Draft Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017.
It is an absolute pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 delegates powers to Ministers to make regulations requiring employers in Great Britain with at least 250 staff to publish information showing whether there are differences in pay between their male and female employees. These regulations are the first use of the power under section 78, because this Government are committed to tackling the pay inequality that has existed between men and women for far too long. That is why we are taking bold steps to tackle the gender pay gap. That is not just good for women; it is good for the country as a whole. McKinsey estimates that eliminating work-related gender gaps could add £150 billion to our annual GDP.
The gender pay gap is not about men and women being paid differently for the same job—unequal pay has been prohibited since 1975—but is a measurement of the difference between men and women’s average earnings. We will continue to implement a wide range of measures to tackle the wider causes of it. The UK’s overall gender pay gap has fallen over time. Ten years ago it was 25% and, according to the latest Office for National Statistics figures, today it stands at about 18.1%. While that is the lowest on record and it is moving firmly in the right direction, progress is still far too slow and voluntary reporting has not led to sufficient progress. Following two public consultations and extensive stakeholder engagement, the Government are delivering our manifesto commitment to require large employers to publish a range of complementary gender pay gap measures every year, starting this year.
Publishing the difference between the average hourly rate of pay for male and female employees, calculated using both mean and median averages, will give employers a better understanding of their gender pay gap. Bonus payments are a significant element of overall remuneration in some sectors, and ONS figures show that more than £44 billion was paid out in bonuses across the UK economy during the 2015-16 financial year. Publishing the difference between the average bonuses paid to male and female employees will encourage employers to ensure that those practices are fair and transparent. Fewer women than men are employed in senior and higher-paid professions. Requiring employers to report on the proportions of men and women in each quartile of their pay distribution will ensure that they consider whether there are any blockages to women’s progression within an organisation. That could be valuable in making comparisons with competitor employers that are actively nurturing female talent.
The principle of greater transparency on gender pay differences has cross-party support. It will incentivise employers to analyse the drivers behind their own gender pay gap and explore the extent to which their own policies and practices may be contributing to it. The regulations are, of course, only one element of the Government’s strategy to meet the needs of women at every stage of their working lives, and by working together we can make real progress in closing the gender pay gap.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I think that this is the first time I have done so. This is a historic day. The Minister talked about taking bold steps. I agree, and am delighted that she has taken bold steps down a path that Labour laid before her.
It has been almost 50 years since the women sewing machinists at Ford’s Dagenham plant downed tools and demanded what was rightfully theirs: equal pay for a hard day’s work, equivalent to that of their male colleagues. It was a demand that their work be considered of equal value—in fact, that they be considered of equal value. Successive Parliaments have failed to deliver on that demand. As the Minister said, pay inequality—a woman being paid less for doing work that is of equal value and demands equal, or even higher, skills—is still a factor for women across the UK despite being illegal. Recent cases taken against Birmingham City Council, for example, and the ongoing case against Asda, demonstrate that clearly.
We know that the situation is more complicated, and even harder to tackle, than companies acting in breach of the Equal Pay Act 1970. Average pay for men remains greater than that for women. As the Minister said, the gender pay gap persists at 18.1%, and that simply is not good enough. That disparity is not due in the main to explicit gender discrimination by employers choosing actively to pay women less for the same work. Rather, it is far more ingrained. It is about the undervaluing of roles done by women, the dominance of men in the best-paid positions, unequal caring responsibilities and occupational segregation, for example. Those issues collide and compound to create the perfect storm. It is only through direct action that we have any hope of tackling the underlying causes of the gender pay gap and living up to Barbara Castle’s promise to the Dagenham machinists. That is why the last Labour Government included practical measures to tackle the gender pay gap in the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010, brought to reality by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). We all owe her a great debt of thanks.
Section 78 of the 2010 Act introduced mandatory pay audits, under which companies employing more than 250 people will have to publish details of the pay of their male and female staff. Labour knew then, as we know now, that transparency will push companies to focus on the reasons why the pay gap still exists and highlight to the Government where changes are needed. It will highlight where women are being paid less than men despite doing work of equivalent skill and responsibility, where men are getting higher bonuses and where all the highest-paid roles in a company are held by men.
All of those things require changes, to allow equality in the workplace. That is why Labour continued to press the coalition Government to implement section 78 of the 2010 Act despite almost five years of refusals. It is why, in December 2014, as a Back Bencher, I presented a ten-minute rule Bill asking the Government to implement mandatory pay transparency, and it is why—under the stellar leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), the then shadow Minister for Women and Equalities—Labour was able to pass the amendment to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill in March 2015 that ensured the Government could no longer wriggle out of their duty to tackle the gender pay gap.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. We all recognise that, now that there is cross-party consensus on this issue, it is excellent that we have reached this point today, although obviously it is still sad that it has come seven years from when the Equality Act was passed.
My hon. Friend may be coming to this, but does she agree that it is one thing to introduce these regulations, but another to make sure that there are consequences for non-compliance so that we get the outcome we want, which is equal pay for men and women?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not about the regulations, which are sound. It is about how we implement, monitor and evaluate them and what we ultimately do when we see the disparities. She is right that I will come on to that.
We must congratulate the Government for bringing the regulations forward. I am grateful to them for doing so. I know that the Minister cares passionately about the issue and that, wherever blatant gender disparities exist, she will be there tackling them.
It is important, and to be welcomed, that the reports that will be produced will go into pay bands. That will help to demonstrate how the pay gap differs across an organisation and across levels of seniority. It is also really good news that the data will incorporate bonuses—both their amount and the proportion of men and women employees who receive them.
However, the regulations are bereft of some basic powers that would assure a benefit for women, so excuse me, Sir David, if I do not wholeheartedly celebrate them today. The Government have chosen to omit any enforcement provisions or sanctions for non-compliance, or for publishing inaccurate or misleading reports. This is especially disappointing as, in the “Closing the Gender Pay Gap” consultation paper, the Government correctly sought sectors’ views on whether a civil enforcement system would help ensure compliance with the regulations. The majority of responses—two thirds, in fact—agreed that such a system would help compliance.
Does the Minister actually believe that the regulations will be effective in getting data from employers without an enforcement regime or being backed up with civil sanctions? I take a guess that she will claim that the Equality and Human Rights Commission—another Labour creation—will be able to use its existing powers of enforcement in section 20 of the Equality Act 2006, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum. But of course, section 20 does not confer suitable powers on the EHRC to fulfil that enforcement duty. In its response to the “Closing the Gender Pay Gap” consultation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said it would
“require additional powers, and resources, to enable it to enforce compliance with the regulations, because its current powers are not suitable for enforcing, in a proportionate manner, a failure to publish.”
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I welcome the regulations, but does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main issues is not just what transparency will bring up but how that will be addressed? Once we know what the problem is, as we hope to through the information that comes forward, how will we then address the issues raised, particularly around bonuses? In my experience, bonuses are not a gender-neutral area of payment.
Sarah Champion
Again, my hon. Friend hits on the nub of the problem. Unless we can first reliably gather the data and then have some form of enforcement, all we will have is statistics on a piece of paper.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Does she agree that one reason why enforcement is so important, and why we have strong ongoing Government backing for this change, is the reality of good intentions not materialising into outcomes? Of the 300 organisations that signed up to the “Think, Act, Report” voluntary initiative introduced in 2011, only 11 voluntarily published gender pay information. We cannot rely on good intentions; it has to be backed up in law.
Sarah Champion
I thank both my hon. Friends for their interventions. That is the problem—even if section 20 of the 2006 Act could be interpreted as extending to a breach of the regulations, it appears that the EHRC does not believe it can enforce that.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
What my hon. Friend rightly says is compounded by the fact that although the Government have included a regulation allowing them to review the operation of the regulations and whether their objectives have been achieved, that review could be up to five years away. We need to encourage the Government to make that review quickly, to see whether the concerns we are raising have come to pass.
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that specific point.
In the November 2015 autumn statement, the Government imposed a 25% cut to the EHRC’s budget. That followed a whopping—I am not sure whether that is a Parliamentary expression—69% funding cut since the beginning of the coalition Government, and has led to the budget being reduced from £70 million to £22 million. How does the Minister expect the EHRC to fulfil its enforcement duty? Do the Government plan to legislate to provide the EHRC with the powers it needs to enforce the regulations? Does she plan to provide the EHRC with extra, vital funding? If not, given what my hon. Friends have said, how will she ensure that the regulations are meaningfully enforced?
The Government have stated that they will run checks to assess non-compliance, but details on the Government website to which employers must upload their information have not yet been released. Can the Minister tell us today when those details will be released? Will the Government compile a public database of compliant employers? They have said that they will publish tables, by sector, of employers reporting gender pay gaps. Will they go further and publish an annual league table, ranking every company and public body by pay gap? Will they ensure that companies tackling or seeking to tackle the issue are rewarded with good publicity, for example?
