Draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2017

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

I can be brief because I agree with many of the points made by the Labour spokesman. I also welcomed the Minister’s comments about ensuring diversity in the engineering construction industry, but I wanted to ask him whether an equality impact assessment has been done—there is no mention of one in the explanatory notes. Also, how do the Government intend to measure diversity in the industry?

Trade Union Bill (Discussions)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

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

We in the Scottish National party reiterate our complete opposition to the Trade Union Bill. Can the Minister confirm that it would be strange, on a piece of legislation that affects 6 million workers, for a Government not to consult bodies that represent those 6 million workers? Can he also confirm that the Government were considering concessions as far back as 26 January, when a memorandum in his name was leaked to many media outlets? Can he confirm what ongoing discussions he is having with devolved institutions, which still have major problems with the Bill and its extent as it relates to facility time and other issues?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman made a valuable contribution to our deliberations at all stages, but perhaps especially in Committee. I seem to remember that his criticism was both vocal and incisive on almost every measure in the Bill. Of course, he is right. Not only do we hold discussions with institutions in society about which we are legislating—I think it would be a little unfair if we did not—but we actually invited them to give evidence to the Committee. One of the most terrifying sights that I have seen in a long time was the general secretary of Unite, the general secretary of the GMB, the general secretary of Unison and the general secretary of the TUC all sitting in a row giving evidence to that Committee. Of course it was right to do that.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we have consulted the devolved Administrations. I have had a number of conversations by phone and in person with Ministers in the devolved Governments, who have expressed some concern about whether all the provisions in the Bill should properly apply to them, although we are absolutely confident that all the provisions in the Bill relate to reserved matters and therefore apply to everyone and every trade union in the United Kingdom.

Trade Union Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

No, I am not going to give way again; I am going to carry on with my argument. The review will report accordingly to the House.

The power to permit electronic balloting already exists in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004, but we have not yet exercised it because we have not been convinced, and neither have any previous Government, including a Labour Government that held office for 13 years, that the system would ensure privacy, opportunity and minimise the risk of fraud and malpractice. There has been much positive progress in the way that technology can help to address such issues, which is reflected in the reports I have cited.

We have been clear that we will be willing to use the power when we are convinced that the concerns have been adequately addressed. The legislation is framed in a way that requires us first to be satisfied on such matters, and for good reason. That is why, instead of a strategy for roll-out, I am today seeking agreement to a statutory requirement for the Government to publish their response to the review, which would be laid before Parliament, making it readily accessible to hon. Members, who could ask questions and raise matters in the House in the usual way.

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

Before the Trade Union Bill reached the House of Lords, the Minister wrote a letter to ministerial colleagues that was leaked to the Socialist Worker, for which the Minister may have an explanation. Will he confirm that he will use secondary legislation to put e-balloting in place should the pilot be successful?

[Nick Boles]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that my relations with the Socialist Workers Party or its newspaper are probably rather less good than the hon. Gentleman’s, so it was not through my good offices that it got hold of any document—not that I accept that it did get hold of any document.

The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question, and I have made it clear that the Government have no objection in principle and that we expect statutory elections eventually to move towards online voting, but we will do that with trade union strike ballots when we are convinced that such voting is safe. That is why we want an independent review that will report to Parliament. I will not prejudge its outcome, because if I did, it would be slightly pointless to have the review in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I did not have that issue, but that does show that there can be issues with online voting, as there can be with postal voting. While it is not a matter of enormous public interest, because it was not a statutory election, we would be very worried if a statutory election, such as a union strike ballot, was subject to the same level of problems.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

Have I not given way to the hon. Gentleman already? I will give way one more time and then I will get on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that whoever is the Conservative party candidate for London Mayor is not a matter of interest to the public? I find his argument bizarre.

[Nick Boles]

I am quite happy to explain again that it is not a statutory election.

The review will allow us to consider again the case for e-balloting and ensure that we have assessed the latest technology. Taken together, the review and the Government’s response will enable the Secretary of State to make a properly informed and transparent decision about the risks of achieving safe, secure electronic balloting, and therefore whether such a system should be rolled out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution on this and other important matters. He has made a significant contribution to the improvement of this Bill. On his particular question, the amendment that we propose agrees with the noble Lords that this review should be commissioned within six months and then reported to Parliament. I have made it clear that we have no objection in principle to e-balloting. If the review suggests that it is safe to embrace, we will proceed with it. I think he will have noted that the amendment specifically suggests that we should be able to introduce pilots. One issue with the existing provisions is that it might not be possible to do a pilot without going for a full application. Such pilots might well be an appropriate phase after the review has been completed.

Let me return now to facility time and the facility time cap. The Government do not agree with the Lords amendment and, in consequence, I am moving amendment 17, which brings back the reserve cap, but with safeguards that respond to the concerns that were expressed in our debates and that led to the deletion of the clause in the other place and were the subject of quite forensic inquisition in both Houses.

Together with the publication requirements, it is my view that a reserve power to cap facility time to a reasonable level delivers our manifesto commitment to

“tighten the rules around taxpayer-funded paid facility time for union representatives.”

I shall reiterate what I said when this House was previously considering the Bill. We are not seeking to ban facility time. That has never been our intention. Our strong preference is that transparency alone should be enough to change practices in the public sector, with employers voluntarily reducing their costs where they are found to be spending more on facility time than is reasonable.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being very generous. In the aforementioned leaked memo to which I referred earlier, there was an indication that there would be concessions and discussions with the devolved Administrations in relation to facility time. Will he confirm whether consultations have taken place with the devolved Administrations, or whether it is his intention to dictate to the devolved Administrations what the facility time should be for their own workforce?

[Nick Boles]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I never comment on articles in the Socialist Worker. He will also understand that we have regular conversations with Ministers in the devolved Administrations, but all of the matters addressed in this Bill are reserved matters. It is a matter not of dictating, but of this Government fulfilling their duty to legislate on the matters for which we have exclusive responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I accept that, but as the hon. Gentleman says, the threshold is not uniform, and in the public sector it is right to have a threshold for taking action when there is a lot of employment protection in terms of having jobs to go back to.

Although I have regrets about the threshold for the private sector, I believe that electronic balloting will lead to higher turnouts and will meet strike thresholds, and as long as the system is secure and can be seen to be genuine, it is the right thing to do. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to apply the policy as quickly as possible because that will enable the private sector to meet the thresholds more easily than perhaps it can now.

There is a balance to be struck. There needs to be some control on those in the public sector who cause great disruption to people who work in the private sector who may not enjoy the terms and conditions that they do. I unreservedly support thresholds in the public sector, but I do not have the same regard for them in the private sector. Hon. Members can refer back to Hansard and my comments on Second Reading, which explain my views further.

The Government’s approach to electronic balloting is right. When it can be proved to be safe and reliable, it should be introduced because I believe the Bill will have the unintended consequence of having a bigger effect on union members in the private sector than on union members in the public sector.

[Chris Stephens]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union activity in the past 20 years.

In the past few days in the media, we have seen the performance of somersaults of Olympian proportions, and I commend Ministers for that. Having voted down sensible amendments in Committee and on Third Reading to allow alternative methods of voting in industrial action ballots, Ministers found themselves so out of step on the work and organisation of trade unions that even arch-Thatcherites such as Lord Michael Forsyth are friends of the workers by comparison. If I were a member of the Conservative party, I would be very worried about that.

I welcome this minor change. As we have argued previously, if e-balloting is good enough for the Conservative party to elect its candidate for London Mayor, surely it is good enough for trade unions to use when making their choices. As Lord Cormack said in the other place,

“I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are arguing against a system that the Conservative Party felt was good enough for the selection of a candidate for London Mayor”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 1861.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Given the increase in postal charges in recent years, does my hon. Friend agree that it also costs more to do postal balloting?

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, I agree. I also take the view that postal balloting prolongs the length of a dispute because of the time it takes to conduct such a ballot. Electronic balloting allows for greater flexibility and efficiency.

Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we are disappointed that the pilot will not extend to workplace balloting as a secure option, because that would increase democracy in the workplace. The TUC has previously argued that there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way when ballots take place in the workplace, as has been argued by the Government.

Although the Government have accepted the need to commission an independent review on the use of e-ballots for industrial action, their amendment (a) effectively means that Ministers would only have to publish a response to the review. They would, therefore, not be obligated to introduce a strategy to roll out electronic voting. That is simply unacceptable.

Lords amendment 2 is actually very moderate. The question is whether the Government’s response is good enough or whether it weakens the intent behind the Lords amendment. Having listened carefully to the Minister, we can only conclude that Government amendment (a) does weaken the other place’s intention.

The Government propose to revise the Lords amendment in such a way that Ministers would be required only to publish a response, but they would not need to take any action. That underlines what the Government intend to do after the e-balloting review. They intend to do nothing: there will be no strategy on how to proceed and, therefore, no actual commitment to allowing electronic balloting in the future. That is absurd. If the Government were truly intent on modernising the law, they would allow for electronic balloting and secure workplace balloting. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that. Our view is clear. Electronic balloting will modernise the law, promoting democracy and inclusion.

We have always been clear that the clause on facility time is completely unnecessary and unwanted. Having such a clause in the Bill signals intent: the Government’s intent to interfere with the facility time arrangements—the basic industrial relations arrangements—not only of devolved Administrations but of local authorities across the United Kingdom. As Lord Kerslake put it in the other place,

“The Government are saying that the costs should be transparently known and proportionate to the benefits…However, this is fully secured…through Clause 12. There is no need for the reserve powers contained in Clause 13.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 1905.]

He further stated:

“If, however, the public body is a local authority, it has its own democratic mandate and is answerable to its own electorate for the cost. Given the immense financial pressures now on local authorities, do we really think that they are incapable of making this judgment?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 1906.]

Although we acknowledge that some amendments have been made by the Government, that is simply not good enough. Any attempt by the UK Government to instruct devolved institutions on how to treat their workers should be robustly resisted. Facility time allows union representatives to spend time in the workplace improving the safety and health of their workers. Representatives also promote training opportunities and negotiate better pay, terms and conditions for employers, among many other roles and responsibilities. Limiting the ability of unions to play such a role in our public sector will have a damaging impact on public sector workers across the United Kingdom.

