objection in principle to online voting or e-balloting, as it is sometimes called. Indeed, I would go further: it would be extraordinary if, in 20 years’ time, most elections in most countries in the world on most questions of importance were not decided through electronic means of communication. Just as we have been willing to accept freely and openly the principle that that is a desirable state to move towards, it is important for Opposition Members not to be quite so dismissive of the practical objections that were so well highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley.
It is incredibly important to acknowledge that the Open Rights Group, which gave evidence to the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy that only reported in January this year, is not some Tory front organisation. These people are genuinely concerned about a genuine question at hand—the legitimacy, safety and security of voting. It is important that the Opposition do not dismiss those objections out of hand by plucking out examples of very different decisions and transactions. Specifically, the particular matter when it comes to voting is the need to ensure that the system that captures the data does not allow the person casting the vote to be identified. That does not apply to banking transactions. Once someone is inside the secure system, it is fine for any part of that system to know their identity; indeed, it is critical that the system should know their identity, so that the money is transferred out of and into the right account.
With voting, the system needs to be anonymous, to preserve the individual’s privacy and secrecy; but it must also be able to guarantee the identity of the individual—that they are indeed the voter claiming that vote. It must be accountable, to guard against malpractice and fraud.
Nick Boles
I will give way briefly, but I will not take many interventions.
Ian Mearns
I am very grateful to the Minister, but even with the traditional form of voting in a general or local election in this country, it is still quite easily possible for the returning officer to identify the way in which a particular voter has voted; because when they go to a polling station they are given a ballot paper on which there is a number. There is a counterfoil on which the individual identifying letters and numbers from the register are put down, which has the same number on it, and the person puts their ballot in the box. At a later stage the returning officer could, if they were so minded, identify the number, check back and see who cast that ballot.
Nick Boles
That may well be the case, and of course there are also problems with postal ballots; but pointing to problems of fraud and malpractice in other traditional voting systems does not necessarily give support to a move to an entirely uncharted voting system.
There is only one—I think I will put it in layman’s language—respectable democracy, which we would all admire, that uses online voting for elections. That is Estonia, and the reason it can do it is that they have identity cards there. It is much easier to see how a system could work in such a situation, but the Conservative party and, indeed, many Members in the Labour party, resisted identity cards as a profoundly un-British step, because we do not want anyone to march up to us and say “Ausweis, bitte.” That was why we resisted them; but it is hard to see how online voting could happen without identity cards.
We are not willing to make piecemeal or rushed decisions about possible ways of overcoming the practical objections that have been identified to online voting, e-balloting or online communication. However, we have been clear about our position on the principle. We are willing to go through those arguments in later stages of the Bill. I assure the Committee that there is at least as much interest in the question in the other place, where there will also be an opportunity for scrutiny of the Bill.
I have no doubt that at some future time the practical objections that I have outlined will be overcome. It is a matter of time and human ingenuity. I have no doubt that we will get there, and we are happy to work with all members of the Opposition, and all groups outside Parliament, to ensure that eventually we do get there. However, at this point I urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
Stephen Doughty
I hope the Minister will respond to a point on which he has not responded: the issue of secure workplace balloting. It already happens and is seen as a secure method for other elections, yet he seems to be ruling that out as well. Perhaps he did not mean to, and perhaps he will come to that. I do not know whether he wants to intervene on me now, but I would like to hear what he has to say.
Nick Boles
The hon. Gentleman is right, and I glided over that because I was trying to avoid getting bogged down in a long speech. I am actually less persuaded about that than I am about the principle of online voting in the future, once the practical objections have been overcome. That is because I believe that the process that is in place that allows workplace balloting for union recognition votes is an extremely laborious one, in terms of the qualified party, or whatever it is called, and everything else. I would have thought that the idea that people will have to go through that process any time they want to hold a strike ballot is far worse than sending people postal ballots.
Secondly, there is this idea that the problem of potential intimidation in workplace ballots does not exist with union recognition, but I do not think it is an absolutely equivalent situation. In a decision on trade union recognition, all employees are deciding whether to vote to accept the presence of a trade union in the workplace. The employer can observe who is voting, but not whether they want to join a trade union. That contrasts with industrial action ballots, in which those entitled to cast a vote are, by definition, members of a trade union and may not want to be observed by their employer participating in the ballot. It is hard to see how there can be workplace balloting without enabling the employer to work out who in their workforce is promoting industrial action. I am actually less persuaded of the merits of that argument.
I think I have made my point clear on all the amendments and new clauses. I urge the Committee to resist them all.
Stephen Doughty
I appreciate the Minister’s clarification, but I do not believe it stacks up. As we have made clear, there is a lot of support for our amendment from the trade unions that the Bill will affect, because they are entirely satisfied that the secure methods we have set out, including the security provisions—particularly given that they are used already—would enable them to conduct ballots safely and securely.
Stephen Doughty
I will give way, but I do not want to take too many interventions.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. Can he confirm that those organisations are doing that because they believe the turnout will be a lot higher if alternative methods of voting are used?
Stephen Doughty
I believe that is the case, because those organisations have the evidence for it. It was submitted in written evidence by a number of unions and in evidence to the consultations run by BIS. They made clear their experience of using those types of balloting methods and said that they feel secure with them. They also said that there is a very low incidence of claims of fraud or problems. As I said, none of the claims that were made—I think there have been only seven—was upheld.
Ian Mearns
Does my hon. Friend agree that the different forms of voting in a particular ballot are not mutually exclusive? Members of a union, prior to a ballot taking place, could easily inform the union about the way they would prefer to participate in the ballot. If, because of the reasons outlined by the Minister, they do not want to be seen to be voting in person in a secure workplace ballot, they would have the right to vote by post if they wished to do so.
Stephen Doughty
That is indeed the case. That is the very purpose of new clause 6, which would allow for so-called combination ballots. One, all or a combination of the different methods available could be used, depending on the practical circumstances of the organisation or union. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central set out clearly the different structures of the ways in which unions operate and the methods they might choose. Of course, employers are set up in many different ways. There are dispersed workforces and ones with a couple of out facilities. We need as many methods as possible to ensure the maximum participation.
This comes back to a very simple issue. If the Government are serious about increasing participation, democracy and the legitimacy of union engagement and decision making in society, most Committee members—and, I hope, the Minister, too—in their heart of hearts know, whatever they feel about the trade union movement, the Labour party and these issues in general, that this is not right. It will essentially prevent people in this country—we heard from the TUC that one in 10 people in this country may want to participate in such decision-making processes—from exercising their rights in the most sensible way possible. It will deny them the right to take part in decision making, and that cannot be right, given this House’s history of extending suffrage and the methods of voting, especially in this year, the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. I do not say that lightly: this is simply not right, and the Government are refusing to contemplate these matters.