The question of how the Government plan to use the data is key if we are to be assured that they have a strategy to address the chronic and pervasive factors that have led to the significant gender pay gap. Will they commit to bringing a report to Parliament annually rather than every five years, as has been recommended? That report should include broad data on responses, the EHRC analysis of those responses and—this is of fundamental importance—a Government action plan to narrow the gap in the following 12 months. Will the Government also publish their pay gap figures by Whitehall Department? I have not spoken to my Chief Whip about this, but perhaps the Minister will comment on whether political parties should publish their gender pay gaps.
Finally, will the Minister confirm that she has plans to publish a strategy to tackle the gender pay gap in small and medium-sized employers? How does she plan to assess that problem? The regulations will cover 10.47 million employees in the UK, so what she is doing today is hugely welcome, but those employees represent only 40% of employment.
The Government have been forced to implement the regulations, seven years later than required. They have watered them down to the extent that I have to question their commitment to tackling the gender pay gap, although I do not question the Minister’s commitment to that. Ahead of the spring statement, the Government should outline how they plan to tackle the wider issue of the economic inequality of women, rather than take away the teeth of the enforcement agency. They have refused, year after year, to conduct a cumulative gender impact analysis of their policies. Instead of bringing forward their own documentation, I am sorry to say that they chose to smear the research of the House of Commons Library and the women’s sector.
Almost every major piece of legislation that has improved the lives of working women has been introduced by a Labour Government, and all Opposition Members are proud of that. All the Government had to do on the mandatory reporting of the gender pay gap was bring the legislation into force and create a meaningful mechanism for tackling pay inequality. Unless the Minister can give us assurances today, I am sad to say that they might have failed on that.
Vernon Coaker
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It is a few years since I have been on one of these Committees, but I was keen to serve on it because it is important for me as a man to say how important the regulations are. Although they are about the gender pay gap, the issue concerns us all.
The situation is simply not good enough. Men should be demanding equal treatment for women and the closure of the pay gap as loudly as many of my colleagues have done, particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, who has campaigned on these issues for decades, including when the attitudes she was facing were even more difficult than they are today. We should recognise women who have done that throughout the ages, wherever they have come from. We would not have reached this point were it not for many women like my right hon. and learned Friend. She is here today, and she remains an influence.
It is important for us to lay out the fact that the pay gap, despite numerous attempts and numerous pieces of legislation, remains at 18.1%. For full-time equivalent roles, it is 9.4%. In my region, the east midlands, it is 12%, and that simply is not good enough. More urgency has to be injected into this issue to try to move things forward. Otherwise, there will be a Committee like this one in 10 years’ time berating the fact that whoever is in government at that time is presiding over a gender gap that is 8.9% instead of 9.4%. We have to do better, and the challenge is not just for Government but for all of us to demand better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham asked an important question, and I reiterate it to the Minister. These pay gap regulations will affect larger private companies, but what exactly do the Government intend to do? What will the timescale be for reporting by Government Departments and larger public bodies? Given the number of people they employ, it would be interesting to hear about that.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I wonder whether any consideration has been given to different-sized employers. Women who work for a larger employer might have their pay gap monitored, but if they work for a smaller employer doing exactly the same job, they will not be monitored. Those will be people doing exactly the same job and still experiencing significant levels of inequality. Does my hon. Friend see that as an issue?
Vernon Coaker
That is a real issue. The Minister will be able to confirm this, but I think I am right in saying that the regulations will affect 34% of women. That will obviously leave a significant number of women outside the scope of the regulations, who might include some of the women my hon. Friend refers to.
People moving in and out of companies, going from one employing more than 250 to another that does not, is a real issue. I will come back in a couple of minutes—I do not want to speak for too long—to the review mechanism that the Government have built into the regulations. They should consider that point.
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that some of the issues we are discussing might be cultural problems. It is difficult to argue that we should change the culture by changing the law, but the law can be a signpost to the sort of cultural attitudes we wish to encourage. I am not saying that we should pass a law on this, but CHILDWISE published a report today about discrimination in pocket money. I confess an interest— I will need to check with my family, who are grown up now, to ensure that this did not happen for them. Apparently the gender pay gap begins early in childhood and at home, with boys receiving 20% more pocket money than girls. I hope I did not do that, but I cannot say I definitely did not. It would completely undermine what I am saying now.
The new report from CHILDWISE reveals that between the ages of 11 and 16 the gap grows to 30%, which mirrors what happens in the adult population, where the gender pay gap rises as women get older. Between those ages boys receive an average weekly income of £17.80, and girls of the same age lag behind on £12.50. I do not know how accurate those figures are; I am just quoting them. I do not think I gave my son £17.80—maybe a month, but not a week.
The serious point I am trying to make is that the cultural attitudes in our society are what we need to address, think about and challenge, but the law is a good place to start. I take my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham’s point that these regulations come seven years after the primary legislation, but the Government did try a voluntary approach. The explanatory memorandum shows the failure—not a catastrophic failure, but a very real one—of the voluntary approach. We are told on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum that according to the ONS:
“Whilst over 300 organisations signed up to this initiative, we are aware of only around 11 of those that have voluntarily published gender pay information.”
That initiative was set up in 2011, so the necessity of the regulations cannot be overestimated.
Julie Elliott
Does my hon. Friend agree that voluntary measures in these areas of employment law never work? That is why transparency is important, but it is essential that action follows from it to make it work and to make the average gender pay gap disappear. Is he as interested as I am to see which Departments the Minister thinks will be the worst when their transparency is revealed? Will they be the high-pay, high-value Departments rather than the smaller, more niche Departments?
Vernon Coaker
I am interested in that, and it takes me to my next point. Legislation is crucial, and to be fair, with our support, the Government have brought it forward. We can argue about whether it should have come sooner, but we support it. The lack of enforcement is a problem, though, and I am disappointed about it. The Government recognise that there may be an issue with enforcement, because a review mechanism is included in regulation 16. They say they will carry out a review of the regulations and publish a report, which must look at whether the objectives have been achieved and so on. However, that report must be produced before the end of a “period of five years.”
The Minister may want to address this point in her closing remarks, but does she really think that we ought to wait five years before we see whether we are achieving our objectives, or does she believe, as I do, that five years is too long? We should say today that, although the regulations specify five years, we will look at the first published results and see whether something needs to be changed. Certainly after the publication of two sets of results it will be clear whether the objectives have been reached. It is important that she addresses that point.
May I say that it is a privilege to speak in a debate such as this? I do not mean this in any way as a flippant remark, but it is really important that men speak in these debates and demand better treatment of women and their rights, not just as something we ought to give them but as something that they should have as of right. That is important, and I know that colleagues on the Committee will have no issue with that.
I say this as a criticism of my own gender: we should be louder in speaking up on these issues. I will not digress from the subject the Committee is considering, but on domestic violence, sexual violence and other such issues, men should be louder in demanding the proper treatment and the proper rights for women in our society.
I thought it was good—other people may disagree—that there were an estimated 20,000 men on the “Women Against Trump” march in London at the weekend. I am sure there were many in other cities, too, and I think it was a good thing.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a passionate speech. I was on that march, and I marched alongside many men. I have to draw his attention to one particular placard that struck me, which read, “Men of quality do not fear equality”. Does he agree that that is a statement that all men should operate under?
Vernon Coaker
Men of quality do not fear equality—of course, I absolutely agree. It should not be a rare occurrence that I and other men turn up and speak in debates such as this. We should be make continual demands to support women across the country—and across parties—in trying to achieve more.
Labour has a proud record in trying to tackle inequality and promoting women’s rights; my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham drew attention to some of our achievements. We recognise that the regulations are an important step forward and we are pleased that the Government have finally come forward with them, but we will continue to highlight the issue and demand better for women in society.
I point out to the Minister something that I found interesting. When the House of Commons Library assessed and analysed the impact of savings to the Treasury over the past few years, it found that 86% of the impact of tax and benefit changes had been on women. Whatever the rights and wrongs of austerity and the economic policies that the Government are pursuing, that cannot be right. I say to the Minister, given her wider ministerial responsibilities, that that is not a political point; it is just a point that women in general—and men such as myself who support what women are campaigning for and trying to achieve—would say needs to be made.
Finally, I say to the Government that we are pleased that the regulations are being introduced. I am pleased about it as a man and as a member of a modern society. However, we must all try to inject a bit more urgency into this process, so that we are not here in a few years’ time debating why the pay gap has only gone down by half a percentage point rather than being eliminated, as it really should be.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure, Sir David, to participate today and to serve under your chairmanship.
I will say a few words following the excellent speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has just made. If he was looking for a part-time advisory role to the President of the United States of America, I would certainly be willing to support him in that endeavour.
First, I thank the Government again for introducing the regulations. However, building on the points that have already been made, I encourage the Government and the Minister, who laid out her case for the need for the regulations powerfully, to think about the wider issue of economic equality for women, particularly in the run-up to the March spring-statement-stroke-Budget. Keeping the issue going and mainstreaming its implications is an important part of how we can move forward in achieving equality for women across all areas of the economy, which is essentially the backdrop to this debate.