Trade unions are key social partners, which play an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, particularly in the workplace. The existence of good employment practices is a key contributor to economic competitiveness and social justice. In Scotland, the SNP Government have taken a different approach. We have taken a modern and progressive approach to industrial relations and believe that trade unions are at the heart of achieving fair work. The UK Government should work with trade unions in a social partnership approach rather than launching yet more attacks against them.

Industrial relations mechanisms should be agreed at a devolved or local level. It beggars belief that the UK Government do not believe that a legislative consent motion is required for a UK Minister to dictate policy in these areas. The detail of much of the Bill is set out in regulations, and there will be no formal opportunity for the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government to influence such regulations. Today, we need a commitment from the UK Government that the rights of workers across the UK will not be restricted by the imposition of facility time.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked the Minister whether the Health Secretary would

“make regulations that affect facility time in the health services of Scotland and Wales, which are wholly devolved and under the control of Health Ministers in those countries”.

The Minister replied, “Yes,” but stressed that

“health policy and the management of the NHS in those countries will remain…in the control of the Governments” ––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2015; c. 347.]

He was referring to the Governments of the devolved Administrations. I said at the time:

“Having only just debated Evel last week, it seems that the UK Government now want to dictate to devolved administrations”.

On 2 February, the Minister said that the Government would not change the proposals on facility time and check-off provisions in the Bill. However, the infamous letter referred to earlier of 26 January—the letter was leaked by the Socialist Worker newspaper and published widely in other media outlets—contained a number of concessions that the Government proposed to make to the Bill in the House of Lords. Those concessions included giving devolved Administrations the right to maintain facility time and check-off arrangements. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed today that devolved Administrations will maintain that control over facility time. The SNP will continue to push to derail any attempt by the UK Government to dictate to Scotland and other devolved Administrations how they should treat their public sector workers.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

First, I declare an interest as a member of the GMB. My wife also works for a trade union.

We often hear the cry from Conservative Members that the turnout in union ballots is not high enough. We have before us a mechanism that would at least assist with that, by getting more people to participate in e-balloting. I have seen some pretty poor excuses for statements, but today’s statement about why we cannot introduce e-balloting for trade union ballots must win the prize for the poorest argument.

This Government pride themselves on wanting to be an e-Government on everything from driving licences to the new universal credit, which can only be accessed online. The Minister said the Government need to be convinced that e-balloting would be secure, but in response to numerous interventions from Labour Members, he did not articulate the reasons why he thought the process was in any way insecure. I would respect his position more if he came up with reasons and said what the problems are. The idea of a review is clearly the classic civil service “kick it into the long grass” approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I apologise to Chris Stephens. I should have called him before the last speaker.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I agree with many of the points he made.

SNP Members have always opposed the Government’s proposals on trade union political funds for the simple reason that it should be up to trade union members to decide where their money goes. It is up to them to decide whether they should support one political party or another, or whether they should sponsor individual candidates, as has happened in some cases, rather than work for a particular political party.

I emphasise the point that this is an attack not just on the Labour party but on the ability of a trade union to organise effectively across a community. Political funds have done great community work, health and safety campaigning, and anti-racism campaigning, sponsoring organisations such as Hope not Hate and Show Racism the Red Card. There is also charity work and international work—trade unions do fantastic work across the world.

It will come as no great surprise to any trade unionist that the change on check-off is not a major one. Unison has said that it has 11,000 different agreements where it contributes to the cost of check-off. We welcome the Government’s U-turn on that.

I have participated in proceedings at every stage of the Bill’s progress. I will say a few words about that. If the voices of those with experience of a trade unionised workplace and those with a trade union background had been listened to and heeded, we would not be where we are now. There perhaps would not even have been a Trade Union Bill. Many Opposition Members have pointed out on a regular basis how unnecessary and unwanted this legislation is.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I declare an interest as a member of Unison and of the Community trade union, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I should also say that although I am a member of those unions, I have very good employers in the people of Ilford North and do not anticipate going on strike any time soon.

The Government’s concessions are welcome, but it is something of an irony that it has fallen to the unelected House to defend some of the most democratic elements of trade unions and their commitment to democratic life in the country. For some reason, this Government, who were elected with a slender majority of just 12, seem to think that that majority gives them carte blanche to trample all over the democratic traditions, values and heritage of our country.

It is not just the brazen attack on party political funding, and the Labour party in particular, that the Government have embarked upon with this Bill. Look at their record in the short time that they have governed as a single party. They have sought to rig the House of Commons, pack the House of Lords, gag charities and civil society, and restrict trade unions. This Sunday, new restrictions kick in on any publicly funded body, restrictions that have the potential to gag all sorts of people, including academics. It is a complete dog’s breakfast of a proposal. We will see what the higher education Bill says later this year; the Government will undoubtedly try to have another go at student unions, like they did in the 1990s.

I have been listening to the Minister this afternoon, and in particular, to what he said about the previous group of Government measures, which unfortunately passed, underlining why the Bill should still be opposed. There can be no decent evidence-based argument against trialling electronic balloting for trade union industrial actions and proposals to strike. The Minister himself could not offer a single shred of evidence to argue against a simple trial.

The Bill has really been about delegitimising trade unions. Whenever people go on strike and take industrial action the Government want to be able to say that a hard rump of activists have prompted it. But even the measures in the Bill would not have stopped the junior doctors or London transport workers going on strike. The turnout in both cases exceeded the threshold in the Bill. If the Government are serious about trade unions having broader and greater democratic legitimacy, they should unshackle the hands of trade union leaders and activists, so that they can do what they want to do and have asked to do, namely enter the 21st century by having electronic balloting.

We also had the farce about facility time. That goes to the heart of the Government’s fundamental misunderstanding of the role of trade unions. Full-time reps and staff who are let off part time for facility time play a valuable role in good industrial relations. They take up cases on behalf of their members, and ensure that they are well represented and supported. They advise employers on how to improve the workplace environment. Where there are good industrial relations, with trade unions and employers working together, the likelihood of a strike is lessened, and the workplace environment is better for everyone.

[Chris Stephens]

Is another key role for trade unions that of welfare, and giving workers assistance and help that they might not know about?

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree. The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience from his own background in the trade union movement, and good employers value that working relationship with trade unions. When I speak to trade union members—whether in my local authority where I am an elected member of the London Borough of Redbridge, or representatives in other workplaces—they tell me that they do not have excessive facility time; often they do not have enough. They struggle to cope with caseloads, particularly when there are major changes to employment involving terms and conditions or staff numbers. That generates a huge burden and workload, and I do not think that the Government appreciate or value that.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain).

What a dismal failure of a Budget from a failing Chancellor. We heard yesterday that there are to be additional spending cuts of £3.5 billion in 2019-20, as austerity is forecast to still be with us 12 years after the financial crisis. Yet we hear that, among other measures, capital gains tax is to be cut. Let us contrast those two measures: tax cuts for the wealthy, and ongoing austerity for everyone else. That demonstrates once again that austerity is no more than a political choice by this Government.

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

I agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that this Budget contains more cuts than a Bates motel shower curtain?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

Conservative Members are very clear that it should not be possible to call a strike on the basis of an out-of-date mandate, and we are legislating to stop that. We are clear and our candidate to be Mayor of London is clear on that, but Labour wants to oppose this measure and support tube strikes that will prevent people who are paid a lot less than tube drivers from getting to work over the weekend.

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

T8. Will Ministers confirm what recent meetings they have had with devolved Administrations, local authorities and other public bodies on their proposed anti-Trade Union Bill? Can they confirm that the proposals, particularly those on facility time and check-off, have no support across the public sector? Is it not time to dump those proposals?

[Nick Boles]

No. I am simply sorry to see yet another party of opposition standing up for illegitimate strikes that cause huge disruption for people who are trying to work hard, trying to get their kids to school and trying to get to work on time. I am glad to say that the Conservatives will be standing up for working people, not trade union bosses.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

The Bill has a particular phrase attached to it—public sector fat cats—and when we look more closely at it, we see that it applies to non-public sector workers and non-fat cats. We will be taking a close look at that.

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

The term “public sector fat cats” surely does not apply to a civil servant who earns less than £25,000 a year, whose length of service may be 30 years or more. The unintended consequence of the policy is that it will impact on the longest-serving employees.

[Ms Eagle]

There are what I have rather politely and generously, in my view, referred to as unintended consequences of the cap, and I noted with some distaste the Secretary of State’s use of a pejorative term such as “public sector fat cats” to justify the existence of the proposed cap. It is clear that the cap could impact, as the hon. Gentleman says, on those on moderate and even lower pay with long service, and it could impact on pension “strain” payments for workers, rather than on those on the highest salaries with much shorter service.

The Cabinet Office has confirmed that some civil servants earning less than £25,000 a year could be affected by the cap because they have long service. Surely this was not the intention. Again, the Opposition will explore some of the consequences. We have even heard that essential restructuring in some public services is being held up by the unintended consequences of this crude measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I rise to speak for the SNP, and, unfortunately, against the Enterprise Bill, which contains the typical Tory agenda of the privatisation of public assets, and the penalisation of public sector workers. Although we support the long-overdue creation of a small business commissioner, the action to support small businesses does not go nearly far enough. The Bill is, in our view, a wasted opportunity to back small business, incentivise investment and innovation, and encourage entrepreneurship.

The ill-conceived and badly drafted nature of some aspects of the Bill are particularly disappointing. Our key concerns lie in three areas. First, we are concerned about the level of support for small business. We welcome the concept of a small business commissioner, and it is important that the office has real power and teeth to address critical issues facing small businesses. The picture on private sector late payments is getting worse, and the SNP will press for further protections for small and supply-chain businesses around late payments and retentions. The SNP Scottish Government have a proud record of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, and we want the UK to do all it can. Unfortunately, a commissioner with no powers of reprimand is of little value, and it comes at a significant cost to the taxpayer.

Secondly, we feel strongly that the UK Green Investment Bank has acted as a core investor in the UK’s green economy, and it should continue to do so by sticking to its green objectives. The SNP opposes plans to privatise it, which would result in the loss of a significant public stake and of the bank’s green objectives. The GIB is an established means of managing the pressing and vital transition towards a low-carbon economy.

