Trade Union Bill

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 13. Paragraphs 101 to 107 of the Select Committee report dealt with our unanimous concerns—this is one of the unanimous parts of the Select Committee report—that Clause 11 would be disproportionately burdensome, especially when considered in relation to the size of the political fund contribution from members, which is an average of 9p a week. This is particularly burdensome.

Paragraph 141(e) declares our unanimous view:

“The reporting duties in clause 11 should be revised after consultation with the Certification Officer, to ensure that they are not disproportionately burdensome”.

This amendment will give effect to that unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee—I look forward to noble Lords on the Government Benches supporting the views that they agreed to.

Looking at the evidence given to the Select Committee, the Certification Officer on 9 February said, in oral evidence:

“The impact of Clause 11 will cause me a great deal of work … I can see that it will cause unions quite a lot of difficulty, for very practical reasons”.

He goes on:

“Trade unions give money from their political funds at not only national but regional and branch level, and there is a job of collating to do. If there is sometimes use of a trade union room for general political purposes, who is the recipient? There is an issue of doubt there. Each payment has to be categorised under one of the six headings in Section 72 of the 1992 Act. A lot of those overlap, so which category is it put into? … In my experience, uncertainty gives way to litigation”.

Is that the intention of the Bill?

The impact assessment, which has come in for quite a bit of criticism, says at paragraph 266:

“We therefore assume it will take a day of a trade union official’s time each year to provide the details of the specific expenditure from the political fund”.

It is on that basis that this clause is in the Bill. It is completely disproportionate and not based on any kind of proper impact assessment. Yet the next government amendment ploughs on irrespective of that.

I wonder whether anyone associated with writing the Bill has any idea how trade unions work. Trade unions have external, independent auditors who ask questions. Noble Lords on the Benches opposite who have dealings with a company will know the kinds of questions; they do not ask any different questions when they are looking at the accounts of unions. Those accounts have to go to the union conferences. The members at the union conferences analyse and debate those accounts and when it comes to the political fund, they have to list the affiliations that the union has. They have to discuss the policies of support that the union has. So transparency is already there. I wonder on what the Government are basing their argument about transparency.

The government amendment, which I hope the House will not accept, has no relevance to dealing with the disproportionality and does not assist transparency. There has been no consultation at any point with the Certification Officer—he told us that in his evidence, in direct answer to a question. There has been none with the trade unions, to which this clause will particularly apply and for which it will cause problems. Yet the Government are trying to say, “We know all about how these funds work and we are trying to get transparency”. This is a very small amendment; it does not prevent the clause going through but simply asks for consultation with the Certification Officer. I hope that the House accepts the amendment.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, I will not detain the House for very long. When the committee met we noted that this clause was not a manifesto commitment. Accordingly, there is not that complication as one seeks to apply common sense. The committee was lucky to receive a written submission from BIS as to what Clause 11 was intended to do. It stated:

“Clause 11 provides for additional transparency over the expenditure of the union’s political fund. It places a requirement on unions to provide more detail about political expenditure … This information will allow union members to make an informed choice about whether they wish to contribute to the fund”.

We were lucky also that Nick Boles in his evidence said several times—I have picked just one instance—that we must make sure that this is,

“not designed to trip people up”.

The difficulty—I think the Select Committee was unanimous on this—was that the current clause did not “scratch the itch” that was outlined by BIS but certainly amounted to “tripping up”, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, have just given. I feel that the amendment we have put forward does scratch those itches. I therefore urge the Minister to accept it as it is proportionate, effective and balanced.

Remembrance Day

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, I believe that this House is hugely indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and for the quite outstanding way in which he introduced it—emotional but also factual.

I declare an interest as vice-president of the War Widows’ Association, which held a service in Westminster Abbey this morning, supported yet again, as it has been year on year, by the Duke of Edinburgh attending and laying a memorial in the abbey. The members of the association are quite elderly, some of them very elderly, but they were joined today by widows who are very young and have young families. That is a result of the operations with which we in Britain have been faced.