I accept that there are arguments about how to make these methods secure—nobody is denying that—but we have examples of where they are used already. They are used in many other parts of public life. They are used, for example, by law firms. King & Wood Mallesons holds online votes for members’ resolutions, board directorships, adoption processes and partners. I am sure it would want to ensure that the people taking part in those votes could not be identified either, yet it managed to use these methods. Pinsent Masons is currently holding an online election for its managing partner. Chevron had an online directors’ election for its May 2015 pension plan decision. Those are all serious, regulated matters, with serious implications if things are done incorrectly or if there is fraud or a lack of security.
Nick Boles
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 10, page 6, line 44, leave out “Subsection (4) applies” and insert
“Subsections (4) and (5) apply”.
This is a drafting amendment linked to amendment 93.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 93.
Amendment 41, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
The amendment would remove the transitional provision which prevents unions three months after commencement of the provisions from collecting monies from members for political funds unless they have made a choice to contribute.
Amendment 40, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, leave out “three months” and insert “ten years”.
The amendment would extend the transitional provision from three months to 10 years after which unions would be unable to collect monies from members for the political fund unless they had made a choice to contribute.
Nick Boles
Amendment 92 is a drafting amendment linked to amendment 93, which deals with the withdrawal of an opt-in during the three-month transition period. The Bill provides that, during the three months after commencement, members who are already contributing to a political fund will be treated as having opted in under the new system. That will allow unions to continue to deduct political contributions from those members for three months. At the end of that period, unless members have chosen to contribute under the new arrangements, they will no longer be able to contribute.
Amendment 93 makes it clear that a notice to withdraw during the transition period will take effect at the end of the month after it is served, which will ensure that members who no longer wish to contribute can stop doing so during the time of transition. This is a minor amendment to ensure that notice to withdraw an opt-in from members who are already contributing will be in line with the new provisions.
Amendments 40 and 41 seek to remove the three-month transition period between the old and the new opt-in arrangements for political funds. Amendment 40 would replace “three months” with “ten years”, which would mean that the new opt-in system would not apply to those who already contribute for a whole decade. Members of trade unions would not be required to opt in for 10 years. It is of course important to give a reasonable amount of time to ensure a smooth transition from the current system, but 10 years is simply not reasonable.
Amendment 41, on the other hand, would mean that all current contributions ceased on the day that clause 10 came into effect. A union would not be able to collect any funds until a member had actively opted in, which would be very extreme. Our transitional period strikes a balance. The purpose of the three-month transitional provision is to give unions and members a reasonable period to move to the new arrangements. We do not seek for contributions to cease from day one. Unions will still be able to collect funds for three months and members will have three months to put their new opt-ins in place.
Stephen Doughty
I intend to be brief. I do not have a lot to say about Government amendments 92 and 93, which, as the Minister pointed out, are minor. Given that we oppose the principle of this clause and what the Government are trying to do, I do not feel the need to say much more.
I want to speak briefly to amendment 40 on extending the transitional period. We will likely return to this issue on Report or in the other place. It is out of the ordinary for the Government to introduce such a short transitional period for extremely major measures that affect the funding and operations of trade unions’ political funds and other matters. We heard in oral evidence, and probably on Second Reading, that England has had two years to prepare for the introduction of the 5p plastic bag tax, so why, in such major legislation, are we being given only three months?
Ian Mearns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even after two years, the 5p plastic bag tax is not being operated correctly by many, many places of sale.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister says that 10 years is far too extreme, but amendment 40 is a probing amendment. Will he explain the reasoning, so that if we return to this issue, we can understand the Government’s full intent? What justification is there for a three-month transitional period? What other example is there of such major legislation allowing only three months to transition? Again, this looks like a deliberate attempt to frustrate legitimate adherence to the law by trade unions and other organisations. This is just another pile on top of a whole bunch of sinister regulations. The Government would not dream of doing this to any other part of business or to anyone else, claiming as they do to be the party of deregulation. There is one standard for the trade unions and one part of our civil society and another standard for others, including the Government and their own provisions—we have heard about plastic bags. I would like the Minister to explain that point, to which we will undoubtedly return at a later stage.
Amendment 92 agreed to.
Amendment made: 93, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) During the period of three months beginning with the commencement date (“the transitional period”), the member is treated as a contributor to the fund for the purposes of the 1992 Act (as amended by this Act).
This is subject to subsection (5).
(5) If during the first two months of the transitional period the member gives an exemption notice as mentioned in section 84(1) of the 1992 Act, as it had effect immediately before the commencement date, subsection (4) ceases to apply to the member at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the notice is given.”—(Nick Boles.)
The existing transitional provision, in subsection (4) of clause 10, treats union members who on the commencement date had not opted out of contributing as having opted in under the new provisions, for a period of three months. The amendment enables such people to opt out of contributing during this period.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, leave out “£2,000” and insert “£100,000”.
The amendment would raise the threshold for providing details of items of political expenditure in a union’s annual return to the Certification Officer from £2,000 to £100,000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 45, in clause 11, page 7, leave out lines 18 to 24 and insert
“shall report the overall amount of expenditure in a year to any one organisation.”
The amendment would require a union’s annual return on political expenditure to the Certification Officer to report the overall amount of expenditure.
Amendment 98, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Stephen Doughty
I do not intend to detain the Committee long on this clause, but it concerns an important matter. Despite what the Minister might think, trade unions play a vital role in a dynamic British economy and are an integral stitch in the treasured patchwork of society. Whether they are standing up for workers’ jobs in Redcar or trying to save British steel making, trade unions are more important now than ever before. They play a pivotal role right across the UK in the work of organisations such as HOPE not hate, which has done incredible work in my constituency on electoral registration and tackling extremism. Clause 11 seeks to interfere with and limit that role.
One might conclude that clause 11 on its own sounds reasonable and simply ensures increased transparency. However, alongside the changes the Government made in the previous Parliament in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014—we call it the gagging Act—it forms part of a wider attack on our democracy. The 2014 Act has hit charities and campaigners hard, limiting their right to fight for important causes while allowing professional lobbyists and their funding to escape scrutiny. Expert organisations that have a vital contribution to make have been left unsure whether they are allowed to speak out, use funds and so on. The Government should not be afraid of criticism or lively debate. As I have said before, the Trade Union Bill is simply a dodgy sequel to the gagging Act.
Clause 11 provides the certification officer with new, wide-ranging powers to investigate how unions’ political funds are used and where the money goes. If the clause is accepted, a union will be required as part of its annual return to report to the certification officer on how all the expenditure from its political fund has been used, who it was paid to and for what purpose. The categories of spending include contributions to or the payment of expenses for a political party, provision of services or property for use by or on behalf of any political party, funding of a ballot by a union in connection with election to political office, the funding of conferences or meetings by or on behalf of a political party and party political electioneering material or products.