I was struck by some of the analysis of the gender pay gap, and I want to put a couple of suggestions to the Minister. My concerns are around the implementation of the regulations. On one level—the transactional level—that is about how they are implemented within a corporation and how the data are collected and reported on. That can stay within a very small sphere of people: maybe the head of human resources and the chief executive officer. Culture change and the players involved in it are an important part of what a company or organisation owns at the highest level.
I know from my past work on equality in companies, on public boards and in politics and public life that it is important to have wider stakeholder engagement to ensure that people understand the responsibility we can all have in making a shift. That helps to create a context and environment within which there can be actors who will act on the messages that come out from the reports and from transparency more widely. They will have a sense of their own responsibility in making that shift.
I am keen to understand how the regulations will be implemented and whether messages and communications will go to chairmen and women on boards, heads of HR, management networks or other networks. We must look at how to mainstream thinking about jobs and pay much more widely, so that we can pre-empt and reduce the problem and see the results coming through.
Melanie Onn
On implementation, I am interested to see that in the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, the measures will be implemented under the regulations. I wonder how the Government will monitor that implementation at devolved level, to ensure that these measures are being implemented fairly across the whole United Kingdom.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The public expectation will be that the regulations go beyond administrative boundaries and that the Government take a lead to ensure that they are effectively implemented. It would be helpful if the Minister responded to that point.
It might seem like it is just a small Committee putting the regulations forward today, but I worked in the Government Equalities Office on a different project at the time when the Equality Bill was going through Parliament, and I pay tribute to the civil servants for their work and engagement and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham for leading that work. It was near the close of the Labour Government’s time in office—it was pretty much the last Act that went through Parliament.
To return to the point about the meaning of these measures and those for whom they could make a difference, I was struck by the analysis of the gender pay gap by age published by the House of Commons Library. The gap is much greater for older women, who are hit in other ways as well. They might lose their job and find it harder to get another. We know that they are often the poorest pensioners and the least likely to have pensions in their own right to sustain them in older life. That compounds the problem of the economic wellbeing of older women and poverty that can become entrenched. Awareness of that within organisations would be an important part of tackling economic inequality for older women, particularly when we look at differences by decade of birth.
There is another important issue, which is the relationship, or otherwise, between educational attainment and the pay gap. When we look at the analysis, it is striking that although there is sometimes a link between a better-educated workforce and a reduced pay gap, that is not always the case. There is still a strong gender dimension. We can try to distil the pay gap down to contributing factors such as people leaving school earlier or not having certain educational qualifications, but the data do not suggest that those are the key issues. Rather, the gender dimension remains the key point. That suggests there is a wider cultural inequality issue, which it is important to address. Whether women have GCSEs, A-levels or degree-level education, the analysis shows there is still a gender pay gap for them.
That leads me to my final point, about how we can work much earlier in schools to create role models and a sense of confidence and aspiration. The Fabian Women’s Network, of which I am the founder and president, undertakes deep thinking about that issue. We need to ask what tone we are setting as a nation for the girls, and we need to give them confidence that any future they may want is a future they should be able to achieve; that any profession they want to be in has a door open to them; and that any sky they want to reach is available to them.
The regulations are vital for women who are currently in the workplace, and they can also help us achieve a culture change if we implement them effectively, think about the factors that will support better understanding of the pay gap in organisations and make sure that the issue is cascaded down through management levels in organisations.
I hope the Government will not just encourage organisations to keep data at senior management level but encourage directorates or departments to understand what the gap is in their own departments. That will help to create wider appreciation of these issues lower down the management chain. As those managers then become the senior leaders of tomorrow, they will have begun to appreciate and been engaged with these issues as they become embedded within management life.
I hope that as the regulations are implemented, we will look at the immediate implications and at how we can shift our culture through the opportunity that the regulations will enable. Achieving that shift now will not just help the generations of women in the workforce today but set a completely different tone for our country and benefit the young women coming forward through the schools and in the workplace of tomorrow.
Caroline Dinenage
I have been very taken with the contributions from all members of the Committee—I was so absorbed that I nearly forgot to stand up for a moment. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate; I always welcome feedback and questions from Members.
We all agree that it is completely unacceptable that a gender pay gap still exists in this day and age. The regulations will create opportunities for both individuals and employers by driving action that promotes greater gender equality in workplaces across the country.
Back in 2010 there was a coalition Government agreement to take a voluntary approach to this issue, because that was a powerful tool in bringing businesses with us. If hon. Members will bear with me, I will explain a little later why bringing businesses with us at every stage was important. That approach encouraged more than 300 employers—big employers with a staff of many thousands between them—to begin to think about the gender pay gap. It laid the groundwork for that important work to move forward, so it is a little unfair to disparage it as meaningless, toothless and pointless. There was a point to it, and it engaged the business community with this important issue.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, we have undertaken extensive consultation with employers and stakeholders to develop these regulations. In addition to two public consultations, the Government Equalities Office held roundtables with employers, women’s civil society, trades unions, academics, legal associations and experts in gender pay analysis. Having worked closely with such a wide range of stakeholders, we can be confident that the requirements are clear and proportionate and will drive real change in workplaces across the country.
The Secretary of State will review the regulations five years after their commencement just because that is the legal requirement, but that is not to say that we will not look at them in the interim. We will keep a close eye on them to make sure that they are being enforced properly. We have worked closely with ACAS to develop clear and user-friendly guidance to help employers understand and implement the regulations. That draft guidance will be published shortly.
The range of metrics that the regulations require will ensure that no large employer can claim that it is unaware of whether it has a gender pay gap. The publication of the information required will increase employees’ confidence in their employers’ remuneration process and could enhance an employer’s corporate reputation.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt a speech that my hon. Friend is making with such eloquence and competence, but the explanatory note say that section 78 of the Equality Act
“does not apply to government departments, the armed forces or other public authorities listed in Schedule 19”.
It goes on to say that, in October,
“the then Prime Minister announced that these large public sector organisations would also be required to publish details”.
Can I take it that the regulations do not legally require Government Departments to publish the details, but that they will do so on a voluntary basis? Can she also confirm that all non-departmental organisations and large charities with more than 250 employees will be included?
Caroline Dinenage
We have laid the regulations that will ensure that public sector organisations, and indeed charities, are included in the legislation.
Hannah Bardell
On the point about listed public authorities, is she aware that in Scotland we have reduced the threshold for reporting from those with more than 150 employees to those with more than 20 employees? Does she foresee her Government working with the Scottish Government on the success of that, and perhaps lowering the threshold for the rest of the UK as well?
Caroline Dinenage
I speak as someone who ran a small business for 20 years before I came into Parliament, so I look at it from a different perspective. I do not want to be part of a Government that is crippling, penalising or over-bureaucratising small and medium-size enterprises. Although I am interested in what the Scottish Government have done and will keep it under review, I personally think that the regulations are the best place to start. As I will go on to explain, we want to take business with us at every stage. This is not a punitive measure on business; it is good for business. Making sure that a business encourages the growth, prosperity and development of every single one of its talented workforce is not only the right thing to do but brings massive future economic potential for this country.
The Young Women’s Trust found that 84% of surveyed women aged 16 to 30 would consider an employer’s gender pay gap when applying for a job, and 80% would compare employers’ gender pay gap data when looking for work. Of the employers and business organisations that responded to our first consultation, 82% agreed that the publication of gender pay gap information would encourage them and other employers to take action to close the gap. We can see that bringing business with us on this and convincing them of the merits of it has been one of the key successes of our how we have gone about our policy so far.
Sarah Champion
I support what the Minister is saying, because the 11 companies that voluntarily reported said that it led to a more open workplace where employees stayed longer. However, I challenge her on the point that she made to the hon. Member for Livingston, because what we talking about is actually a simple line of coding in an already existing payroll. It is not a big or onerous requirement, so this is not a question of putting overburdening administration on businesses; I think not taking forward reporting for smaller businesses is Government will.
Caroline Dinenage
I have to disagree, given that the last thing businesses need is unwieldy bureaucracy from a nosey, over-centralised, self-serving, self-satisfied Government. I speak as someone who, for 20 years, ran a business that had just under 20 employees. We were crippled by much of the legislation that came from the Labour Government. The bureaucracy and paperwork that I had to deal with on a daily basis, on all manner of things, became a real burden on my ability to employ people and create wealth and prosperity for this country. I therefore take increasing the burden of legislation on businesses seriously. If it is unnecessary, I am not prepared to do it, but we will keep the matter under review.
The regulations require employers to publish the relevant information on their own website in a manner accessible to employees and the public. Hon. Members have asked how it will be displayed, saying that it should not be squirreled away somewhere. The information will have to be accessible. All employers within the scope of the provisions will be expected to publish the required information annually, and no exemptions are envisaged. A written statement signed by a director or senior employee must also be published online. As well as confirming the accuracy of the required information, that will ensure that business leaders take ownership of tackling any identified gender pay gaps. We will also require the information to be published on a Government website.