Sadly, the UK Government are not only failing to give the right support to our oil and gas sector, but simultaneously pulling the plug on renewable technology subsidies and projects, while also privatising the very bank set up to help the UK to meet its green objectives. That is a triple whammy of destruction for the future of our energy industries. The SNP support the Government maintaining a significant public stake in the GIB. Given the impact of devolved law, any privatisation of the GIB in part or in full will require a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament.

Thirdly, one of the more poorly thought out and drafted parts of the Bill is the capping of exit payments for public sector employees. Despite the UK Government’s rhetoric, that will affect many public servants on low and moderate salaries—midwives, nurses, librarians and social workers—who have given long service to the public sector, as we have already heard. Some parts of the Bill are so poorly drafted that they make little sense. The Bill does not properly reflect the results of the consultation undertaken by the Government or the initial plans drafted following the consultation.

[Chris Stephens]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern, and that of the Public and Commercial Services Union, that the consultation period did not follow the Cabinet Office consultation principles, under which there should be a 12-week consultation? The consultation on the exit payments lasted four weeks and took place during a peak holiday period for the civil servants involved.

[Hannah Bardell]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. If we are going to have consultations, we should let them run for the full period and take proper cognisance of their results.

The SNP opposes the Government’s plans for caps on public sector exit payments. We note the specific concerns raised in the other place regarding the complete lack of an impact assessment alongside the Bill. That is regrettable, but not unsurprising, as this Government seem to lurch from one piece of disastrous legislation to another.

A small business commissioner may be a great idea on paper, and perhaps even in practice, although I am not entirely sure that, at a cost of about £1.1 million, we will get value for the price paid. If the commissioner has no powers to reprimand, how can decisions be enforced? In 2011, research by the Federation of Small Businesses found that 73% of small businesses had experienced late payment in the previous 12 months, with half having outstanding invoices of £5,000 and a fifth of £20,000. The Department’s own impact assessment sets out research by the payments service BACS, undertaken in January 2015, which shows that the average small business is waiting for £31,900 of overdue payments and that late payment is costing small and medium-sized businesses nearly £27 billion every year.

In Scotland, research released by the Bank of Scotland at the end of January 2016 showed that the amount the typical Scottish SME is owed has ballooned by about 60% in the past two years alone. The research found that the average amount owed to Scottish SMEs on invoices has increased from £50,000 in 2014 to £80,000 in 2016. Late payments were identified as the biggest challenge facing firms. FSB Scotland’s Colin Borland has said:

“One in four smaller businesses will go bankrupt if the amount outstanding grows to £50,000.”

We need stronger and more stringent legislation in this area.

The picture on private sector late payments is therefore getting worse. As I have said, we welcome the Bill’s creation of a small business commissioner, who would assist small businesses. However, the SBC does not have the necessary powers to do the job. We share the FSB’s concerns that little detail has been provided about the exact powers and resources the commissioner will have at his or her disposal—for example, the powers to refer cases to the Competition and Markets Authority or to make legally binding rulings. The UK Government could do much more in the Bill to remedy problems in the private sector caused by moneys being withheld from the supply chain.

I recently met those involved with the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group, which represents 60,000 specialist engineering firms in the UK construction industry. They have called for the Bill to provide for a retention deposit scheme. They explained to me that withholding retentions is a common feature of construction contracts and the devastating impact that has on small and medium-sized businesses. At any one time, £3 billion is held in retentions, and £40 million was lost by UK construction firms in retentions in 2015 due to the insolvency of the main contractor.

We believe that a retention deposit scheme could take the form of the project bank accounts piloted by the Scottish Government. I urge the Minster to engage with my colleague Fergus Ewing MSP, the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, to hear how well that scheme operates in Scotland. Our Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, announced in April 2013 that we intend to trial project bank accounts. Trials are taking place in NHS Lanarkshire, Transport Scotland’s Inveramsay bridge project and the Scottish Borders Council’s Galashiels transport hub project.

The Scottish Government have also taken action on prompt payment in public procurement. We implemented our prompt payment policy in 2009 by introducing a contract term for all public bodies to ensure that supply chain firms were paid within 30 days under all public contracts. We expect all public bodies in Scotland to follow our lead by implementing and enforcing prompt public payment policies that deal fairly and transparently with businesses, and to publish their results. We hope that they will follow suit and consider those points. Our action on private sector late payments has been supported by the chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Liz Cameron, who said:

“In the current economic climate, businesses need the confidence to invest and grow. Late payments can hold this back and the culture must be tackled from the top down.”

The SNP Government will continue to support the small business bonus scheme, which is delivering rates reductions for more than 100,000 firms across Scotland. We heard earlier at Business, Innovation and Skills questions that there is pressure on the UK Government to look again at that issue. We know that they are considering it and we look forward to hearing the results.

Since its inception, the GIB has acted as a core investor in the UK’s green economy. The SNP wholeheartedly opposes the plans for yet more privatisation, which in the case of the GIB will result in the loss of a significant public stake and the bank’s green objectives. The UK Government must provide assurances that the bank will remain headquartered in Edinburgh and that the full £3.8 billion commitment to the bank will be carried through. We also seek assurances that the UK Government will remain committed to maintaining a significant public stake to ensure that the GIB retains its original purpose as a green bank.

Industry experts have warned that the move to privatise the GIB could deter private sector investment in the UK’s low-carbon economy. Concerns have further been raised over the potential impact that it could have on the tension between the GIB’s longer-term, higher-value projects and the temptation to invest in projects that create short-term returns.

We are particularly conscious of the concerns raised by the Environmental Audit Committee in its 2015 report, which said that

“two key risks to GIB cannot be avoided merely by protecting its green purposes: first, the risk that GIB will move its focus away from novel and complex projects which struggle to find funding in favour of easier and less complex projects, and second, the risk that a privatised GIB could invest in areas which may damage its reputation and undermine its role and leadership in the green economy.”

If a Committee of this House is so concerned, why are the Government not concerned and why are they not taking action in this regard?

It is the firm view of the SNP that the Enterprise Bill’s removal of public sector controls on the GIB would require a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, given the impact on devolved law. That view is supported by Aileen McHarg, the professor of public law at Strathclyde University, who said it was “incontrovertible” that the green purposes included in the legislation related to devolved matters and that Scottish consent would be required for any change that might

“have implications for future investment in green technologies”.

I hope that the Minister and the Government heed that point and remember that we have devolution for a purpose, not just to mitigate the dire decisions of this UK Government and to pick up the pieces of Tory policy, as is so often the case.

A number of the bank’s investments are relevant to Scotland, including a £2 million investment in a sewage heat recovery system installation programme in locations across Scotland; nearly £30 million of equity investment in the construction of Levenseat Renewable Energy Ltd’s energy waste recycling plant; and a £6.3 million loan to Glasgow City Council to enable the replacement of its streetlights with lower-energy lights. The list goes on. All those projects are significant to the local communities of Scotland and to Scotland as a whole. We do not want any of these opportunities to be lost to yet more privatisation.

Finally, I turn to the plans in the Bill to cap exit payments for public sector employees, which will, despite the UK Government’s rhetoric—and it has been poor rhetoric at that—affect many public servants on low to moderate salaries. The SNP shares the concerns of the union Unison, which opposes the Government’s plans for caps on public sector exit payments. The Cabinet Office has confirmed that some people who earn less than £25,000 a year could be affected because of their long service—that is, serving the public, often for salaries below those in the private sector.

The trade union Unison has pointed out that the proposed cap would affect redundancy payments for a wide range of NHS staff and would not be limited to groups that the public view as executives. Because, as we have heard, redundancy calculations are made on the basis of length of service and earnings, and because a significant number of NHS staff work unsocial hours, capping the payments could affect staff in band 6 and above. The jobs that fall into band 6 include nurses, midwives and paramedics. Are we really saying that those people are fat cats and that they do not deserve such payments at the end of very long, difficult and challenging careers?

In January 2015, the Minister for Employment promised an exemption for low-paid public sector workers. She said:

“This commitment, which will be included in our 2015 General Election manifesto, will cap payments for well-paid public sector workers…Crucially, those earning less than £27,000 will be exempted to protect the very small number of low earning, long-serving public servants”.

Unfortunately, the Bill does not reflect the promise made by the Conservative Government.

The Government’s plans have also failed to take account of inevitable inflation and earnings growth. If this cap is introduced, there must be a commitment to index-link the cap, to ensure that it meets its original intention without becoming more and more punitive over time. The Local Government Association has criticised the Government’s plans, stating:

“The consensus among the respondents to our consultation exercise felt that the policy as drafted with a cap set at £95,000, which includes strain on fund costs, unjustifiably penalises older, longer serving, junior to middle ranking employees in local authorities.”

Unison highlighted a particularly poorly drafted and concerning section of the Bill—well, perhaps it was intended. Under section 5, payments made in respect of death are outlined as exempt, but in the Government’s hurry to introduce those harsher regulations at the last possible moment before the Bill is enacted, they seem to have decided that dead people might be worried that their exit benefits might be affected if they decide to return to work in the public sector. That does not make sense, and it needs reviewing and proper thought.

The rhetoric of the Tory Government on the pay and conditions of our vital public servants stands in stark contrast to the record of the SNP Scottish Government. The Scottish Government introduced the living wage to the public sector pay policy in 2011, initially helping 6,000 public servants and benefiting around 3,000 workers each year. The living wage of £8.25 per hour is now paid wherever the Scottish Government control the pay bill.

In Scotland, the SNP Government highly value our NHS staff. We have not imposed the same unfair contractual changes on junior doctors that the Tories at Westminster are attempting to impose, and we have protected the nurses bursary, which the Tories have scrapped in England. We have maintained a no-compulsory-redundancy policy, while in NHS England there have been more than 17,000 compulsory redundancies since 2010. Overall, there may be some good intentions buried among some bad ideas in the Bill, but the SNP feels that it is a missed opportunity to back small business, incentivise investment and innovation, and encourage entrepreneurship. It is more “bits and bobs” than the bigger picture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

As other SNP Members have said, the Bill is a typical Government effort. It claims to be ambitious, but does not do enough. It has too much of a scattergun approach and includes too many subjects, although it does allow the Tories to squeeze in old favourites, including privatisation and attacks on public sector workers.