This clause, alongside so many other measures, will simply create significant new administrative burdens for trade unions, wrapping them further up in the blue tape that we have mentioned many times previously. It will also enable the Government to monitor how trade unions spend their resources and will invite additional public scrutiny, as political fund expenditure is likely to be published on the certification officer’s website alongside a union’s annual membership return. Therefore, will the rules apply to not only unions, but employers associations?
I want the Minister to explain the clause’s purpose, because much of the information is already out there in the public domain. I have referred to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests before, and it is clear where donations have been made. Trade union money is extremely transparent. The Labour party reports on it and the Electoral Commission looks at it. To comply with the other Acts that I have referred to, trade unions often make what they are spending very clear. USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear” campaign was captured by that last year because it was in the long period running up to a general election. I want to understand the real purpose behind the clause.
Let me turn to amendment 44. The new requirement to report to the certification officer on political fund expenditure will apply to unions spending more than £2,000 a year from a political fund. Clause 11, which will insert new section 32ZB(3) in the 1992 Act, will permit the Government to increase, but not to reduce, the threshold through regulations. Again, as with so many other examples in the Bill, we have not seen those regulations. Amendment 44 would increase the minimum threshold over which unions are required to report on items of political expenditure from £2,000 to £100,000. It is about reasonableness and balance. It is about allowing as much scrutiny as possible, but not overly intrusively interfering in the operation of these organisations.
Julie Elliott
I have two brief points to make, because I know we are short of time. I want to speak in support of our amendments. The proposals in the clause are over-bureaucratic and, quite frankly, over-intrusive into the workings of trade unions.
The money raised in political funds is the most regulated money in politics anywhere in the world. It is transparent. If anyone looks at trade unions’ returns, they will see where the money has come from and where it is spent. To get to the level of declaring exactly what under £2,000 is spent on is absolutely ridiculous. Trade unions make other declarations and people make declarations about where trade union money is spent, and that links into the political funds. It is not just the political funds that have to make declarations; the Electoral Commission also gets spending declarations from trade unions.
A candidate who gets support from a trade union over a certain amount of money has to declare that to the commission. Election returns to returning officers throughout the country will also clearly state when trade unions have spent money on specific campaigns. What the clause asks for is already in the public domain, so I think it is nothing but politically motivated.
Ian Mearns
As my hon. Friend stated, information on all the funds that go directly from trade unions to political parties for campaigning is already open and transparent. What this clause does is put a fetter on trade unions’ other political spending for campaigns that will be imposed on no other part of civil society. I do not understand what is special about trade unions as membership organisations as opposed to organisations such as the women’s institute or the Mothers’ Union. It is an odd situation where a trade union has to be fettered to the extent that it has to release detail about every single campaign that it is involved in.
Julie Elliott
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I have said, there is no reason for this clause other than political motivation. If the Conservative party in government wants to look at how political parties are funded, I urge it to use the system of all-party talks that has worked for decades.
Nick Boles
I will try to reassure Opposition Members on a few points. They seem to be suggesting that this is somehow an egregious singling out of trade unions to require a level of transparency that does not apply to anyone else.
First, let me assure the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that employers associations will be covered by the provisions in clause 11. Even more importantly, companies are already required to declare the details of spending on political activity above £2,000 per annum and have been for a long time. To require the same of trade unions therefore does not seem unfair or unreasonable.
There is currently inconsistency in the level of detail provided in union returns on political expenditure. Some unions are transparent and provide detailed information in their annual returns to the certification officer. We want the example of those unions that provide clear information to be followed by all. That is why we propose that where political expenditure is more than £2,000 per annum, expenditure should be broken down to detail the different items of spending. An equivalent provision applies to companies.
Jo Stevens
It seems implicit from what the Minister has just said that the Government believe that some trade unions are not being transparent in their declarations. Is there any evidence to back up that assertion?
Nick Boles
We want to ensure that all unions are declaring everything above £2,000, which is what the provision states, and currently not all unions do so. Amendments 44 and 45 would undermine the transparency that the clause seeks to achieve.
Let me turn to amendment 98. We propose that the Secretary of State may make regulations to increase the amount from £2,000. That will ensure the legislation is future-proofed. The regulations will not allow the amount to be decreased, which would make the provisions more onerous; it can only be increased. I am a little puzzled by the shadow Minister’s concerns, because all that would do is change the level of granularity required in trade unions’ declarations to reflect either inflation or changing circumstances in society. I therefore him urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Cameron
I beg to move amendment 106, in clause 12, page 8, line 12, leave out “how many” and insert “the percentage”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, in clause 12, page 8, line 13, leave out from first “officials” to the end of line 24 and insert “; and
(b) the total amount spent by an employer in a specified period on paying relevant union officials for facility time.”.
Amendment 107, in clause 12, page 8, line 14, leave out “total amount” and insert “percentage”.
Amendment 108, in clause 12, page 8, line 24, at end insert
“and whether these are met in part or in full by a contribution from a trade union”.
Amendment 74, in clause 12, page 8, line 24, at end insert—
“(f) a reasonable estimate of the cost savings to the employer of the arrangements relating to facility time in the relevant specified period; and
(g) a statement agreed by the employers and the relevant unions of the value of the arrangements relating to facility time.”.
Amendment 109, in clause 12, page 8, line 24, at end insert—
“(f) the percentage of relevant union officials whose facility time is met by a contribution from a trade union in whole or in part”.
Amendment 50, in clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert?
‘(12) No regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”.
The amendment would change the regulation-making power from the negative to the affirmative procedure, requiring approval by both Houses of Parliament before regulations could come into force.
Dr Cameron
Our amendments relate to transparency and proportionality and ensuring that proportions are reported statistically, rather than in raw statistics, which may lead to the misinterpretation of what is reported. That is their basic aim.
Facility time is extremely important, as we have discussed. In regard to concerns about patient safety, facility time facilitates agreement. It means that management and the staff side can agree the times of meetings and ensures that they are not adjourned and repeatedly moved because people do not have time to attend. That reduces the impact on the workforce and disruption to the organisation.
I will be brief. Amendment 106 would require employers to report annually on the percentage, rather than the total number, of employees who are union officials. The amendment would avoid misrepresentation and highlight that union officials represent a very small proportion of the total public sector workforce.
Amendment 108 would require public sector employers to report annually on whether unions have contributed towards the costs of facilities and on the number of union officials employed by any public authority.
Amendment 107 would require public sector employers to report annually on the percentage of spending that is invested in trade union facilities, rather than on the total amount spent on union facilities. The aim of the amendment is to highlight the proportion of total spending invested by public authorities in trade union facilities. It is very low and represents significant value for money for business and workers.
Partnership arrangements between public sector employers and unions create significant benefits for everybody, including the wider public. The importance of such arrangements lies in the fact that they are creating safer working environments for employees, and that means that fewer days are lost to sickness and occupational injuries. They also mean that meetings are scheduled so that disputes can be resolved extremely quickly.