Vernon Coaker
Just to be clear, because one or two of us are not sure—that may be our fault—does what the Minister has said today mean that the first time there will be publication relating to transparency on the gender pay gap will be 5 April 2018?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes; companies have to start collecting the data from April this year and publishing the information by April next year. That fully conforms to our manifesto commitment, which was for three years of publications before the next general election.
The Opposition spokeswoman raised the issue of the EHRC not having the necessary legal powers. We are clear that the EHRC does have them, as it has recognised. It may issue an unlawful act notice to any person who has committed an unlawful act, such as non-compliance with the regulations. The notice could include recommendations for an action plan to address the unlawful act and to ensure that it does not continue. As well as investigating whether a person has complied with an unlawful act notice, the EHRC may apply for a court order requiring them to take specified steps to comply with the notice. The EHRC has received, and will continue to receive, sufficient funds to be able to fulfil its statutory duties, of which this is one. It is for the EHRC as an independent body to determine the allocation of its overall funding across specific functions. We believe that the £20.4 million of taxpayers’ money that it receives is sufficient for it to carry out these important duties.
The regulations do not create any additional civil or criminal penalties, and failure to comply would be an unlawful act, as I said. Many consultation respondents felt that disproportionate sanctions would defeat the object of ensuring that a sufficient number of employers take direct responsibility for promoting gender equality in their workforce. We feel that competition in sectors, as well as the risk of brand and reputational damage, will drive compliance. Many employers will see this as an opportunity to put proactive strategies in place to tackle the barriers facing their female employees. Consultation responses highlighted that that approach should have much more of an impact, in terms of making a positive change, than a box-ticking exercise to avoid financial penalties would. Relying on fixed penalties from the outset could encourage some employers simply to pay fines rather than to undertake the necessary pay analysis and do the donkey work involved in making the proposals work.
Crucially, during a roundtable with women’s civil society and trade unions, there was broad agreement that compliance measures should not be so harsh that they risk incentivising employers to subcontract female employees. That is not only about being a friend of business, but because it is so important for women. Rather than just creating a low gender pay gap, we want to create the right type of low gender pay gap. Some industries—indeed, some countries—with low gender pay gaps have very low rates of female employment. That is not because they have a lot of women in high-paid jobs, but because they do not have women in work at all. That shows low workforce participation and high social inequality. The launch of the Government website allowing employers to publish the required gender pay gap information will coincide with the commencement of the regulations, which will allow us to monitor levels of compliance closely. So we will not just be looking at the data once every five years; we will monitor it.
Vernon Coaker
May I suggest to the Minister that the first time it is published on the Government website, she makes a written or oral statement, to signify to everyone how important this is, and to get it out there with a bit of urgency and excitement about it?
Caroline Dinenage
I cannot imagine anyone would need to encourage a politician to seek publicity. Of course, I will shout it from the rooftops if it will make the hon. Gentleman happy. We will keep our position on financial penalties under review, in the light of employers’ willingness to comply with the reporting requirements during the early years of implementation. The public will be able to search the Government’s website to check whether employers in the scope of the regulations have complied with them and to compare them with other employers in the same sector. We will consider the most effective way to present the published information, in discussion with a wide range of stakeholders.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the scope of the regulations. We calculate that they will affect about 8,000 employers, who between them have more than 11 million employees. An estimated 3.8 million employees will also be covered by separate gender pay gap regulations that will apply to public authorities. In total, the new gender pay gap regulations will cover nearly half of the total workforce.
I agree that we need to challenge gender stereotypes, from the division of unpaid work to the types of occupations that men and women pursue. The Government are looking really closely at that. The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that men need to act as agents of change. Men can be the most powerful agents of change. That is why the Government set up the Women’s Business Council, which has recently expanded to include more men. One of its key work strands is about men as agents of change, and it is about to issue awards recognising men who do fantastic work promoting women in the workplace across the UK.
On SME reporting, I have already spoken a lot about how it could impose too much of a burden on small businesses. At the moment, large employers alone are being required to report, but we will encourage small employers to analyse their pay data and take action where issues occur. I also think that, through the supply chains of big businesses, this will filter down to smaller companies anyway.
The regulations covering the public sector, including Government Departments, were laid last week, and public bodies will be required to publish gender pay gaps every year. The gender pay gap of the Department for Education in 2016 was 5.9%, I am pleased to say.
Vernon Coaker
I am sorry to keep asking questions, but is that timetable for public bodies the same as for private bodies?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, it is exactly the same.
The female employment rate is currently the joint highest on record, at 69.8%. The female participation rate has increased by more since 2010 than during the three previous Parliaments combined. We agree, of course, that there is a wider gap for older women, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston described. That can be explained in part by age, but not completely. That is why we have introduced measures such as extended flexible working, shared parental leave and increased hours of paid-for childcare—working couples can expect 30 hours from September.
We are not requiring gender pay gap reporting by age, as workforce demographics vary significantly. Such reporting could also raise confidentiality issues, if a company had only a small number of employees in one age bracket. That was raised with us as a concern, and we do not want to betray anybody’s confidence. We agree that the data need to be owned across organisations, which is why we will require a senior director to sign off the data. We will closely monitor compliance on that.
I was asked about devolved approaches. Section 78 regulations cover England, Scotland and Wales. Scottish and Welsh public bodies are subject to their own specific duties in regulations under section 153 of the Equality Act, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission works across England, Scotland and Wales.
Seema Malhotra
Can the Minister clarify one point? This may be in the details we have been given, but will companies be required to report on the gender pay gap in their annual reports?
Caroline Dinenage
I am not entirely sure whether they will be required to do that, but they will be required to publish the information on a website that is readily accessible. It cannot be hidden away in a tiny little corner of their online presence that nobody can find. We will then republish that information on the Government website, so it will be easily accessible.
We know that transparency may not be a silver bullet, but it will incentivise employers to analyse the drivers behind their gender pay gap and explore the extent to which their own policies and practices might be contributing to it. I am really pleased that the regulations are broadly supported by the House, and that we agree on the underlying policy intent. I understand that we might have slightly different motivations about how we want to support businesses—whether we want to cripple them with massive amounts of bureaucracy or support them to create the jobs that the country needs—but I truly believe that this reporting marks a significant step forward in making that policy intent a reality, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017.
Draft Trade Union Act 2016 (Political Funds) (Transition Period) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Union Act 2016 (Political Funds) (Transition Period) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. During the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, the House debated at length the principle that union members should make an active choice to contribute to a trade union’s political fund. The other place established the Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding, under the chairmanship of Lord Burns. I would like to start by thanking Lord Burns and all the peers who sat on that cross-party Committee for their work.
I want first to remind hon. Members why the Act’s reforms to political funds are important. Under current legislation, a union member automatically contributes to a union’s political fund as part of their union subscription, unless they notify the union that they do not wish to do so. We have debated at length the principle of those rights of union members. The Select Committee also assessed the extent to which unions were, in practice, transparent to their members about the existing choice to opt out of contributing to their union’s political fund.
The Select Committee concluded that there is significant variation in how different unions convey opt-out information to their members. The Government’s analysis of online union subscription forms—the point at which an individual makes their first financial commitment to the union—found that nearly half of unions that have a political fund make no mention of its existence.
The provisions in sections 11 and 12 of the Act meet our manifesto aim to provide a transparent, active choice for union members by allowing new members joining a union to opt into making payments to a political fund. As required by the Act, we consulted the TUC, 24 unions with political funds and the certification officer to seek their views on the length of the transition period.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I declare my proud membership of the GMB. I worked on the Trade Union Act in its early stages in Committee and on Second Reading, along with other Opposition Members. The Minister mentioned the consultation period and the TUC. Of course, the TUC and many individual unions have expressed concerns about the length of the transition period. Though willing to try to comply with the legislation, they have raised very reasonable concerns about the timeframe. Why has that not been taken into account?
Margot James
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government consulted widely with individual unions, the TUC and the certification officer on the length of time deemed reasonable for the transition period. The unions gave differing views. Many have lobbied us for longer than 12 months, but, taken in the round, the Government have decided that 12 months is a reasonable amount of time for unions to introduce the necessary changes to comply with the legislation.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
First, I declare my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. What was the point of consulting if the Government were simply going to ignore every response they received ?
Margot James
We conducted a consultation and took it seriously. We listened to people’s views and arrived at a judgment. I remind the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that this is not news to the trade unions concerned. It passed into law last May, following intensive debate on the Floor of the House and a great deal of publicity. In effect, the unions have had more than 12 months to introduce the necessary changes to their systems.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I, too, declare my membership of Unison and refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my post as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. Why was 1 March 2018 chosen as the specific date, when we know from trade union feedback that that will cause considerable problems? Trade unions discuss rule changes at their conferences, but many of them are held biannually.