Let me start with the Green Investment Bank—another supposed Better Together demonstration of the merits of Scotland’s staying in the UK, given the decision to site the bank in Edinburgh. Here we are a few years down the line, and it looks like that might go the way of the onshore renewables subsidies, which were also originally provided on the UK Government’s so-called broad shoulders. It beggars belief that a publicly owned green initiative should be deemed suitable for sell-off and privatisation. We therefore need to know what the Government’s commitments are to environmentally beneficial projects and specifically to Edinburgh.

On public sector payments, I have been contacted by constituents who want me to oppose part 8. Those hard-working public sector workers see it as yet another attack on their terms and conditions. We have heard about fat cats, but I can almost bet that the so-called civil servant fat cats will be the ones who get the waivers and their big lump sums. Meanwhile, lower-paid public sector workers with long service will get no waivers, and their lump sums will be limited.

We have heard a lot recently about the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign and women who took early retirement and who are now struggling to get back into the workplace and struggling financially. That demonstrates that we should not limit people’s choices. Some women have just discovered that they need to work six years longer. They will be looking at the options, and at whether they can take early retirement and leave the workplace. The caps in the Bill could affect their choices.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is emphasising the discrimination that could come from the exit payments. Does he agree with me and with trade unions such as Unison and the Public and Commercial Services Union that, before these changes are implemented, an equality impact assessment should be carried out?

[Alan Brown]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The Lords asked for an impact assessment to be undertaken, but that has not happened, so I hope the Minister will take note of that.

To finish on the public sector payment cap, what we need is good governance, not Whitehall-imposed caps. We heard earlier that this is all about devolving power to local government, and this issue is an example of where we could follow that through, rather than allowing Westminster to hit care workers, teachers, nurses and emergency workers.

Let me turn to an issue that other Members have raised: prompt payments and their effect on small businesses. Once again, I would suggest that the UK Government could take a lead from the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government have commissioned a review on public sector procurement in the construction industry, where cash flow can be a major issue.

I am a civil engineer, so I am well aware of the problems late payments can cause, particularly when companies have to make large outlays on materials as part of a job specification. I have actually been a client and a consultant, so I have been at both ends—I have received begging phone calls from companies that are desperate for money, and I have had to go cap in hand to chase up money that a company needed for its cash flow.

That is why I welcome the Scottish Government’s current project bank account trial for public sector procurement projects. Project bank accounts are ring-fenced and underpinned by legal trust status. They allow subcontractors to receive their money at the same time as contractors, rather than having to wait for it to be channelled through the main contractor, which leads to delays and allows the main contractor to withhold moneys to have leverage over the subcontractor.

Another omission from the Bill, which was raised in the Lords, is cash retentions in the construction industry. For too long, that has been the elephant in the room. The Government have not wanted to talk about it, and that seems to have been the case again today. From my experience in the construction industry, I understand the need for a mechanism to deal with snagging at the end of a project or during the maintenance period. I know how difficult it can be to get a contractor back on site once they have moved on to the next job. Equally, however, no contractor should have to wait years to get their retention money back, because that hits cash flows. The 5% retention money is also often the contractor’s profit margin on the job, which shows how important that money is to contractors. With up to £3 billion held in retentions at any one time, and with £40 million lost in 2015 alone due to insolvencies, we can see how important cash retentions are in the construction industry.

The cash-flow problems that can be caused manifest themselves in different ways, such as an inability for companies to bid for other projects because the risk is too high, or borrowing from banks being impeded. Banks do not recognise retentions as a future income because of the uncertainty that goes with the release of retention moneys. That completely impedes companies’ ability to invest in training and apprenticeships. That is counter-intuitive considering that, while one section of the Bill is about encouraging apprenticeships, it does not tackle the issue of cash retentions that stops companies taking on apprenticeships. It seems incredible that the Government recognise cash-flow issues in general, yet avoid dealing with retentions being paid years late.

We can also imagine the administration time that is wasted in chasing these retention moneys up. I mentioned main contractors using payments as leverage over subcontractors, and it is absolutely the same for retention moneys. Specialist engineering contractors have correctly observed that a scheme could be implemented without impeding the Government’s ongoing review. That review is completely reactive in terms of amendments tabled to the Bill in the Lords, and not proactive. Again, that is indicative of the UK Government’s approach.

The suggested model is a retention deposit scheme based on the tenancy deposit scheme. That seems logical, and it would easily align itself with the trial currently being operated by the Scottish Government. A constituent has said to me that he has given up on this issue being addressed in his lifetime. We can deal with it in this Bill.

Student Maintenance Grants

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It says it all about the Government policy that we are debating that so few of their Back Benchers have turned up to read the poor script they have been given by the Whips, and it says everything about how they conduct themselves that instead of having a proper debate on the Floor of the House, with a full vote involving all Members, they sought to have a debate down the corridor and up the stairs, hoping that nobody would notice, in a Committee that nobody has ever heard of.

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

The hon. Gentleman made a similar point during his Adjournment debate a few weeks ago on student nurses and bursaries. Is he as concerned as me, first, that the Government are increasingly using this device to sneak through their most controversial legislative proposals without debate and, secondly, that it is contrary to the comments by the Leader of the House on 10 December 2015, on this very issue, when he indicated we would have a debate on the Floor of the House?

[Wes Streeting]

I agree wholeheartedly. In their cowardice the Government are treating with disdain the House and the students we are all sent here to represent. In spite of what the Minister says, there is absolutely no mention in the manifesto of cutting student grants. In fact, we would find Lord Lucan before we found any reference to cutting student grants, so they cannot hide behind a democratic mandate. As a student union president and president of the National Union of Students, I used to have arguments with previous Labour Governments—

Trade Union Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

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

Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we sought additional time. This is a highly controversial Bill, with much media interest, and there were 50 Divisions —on all the clauses—in the Public Bill Committee. Every clause was up for debate, and the timetable for today does not allow the whole House to give every clause the same scrutiny. Ideally, we would want more protected time to discuss all such Bills, and to be able to debate all the clauses in this Bill.

Trade Union Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 15, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas or responsibility.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(4) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 17, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 18, clause 5, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 19, in clause 6, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 20, in clause 7, page 4, line 14, at end insert—

“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 21, in clause 8, page 4, line 29, at end insert—

“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 7, in clause 12, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(13) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”

The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to the publication requirements in relation to facility time would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 22, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(13) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 8, in clause 13, page 11, line 4, at end insert—

“(14) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”

The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to reserve powers in relation to facility time would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 14, page 11, line 4, at end insert—

“(14) The provisions in this section and the Schedules it inserts shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 9, in clause 14, page 12, line 8, at end insert—

“(3) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”

The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to the prohibition on deduction of union subscriptions from wages in public sector would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 34, page 12, line 8, at end insert—

“(3) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 31, in clause 15, page 12, line 19, at end insert—

“(4) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 32, in clause 16, page 13, line 33, at end insert—

“(5) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

Amendment 33, in clause 17, page 14, line 32, at end insert—

“(5) The provisions of this section and the Schedules it inserts shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”

New clause 2—Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means—

“(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);

(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).

(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2)—

(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and

(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.

(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).

(5) In this section—

(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and

(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.

(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.

(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—

(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;

(b) votes cast are secret; and

(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.

(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”

New clause 5—Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots for industrial action—

“(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote by electronic means for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.

(2) In this section “electronic means” means such electronic means, including means of secure voting electronically in the workplace, as is, or are determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.

(3) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (2), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.

(4) For the purpose of subsections (2) and (3), a means of electronic voting satisfies “the required standard” for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—

(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;

(b) votes cast are secret; and

(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.

(5) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1)—

(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and

(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf.

(6) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (5)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (5)(b).

(7) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”

The new Clause would permit electronic voting in ballots for industrial action.

New clause 6—Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots—

“(1) The provisions in New Clause5 [Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots for industrial action] apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.

(2) The electronic means adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) must also be capable of allowing union members to vote in ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”

The new Clause would permit electronic voting in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action.

New clause 7—Secure workplace ballots for industrial action—

“(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote in person at their place of work by means of a secure workplace ballot for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.

(2) In this section “secure workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. These may, but are not required to, include electronic means and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union to ensure that the required standard is satisfied, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), a workplace ballot satisfies “the required standard” if, so far as reasonably practicable—

(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;

(b) those entitled to vote can do so in privacy;

(c) votes cast are secret; and

(d) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.

(4) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1)—

(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and

(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.

(5) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (4)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (4)(b).

(6) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”

The new Clause would permit secure workplace ballots for industrial action. These can involve electronic or non-electronic means.

New clause 8—Secure workplace balloting and voting for trade union elections and other matters—

“(1) The provisions in New Clause 7 [Secure workplace ballots for industrial action] shall apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.

(2) The arrangements adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) shall allow union members to vote in workplace ballots for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”

The new Clause would permit secure workplace ballots in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action.

New clause 9—Methods of voting in ballots for industrial action, trade union elections and other matters—

“(1) Voting in a ballot or election carried out to meet the requirements of the 1992 Act as amended can be carried out by postal ballot, electronic means, secure workplace ballot or a combination of these methods.

(2) The combination of methods is to be determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot.”

New clause 10—Application of provisions to public sector employees across the UK—

The extent and provisions of this Bill shall only apply to the public sector in the UK,

(a) By consent of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, Mayor of London and other public bodies and local authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.

(b) Where consent has been granted, this consent can be withdrawn at any time.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I rise to speak to amendments 15 to 22, 14, 34 and 31 to 33 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, as well as to new clause 10, with which I will begin my remarks.

Before I do so, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who led for the Labour party in the Public Bill Committee with great diligence. I welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to his place. I also pay tribute to the Conservative members of the Committee, who tried to defend the indefensible. I pay tribute to Labour members of the Committee, the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). However, the star of the show—she made the soundbite of the Public Bill Committee—was my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron): she commented that the Minister had presented the Bill with great moderation but was entirely disingenuous.

New clause 10 is a catch-all amendment that limits the extent and provisions of the Bill from applying to the public sector across the UK without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Mayor of London and other public bodies and local authorities in England. We took the view that, to protect our approach of working in partnership with unions, Scotland should be excluded from the entire Bill. However, having heard representations from other political parties, and indeed many from across the trade union and labour movement, we now want to restrict the extent of the Bill from applying without the consent of each devolved institution or authority which will be impacted by the changes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I think it is arrogant of the Government to impose the changes on local authorities. We have had three negotiations on the check-off system.