Stephen Doughty
The Government have an air of greater relaxation now that they realise they have their full team here. I will comment not just on my amendments in the group, but also on those of the SNP and on clause 12 more generally.
The proposals in clause 12 have the fingerprints of Lord Maude of Horsham all over them, because they mirror the measures implemented in Whitehall Departments by the Cabinet Office in 2012-13. Departments were expected to carry out more detailed monitoring and reporting of facility time, to report quarterly to the Cabinet Office, and to publish annually how much was spent on facility time. The Cabinet Office issued a guide figure for spending on facility time; in the first year, it was 0.1% of the pay bill. That included all facility time, time for health and safety representatives, and time for union learning representatives, who I believe we heard elsewhere had been funded, in fact, by the Government.
I will endeavour not to touch too much upon the arguments that will be made in response to Government new clause 11, which I know we will come to in due course, regarding check-off. But in tabling new clause 12, the Government are seeking to go much, much further than the measures they have already introduced, as it would provide the Government with the power to require all public sector employers—hospitals, schools and many more—to publish information each year on the amount of funds used for trade union facilities. This information would include the number of union officials employed, or the number of union officials within specified categories, for example shop stewards, health and safety representatives and union learning representatives; the amount of money that the employer spends on facility time, including what percentage of the total pay bill it constitutes; the amount of facility time spent on specific duties or activities, including health and safety, and accompanying members in grievance and disciplinary hearings; and information relating to facilities provided by the employer in connection with facility time, for example office space and the use of phone lines.
It is important to remind the Committee—as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow has just done—what facility time is and why it is so vital. Facility time is the amount of time that workplace representatives, shop stewards, learning representatives, and health and safety representatives can spend representing their members in the public sector. These are people who do hard graft on the front line to protect their members’ interests effectively, for example by raising safety standards or promoting access to skills and training, and, of course, accompanying individuals to grievance and disciplinary hearings, which is crucial.
The benefits of facility time are clear, and not just for the employees but for the employers. I have experienced that myself. I worked at one point for Oxfam, which had a trade union representative who was able to use facility time, for example, to work with me—I was a manager at the time—in dealing with redundancy processes and other matters, to ensure that they were carried out to the benefit of both the employer and the employees, and so that everybody was satisfied.
Workplaces that have good facility time are likely to have better family-friendly policies and more effective equality policies, and indeed they are also likely to be safer workplaces. These workplaces also had lower voluntary exit rates, which led to an estimated saving in recruitment costs for employers of between £22 million and £43 million per annum. Negotiations between employers and unions can also facilitate innovation and change in furtherance of mutual objectives, and trade unions can also play a positive role in promoting skills, upskilling and training in workplaces, which I am sure the Government would wish to see increasing.
Also, where organisations face difficult economic conditions, or indeed the challenges that we face in the public sector with the type of changes and cuts that the Government have brought in, union representatives can develop fair processes for managing redundancies and restructuring. Clearly, there have been many examples of that in both the public sector and the private sector, particularly since the economic crisis of 2008. Constructive negotiations have taken place with a view to saving jobs and retaining skilled employment.
Ian Mearns
Another role that trade union officials can play is a welfare role. Many good employers are very good at looking after the welfare of their employees, but there are occasions when an individual will want to keep a welfare concern confidential from their employer, because they are concerned that the employer’s esteem for them could be damaged by it. In those circumstances, the care that the union can provide, in terms of looking after the welfare of the individual member, can be good for the employee and union member, and also good in the long term for the employer.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I believe that business, the public sector and society are mutually dependent—I am sure my hon. Friends agree with that—and that all succeed when individual workers succeed and feel supported, and vice versa. The MacLeod report, which was commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and endorsed by the Prime Minister, suggested that managers should listen to concerns expressed by employees and their representatives, and concluded that addressing those concerns would increase levels of employee engagement, thereby helping to deliver sustainable economic growth—and, I am sure, efficiencies in the public sector.
Similarly, research by ACAS found that trade union representatives play an important role in improving workforce engagement and morale, by helping ensure that employees’ concerns about their working conditions are listened to and addressed. In turn, that can improve productivity, service quality and ultimately—a crucial point for the Government—the financial performance of organisations. All of those mutual benefits and many more could be at risk if the Government’s proposals on facility time are implemented in their current form.
I am pleased that other Governments across the UK have a different view from that of the Westminster Government. As we heard, the Welsh Government realise the value of such benefits. Their relations with trade unions are based much more on a partnership approach—the Scottish Government take a similar approach—rather than being provocateurs, which seems to be the position that some of the Minister’s colleagues have comfortably slipped into.
The proposed restrictions on facility time could damage constructive employment relations and undermine effective joint working between employers and unions in public services. The proposals also risk damaging the devolution settlement—we had a lengthy debate on that the other day—and could be subject to serious legal challenge. They are not a model for modern industrial relations, which is why we will oppose the clause.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the SNP, and if they are pressed to a Division they will certainly get our support. The amendments represent a more useful and effective way of looking at facility time, and we agree with many of the concerns the SNP has raised.
Amendment 46 would mean that public sector employers would be required to publish only the number of union officials employed and the total amount invested in facility time, rather than more detailed breakdowns of those figures. Amendment 74 would require public sector employers to provide the cost savings of facility time. If the Government proceed with further punitive measures, it is important that public sector employers should explain the cost savings that are driven by facility time so that we have full transparency.
Amendment 50 concerns the process by which any regulations are agreed. We need to ensure maximum scrutiny of any regulations on this matter. We have already seen the Government attempt to sneak in all sorts of things through the back door with the Bill: they have not published regulations or brought out the responses to consultations, which should have happened before we were in Committee. Amendment 50 would ensure that future regulations requiring public sector employers to publish information on facility time would have to be debated in both Houses. The Government currently plan to use the negative procedure for such regulations, so there would be no debate unless the regulations were prayed against. Given the rushed nature of the consultation, and of parts of the current scrutiny process, I am sure many people outside this place would agree that any future regulations deserve much more adequate scrutiny so that we can get to the bottom of what the Government are trying to do.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on the clause and on the amendments we have tabled.
Jo Stevens
The proposals on facility time illustrate the lack of understanding we have seen from the Government about how trade unions operate and the benefits they deliver, not just for their members but for employers. There has been precious little evidence given for the attack on facility time in the Bill, as we saw when unevidenced assertions were presented by the witness from the TaxPayers Alliance last week.