Margot James
If trade unions hold conferences biannually, they will surely have at least one conference opportunity between now and March 2018. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, it is not necessary for unions to amend their rules in this regard at a conference. They can apply to the certification officer for the acceptance of any form of union ballot on such a change of rules. Although many unions would prefer to give effect to the changes at a conference, there is no obligation on them to hold a conference to achieve that.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Minister for giving way. I declare my proud membership of Unison and the journalists’ union. One of them allows members to opt in and has a political fund, while the other does not. Does the Minister not realise that trade unions rely on their rulebooks and the legitimacy of any changes to them in order to ensure that they are appropriately and politically accountable to members who may have different views on different policies? If they were to start amending their rules in this unorthodox way, to fit in with the Government’s purpose, that would set very unhelpful precedents for many other issues. I speak as someone who has very detailed knowledge of how trade unions operate their internal affairs. Will she at least acknowledge that point and go away and think about it? Will she also—
Margot James
I defer to the hon. Lady’s considerable experience of trade union matters, but she has just pointed out that trade union members have widely different views on many political issues. I think that that provides inherent justification for the measures.
Margot James
I have not finished responding to the hon. Lady. She correctly referred to a reliance on rules to provide proper accountability to members, and we respect that. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said in an earlier intervention that many unions hold biannual conferences. There is therefore an opportunity between now and March 2018 for the vast majority of those unions with political funds to agree the rule changes at a conference. As I have said, if they cannot meet at a conference to introduce the new rules, they can at least ballot their members in consultation with a certification officer.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wallasey is frustrated and disappointed by my response, but I think that it is reasonable. The Government believe that a 12-month transition period is adequate for unions to ensure that they comply with the statutory requirement under the Trade Union Act. That balances the need to provide unions with sufficient time to implement the changes with the Government’s view that the measures are delivered promptly.
Once the regulations have received parliamentary approval, they will come into force on 1 March 2017 and the formal 12-month transition period will run from that date. The Government’s view is that unions have known about these changes for some time and it is not unreasonable to expect them to have already done some planning to meet the requirement. We are also grateful to the certification officer, who has consulted unions and issued model rules and guidance, which should assist them in complying with the new requirements.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. It is important to note that the certification officer has indicated that there will be a period of at least five weeks for him to sign off the changes to a trade union’s rule book. Does the Minister agree that that means that, in effect, trade unions have only 11 months?
Margot James
The hon. Gentleman quibbles about weeks and months. We are approaching the end of January and the measure will not come into force until 1 March, from which point the unions will have 12 months in which to comply.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Unfortunately, she has mischaracterised what many unions have done with regard to planning. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers will hold its annual conference on the last Sunday in April. It booked the venue many years in advance and informed the delegates, and they have had to book time off work. USDAW and other unions want to agree the changes in order to comply with the legislation, but they will not be able to do so because the Minister is not willing to move the deadline by a few months. That is absurd.
Margot James
I am sorry about the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes at USDAW. Perhaps it could make some progress at the end of April, if that is when its conference will take place. If it is not scheduled to take place until next April, I concede that that is a disadvantage for USDAW. It may have to take other measures, which I have outlined, to consult its members on the necessary rule changes.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that the Government had not published a summary of responses to their consultation with unions and the certification officer on the length of the transition period covered by the regulations. I apologise that we were unable to publish a summary of responses when the regulations were laid. We accept that we should have done so. The Committee advised us that it is best practice to publish a summary of consultation responses and we have now done so on gov.uk. The Government believe that the regulations are proportionate and strike the correct balance between the interests of unions and members of the public.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I, too, declare that I am a proud member of the GMB. As the Minister has said, the regulations set a transition period of 12 months, beginning on 1 March 2017. The Trade Union Act regulations affecting new members of trade unions that have political funds will then come into effect on 1 March 2018.
The Trade Union Act is a partisan, poorly drafted and divisive piece of legislation that puts to bed any notion that the Government are acting for working people across the UK. It is a threat to political activity and campaigning by trade unions. It is a direct and deliberate threat to the Labour party’s funding from affiliated trade unions, while Tory funding sources are left untouched, and breaks the well-established consensus on the issue.
The manner in which the regulations have been consulted on and drafted is entirely consistent with the Government’s approach to date. They initially proposed a transition period of 12 weeks—[Interruption.]
Gill Furniss
Thank you, Mr Stringer. When the Bill went to the other place, the Government had initially proposed a transition period of 12 weeks, but the House of Lords Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Party Political Funding recommended a minimum of 12 months.
On 16 March, the first day of the Bill’s Report stage in the other place, the Government suffered several defeats, including on the transition period. By a majority of 148, the other House voted for an amendment restricting the new political fund opt-in to new members; extending the transition period from 12 weeks to 12 months; removing the need to renew opt-ins every five years; and allowing unions to use methods other than postal for the purposes of opting in.
During the Bill’s passage through the other House, clause 11 was added and ensured that, before beginning the transition period, the Secretary of State must consult the certification officer and all trade unions that have a political fund. The Government claim that they have satisfied that clause, with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy conducting an informal consultation with trade unions and the certification officer. It seems, however, that that lightweight bit of research was more focused on coming up with a transition cost than actually listening to trade union concerns; the Government heard concerns and objections, but then did exactly what they wanted to do in the first place.
It seems to me that a consultation process implies actually taking into account the concerns and objections that stakeholders might have. The proposed 12-month transition period is completely inadequate and fails to take into account the complexity involved in making the required changes. Many of my hon. Friends have made that point very well today, and I will outline some of the reasons why that period is insufficient. For example, I note as others have that retailers were granted two years to prepare for new charges on plastic bags, which was far less complicated than what is envisaged under the regulations.
Unions are democratic organisations, with established procedures and hierarchies designed to support their democratic operation. To change the rules is a lengthy process; branches must be consulted before a final change can be approved at a conference.
It has been suggested that rule changes could be agreed through a majority vote at a meeting of a union’s executive committee, under section 92 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. However, the proposed process is not consistent with most union rules or practices. The Government have previously argued that the Trade Union Act was designed to increase transparency and to encourage participation in union democracy. Under the terms of this statutory instrument, unions will be forced to act in a way that could damage or undermine their democratic structures in order to comply with the Act. That position is not exactly consistent.
If the Government were actually concerned about increasing democratic engagement by union members, they would not have delayed the implementation of electronic balloting—a proposal on which they were defeated in the other place and which was included in the Act through a cross-party amendment.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making a strong point. During the evidence sessions on the Trade Union Bill we heard many times from Conservative Members about alleged undemocratic structures operating in unions and decisions being taken by small groups of people. Does she agree that it is absurd that in reality the Government are asking us to override those long-established democratic structures of unions?
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Several unions, including USDAW, have set out their response to the BEIS consultation, conducted in August 2016, and to the certification officer’s consultation on the new models, conducted on 22 November 2016. The latest they needed to receive the final model rules from the certification officer in time to make a rule change in a 2017 conference was by 6 January 2017. Those rules were not received from the certification officer until Monday 16 January, and therefore it is not possible for the unions to make the rule changes until April or May 2018.
The Government’s summary of unions’ responses to the August consultation even states:
“A number of Unions said they have conferences scheduled for April/May 2018.”
That is where rule changes can be made, which is a different procedure, so why are the Government rushing to implement the legislation on 1 March 2018, just weeks before unions are due to hold their conferences to change their rules to comply?
Chris Stephens
Is there not another practical application? Under the proposed changes to the check-off arrangements, trade unions will have to discuss with employers an increase in subscriptions to comply with the terms of legislation, but the required statutory instrument has still not come before the House.
Gill Furniss
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. As a result of that legislation, unions will need to renegotiate check-off arrangements with hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of employers across the public and private sector. According to the recently issued model rules, securing approval from the certification officer alone could take up to five weeks.
Ms Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that trying to change the rules for trade unions by a non-usual route, as suggested by the Minister—allowing rule changes by a secondary route to that which is normally allowed—to comply with these wholly irresponsible regulations creates the potential for real burdens to be placed on how unions operate internally? Does she also agree that unions’ rulebooks are an important part of how they operate their internal democracy and ensure their stability as they move forward as organisations? Is there any other civic society organisation that the Government have decided to treat in that way?
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The rulebook is there for the benefit of everybody—employers and members—and it is a well-trodden path that has always succeeded. I ask the Minister whether there is another example of anyone in civic society who has been treated in this way. That would be an interesting concept.
Christian Matheson
I can answer my hon. Friend’s question. There are other elements of civil society that the Government are treating in this way: charities and campaign groups. The Government have cut their funding and restricted their campaigning activities so that they do not attack the Government.
Gill Furniss
I think there may be some merit in that point.
I will make some progress now. Let us be clear: the Trade Union Act is the most significant, sustained and partisan attack on ordinary workers in a generation, and the fact that the Government claim that it will increase fairness for trade unions and workers, while forcing them to act against their own democratic processes and principles by rushing through these changes, once again reveals the hypocrisy.