[Chris Stephens]

Like many others in this place, the hon. Gentleman is a former council or local authority leader. He will know that he would have negotiated with the trade unions on issues such as facility time to make sure agreements were made in time and grievances were heard in time to avoid such issues going to a tribunal. I agree with him that it is arrogant and out of order for the UK Government to make decisions—for example, in respect of facility time and check-off—that are opposed by many local authorities across the UK.

The proposals in the Bill have the potential to undermine the effective engagement of trade unions across Scottish workplaces, and indeed across the UK, particularly in the public sector. The Scottish Government response to the “Working Together Review” and the fair work convention have shown a commitment to building a stronger, more collaborative approach to the relationship between trade unions, employees and employers. The combination of the provisions in the Bill will affect employees’ right to strike, will change the relationship between unions and organisations negatively and will lead to greater confusion among employees. That will undoubtedly hit Scottish business, especially across the public services in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.

As with many Bills in this House, the devil is reserved in the detail, and with a lot of the detail to be set out in regulations, we are unaware of what else may be coming down the line. Moreover, there will be no formal opportunity for the Scottish Government, or indeed any other authority, to influence such regulations, even though they will have a direct impact on them.

According to the evidence of witnesses, there is concern that the Bill could lead to a constitutional crisis if the devolved Administrations refuse to implement the content of the Bill. The Bill potentially cuts across devolved areas and could lead to confusion and a conflict of interests in its application to existing and new contracts, owing to the ongoing local government reforms in other areas. During the evidence sessions, Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison, commented that the new combined authorities in England will have a lot of extensions of powers, except the power to determine check-off and facility time arrangements.

The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, stated in the “Programme for Government 2015/16”:

“my government will vigorously oppose the UK government’s proposed trade union legislation, which seeks to undermine the rights of unions to fairly and reasonably represent their members.”

Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, echoed those concerns when he wrote to the Prime Minister expressing concerns about the Bill in September 2015, stating that it should be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

The Scottish Government maintain positive and stable industrial relations in Scotland. Those relations are underpinned by the long-standing strategic partnership between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which was recently reaffirmed in the memorandum of understanding signed in May 2015. The memorandum pledged the Scottish Government to work with the STUC in opposing Tory austerity and in demanding further powers for Scotland. The Scottish Government view trade unions as key social partners, playing an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, particularly in the workplace, and the existence of good employment practices is a key contributor to economic competitiveness and social justice.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has described the Scottish Government’s relationship with the unions. In Committee, did the Government provide evidence of any public body having expressed a view that was different from that of the Scottish Government?

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that no evidence was presented in Committee from a public body in support of the Bill. We heard from the Tory Taliban, the TaxPayers Alliance, which was supportive of some of the measures, but no public body was.

The restriction of the extent of the Bill would ensure that none of its provisions applied without the consent of the relevant authorities. We have tabled amendments to restrict the application of some of the provisions.

[Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to constituents of mine in Hertsmere, many of them hard-working commuters who will welcome the protection against unjustified strikes, why London should have a veto over these measures when they would not have a say under his proposals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman refers to unjustified strikes. I am not aware of any unjustified strike. The notion seems to be presented by the Conservative party that low turnouts are due to lack of support. I do not think that that is the case. The case that the Government have advanced suggests that after the ballot result, trade union officials and stewards in the workplace develop mystical powers of persuasion—almost Jedi-like powers of persuasion—and with one wave of the hand can say, “This is the strike you are looking for.” That is nonsense. What was interesting in Committee, which the hon. Gentleman might want to take note of, is that passenger transport groups were very concerned about aspects of the Bill such as the provision on untrained agency workers in the transport sector.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Conservative party was interested in having more people voting in strike ballots, it would allow electronic voting, as it did for the election of its candidate for Mayor of London, and secure workplace balloting?

[Chris Stephens]

I will come on to that point. I found it curious in Committee that we were advised that e-balloting was unsafe and unsecure.

Amendment 15 would restrict the application of the provisions in clause 2 that introduce a 50% turnout requirement for industrial action ballots in addition to the current requirement for a majority vote in favour of action. The Government’s proposals will undermine constructive employment relations throughout the United Kingdom. Effective negotiations between unions and employers rely on equal bargaining power. The ability of unions to organise lawful industrial action ensures that employers take the views of the workforce seriously and engage in genuine negotiations.

The statutory thresholds will make it difficult for unions to organise industrial action, especially in larger workplaces and those with more dispersed workforces. As a result, the legislation is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on the ability of trade union members to take industrial action in defence of their jobs, working conditions and livelihoods.

It is in the employers’ and employees’ interests for disputes to be resolved quickly and amicably. The Government’s proposals mean that disputes are more likely to become protracted. The introduction of ballot thresholds will mean that unions will take more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure that there is the necessary turnout. That will inevitably divert time and effort from finding an amicable settlement.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

This is one of those Bills that the Tories always bring forward when they are in trouble. More importantly, a lot of it has been brought forward because the Mayor of London has not been able to handle the industrial situation. As a result, the Tories are bringing in the Bill to undermine good industrial relations in this country.

[Chris Stephens]

I am very sympathetic to that point of view. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Mayor of London seems to have a different attitude from other public sector bodies across the UK.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Did not the evidence that was given to the Committee say that the Bill would not solve London’s problem because in most of the disputes that have taken place in recent years, particularly in rail, the action would have gone ahead in any case?

[Chris Stephens]

The reason it would have gone ahead in any case is that the thresholds the Government are trying to introduce would have been met.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the Conservative Mayor of London has not met the unions in the transport sector in London at all during his tenure? Would not a better method be to have proper industrial relations with negotiations and dialogue rather than sabre-rattling?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree. There will be an opportunity for the electorate in London to pass judgment on that at the appropriate time next year.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking successive interventions. I was not a member of the Bill Committee. He is talking about the application of higher thresholds for industrial action. What consideration was given in Committee to the potential for wildcat union action as a consequence of the higher thresholds, because trade union leaders might be unwilling to take a vote for fear of not meeting the threshold?

[Chris Stephens]

No evidence was presented that that would be the case. What was raised was the impact that the thresholds would have on women workers in progressing disputes about issues that impact on them more than on male workers, such as the introduction of shift changes. The Bill Committee did not touch on the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of days lost to industrial action per year has fallen dramatically over the past 30 years. Since 2010, an average of 647,000 days have been lost to industrial action each year, compared with 7,213,000 days per year in the 1980s. In 2014, there were only 155 stoppages as a result of industrial action, with 55% taking place in the private sector and 45% in the public sector. Most industrial action is short-lived: in 2014, 64% of all stoppages lasted for only one or two days, with 93% of the workers taking part in the industrial action.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I would like the answer to a question. If the amendments that would allow the Scottish Government to give their consent were accepted, would you drop your—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. In those circumstances, would the SNP drop the other amendments as it would have a say in its own Parliament?

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Collective bargaining!

[Chris Stephens]

Collective bargaining, indeed.

It is important that public bodies across the United Kingdom have a say and give their consent as to whether provisions in the Bill should be passed. I also believe that if a public body gives its consent, it should be possible for that consent to be taken away on a future occasion. The Mayor of London, to use an example that was given earlier, is perhaps the best example of that.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It was good that my hon. Friend noted the difference in strike rates in lost days over the past 30 years. Does he agree that industrial relations have improved over the past 30 years and that unions are much more effective and co-operative, but that the Tories over there are stuck in an ideological argument of 30 years ago? They should move forward instead of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with that. Seasoned veterans of the House will know what I mean when I say that this is Keith Joseph, phase 3. This is an ideological attack on the largest group in civic society that stands up against exploitation.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee and the hon. Gentleman was a wily performer. He talks about Keith Joseph and says that we are not in the real world. I remind him that we heard evidence right at the beginning of our consideration from the chief executive of Arriva buses, who said that on a vote of 17% of the staff of his firm, 50% of all buses in London were stopped. Think of the disruption that that caused for real people out there in the real world.

[Chris Stephens]

The key issue was not the number of people who were balloted, but the number of fellow workers who then came out to support them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was other evidence of employee intimidation and blacklisting, and the Government need to answer that point later in our debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Does evidence from the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing not contrast spectacularly with that of a Government witness from Health 2020 who admitted when giving evidence that she did not even know what facility time was?

[Chris Stephens]

That is correct. I had never heard of Health 2020, and under the skilful questioning of the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) it was revealed that the witness was a former Conservative candidate. When she mentioned her concerns about patient care, I said that a trade union is obliged to provide life and limb cover, but the witness had not heard of that either; and as the hon. Lady mentioned, she did not know what facility time was.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am trying to develop a theme with my questions about the Committee. I asked about thresholds and what consideration the Government gave to wildcat action. Will the hon. Gentleman speak about the restrictions on facility time and what the Government say about the potential for wildcat action if there is less time for trade unions to deal with workplace disputes?

[Chris Stephens]

Wildcat action was not discussed in Committee. We discussed the social media provisions that could lead—as the hon. Member for Gateshead pointed out—to wildcat tweeting, but there was no discussion about wildcat action in that sense.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. He mentioned the work of the Royal College of Nursing. Its employer, University College Hospital, said that:

“elements of the Bill that would confine trade unions’ ability to engage with us are widely viewed by NHS employers as potentially undermining of the Government’s health policy”.

The Government want to introduce measures that will undermine health policy. To go back to Keith Joseph, he always argued that we should let managers manage. Managers want to manage in conjunction with trade unions, and the Government should butt out.

[Chris Stephens]

That is absolutely true. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was president of a trade union.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that trade unionists are real people, and that it is not only trade unionists who object to the Bill? The Government have significantly failed to secure any substantial employer support for these proposals, and many public and private sector employees object vociferously to the Bill and see it as completely unnecessary.

[Chris Stephens]

The last time I looked in the mirror, yes, I am a real person, like many other trade unionists in this country.

I am pleased that Labour amendments seek to restrict the application of provisions relating to facility time and check-off, and they will get our support. Once again, alongside the principled and substantive arguments that will no doubt be presented, it will come out that there is no mandate across the public sector for the Bill.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is it not strange that a Tory party that always talks to us about regulation and red tape is today introducing more regulation and more red tape, and “choking the arteries of commerce”, as was once said in a famous TV programme in Scotland? We are looking at Tory dinosaur behaviour that goes back to the 1970s.