I will talk about two aspects relating to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. My first point is a general one about facility time, in the health service in particular. In 2007, the then Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform looked at the issue as a precursor to revising the ACAS code of practice on facility time for union reps. If the Minister had compiled a report such as that one before the Bill was drafted, he would have found that union reps make a significant contribution to increasing productivity, making their workplaces safer, reducing the costs of recruitment and helping business to become more responsive to change, by helping staff acquire new skills in addition to updating those they already have. That report showed tens of millions of pounds of savings to employers and the Exchequer by reducing the number of employment tribunal cases, although I will admit that the Government have done a pretty good job on that by introducing tribunal fees and pricing people out of access to justice. The report also showed the benefits to society worth hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of reducing working days lost due to workplace injury and work-related illness. Follow-up research by the TUC pointed to overall productivity gains worth between £4 billion and £12 billion to the UK economy.
More recent research carried out for the Royal College of Nursing by the University of Warwick and Cass Business School backed up the 2007 report. The analysis found that work carried out by trade union representatives in NHS organisations was estimated to save the health service at least £100 million a year. In times of such constrained public finances, facility time is estimated to save large teaching hospitals £1 million a year. The RCN is unequivocal that, aside from the financial cost of high staff turnover when the NHS is already struggling to recruit and retain enough staff, removing effective union representation could have,
“a significant impact on patient safety.”
Janet Davies of the RCN, who we heard from last week, went on to say:
“The health service can ill-afford further damage to staff morale, or to squander even more money on recruitment costs. The trade union bill is bad for staff, employers and most importantly it is bad for patients.”
The RCN is on the front line of service delivery and understands the practical impact the Bill would have. The Labour party is inclined to listen to it.
I want to briefly mention the health and safety representatives and the impact of the Bill on their valuable work. There is, of course, a legal duty on employers to give health and safety representatives as much paid time off as they need to undertake their duties. That is laid down in regulations and it is absolute. The regulations do not say that an employer can decide to restrict that time. If a representative needs it, they need it, and that will vary from week to week, but the Bill says that any public sector employer who has at least one health and safety representative will have to record and publish all the time taken and the facilities provided. That is bureaucratic and pointless, and will just mean that employers and union representatives will have to spend a significant amount of time on paperwork.
Even more dangerous is the proposal to allow Ministers to restrict the rights to time off given to union health and safety representatives by amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. All they have to do is introduce new regulations. The proposal is extremely vindictive and underhand, sneaking in the right to do this, by statutory instrument, into a much wider Bill. At no time have the Government given any justification for that proposal.
Union health and safety reps save hundreds of lives and prevent tens of thousands of injuries and illnesses to working people. Workplaces with union health and safety reps and joint health and safety committees have half the serious injury rates of those without. Any reasonable employer welcomes the presence of health and safety representatives, including almost all those in the public sector. That is why this proposal will not save money or remove bureaucracy—nor, more importantly, will it improve safety in workplaces. It has the potential to do the opposite.
Before coming to this House, I represented many people who had suffered the death of a family member in workplaces without health and safety reps, I ask the Minister, please, to seriously consider the proposal.
Chris Stephens
I wish to speak in favour of my party’s amendments. First, information gathering has to be consistent, and information has to be presented in a consistent fashion. Our real fear about the clause is that it is deliberately designed to ensure that the information presented puts the trade union movement in a bad light. It is the percentage in each of the subsections that should apply, because that is the most relevant and consistent measure. The statistics need to be clear so that people really understand what the cost to employers is in percentage terms.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff Central indicated, part of the debate has been shaped by the TaxPayers Alliance, using freedom of information legislation. Part of the problem with that is that the answer often depends on what questions are asked and how they are asked. It is ironic that that organisation has flourished at a cost to the taxpayer through its use of FOIs.
Nick Boles
I apologise again for arriving late, due to a misunderstanding about the time at which we had been requested to return. We will try to make as rapid progress as possible to make up for it.
The Chair
Order. On that point, it is the convention—I have been in the House for many years—that when the Chair says 15 minutes from the last Division, he normally means 15 minutes from the start of the Division. I do not want to embarrass anyone, but just so we know where we stand in future.
Nick Boles
Thank you, Sir Edward. We are all relative newcomers in this place, so it is good to learn.
There is less difference between the Government and the Opposition than Opposition Members have tried to make out. They have made an eloquent defence of union learning representatives, health and safety representatives and other union officials who perform union duties in the workplace. No one on the Government Benches disagrees with the value that such people add to their workplaces or the extent to which they can help ensure that workplaces are safe, while also offering opportunities for people to advance and progress.
If you listened only to the speeches of Opposition Members, Sir Edward, you would have concluded that somehow we were banning facility time. All we are seeking to ensure, however, is that there is transparency about facility time. Conservative Members, previously in coalition and now as a Government on our own, passionately believe in the power of transparency to lead to good decisions. Transparency gives the public who pay our salaries and those of everyone in the public sector—the public should truly be referred to as the employers in the public sector—an ability to make a reasonable judgment about whether public sector bodies are managing their money well. The public are absolutely capable of understanding the arguments about the value of health and safety and learning representatives in the workplace.
Chris Stephens
The Minister indicated that he is not minded to ban facility time, or that that is not his intention. Is he therefore indicating that he will withdraw clause 13 of the Bill?
Nick Boles
No, I am not, because clause 13 does not ban facility time. It would take a reserve power—one that we would not like to use and would only use reluctantly—to cap the amount that can be spent on facility time, which is a very different thing from banning it altogether.
Stephen Doughty
I wanted to ask a similar question. I am incredulous that the Minister is asking us to believe that he is introducing a reserve power, which is very wide ranging, without the intention of using it, in particular given what we know about what happens in Whitehall Departments. They want to get as much information on the table so that the Government can then step in and cap things. Is that not what the Government are trying to do?
Nick Boles
I understand that the hon. Gentleman will always think the worst of us and that I am probably not going to be able to persuade him otherwise. If we wanted to do that, however, why are we not introducing a cap now? We have a figure based on the civil service—we introduced transparency on facility time, which produced a substantial drop in the amount of public money spent on facility time—and we could perfectly well introduce a cap now. We even probably have the votes for it, but we are not doing so, and the reason why we are not doing so is that we do not want to go there. We do not want to have to resort to that. We want transparency to do the work that Conservative Members have consistently always believed that transparency does.
It is getting late, so I shall turn to the detail of the amendments. The Government want to promote transparency and public scrutiny of facility time, and encourage public sector employers to moderate the amount of taxpayers’ money they spend on such time in the light of that scrutiny. At a time of fiscal consolidation, it is unacceptable for taxpayers’ money to be spent on facility time without proper monitoring and controls.
Amendment 46 seeks to limit the range of publishable information to two figures: the total number of union representatives and the total cost of facility time. The Government resist those limitations. We have already seen the success of the reforms to facility time in the civil service. The percentage of the civil service pay bill spent on facility time has fallen by three quarters, representing a saving for taxpayers to date of more than £52 million. I have not heard reports of a lack of access to learning representatives or health and safety representatives in civil service workplaces. All employers whose spending on facility time is funded by taxpayers should be held to the same scrutiny. Taxpayers deserve that.