Will the Minister concede that the Government have been hasty in their approach to implementing the Act at the potential expense of trade unions and workers? Will they extend the transition period—which, for the reasons we have already outlined, is insufficient—by at least six months, so that legislation can be followed and trade union rules, processes and democratic principles properly respected?
For all the reasons I have laid out, I am afraid I cannot support the draft regulations and we wish to divide the Committee on the matter.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I wish everyone a happy Burns day, in memory of Robert Burns, a man who incidentally argued for workers to be represented in Parliament 100 years before the formation of the Labour party and argued for women to be represented in Parliament 150 years before the suffragette movement began. It is frankly an affront that the Government are seeking to restrict the activities of trade unions on this day of all days.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I have listened with great interest: every Member on the other side of the Committee has declared being a member of a trade union—
Daniel Kawczynski
Nobody is saying it is. I am sure it is declared in the register of Members’ interests. Would the hon. Gentleman care to share with us what that means in practical terms for him?
The Chair
That is a matter for individual Members, not the Chair. I call Chris Stephens.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham can check my register of interests—it makes it quite clear what that means for me. I would say to him that I am a proud member of the trade union movement. I became a steward in 1996 and for 20 years, before coming to this place, represented workers on a daily basis. I have to say to him that I am not ashamed that I did that. I am not ashamed of providing welfare help for people who needed it. I am not ashamed to have represented members to make sure that they got pay, many of them women who got equal pay.
Daniel Kawczynski
I know it is registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is just interesting that this is the first time I have been in a debate in which everyone has declared a certain type of interest, which is obvious in the context of the matter we are discussing. In the hon. Gentleman’s case, how much is it worth?
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to read my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and he will then have that information. All hon. Members of this House can see by looking at my entry what that interest means and how much it is worth.
Stephen Doughty
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why we are all pleased to declare our membership of a trade union is that we are proud of it and proud of our association with the trade union movement? We are entirely transparent regarding donations and other matters. If the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham wants to go down that route, I am sure we would be interested to hear about all the donations and declarations of interest of Government Members, including him.
Chris Stephens
It comes as no surprise to me when we are discussing a piece of legislation that has an impact on trade unions that Members declare their membership of a trade union, and that they are all proud to do that. I notice that not one Government Member has yet declared that they are a member of a trade union, which I think is quite interesting.
I have a sense of déjà vu as I stand in this room, as I served on the Trade Union Bill Committee with Conservative Members including the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire, who I see in his usual place, and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. The then Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who I hope is recovering well, said that the purpose of this part of the Bill was not to punish trade unions in terms of costs, nor was it designed to trip people up. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the proposal before us is designed to do. The Government appear to be ignoring the quite reasonable submissions by trade unions regarding the practical difficulties, some of which have been mentioned. I am aware that Unison traditionally has its annual conference by June. It is not really good enough to say that trade unions should be preparing when they submitted to a Government period on how to implement the measures. The answer on that point is not good enough.
This is not just a Labour party issue. It is about political funds, which have funded some great campaigning work on equal pay, health and safety, anti-racism and anti-austerity, as the hon. Member for City of Chester pointed out.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is listing the important types of campaign that have been funded. We were talking earlier about the campaign by USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—against violence against shop workers, which I have been proud to promote in shops in my constituency. Does he agree that such campaigns are vital?
Chris Stephens
They are vital. The political funds help trade unions to raise public awareness, and stopping violence against shop workers is an important issue. That does not just affect trade unions; there is a wider society awareness role for that sort of campaign, which is welcome.
Another practical question is: why are we discussing this now, when the check-off arrangement statutory instrument has still to come before us? The two are related. Trade union branches will have to discuss with employers how to facilitate the changes to subscription rates that this legislation will require. It seems to me rather foolish of the Government to introduce the SI before us today but not the associated check-off arrangements SI. It seems to me that the date of 1 March 2018 has been set deliberately either to trip up the trade unions, or to burden them with additional costs.
The Government are all for deregulation in every other part of the economy, but not in relation to the trade union and labour movement. Mr Stringer, I too will seek to divide the Committee. I urge all hon. Members to vote against the statutory instrument.
Christian Matheson
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Stringer. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham expressed surprise about why so many Opposition Members are pleased to declare our trade union membership. I will tell him why that is: it is because we actually know what we are talking about, first, on how trade unions operate, and secondly, on the practical aspects of how the regulations will affect the day-to-day operations of trade unions. To be honest, I have some sympathy for the Minister, who has been sent out to bat on a subject that she clearly—through no fault of her own—knows very little about, so let me enlighten her.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am trying to ascertain how much each Labour Member receives from trade unions in the course of doing their job. I am not criticising the fact that they are members of the trade union. I applaud that link, but I think it is pertinent to this discussion how much the hon. Gentleman gets every year from a trade union.
Christian Matheson
I am going to have to make this simple. I pay a monthly membership subscription. I give money to the trade unions. That is what this is all about—membership money. The hon. Gentleman asks how much we get from them, but I do not get anything from them. I pay them money. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask that question. He is asking from a position of ignorance because he simply does not understand how trade unions work.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The intervention shows what lies behind this anti-democratic measure. In the mind of the Tories, this is the way the Labour party is funded and the way our democracy operates, and they want a one-party state. Through the resources available to them, they want to dominate the political process in this country. They cannot abide the fact that working people fund a political party to put working-class people’s representatives in the biggest debating chambers in this country. That is what they cannot abide and that is what is behind this legislation.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My great-grandfather—my maternal grandmother’s father—worked on Liverpool docks. He was killed when my grandmother was five years old. Trade unions came into existence initially to improve local terms and conditions in individual workplaces, but it soon became obvious that improving local terms and conditions would not solve the national problems. Individual workers therefore grouped together to try to get national representation to change the law in favour of individual working people. My hon. Friend is right—there is a history to this. Sadly, there is also a history to what the Government are doing now. As I mentioned in my intervention—
The Chair
Order. May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the piece of legislation before us is very narrowly drawn? I have been as relaxed as is possible, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman related his comments to the regulations.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Stringer. Forgive me if my concern about the ignorance of Government Members prompted me to go a little beyond the instrument.
Let me talk instead about my own experience of having to implement procedures of the sort set out in the instrument. I used to work for a trade union—it was called Manufacturing, Science and Finance, then Amicus, and then it became Unite—and rose to a position where, as well as industrial responsibilities, I had to manage, for example, trade union ballots when we had ballots every 10 years—the Better Regulation Task Force at the time said such ballots were onerous and unnecessary—in which 80% to 90% of members, right across the trade unions, always voted in favour of having a political fund. The Minister talked about online membership, and I believe that more members join online now, but in my time on our membership forms there was a clear tick-box to allow the individual to opt in to or out of the political fund. The idea that we sneaked those things through is incorrect.
Chris Stephens
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that some trade unions, such as Unison, have two sections of the one political fund, and that members therefore have a choice as to whether they want to give to an affiliated political fund or a general one?
Christian Matheson
Unison’s affiliated political fund is an important part of its union operations, but so is its non-affiliated fund to which members can choose to contribute. Later in my time at Unite, I was asked to manage its complaints process, because we received complaints from time to time. In the two and a half years I managed that complaints process, I received not one complaint about the management of either the political fund or the opt-out process. There was not one complaint, so quite why the Government went down this line in the first place I do not know.
The Minister made a point about conferences that are coming up this year. She again misunderstands the nature of those; different unions operate in different ways, but conferences tend to be constituted differently for different purposes. Some unions—Unite is one—have a rules conference every four years and a policy conference every couple of years. Those conferences are constituted differently according to the union’s rules. Unfortunately, if the Minister expects unions to convene special conferences, she perhaps might consider whether there will be Government compensation for the huge costs of having to convene those additional conferences—or maybe that is the point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made the point earlier that this is about piling further regulatory burdens and financial costs on unions, so that they cannot do their essential work of campaigning and representing working people everywhere. The original Bill is shabby; the terms of the statutory instrument are mean-minded and, I believe, politically motivated. In common with other Opposition Members, I will certainly be voting against it.
Ms Eagle
We have here a particularly mean and nasty part of a grossly mean and nasty Act of Parliament. It was put in place deliberately to make trouble for trade unions, because the Conservative party does not like the voice of working people being heard and being effective, not only in Parliament but in the workplace. What the Conservative party fails to realise is that it is in all our interests for trade unions to do a proper and good job in protecting people at work, because that civilises all the norms in our society. The Government’s motivation in coming up with the legislation and persisting in forcing these kinds of statutory instrument through the House in this way is plain and obvious for all to see.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I have to take issue with the hon. Lady’s comments about representing working people. My wife is a member of a trade union, my father was a trade union shop steward, I come from a working-class family and I went to a comprehensive school; there are many Members of all parties who do their best every day to try to represent working people. When we party politicise things in this way, it does none of us any good. Will she please appreciate that?