Remembrance and debt are met in a number of ways. We meet them this weekend as a nation in the services that we hold. However, there are a number of other ways. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, year on year, is meeting the debt that we owe to those who have sacrificed their lives. Some years ago I was asked to carry out a review for the commission when it was having industrial relations problems. It affected me very strongly when we visited war graves in different parts of Europe—including France and Italy—and saw, row after row after row, the graves of soldiers who were 18, 19 or 20 years-old. A whole nation of young people had sacrificed their lives for us. We cannot forget that and we must continue to meet the debt that we owe to them and their families.

The military covenant, on which I congratulate the Government, is another way of meeting our debt to those who have sacrificed their lives, those whom they left behind and those who will come after them as well. If the Armed Forces are anything, they are a family; a family of young men and women working, serving their nation together and acting as a family looking after each other in the bad times as well as the good times.

Another way that various Governments have sought to meet the debt that we owe is through the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The debate that we are having today is, in many ways, very sombre and respectful, but it is also looking backwards. I think we have to look forwards because you cannot wheel out debt and remembrance once a year every November and come back to it the following November. It is as ongoing as the service that our young men and women give to this nation when they sign up, knowing that they may have to pay the ultimate price—indeed, so many of them have paid it and continue to do so. There has only been one year since the end of the Second World War when our service people have not been somewhere in the world on operations in the name of this country. The role that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body carries out is part of the commitment that we give to our young service men and women. It is independent, and it carries out its work, I would suggest, in a very fair way. I was honoured and privileged to be the chairman of the review body.

The problem that we have with the Armed Forces is that decisions that we reach today impact on their lives year on year, not only when they are in the service but when they are out of it and when they retire. I am looking at the overall terms and conditions under which we recognise part of their contribution—it can only be part of it. I was appointed chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in 1997. I came to it following two or three successive years when their annual pay award had been staged. Noble Lords might think that is rather mercenary in this debate. It is not, because the cutback in the pay that they had under the then Tory Government meant that at the end of their service their pension was going to be affected every single year until they died. That has a major impact on the pensions of Armed Forces personnel. If they are lucky, they leave the service in their 50s and that is the point at which their pension is based. They come out at a time when it is quite often difficult for them to get another job. Even if the economy is buoyant, they are at an age where, in this so-called ageless society, age is a factor. The pension impact is very important.

Last year, I was not only shocked but appalled to learn of two contradictory statements from the Government about the measures that we are taking as a nation, although I accept that we have to take some others. Initially, the Armed Forces were not going to be involved in the public sector pensions review. Subsequently, we were told that they would be. That decision, particularly if there is a move from RPI to CPI for pensions, will have a significant impact on armed services personnel. It does not meet the covenant that we have reached with our personnel.

Not only that, but this year any member of the Armed Forces earning more than £21,000 per annum received no pay award, which means that we have young lads and women in Afghanistan risking their lives being told that they will not get a pay award. It does not impact on them individually but on their families. Most of those personnel will have young families on whom the impact is substantial. Accommodation has been mentioned. It has been, and still is, an ongoing sore not only in this Government but in the previous Labour Government.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that we each have eight minutes in which to speak. Pensions and pay are two important factors, which impact on our service men and women. In the past year, we have seen a breach of what is referred to as “family harmony” in the Army, but not in the other two services, of just over 10 per cent. That cannot be helpful.

In conclusion, I shall quote paragraph 120 of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body 2011 report. It states:

“We are seriously concerned about the cumulative impact of the overall changes in prospect. Inflation is higher than was expected when the pay freeze was announced, allowances have been cut, and the change in pensions indexation reduces the value of the pension more than other public sector groups. Taken together, these changes pose considerable risks to morale and potentially to recruitment and retention”.

In replying, will the Minister give a commitment to urge the Government to lift the pay freeze and to make sure that we honour the commitment we give to our Armed Forces personnel in regard to their pensions?