Nick Boles
I will make some progress, because we have had a good debate. I want to ensure that we make progress and get everybody home.
It is particularly important to monitor the amount of time spent on trade union activities, for which there is no legal right to paid time off work. I repeat: trade union activities are different from trade union duties. We all accept the not only legitimate but socially important and economically valuable role of trade union duties, but that is different from trade union activities. Public sector employers and the taxpayers who pay them must be able to distinguish between such activities and business or employee-facing trade union duties, for which there is a legal right to paid time off work.
We also consider that the percentage of public sector employers’ pay bill that is for facility time should not be omitted. Simply providing a total cost would not allow benchmarking against other public sector employers or the private sector, and would be almost meaningless on its own. The publication of the cost of union representatives’ use of their employers’ facilities should not be left out either. It can include the provision of telephones, photocopiers and dedicated office space. All public sector employers need to ensure that such use, to which there is no general legal right, is appropriate and represents value for taxpayers’ money.
Amendment 74 seeks to expand the range of information that relevant public sector employers are required to publish. They would have to estimate and publish the cost savings made from their existing facility time arrangements. They would also have to agree with relevant unions and publish a statement of the value of those arrangements. We recognise that union representatives play important roles in the workplace, which include dealing with disputes locally and effectively, helping to keep workplaces safe and meeting employees’ learning needs. We also recognise that many union representatives give their own time in addition to facility time to support their colleagues both individually and collectively, but where facility time is publicly funded, employers and unions must ensure it is spent as efficiently as possible.
The Government are confident that our proposals will deliver efficiency savings. A reduction in spending on facility time across the wider public sector to levels similar to the civil service currently would deliver estimated savings of around £150 million annually—£150 million that could be spent on employing more nurses, on schools and on better serving the people who elect us to this place.
Stephen Doughty
Given that the Minister wants to publish costs, why is he not willing to accept our amendment, which would ensure that the economic value provided by facility time is also made clear? If he does not want to introduce this cap but wants all the information and the facts out there, what could be wrong with our amendments?
Nick Boles
I have absolutely no objection to any employer trying to estimate such figures and publishing them. The difficulty is that the cost of facility time is a fact that will already be in the system of any employer. Employers know who they employ. They know how much employees are paid and therefore how much their time is worth, as well as what time they are spending on their job and on union duties and activities. The hon. Gentleman is asking employers to project or estimate values, because that value is not captured. Nobody is paying for it, and there is no customer putting a price on it. I am not saying the value is not real; the value is very real, but it is not automatically captured. We are trying not to place in straitened times a huge burden of calculation, projection and estimation on public sector employers. We want them to be able to focus on spending taxpayers’ money on the things taxpayers employ us to do, such as run hospitals, schools and the like.
Ian Mearns
I cannot help feeling that in the past couple of minutes the Minister has encapsulated what an awful lot of people have thought about the Conservative party for an awful long time: they know the cost of everything, but the value of very little.
Nick Boles
I said this right at the start and will repeat it: I work incredibly closely with Unionlearn. Last night, after the House rose, I was at an event with the person who runs Unionlearn. It is a terrific organisation. It is absolutely integral to our plans to increase the number of people with access to apprenticeships. I do not need anyone to tell me how valuable that work is, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a good use of public sector organisations’ time to be producing reports estimating that value. Just make the argument; they are making the argument very well. As I say, the restrictions on facility time in the civil service have not produced great reports of a lack of availability of health and safety or union learning advice in the civil service. They have just brought a welcome reduction in the amount of money spent on the less justifiable union activities that are not protected by the law and do not produce the kind of value that the hon. Gentleman argues we should appreciate.
Chris Stephens
The Minister mentioned two figures: first a £52 million saving and then a £150 million target saving, which I think alarmed many of us on the Opposition Benches. Will he break down those figures for the Committee and explain how they were arrived at?
Nick Boles
I would be very happy to ask the Cabinet Office to circulate that information. The £150 million is an estimate of what saving might be achieved if the wider public sector made the same sort of journey that the civil service has made since the introduction of transparency on facility time.
On amendment 50, the Government consider that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate and would provide the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The regulations in question will impose publication requirements on different categories of relevant public sector employer. For example, the Secretary of State for Health will make regulations imposing publication requirements on NHS employers.
The negative resolution process is also appropriate for the power to add a body that is not a public authority but is to be treated as such for the purposes of the publication requirements. The power will not be used to bring into scope private or voluntary sector providers of contracted-out public services. Nor is it our intention to apply the publication requirements to private individuals, companies, partnerships or the like.
Subsection (9) of clause 12 will enable the power to be used only where the body has functions of a public nature and is funded wholly or partly from public funds. Both of those conditions have to be true. Specifying such a level of detail in the Bill enables the scrutiny that is now taking place.
Stephen Doughty
May I ask a very specific question? The Minister just said that the Secretary of State for Health would make regulations relating to facility time in the health service. Does not that expose the problem with the devolution settlement that we have described in the debates on earlier measures? Is the Minister suggesting that the Secretary of State for Health will make regulations that affect facility time in the health services of Scotland and Wales, which are wholly devolved and under the control of Health Ministers in those countries?
Nick Boles
Yes, because, of course, health policy and the management of the NHS in those countries will remain, as part of the devolution settlements, in the control of the Governments of those devolved—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I disagree with it. There is no question on that point.
On amendment 106, the aim of the publication requirements is to provide transparency to the taxpayers who fund the arrangements. The information published must therefore be relevant and accessible and lend itself to comparison across categories of public sector employers. Publishing the total number of union representatives is simpler for employers and accessible to the public. It is completely reasonable to assume that, where an employer values its representatives, it will know who they are and therefore their number. If taxpayers require comparison on a percentage basis to consider the publication fully, they can scrutinise the publication of the percentage of the total paybill that is spent on facility time. That figure will give a clear indication of how much resource in the organisation is used for facility time, which will provide comparison between organisations of different sizes.
Amendment 107 would replace the requirement to publish the total amount spent by an employer on facility time with the percentage of the total cost of facility time to the employer, including that funded by the trade unions. Amendment 108 would add that information to the publication requirements, but without also requiring the removal of the requirement to publish the total amount spent on facility time.
Together with the reserve powers in clause 13, the publication requirements deliver our manifesto commitment to tighten the rules on taxpayer-funded paid facility time. Where taxpayers fund facility time, as they do in the public sector, they deserve to have transparency about how much it costs. Providing the total cost will allow them to scrutinise spending, at both an employer level and a national or sector-wide level.
Jo Stevens
The Minister mentioned facility time to attend union conferences. I do not think that is correct, and I seek clarification from the Minister.