Ms Eagle
This Government party politicised the entire issue, and they have a history of doing that over years. I will not go into that because you will rule me out of order, Mr Stringer, but it is in the history books that opting out was brought in during the aftermath of the general strike to punish trade unions for having the temerity to stand up for their members’ rights then. What we are seeing now is a similar process.
We all know that opting in reduces participation. We know the Government accept that: we in Parliament all agreed to change pensions so that there is auto-enrolment, because the Government want more people to enrol in workplace pensions. We legislated for auto-enrolment to maximise participation.
The sole point of the particular section of the Act with which this statutory instrument is connected is to reduce participation in political funds, so that there is less money available to trade unions to campaign on issues that are important to them in the workplace—health and safety, wages and the conditions that millions of people up and down this country rely on in their jobs—so that the casualisation, the move to zero-hours contracts and the deregulation of our labour market can carry on without effective barriers to that. That is part of the motivation behind this short statutory instrument. I have never seen a smaller and more innocuous-looking statutory instrument that has been designed to cause so much havoc.
If we were feeling generous about the Conservative party’s motivation in proposing the transition period, I suppose we might think that it is just totally ignorant of how trade unions work, but we know that it is not. The Conservatives consulted the unions, the certification officer and the TUC, although in a very unsatisfactory way, but they completely ignored every aspect of that consultation, which drew attention to the practicalities. The unions are being forced by law, like no other organisation in this country, to put themselves through hoops for arbitrary reasons of political expedience, I suppose, to change how they operate. That is because the Conservative party, which has always been opposed to trade unions having a political voice, happens to think that it can get away with being even more opposed to trade unions having that voice, so that there is less resistance to what the Conservatives want to do to working people in this country in the next few years.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I will try to keep this brief. I have to join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire in challenging the constant attitude of Labour Members that only they speak for working-class people. My father was an engineer, my mother was a school dinner lady and I went to my local state comprehensive. I have all the working-class back-story that they want. I just caution the hon. Lady: from her attitude and, it has to be said, that of some of her colleagues, they often seek to give the impression that they have some kind of monopoly over the support of working-class people. As a matter of fact, they do not, and if they had, we would never have won the general election.
Ms Eagle
All I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he wants to demonstrate that he supports working-class people, he should join us when we vote against this wrecking statutory instrument, which is designed to weaken the voice of trade unions and working people in the labour market in our country. It is designed to make it harder for them to achieve an appropriate remuneration for their work, and to make our labour market less fair than it is.
We have seen the explosion of zero-hours contracts and exploitative pay and conditions in that market, which is driving many people to have multiple jobs and still be in work poverty. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to demonstrate his working-class credentials, and if he wants to demonstrate that he really cares about what goes on in the modern labour market, he will join us in voting against the statutory instrument. I look forward to his doing that, because it is about time that the Government were defeated on this wholly irresponsible and unreasonable transition period that they are proposing in the statutory instrument.
I presume that the Minister has read the responses to the consultation, so she must know that all the organisations responded by telling her how difficult it was practically, within their existing rules, to do what she wants in the proposed period. An extension of only a few more months would enable far larger numbers of trade unions to do in an appropriate fashion what the Government are ordering them to do—requiring them to do—and in a way that would not cause chaos to their rule books or with their systems.
Why does the Minister not listen to those wholly reasonable suggestions about how the changes could be made in a way that would not compromise the internal workings, constitutions and rules of those organisations? Why not work with them, instead of imposing these arbitrary dates? I heard no explanation from her; perhaps she has one in front of her now. I will happily give way to her, if she can show a bit of flexibility.
I have had a look at the consultation response to which the Minister referred in the slight apology at the end of her speech, and it is the most unforthcoming document. It is three paragraphs, and nowhere does it say whether any of the trade unions mentioned objected to the transition period that she suggests. Why not put that information in the consultation response? Is it because all of them objected to the short time that the statutory instrument gives for the transition?
I did not think it possible to cause as much havoc, red tape, inconvenience and cost to any organisation as will be caused by the arbitrary changes—imposed from outside, to the way that trade unions must work with their members—made by this statutory instrument and the primary legislation to which it refers. We have not seen the certification officer check-off regulations yet; those are potentially even worse, because they involve having to renegotiate, with multiple employers, very long-standing arrangements.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion, given the Government’s cloth ears on the subject, that they are trying to cause as much administrative havoc as possible to reduce the number of people who participate in unions and pay into the political funds, so that there will be less money available in civic society for pointing out the inequities in the decisions that the Conservative Government are taking across the piece. They do not like opposition, well organised arguments against their approach or campaigning that is done in a way that is likely to elicit sympathy from voters, so they are using—in my view, misusing—their powers to stifle, and to silence, dissent.
There will be a backlash, because in a democracy people who are put upon in this way will always fight back. What the Conservative party does not understand or appreciate is that in a proper democracy we must have due respect for all shades of opinion, including the opinions of the trade union movement. This statutory instrument shows contempt for the trade union movement’s culture and history, its internal organisations and its rulebooks. It puts burdens on trade unions that would never have been put on any other civic society organisation in our country, in what is meant to be a free democracy.
That should be seen for what it is. I will be proud to vote against this statutory instrument at the end of the debate. The fight for proper, free trade unions and proper means of political expression for those who are at work and are protected by their trade unions, day in, day out, will go on beyond this pettiness from the Government—this attempt to misuse Parliament’s powers to ensure that opposition is stifled.
Stephen Doughty
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I joked with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that this has been almost like getting the band back together, to quote “The Blues Brothers”. We have been joined, thankfully, by hon. Friends who have made excellent contributions, including of course the shadow Minister, who has clearly set out the unreasonableness of the statutory instrument and some of the wider issues around it. Unfortunately, as has been said, it reflects the pattern of the Government’s shabby behaviour to not only trade unions but civil society and alternative voices more generally. We saw what the Government attempted to do during the progress of the gagging Act, and their attempt to shut down the arguments of charities and lobbying organisations. We have seen attempts to reduce judicial reviews and many attempts to diminish the reasonable work of trade unions, which act as a voice for many millions of working people up and down the country.
This is not just about unions that have a close relationship with the Labour party. This is about the TUC expressing serious concerns about this statutory instrument and about the Trade Union Act more generally, yet those very reasonable concerns have been ignored, as have the voices of devolved Administrations. I am pleased that the Welsh Labour Government have introduced the Trade Union (Wales) Bill to repeal the parts of the Trade Union Act that they believe go far too far and cross into the devolution settlement and their rights as a devolved Administration. I am proud that we have a Government in Wales who are standing up for trade unions and working people.
As I have said, there is a pattern of behaviour here. Yesterday, we saw an attempt by Conservative Members to restrict the rights of workers massively. The attempt was defeated, but the measure was supported by many Government Members, including some who have in the past burnished their alleged working-class credentials. I am very pleased that the measure was defeated.
We can talk about the politics, and the ideological games that the Government are playing—that would underline the intent behind this statutory instrument and other legislation that they have introduced—but in the end, this comes down to reasonableness. The question is whether it is reasonable for trade unions to comply with a law that has been passed, whether I agree with that law or not—and it is very clear that I do not. We were told all the way through the passage of the Trade Union Bill and in many other discussions around it that it was all about listening and improving democracy and transparency, yet the Government have made attempts to ignore the democratic structures in trade unions and frustrate their operation.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman was on the Trade Union Bill Committee and would have heard the then Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, saying that the measures were not about passing on additional costs to trade unions. Does he think that claim is fulfilled in this statutory instrument?
Stephen Doughty
No, I do not. Indeed, I fear that costs are a consequence of many other parts of the legislation. Fines can be introduced for non-compliance, and there are many other restrictions. Many of the unions we have talked about, particularly USDAW, have been clear that they are trying to comply with the legislation within a reasonable time, yet the Government are not listening to their very reasonable concerns. The unions are suggesting that this be delayed not by years or decades, but by months, given their pre-existing and very reasonable democratic structures and processes.
I go back to the TUC’s key concerns about this statutory instrument. It has been clear that it believes that the proposed 12-month transition period is inadequate and fails to take into account the complexity involved. As I have said, a financial penalty of up to £20,000 can be imposed by a certification officer.
On revising the rulebooks, the changes need to be agreed through union democratic structures—a lengthy process that differs greatly from union to union. They need to consult branches, as has been mentioned several times, and there are rule-making conferences where union democracy can be conducted, with full transparency for the public and members. Why would we want to undermine that by suggesting that unions could go through a secondary process and have a little meeting of the executive committee under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992?
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. It sets a dangerous precedent. Labour Members want to promote democracy and transparency in trade unions and in all civil society organisations, so that their members can see what is going on, how decisions are made and how money is spent. We support such transparency. We support the transparency around the funding relationships between affiliated unions and the Labour party. Unfortunate comments have been made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. We are clear about our support; the Labour party registers donations. We are not just talking about trade unions affiliated to the Labour party; we are talking about all trade unions and the impact this will have.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West pointed out, a month is effectively taken out of the period by the need to secure approval from the certification officer. That seems to be another attempt on the side to curtail this period and reduce the time the trade unions have to deal with this, making things even more difficult.