[Chris Stephens]

I think it is perhaps worse than that because such behaviour comes from a political party which has a laissez-faire attitude to the economy until it comes to the trade union movement. It goes from laissez-faire to Stalinism with no intervening periods whatsoever.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Is not a prime example of the unnecessary bureaucracy and complication of the Bill the arbitrary powers that are given to the certification officer for monitoring picketing? That is guaranteed to find failings and create fines.

[Chris Stephens]

It is even worse and goes even wider than that. Trade unions will be expected to make a contribution to the certification officer, but they will not be allowed to contribute to check-off, because that is to be banned across the board in the public sector.

New clause 2 would ensure that employers have a duty to ensure that union members can vote without fear of interference or constraint. That same duty is imposed on unions, and it is about what happens when an employer fails to comply with those duties by intercepting voting papers or emails relating to the ballot.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my feelings of irony that the Government have stated that trade union members will not be allowed to vote in an electronic ballot, yet they considered that to be perfectly legitimate for the London mayoral selection?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with the hon. Lady, and that point was raised in Committee. We were told by Conservative Members that e-balloting is unsafe and insecure—I do not know what that means for the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. It came out that a trade union could email an employer and the police about picketing. Presumably that is safe and secure.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Will the hon. Gentleman say something about stewards having to register with the police and wear armbands just as they did in the 1930s in the occupied territories in Europe?

[Chris Stephens]

We will discuss that at a later stage. The hon. Gentleman’s point is about the increased capacity for blacklisting that is contained in the Bill, and I agree with him.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Stephens]

May I move on and make some progress? I apologise, and I will take further interventions later.

New clause 2 would modernise the law promoting democracy and inclusion—the word “modernisation” keeps getting used by the Conservatives in support of the Bill. Currently, all ballots and elections must be conducted on a fully postal basis. Unlike major companies and other membership organisations—including political parties—trade union members are not allowed to vote online. The Government have consistently described the Bill as an attempt to “modernise” trade unions, but to date they have not allowed trade unions to modernise into the 21st century by using electronic and workplace balloting.

The Government argue that the introduction of thresholds for strike action balloting would boost democracy, but that only stifles the possibility of workers’ voices being heard. If the Government were committed to boosting workplace democracy, they would allow secure workplace balloting and balloting by electronic means, as our amendment suggests.

Online balloting is more accessible and inclusive. Today, most people use electronic devices every day to make transactions and to communicate. We in the SNP use online ballots, and as we have heard, so did the Conservatives in the election of their mayoral candidate. Ballot papers are usually sent to members’ home addresses, which can lead to lower turnouts, especially when junk mail is flying through people’s doors on a regular basis and things can easily get dumped in the bin. Modern methods of voting are more efficient and help negotiations to move faster. Using only postal ballots could prolong the length of a dispute because they simply take longer.

According to the latest Ofcom figures, 83% of people now have access to broadband and 66% of households own a smartphone. Those figures are likely to be higher among those of working age, and they are set to rise rapidly. The 2014 Electoral Commission survey involved 1,205 adults aged over 18, and found that 42% of respondents felt that online voting would increase their confidence by “a lot” or “a little” in the way that elections are run.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the run-up to Christmas, people will be engaging electronically by purchasing goods and materials across the piece? I do not hear Conservative Members saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with that process, or saying, “We’re not going to have you doing that.” Is this not ridiculous? It is just a ruse to say, “We don’t want people to engage with trade unions.” That is what it is about.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is because Conservative Members fear the inevitable visit of three ghosts on Christmas eve.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Electoral Reform Services, which has run more than 2,000 ballots, that there has not been a single security breach in all those ballots and that, therefore, it is a very secure mechanism?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree, and that evidence came out in Committee.

Workplace balloting is an available secure option that increases democracy in the workplace. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons, usually Electoral Reform Services. The individuals and balloting agencies permitted to act in statutory recognition ballots are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots.

An analysis of Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout tends to be significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace. Average turnout was 88%, and in combination ballots average turnout was 86.9%. The average turnout in postal-only ballots was 71.6 %. According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way when ballots take place in the workplace. Of the complaints that the CAC was asked to decide on, five were made by unions and one by an employer. None of the complaints was upheld.

We are told that electronic voting is not safe. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 annually, and its report concludes that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. It says:

“There are risks associated with electronic voting but these are essentially similar to the risks associated with any secure electronic process. Many of the risks are also of the same nature as the risks related to postal voting”.

[Mrs Moon]

The issue is not about online safety and security: the Government hope that people will not be bothered to buy a stamp, put it on an envelope and walk to the letterbox. That is the issue—not security. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Chris Stephens]

I do, and one of the increasing problems with postal balloting is the number of post boxes, which has fallen by 17% in Scotland in the last year.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill risks throwing away much of the positive industrial relations that have been established by trade unions, work that they do day in and day out? One problem is that the media like conflict, but the bread and butter tasks of the trade unions include spotting and defusing issues before they become problems. Merseyside Fire Brigades Union told me that its employers described its union reps as their best but lowest paid managers, such is their contribution to positive industrial relations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we risk losing all that?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with the hon. Lady. Without question, the Bill is ideological. Under a veneer of moderation, it is an ideological attack on a large section of society that stands up against exploitation.

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the Bill is ideological. Is it ideological for people who send their children to schools in my constituency who cannot get childcare during an unjustified strike with a very low turnout in a ballot? Is it ideological for hard-pressed commuters in my constituency who cannot get to work because of strikes called on ballots with low turnouts?

[Chris Stephens]

The problem with that analysis is that it is based on ignorance. The simple fact is that if a ballot has a low turnout, a trade union has to make a calculation. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who is a former Unison president, can confirm that trade unions have, on occasion, not proceeded to industrial action if they do not have support for it. The biggest gamble that a trade union takes when it decides to take industrial action is how many people participate. If people do not participate, the industrial action falls and dies.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

The contribution from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) highlights the lack of understanding of the role of trade unions and of people who are working just to pay their bills. That lack of understanding shows why this Bill is so wrong.

[Chris Stephens]

It also shows complete ignorance of the principle of solidarity. Many of the people who are affected by industrial action, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) described, will be fellow trade union members.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the average time lost to strike action last year was less than a third of a second per member of the workforce?

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, and that evidence also came out in Committee. What is the great industrial chaos in this country that means that the Government need to intervene? There is none—

[Oliver Dowden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Chris Stephens]

For entertainment purposes, I will take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

[Oliver Dowden]

I shall try to entertain the hon. Gentleman. If he believes that turnout is so high for all these industrial actions, why is he so concerned about having a threshold that requires four out of 10 trade unionists to turn out and vote? If turnouts are high, where is the problem?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. No shouting out. If Members want to intervene, they should stand up and do so.

[Chris Stephens]

I will give the hon. Member for Hertsmere the benefit of my trade union experience. In localised disputes about local issues, turnouts go through the roof, in my experience. Lower turnouts usually happen in national, UK-wide disputes. Those issues can lead to low turnouts, but the key test is how well the trade union is organised. Turnout will be a lot higher in some areas than in others in such disputes.

[Joan Ryan]

The point about commuters was made earlier, although the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) may not have been listening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) said, the transport strikes that are often prayed in aid of the Bill would have all crossed the threshold and were all legitimate strikes.

[Chris Stephens]

That is right.

[Julie Elliott]

If the genuine motivation behind the Bill was to get turnout as high as possible, would not the Government put forward every possible means to allow members of trade unions to vote in ballots, including workplace balloting and e-balloting? In fact, they are doing the opposite.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I agree, and that is why we have tabled the new clause. If the Government were so concerned about participation, they would allow e-balloting and secure workplace balloting. If secure workplace balloting is good enough for recognition agreements, surely it is good enough for many of the other issues that trade union members have to decide on.

We were told in Committee that we cannot have online voting until 2020. Ministers have claimed that the Speaker’s Commission on digital democracy concluded that online voting could not be achieved before 2020, but it was concerned only with online voting in general or local elections, not trade union or any other ballots. The Commission reported on evidence from the Open Rights Group, which argues that online balloting in the context of a general election is far less transparent than ballot box voting. These arguments do not apply to trade union ballots, which are counted by the scrutineer in private.

[Paula Sherriff]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that trade unions prevent a significant amount of sickness absence in the workplace? I was a shop steward in a hospital for a number of years. By fostering good relationships between trade union members and management, I am confident we reduced significantly that burden on the workplace.

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, with my trade union experience I do agree with that. I would happily say that the best education I had was from the trade union movement, particularly, for example, when someone had a condition that came under the scope of the Equality Acts. I agree with every word that has been said.

[Alan Brown]

As has been said, my hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. He will agree that very important points have been made about the double whammy on thresholds and not allowing online or secure workplace voting. Without being flippant, does he think the Government have assessed the risk of secure workplace balloting when it comes to English votes for English laws? There might actually be a risk of SNP Members voting on English laws after all, because the balloting might not be secure enough.

[Chris Stephens]

Indeed. I look forward to that test when the experiment, as I think Mr Speaker described it, takes place.

The Open Rights Group is also concerned that online voting in general elections does not justify the extra expense of developing new systems while the technology is in its infancy, as turnout is already comparatively high. This argument does not apply to trade union ballots, where postal balloting is more expensive and deters turnout. Unlike general election voting, the technology already exists and has been well used for over a decade by private companies, political parties and membership associations.

[John Howell]

The hon. Gentleman and I have shared many an anecdote about this, both in Committee and elsewhere. He will recall that in Committee I raised a number of concerns from the Open Rights Group which called for prudence in the use of internet voting. Has he looked at that in greater detail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I found it curious that when I googled my name I got a link to his website and it was the exchange that we had in Committee. In fairness, the same thing happens with the hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). The Open Rights Group is saying that trade union ballots do not apply in these cases, because there is the additional safety of a scrutineer and so on.

We are told that trade union ballots should be subject to tighter regulation than elections for officeholders in private businesses or non-governmental organisations. If the Government were genuinely concerned about levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate for all bodies to be required to use postal-only ballots. They should also rerun the election for the Mayor of London using a postal-only ballot.