Nick Boles
If I have information to give the hon. Lady now, I will do so before I reach the end of this speech, but if I do not, I will write to the Committee before our next meeting so that the matter can be raised if there are further questions.
Including information that the trade union would need to calculate whether it pays for its own representatives does not improve transparency about what is happening with taxpayers’ money, because taxpayers are not funding the union’s contribution. If the trade unions want to supplement an employer’s publication by providing information of their own, we would welcome that move towards transparency. Our purpose is to ensure that taxpayers receive value for their money, and placing such a requirement on the trade unions would not meet that aim.
Chris Stephens
Surely it would benefit the taxpayer if public sector employers could demonstrate that trade unions made a contribution, whether to the office, to utilities or even, as I indicated, to the salaries of trade union reps who hold senior office in the trade union.
Nick Boles
I was very clear that we strongly encourage unions to make that information available where it is true. As the requirements on transparency for the taxpayer’s contribution to funding union duties and activities come through, I am sure unions will also want to present their contribution to those valuable roles, and they have every right to do so. However, it would not be right to place on taxpayers the requirement to prepare and publish that information. Ultimately, taxpayers do not pay that money to do the trade unions’ job of publication for them.
Finally—I hope this answers the question that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central asked about whether facility time has ever covered conference attendance—civil service transparency in the past few years showed that conference attendance by union officials was paid for by Departments in some cases. I will send the Committee the details of those cases, and I will circulate them to Members. There were cases of it in the past.
Ian Mearns
The provisions in the clause take us beyond the civil service. What happens in the civil service is different from what happens in other public sector areas.
Nick Boles
And the beauty of transparency is that it will reveal all, and if there are no problems and if nothing is unjustified, the public will be reassured and I will be entirely delighted. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw their amendment.
The Chair
Order. The House has now adjourned. I can go on all evening, but of course it is up to hon. Members, some of whom have very long journeys. You can speak for as long as you like, but it is up to you.
Stephen Doughty
Sir Edward, I do not intend to detain the Committee for very long at all. I hope we can come to a conclusion quickly. I am still intrigued by the cat that the Minister let slip out of the bag, which is that the Secretary of State for Health or perhaps the Secretary of State for Education might exercise the powers that we will discuss when we come to clause 13 to cap facility time. It would be helpful if the Minister wrote to the Committee before we debate clause 13 to indicate who will use the information contained in clause 12 and who will apply the powers in clause 13. The devolved Governments of the UK will take a keen interest in that, as will other members of the Committee. Will the Minister undertake to write to us to clarify that before we get to clause 13?
Stephen Doughty
Excellent. I do not intend to press our amendments to a vote at this stage, but we may well return to them later. However, there are serious implications. We must not forget what we have discussed and the benefit that facility time can provide.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow wish to sum up?
Dr Cameron
I think it is quite startling for the Minister to say that he wishes for transparency and for the public to understand the proportionality of the measures, without agreeing that they should know the proportions and the percentages. That appears incongruous to me. It is important to have transparency, which is why the SNP wishes the public to know the full picture. We wish them to see what is contributed by unions and the percentage of time that is spent. As we all know, figures by themselves can look large or misleading, and people can read into them things that are not there. The public need to know the proportions.
The public have also raised in surveys their deep concern about safety issues. We take that seriously, and we feel that facility time must be encouraged. As I said, facility time is not something that unions often do without agreement from employers. Employers know that it is good value for money. They know that it means that disputes are brought to much speedier agreement, and that investing in their staff and in a safer workplace environment leads to learning and happier staff and fewer sick days, and is better for business.
The public are not asking for the measures. The devolved Governments are not asking for the measures. Certainly managers in business are not specifically requesting them. I find it extremely disingenuous of the Government, as I have said, to suggest that they want transparency and proportionality but not to allow the public to know the proportions. Therefore, it is important that we press our amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Stephens
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 12, page 8, line 37, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 8, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).
The amendment would remove safety representatives from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the publication requirements in relation to facility time.
Amendment 100, in clause 12, page 8, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 48, in clause 12, page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
The amendment would remove safety representatives from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the publication requirements in relation to facility time.
Amendment 102, in clause 13, page 9, line 45, leave out paragraph (b).
Chris Stephens
Amendment 110 would remove learning representatives and health and safety representatives from the information requirement. We return to the debate about what the problem is. Is it a pressing issue that people are concerned about use of public money, or is it just pandering to the agenda of the Taxpayers’ Alliance? Again, we have outlined the benefits of learning representatives to other employees, not just trade union members, and of safety representatives to ensuring safety at work. That is a serious issue on which we have advanced by leaps and bounds. Our amendment is clear: learning reps and health and safety reps should be taken out of the requirement to publish information.
Stephen Doughty
I will speak to amendments 47, 100, 48 and 102. It is important to consider who is covered by clause 12 so that we understand the sorts of roles that are affected. We have already had a lengthy debate on this subject, but it is important that the Committee knows that, for example, the Fire Brigades Union trains highly qualified serious accident investigators, who work with fire authorities to investigate incidents in which, tragically, firefighters have been killed on duty, in order to identify and implement service improvements that can prevent future fatalities. I am sure both sides of the Committee would agree that that is an important function. The FBU is concerned that limits on facility time arising from clauses 12 and 13 could restrict, or even prevent, FBU representatives from ensuring that firefighters operate in a safe working environment—these clauses could endanger firefighters in the future and could mean that any safety-critical problems identified will be left unresolved.
We have just heard from the SNP about amendment 110, which would remove trade union learning and safety representatives from the definition to which facility time publication requirements will apply. Our amendments 47 and 48, in a similar vein, would remove health and safety representatives from the reporting requirements in relation to facility time.
As we have heard, trade union workplaces are safer workplaces, which is largely due to tens of thousands of union health and safety reps being trained to internationally recognised standards each year. Trade unions regularly raise safety concerns through health and safety committees and collective bargaining arrangements, which, fundamentally, leads to far fewer workplace accidents not only in professions such as the fire service, where obviously there is significant risk, but in many other workplaces too.
According to research commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry—the forefather, or foremother, of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—in 2007, by reducing time lost to occupational injuries and work-related illnesses, union safety reps save taxpayers between £181 million and £578 million every year at 2004 prices. We have just had an argument on transparency, and the Minister said that we cannot estimate some of these things, but this is a clear example of where his own Department has estimated such things, following serious research, to be worth a significant amount of money. I am sure the sum is even higher today.
Amendment 100 would remove trade union representatives in disciplinary and grievance procedures from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the requirements in relation to facility time, which would mean that public sector employers are not required to report on the amount of time that union officials spend accompanying members in grievance and disciplinary hearings each year. Fundamentally, the amendment aims to highlight the vital role played by union workplace representatives in representing members in formal procedures in the workplace.