We talked about the complexity of the process. Renegotiating check-off agreements with employers is not straightforward, particularly if you have a disaggregated workforce across many different locations. This is a particular problem for unions such as USDAW, which has many branches and represents many employees, including in small retail outlets and companies. That could require the renegotiation of check-off arrangements with hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of employers across both the public and private sectors. That is an incredibly complex enterprise. If trade unions are required to do this by law, they will do their very best to comply, but they have to be given a reasonable amount of time to do so.
There was a mention of the plastic bags legislation, but the argument applies to any new legislation; it would apply if we were imposing new regulations on businesses around tax reporting or introducing new regulations around health and safety. I sat on the Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee. Complex changes take a long time to bring in. This is about what is reasonable, when it comes to insuring that those involved can comply with a new legislative framework.
We talked about the practical operational impact on, say, membership databases. There will be a need to redesign membership forms and distribute them across the country, and to train shop stewards and union officials on how to implement the new legislation. Some of those changes have to be deferred until a rule-making conference, because they link into other decisions. That is the crucial point.
What surprises me is that although these concerns have been raised multiple times by unions and the TUC, and the Minister accepts that those representations have been made, this statutory instrument makes no attempt to deal with any of those concerns. That smacks not of reasonableness but of the ideological approach that we have repeatedly seen the Government take towards the trade union movement and society.
We have heard about the particular challenges that USDAW faces; its conference is due to take place. The Minister seemed almost to give a grudging apology. It would be interesting to hear further from her on that. It is not asking for the moon; it is asking for a reasonable period in which to comply. It wants to comply—it made that clear—but its conference has been booked years in advance at a venue that has been paid for. It has to inform its members of conferences, and those members have to get time off work. The changes are being rushed in on 1 March 2018, just weeks before USDAW holds its conference, at which it would be able to decide to implement the legislation. It seems to me—and I think it would to many members of the public, whether they are politically minded or not—an unreasonable measure. I appeal to Government Members to look at that.
Take the politics out of this and look at what is reasonable. Would hon. Members expect businesses and other civil society organisations suddenly to have to comply with measures when they have processes in place to deal with the changes and have indicated a willingness to comply? I will oppose this statutory instrument. The Government’s whole approach to this legislation from day one has been deeply unfortunate and smacks of its real agenda, which is to shut down the voice of working people up and down this country and, indeed, wider civil society.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I was not going to contribute to this debate, but this is a rare occurrence in the more than 20 years that I have been in Parliament. I have seldom been persuaded by comments made in the Chamber or in Committee. I shall vote for these regulations, on the grounds that the Government have to have something in place, and on the grounds that, unlike Opposition Members, I am an extremely strong supporter of the idea that people should have to make a positive decision to contribute to a political fund. I was therefore a strong supporter of the legislation. I have to say, however, that Opposition Members have made serious practical points about the timing of conferences and the dates. Speaking as one who supports the underlying legislation, it would be a mistake to organise things in such a way as to create unnecessary practical difficulties.
I therefore urge the Minister to go back to the Department when the measure is, I hope, agreed to, and reconsider whether a further, revising statutory instrument to extend the period slightly—I stress “slightly”—would make sense. That should not become an excuse for an indefinite or prolonged delay, as I am sure that the entire Government and the entire Conservative party support the measure. It should be made real and be brought in during 2018, but it is worth considering whether the game is worth the candle, given that we are talking about three to five months’ delay, and given what is being said about the timing of the conferences.
Clive Efford
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stringer.
The question behind this is the one that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked us Labour Members about the political levy, “What is it worth?” The truth is, if we think of the contribution that trade unions have made to this country as social reformers, going back to the early days when workers were seeking not just decent conditions and decent pay but the right to a job, it is priceless. They realised then that they needed to pay a political levy to put political representatives in the most powerful debating chambers in the country so that their voices could be heard. The consequence was huge social reform on pay and conditions, health and education, and the creation of the Labour party. The political levy funded workers’ representation through the Labour party here in Parliament, and the Tories cannot bear it and have always chipped away at it.
Imagine a Labour Government having proposed regulation for businesses such that they had to consult their shareholders in the way trade unions are now being required to go through all this bureaucracy. I wonder whether the Conservative party writes every year to everyone who has a standing order explaining how they can stop it. I suspect not.
The explanatory notes to the measure say that its aim is a collaborative approach to resolving industrial disputes. That is typical of how the Government adopt the language of the workers, trade unions and the labour movement: their national living wage is nothing of the sort; they talk about being a party of the worker; they even suggested they favoured putting workers on boards, but I will not hold my breath for that. They adopt the language, but they do not will the means. This measure is a typical example of an attempt to weaken trade union representation of hard-working people who need protection.
I would love to see enthusiasm from Conservative Members for regulation to deal with zero hours contracts, but we do not see it. We do not see this sort of interference in regulation of businesses—far from it—but we do hear, “Deregulation, deregulation.” When it comes to democratic trade unions that are responsible and accountable to their members, and democratic representation voted on by their members, the Conservative party wants to regulate, regulate and bind them down under a plethora of bureaucracy. It is not good enough. The regulations weaken workers’ representation and are ill conceived. The Conservative party will rue the day when it undermined free and democratic trade unions; they are an essential part of a mature democracy, which the Conservatives are chipping away at constantly. The changes are rushed and unacceptable, and I am determined to vote against this statutory instrument.
Margot James
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. This has been a thought-provoking, passionate debate. First, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, for her contribution. I have spoken before about our consultation process with individual unions, the TUC and the certification officer. I accept that there is a degree of complexity to the changes that unions are required to make. At least the certification officer has this month published the model rules and the changes to union rulebooks, which is important.
Margot James
Not yet. There are 13 months to go before the due date. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough talked about “wholly irresponsible” regulations, and many hon. Members challenged the basis of what we are doing, not just the length of time that we are allowing unions before they must comply with the law. We Government Members feel that if people’s money is directed into a fund that is used for political purposes, they should at least know that, and have a say in whether they want that to happen. There may be a divide between the two parties on this, but I am afraid that we Government Members feel strongly that if people have money taken off them, they should have a say in where it goes, and that is all that the measure ensures.
Mr Stringer, you rightly allowed Members a degree of liberty in going beyond the confines of what we are debating; I shall take advantage of that and challenge the idea that we have taken an ideological position on this matter. I do not for one instant believe that. In fact, our research showed that almost half of the money raised through donations to political funds is, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West pointed out, devoted to other campaigns, and not Labour party funds. Almost half goes on the sort of good campaigns that he mentioned. It is a complete myth that this is some sort of political attack on the way that the Labour party is funded.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is generous in giving way. She makes the argument that a lot of money goes to other important campaigns, such as the USDAW campaign on stopping violence against shop workers. Let us take the politics out of this for a moment; will she listen to the very reasonable concerns felt by a number of unions about the length of the transition—points echoed by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, a former Cabinet Minister who sits on her party’s Back Benches? He made an important point about the timing, and the impact that the transition period will have on some very reasonable unions that are trying to comply with the legislation.
Margot James
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he made a powerful speech earlier. Of course I noted the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, and I will give them consideration, but I have made the case—I will not repeat myself—for why we feel that 12 months is acceptable. This comes on the back of an Act that was passed almost a year ago.
Several hon. Members rose—
Margot James
I will not give way for a little while. I want to go back to our purpose, and remind Opposition Members that when we concluded the Act’s Public Bill Committee sittings, the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), said on the record:
“we recognise that the Government’s new proposal”—
that is, that only new members should be required to opt into the political funds—
“is a substantial improvement ?on the original Bill, which would have required all members to opt in within three months and to renew that opt-in within five years.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 27 April 2016; c. 1510.]
Hon. Members are making a great deal of something that really ought to be happening already, and is a modest advance.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for giving way; she has been most generous. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset pointed out, there is a real problem with the date given in the statutory instrument—1 March 2018. Is the Minister indicating that she is amenable to moving that date by a couple of months, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested?
Margot James
I am not going to proceed down that path at this point. As required by the Act, we have consulted and sought views on the length of the transition period.
Margot James
Sorry, I am not going to give way again; I have been very generous. [Interruption.] As it is the shadow Minister, I will give way, but for the last time.
Gill Furniss
Will the Minister take on board what the right hon. Member for West Dorset said and give us some flexibility in implementing the transition? She seems to have indicated that she may look at that, but it would be good to put on the record whether that will occur.
Margot James
I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. I am not going to repeat myself again. The regulations implement the Act’s provisions by providing for a 12-month transition period. We have taken a proportionate approach on the political funds opt-in transition.
Margot James
Sorry, I am not going to give way again. We have taken on board the comments from this debate as well as those during the consultation. Our view is that the 12-month period gives sufficient time.
Question put.