Labour’s amendments on balloting are in a similar vein. They can be broadly supported, as their intentions mirror that of our amendment. We are asking Members to vote for our catch-all amendments to make this draconian, Dickensian Bill a little bit better.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 5, 6, 7 and 9. In overall terms and despite the heat coming out of the Bill, I think we can all agree that we have moved a very long way in industrial relations and strike laws towards consensus and away from the polarisation we saw in the early 1980s.

The Trade Union Act 1984 requirement for compulsory industrial action ballots to be put in place for there to be statutory immunity was a very significant step, although it did cement the rather odd situation whereby there is, technically, no right to strike. Rather, we give unions in certain circumstances statutory immunity for the tort—civil wrong—of inducing a breach of the employment contract. That being as it may, I think we can all agree that voting before a strike is vital, and that the vote itself should be carried out in a free and fair manner that reduces, so far as possible, any chance of coercion, threat or intimidation to the voter. It is certainly the case that the Bill addresses ballots insofar as voter turnout requirements and how the questions are put, but it does not address the question of how the ballot itself is physically conducted. This is now being put to the test by the Opposition in their amendments. New clause 7 argues for secure workplace ballots and new clause 5 suggests implementing electronic voting in ballots for strike action.

My first observation is that those two concepts do not necessarily sit very well together. Namely, if the Opposition believe that e-voting is the future and the way to go, why are they proposing returning votes to the place of work? The problem is actually more profound, of course. The security of a postal vote sent to a person’s home does remove a large area of risk in terms of intimidation that could attach to returning votes to the workplace. The benefits of the 1984 ballots and the use of post were hard won. They have been of great benefit to working people; not perhaps to the union organiser or the militant activist, but to the everyday working man and woman who has benefited from being able to reflect calmly on the merits of a strike ballot in the safety of their own home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is clearly one of the Government’s motivations behind these amendments.

Workplace ballots should be permitted for statutory union elections and ballots. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots. Workplace ballots of this nature are secure and are overseen by the qualified independent persons, who are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots. Well over 200 ballots for statutory recognition have been held, a quarter of which involve a combination ballot, including both workplace ballots and postal ballots for those absent from work when the ballot is taking place. An analysis of a Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout was significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace, with an 88% average turnout, compared with 71% in postal ballots. There is no evidence that workers felt pressurised by this. In fact, people were less likely to vote for union recognition in workplace ballots than in postal ballots. As was pointed out, the Central Arbitration Committee has received only a handful of complaints, most of which were made by the unions, rather than individuals.

New clause 9 would allow trade unions to decide what balloting to use—balloting by electronic means, workplace ballots, postal ballots or any combination of those. Given the severe time constraints, which we have already discussed, it is not possible for us to divide this afternoon on all our new clauses on e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, but I want to place clearly on record our view that the Government’s failure to accept our very reasonable modernisation proposals, which would enhance trade union democracy, invites detailed further scrutiny of these issues in the other place. E-balloting and secure workplace ballots are distinct issues in their own right, but we recognise that, owing to the Government’s timetabling, we are unable to vote on all our new clauses and amendments separately on Report without curtailing debate on other important issues in the Bill.

Our amendment 7 should be read in tandem with amendments 8 and 9, all of which relate to this Bill’s undermining of the devolution settlement and conflict with the Government’s own professed localism agenda. Our amendments are designed to ensure that the provisions do not apply to services that are either wholly or partly devolved to the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, English local authorities and the Mayor of London.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) managed to ascertain from the UK Government that a UK Government Minister would decide the facility time for health workers in Scotland and Wales. Does the shadow Minister think that is fair?

[Kevin Brennan]

I am coming on in a few moments to talk about the so-called respect agenda, and I hope that I will then answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our amendments would ensure that devolved Administrations could decide how best to engage with their staff and trade unions when delivering devolved public services, rather than being subject to a highly partisan central diktat—I believe this what the hon. Gentleman was referring to—from a Government in possession of no mandate in many parts of the UK.

I can recall the Prime Minister travelling to Wales when he was first elected, and declaring that when it came to Wales and the other devolved Administrations, he would govern on the basis of respect. He called that his “respect agenda”. With that promise in mind, the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, wrote to the Prime Minister expressing his concerns about the Trade Union Bill and its complete lack of respect for the role of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. He pointed out that the Supreme Court, in its judgment on the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, ruled that depending on a UK Government Bill’s impact on devolved services, it could be subject to a legislative consent motion, even if it could also be classified as relating to matters that were otherwise reserved. Our Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, wrote today to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, calling for a legislative consent motion; she has also called for Scottish local authorities, regardless of political persuasion, to refuse to implement changes when there is no consent.

I want to make it clear that our commitment to solidarity for all workers means that Labour opposes the Bill on behalf of workers and trade unions throughout the United Kingdom. We believe that simply devolving employment and industrial relations—for example, to Scotland—would play into the Conservative Government’s hands, and would result in a race to the bottom on workplace rights and privatisation, which could only have a detrimental impact on workers throughout the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Surely the biggest impact on individual contracts will be where it is written into employees’ contracts that they can have their trade union subscription deducted from their salary. The cost of that to other public sector employers will be considerable, as they will have to issue new contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is right. As I have said, he has put his finger on the matter in his amendment, which we will discuss later. His intervention now has drawn to my attention the point that the state should not be interfering in this kind of voluntary transaction, which is entered into freely by all the parties concerned and which is neither illegal nor immoral. What is wrong with an employer in the private or public sectors voluntarily agreeing to help to collect trade union subscriptions, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with its employees, in exchange for an administrative payment? In what other field would a Conservative Government legislate to ban a simple, mutually beneficial transaction of this kind? The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on spotting that flaw, and the basic illiberalism, at the heart of this measure in the Bill.

[Chris Stephens]

I, too, disagree slightly with the shadow Minister: I do not think this is a tragedy; I think it is sinister. In a collective bargaining unit that had a staff association alongside a trade union, it would be permissible for the staff association subs, but not the trade union subs, to be collected from people’s salaries. Is that not biased?

[Kevin Brennan]

I am not going to escalate our dispute as to whether this is a farce, a tragedy or simply sinister, but the hon. Gentleman is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I will not give way, as I want to continue.

Although it may be possible to increase methods of voting, we need to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place. New clause 5 suggests that electronic means should be provided as is determined by the unions. In an area potentially rife with practical concerns, we need to be sure that there will be no issue with the amendments before they are allowed. If the unions have the power to bring major industries to a standstill, they need to exercise that power responsibly and democratically. It is essential that any ballot is seen to be conducted fairly and transparently. If there is any risk, or perceived flaw in the ballot, the legitimacy of the ballot may be in question. The vote that is taken by the union members—

[Chris Stephens]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am about to finish.

The vote taken by the union will not garner public support and public trust that the representation of the unions demands, and it is for that reason that we should pass clauses 2 and 3 without amendment at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those people have alternative services, and where they do have alternatives we are not proposing to introduce the higher mandate. We are producing the higher mandate when a service is effectively a monopoly in the life of consumers, and they have no other possibility they can arrange at short notice.

On the certification officer, it is entirely reasonable for a union regulator to mirror the geographical extent of unions themselves. It would be very disruptive to have a single union subject to different regulatory arrangements in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain—or, worse, for a union to be subject to no regulation at all in Scotland or Wales, but subject in parts of England. It is worth noting that the 1992 Act already provides, under section 254, that the certification officer may appoint an assistant certification officer for Scotland, and may delegate to that assistant certification officer such functions as he thinks appropriate in relation to unions based in Scotland.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister talks about unions being organised on a geographical basis. Does that mean that the Educational Institute of Scotland will be exempt from the Bill?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had very lively and enjoyable debates in Committee, knows that the provisions in the Bill apply under the devolution settlement throughout Great Britain and to all institutions, including those active only within Scotland.

In conclusion on these amendments, Parliament has put in place proper procedures for considering what should be reserved to Westminster and what should be devolved to other Administrations. Debates took place in this Chamber only yesterday on what should be devolved and what should be reserved to Westminster. Employment and industrial relations law is reserved.

Turning to other balloting methods proposed in amendments tabled by Opposition parties, it is vital that union members, employers and the public have the utmost confidence in ballot processes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) argued so clearly. Without that, the integrity of the whole system would be called into question; members would not use it, unions would not rely on it, and employers and the public would not trust it. That is not in anyone’s interests.

As I said in Committee, and as the Prime Minister has said, we have no objections in principle to the introduction of e-balloting. I expect that in some time—maybe in five or 10 years—the practical objections I am about to outline will have been overcome. It is simply a matter of time and human ingenuity. However, there are practical objections, and the Opposition cannot just dismiss them. The onus is on them, in proposing new forms of voting, to show that the objections can be overcome.

The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy received evidence from the Open Rights Group, and I quoted that evidence on Second Reading. This February, Jim Killock, its executive director, gave an interview to The Guardian, in which he said of online balloting:

“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it. Accountability in most software systems means a clear audit trail of who did what, which of course would violate the basic question of secrecy…You have the complexity of making sure that internet systems are secure, that the voting equipment can be trusted despite being attached to the internet, and that every voter’s machine is not being tampered with. Given the vast numbers of machines that are infected by criminally controlled malware and the temptation for someone to interfere in an election, internet voting is a bad idea.”

I am not aware that the gentleman quoted is a Conservative or that he supports the Government. [Interruption.] Instead of shouting at me, Opposition Members should reflect on the objections raised and work with us to try to overcome them. We are absolutely open to discussing these practical objections, and to working with the Opposition parties and anyone else in society to overcome them.

[Nick Boles]

I want to say to trade union leaders that when they can overcome the objections listed not by me, but by experts from groups such as the Open Rights Group, the Government will be happy to work with them to implement new forms of balloting. Until then, however, we remain to be persuaded.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon is right that there is no requirement for primary legislation to introduce new forms of balloting. It can be done under powers in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank Members who have contributed to this debate. I have been struck by three things. I say gently to the Minister and the Conservatives—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Chris Stephens]

I am summing up, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am going to stop you in a second, so you need to say whether you want to withdraw the amendment.

[Chris Stephens]

Okay, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means

‘(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);

(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).

(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2)—

(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and

(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.

(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).

(5) In this section—

(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and

(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.

(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.