We have already heard a number of relevant examples. ACAS research in 2008 found that managers see union representatives undertaking such work as having a crucial and positive role in the informal process of dispute resolution. The research found that union representatives often provide an early warning of potential problems and are a channel of communication between managers and employees. They are also seen as helping to monitor members involved in disciplinary or grievance issues. Within formal hearings, most managers found that union representatives help to ensure that issues are explored in a consultative fashion and that fair decisions are reached. I have experience of such issues in the workplace, as I am sure other members of the Committee do, too. The ACAS research also found—this is crucial—that union representatives are able to manage the expectations of trade union members, which is useful in avoiding unnecessary confrontation, and that union representatives are generally perceived to be well trained and knowledgeable in legal and procedural issues.
I have already talked about amendments 47 and 48. Amendment 102, much like amendment 100, would remove trade union representatives in disciplinary and grievance procedures from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the requirements in relation to facility time, for the reasons that I have previously given. Those are important issues, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about them.
Nick Boles
Amendments 110, 47 and 48 are designed to limit the information published under our transparency regulations by excluding certain categories of trade union representative. I have already explained that the Government greatly value the work of learning representatives and health and safety representatives from trade unions. An employer must allow them as much paid time off work as is necessary or reasonable to perform their statutory functions, and we absolutely do not propose to change that rule. We simply want to ensure that the time that trade union representatives collectively spend on union duties and activities during working hours at taxpayers’ expense is justifiable and accountable, and that it represents value for money.
Clause 12 will enable Ministers to make regulations requiring public sector employers with one or more union representatives to publish information relating to facility time for those representatives. The information that employers could be required to publish includes the number of such representatives, such as learning and safety representatives, and how many of them spend a specified percentage of their time on their union role.
Reporting on facility time for learning and safety representatives is not new. The civil service has reported on paid time off for learning and safety representatives, together with general representatives, since 2013. The information on facility time that local authorities in England are required to publish includes the total number of staff who are union representatives, whether general, learning or safety representatives.
Amendments 47 and 48 are both designed to remove the requirement to exclude safety representatives from the information that is required to be published about facility time. Where an employer efficiently uses facility time for safety representatives, it is not unreasonable to expect the employer to know who those representatives are and how much of their time they spend on their union role. Where taxpayers fund the facility time of those representatives, they have the right to know how their money is being spent. We consider that all public sector employers should have to publish information about facility time for all types of union representatives, including safety representatives. They should not be required, as is proposed in amendments 47 and 48, to give taxpayers a less than full picture of their spending on facility time; they should be transparent about all of it.
Moving on to amendment 110, in the public sector paid facility time for a learning representative is in no way less of a cost to the taxpayer than paid facility time for a general representative or a safety representative. Not to include some costs of facility time based on the specialism of a particular representative would be misleading, and it would not deliver our intentions of giving taxpayers transparency about the facility time that they fund. Removing the requirement to publish information for specialist representatives, who are in a minority, would have a detrimental effect on the validity of the publication and be unlikely to save the employer significant time, if any.
Workers have a statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union official to a disciplinary or grievance hearing. That is a significant amount of trade union facility time, which is why we believe that it should be included in the publication requirements. Because we believe that that statutory right is right, and we have no intention of changing it, we want to understand the cost of the time that is involved in fulfilling it. Paid time off for a trade union official to attend such hearings is no less of a cost to taxpayers than any other category of paid time off for facility time, so there is no reason why it should be excluded from the publication requirements. Indeed, to exclude that cost would be misleading, because it would prevent taxpayers from ascertaining the true total cost of facility time in the public sector. Local authorities in England, and the civil service, have already agreed that that information should be published without exclusions for time spent attending such hearings. It would not be helpful transparency for some parts of the public sector to include some areas in their costs while others exclude them, because that would not allow taxpayers to make comparisons. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.
Chris Stephens
We keep hitting a brick wall in terms of the Government’s attitude to this. They keep using the words “not justifiable”, but I believe that anyone undertaking duties as a safety rep or a learning rep is justifiable. What would be the issue on that basis?
Nick Boles
I have been trying to make progress, but I am stung by that remark. I have never claimed that the work of learning representatives and health and safety representatives is not justifiable—in fact, I have argued absolutely the opposite. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is absolutely justifiable, why on earth does he oppose simply publishing the cost of it?
Chris Stephens
The Minister keeps using the words “not justifiable”, so we will press amendment 110 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 12, page 9, line 3, leave out subsection (9).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 12, page 9, line 5, leave out “partly” and insert “mainly”
Amendment 99, 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 an individual, a company, a partnership or any other body save a public authority”
Stephen Doughty
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. The amendments are probing to understand fully what the Government mean by new section 172A(9), which is contained within the clause and would amend the 1992 Act. It would provide the Government with the power to extend the duty to publish information on facility time to an organisation that has
“functions of a public nature and is funded wholly or partly from public funds”.
What sort of organisations—private and voluntary sector—will the new reporting requirements encompass? I see no reason why a private corporation should be brought into this part of the Bill. The definition of “wholly or partly” is left open. Voluntary sector organisations and private bodies that engage in Government contracts want to understand the Government’s intent. Is it the intention to encompass all sorts of organisations or only a specified few? Our amendments ask that question and we suggest even removing the section. Amendment 99 would ensure that the proposed new reporting requirements on union facilities would apply only to public authorities as clearly defined by our amendment. I hope the Minister can clarify. However, the amendments are probing and I do not intend to press for a Division.
Nick Boles
I thank the hon. Gentleman for explaining the purpose of the amendment. The explanatory notes to the clause give examples of relevant public sector employees. The clause contains a power to provide that a person or body that is not a public authority but has functions of a public nature and is funded wholly or partly from public funds is to be treated as a public authority for the purposes of subsection (2) and is therefore subject to the publication requirements.
The proposed new section deliberately does not define what is meant by a public authority, because that term has a commonly understood meaning. However, the boundaries of that term can be uncertain. Therefore, subsection (9) is designed to enable us to deal with any cases in which there could be uncertainty that a taxpayer-funded body is a public authority, such as an academy trust.
That is an important point, so I take the opportunity to place it on the record that it is absolutely not our intention to catch, for example, private or voluntary sector providers of contracted-out public services. Nor is it our intention to apply the publication requirements to private individuals, companies, partnerships or the like, which amendment 99 seeks expressly to exclude from scope.
I hope that, now that I have given that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I take it he means that, for example, a charity receiving a small grant—say £10,000—from the Government for a particular function would not be included in the legislation. Is that correct?
Stephen Doughty
That is very helpful. With that clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to amendment 84 to clause 12, which has already been debated.
Amendment proposed: 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.”—(Chris Stephens.)
The Chair
We now come to the question that clause 12 stand part of the Bill. I believe that we have had enough discussion, so I do not propose to accept any further speeches.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.