(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—

(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;

(b) votes cast are secret; and

(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.

(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”—(Chris Stephens.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to that point when we discuss some of the later amendments. For the moment, I shall talk about the picketing provisions.

The BIS consultation document also acknowledged that most pickets conform to the guidance set out in the code of practice. The Regulatory Performance Committee’s review of the Government’s impact assessment also found that

“there is little evidence presented that there will be any significant benefits arising from the proposal”.

Liberty’s briefing for today’s debate states:

“In the absence of any evidence that these changes are needed, these bureaucratic proposals can only be construed as an attempt to create a situation whereby individuals and unions are set up to make mistakes, subjecting them to legal action and making strike action even more expensive and risky than it already is.”

[Chris Stephens]

Does the shadow Minister share my concern, which was also mentioned in evidence to the Bill Committee, that the proposed new picketing arrangements could result in the increased blacklisting of trade union activists?

[Kevin Brennan]

There is every likelihood of that happening, as was clearly revealed in the evidence given to the Committee.

The current UK law provides sufficient safeguards, including provisions for the police to crack down on illegality and breaches of the peace, but all the while protecting the rights of trade union members to engage in peaceful picketing at the entrance to their workplace. These measures are not only unnecessary; they are an affront to democracy, which is why our amendment would remove them from the Bill altogether by deleting clause 9.

I said earlier that the Government had introduced some minor changes as a result of the consultation. Their amendments in this group are the result of significant scrutiny and pressure from my hon. Friends in Committee. The Government have now decided to reverse their position on the plans to introduce even tighter restrictions on union pickets and protests that they proposed in their consultation over the summer. They have also granted minor concessions in amendments 2, 3 and 4 that loosen the requirements relating to letters and picket supervisors.

Trade unions will not now be required to publish picket and protest plans 14 days in advance, detailing where, when and how they plan to protest and whether they propose to use Twitter and Facebook accounts as part of their campaign. It is extraordinary that that was ever proposed; it is a ludicrous proposal. Also, the Government will not now introduce new criminal offences on picket lines or direct local authorities to use antisocial behaviour provisions against union members participating in pickets and protests. Those minor concessions do not go nearly far enough, however. The Bill still contains many draconian measures that will violate the civil liberties of trade unions and their members. Clause 9 will still impose significant new restrictions on the ability of trade unions and their members to picket and protest peacefully, thereby undermining their civil liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I must declare an interest as a member of Unite the union and a proud union representative for 14 years.

Our proposals in new clauses 1, 3 and 4 and amendments 27, 28, 37, 25, 26, 24, 23, 11, 12, 13, 36 and 35 cover a variety of areas in the Bill that pose particular difficulties for public sector workers, focusing on agency workers and political funds. New clause 1 attempts to retain within primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Legislation banning the use of agency workers to break strikes has been in place in the UK since 1973. That position is in line with the majority of other European countries, which also prohibit or severely restrict the use of agency workers during industrial disputes. Removing that ban would be regressive and it would have significant implications for all workers.

Public opinion polls also indicate that such changes are not supported by the majority of the general public. The SNP therefore supports new clause 1, which aims to retain in primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Although the Bill does not specifically include provisions for that measure to be repealed, the Government have been consulting on draft legislation that would allow that to happen. Adopting our proposal would therefore be a failsafe against that occurring in future.

[Chris Stephens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the difficulty is that the current penalty for an employer who hires agency workers to break strikes is very weak indeed? We need primary legislation to stop that practice.

[Dr Cameron]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is also extremely important with regard to safety, including that of the public, which I will come on to discuss.

Repealing the existing prohibition on hiring agency staff to replace workers participating in industrial action fundamentally undermines the right to strike. It reduces the impact of strike action and upsets the power balance between workers and employers. It has also been argued that it is relatively ineffective with regard to dispute resolution, as it serves only to prolong the dispute, delay resolution and embitter industrial relations.

At a time when we are trying to encourage the living wage, the measure is also likely to drag down pay and working conditions for workers right across the country. It could have adverse implications for the agency workers themselves, as it would place them in a stressful environment.

Introducing inexperienced workers to take on the role of the permanent workforce in a workplace with which they are not familiar also has significant implications for health and safety and for the quality of services. That will impact both on those workers and on the public at large, who may utilise those services.

Those matters appear to be of particular concern to the public. A recent YouGov poll found that 65% of those surveyed were against bringing in temporary agency workers to break public sector strikes, and more than half said they thought it would worsen services and have a negative impact on safety. Only 8% indicated that they believe that hiring agency workers during strikes would improve services.

Unlike the UK Government, the SNP believes in a modern and progressive approach to industrial relations and to trade unionism, which is at the very heart of being able to achieve fair work. We recognise that no one wants strikes, but the way to avoid them is not to promote confrontation by legislating them out of existence. The right way is to pursue a relationship, in partnership with both workers and employers, based on respect and co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Today we have heard, once again, divisive rhetoric against this country’s trade union movement. We have heard from some Government Back Benchers that trade unionists who are on strike get paid by their employer. That will be news to the millions of trade union members in this country. The real difficulty with and objection to some of the rhetoric we hear is the suggestion that trade union members are somehow different from taxpayers and the public. Trade union members are taxpayers and they are members of the general public.

The Bill infringes human rights and civil liberties, and if unaltered, it can only lead to more work for the courts and, sadly, more blacklisting for trade union members in this country. The Bill attacks the ability of trade unions to organise, as we have seen with the proposals on facility time and check-off. This is not just about party political funding; it is an attack on the trade union movement’s ability to fund general campaigns, such as anti-racist campaigns and campaigns in favour of public services.

It is quite astonishing that the Government believe that aspects of the Bill do not require a legislative consent motion, either from the Scottish Parliament or from the Welsh Assembly, on public services across the board. I predict that that will come back to bite them.

The Minister for Skills was very kind in his words to me, so I will reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron): he gives the appearance of moderation, but his rhetoric is entirely disingenuous.

Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

The purpose of our amendment is to require consent from public bodies, but I wish to make some remarks about the role of check-off and the principles behind it. Our first concern is the impact on collective bargaining arrangements. An employee can pay bills through salary deductions, including council tax and rent. They can also make charitable donations—for example, in Glasgow employees can make trade union charitable donations to organisations such as Action For Southern Africa or Community HEART. Staff association subscriptions, too, can be taken off as a salary deduction. Under these proposals, however, in a collective bargaining arena where there is a staff association and a trade union or unions, the staff association would be allowed check-off, but the trade unions would not. That shows an extraordinary bias towards staff associations. I asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office about this in the evidence sessions and was advised that a staff association is internal and a trade union is not. What remarkable ignorance of how a workplace operates. Surely both organisations are internal, and employees have made a choice about who is to bargain on their behalf?

In our view, new clause 11 is designed to interfere with and unsettle those collective bargaining arrangements. I ask the Minister what is to stop a trade union reclassifying itself to become a staff association. Is that how they will be able to get round the Bill? We are asked to believe that these proposals are modernisation. In reality, they are a 19th century solution in a 21st-century world. If allowing other deductions is modernisation, then why is check-off to trade unions not modernisation? It is a fanciful and quaint notion.

We are also concerned about the legal risks that public sector employers will face in relation to these arrangements. In a recent court case, Mr Justice Supperstone said:

“I am not impressed by the argument that check off is only or primarily for the benefit of the union as such, rather than for its members in their capacity as employees. It seems to me that there is a real benefit to employees in the administrative convenience of not having to make their own arrangements for payments each month, or having to set up a direct debit or standing order and then change it or replace it from time to time as may be necessary”.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Obviously, it depends on the workplace. If someone is a private sector construction worker or employed in an industry working shift patterns which are not annualised, pay will fluctuate depending upon production targets and what the market is doing. Inevitably, as a result their union subs will change, because most unions have a redistributive model for their subscriptions.

[Chris Stephens]

That is an excellent point. Trade unions will be denied money on that basis, as in the very example given by the hon. Gentleman. Another concern is that what we are seeing here is a situation where a voluntary agreement between a public sector body and a trade union is effectively to be banned by the state.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the consequences—unintended, I am sure—of removing check-off will be that if there is, for instance, an industrial action ballot of a public sector workforce of many tens of thousands, with people working all over the place, it will be even more difficult for people to agree on what the bargaining unit is in that case. If people pay by direct debit—as many trade union members already do—then when they change their place of work, if they are still working for the same employer, their place of work will not necessarily notify their trade union.

[Chris Stephens]

That is right, and it is an excellent point. There is also the other example of someone who works for a large employer who may have two different jobs for that employer—perhaps part time in two departments. Again, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point.

If the state is banning voluntary collective agreements, I must ask the Minister at what the point the Conservative party went from being laissez-faire to Stalinist. This goes against what I consider to be the principles the Conservative Party was founded on. The arguments advanced are also irrelevant because, if income tax can be deducted at source, then why not trade union subscriptions?

The measure will also leave the public sector at risk of legal challenge. The International Labour Organisation is looking at other countries that have tried the same thing, such as Congo. In 2010 the ILO committee of experts reported

“since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee once again notes with regret that the Government has still not specified whether the abandonment of the check-off system in 1991 had the effect of barring trade unions from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee once again reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and their transfer to the unions is not a matter that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining”.

The ILO committee of experts is now making observations on Croatia as well. It noted that

“in general, a legal provision which allows one party to modify unilaterally the content of signed collective agreements is contrary to the principles of collective bargaining”.

Its continues:

“The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the aforementioned Act and underlines the importance of ensuring that any future Act on the Realization of the State Budget does not enable the Government to modify the substance of collective agreements in force in the public service for financial reasons.”

Those are very serious matters. The Government are leaving themselves open to risk on that basis.

Once again, the principles of consent are relevant. Some public bodies, as the shadow Minister has said, receive income from trade unions to administer check-off, and the general secretary of Unison, Dave Prentis, made it clear in his evidence that Unison pays for the facility when it is asked to. The public sector does not support the principle of banning check-off. The consent of the devolved Administrations, local authorities and other public bodies should be required, but we believe that the real intention is to make derecognition easier in the workplace. The new clause strikes at the heart of trade union organisation and is insidious.

I do not think that the Minister has yet demonstrated that he understands the principles of consent or devolution. He has made the extraordinary claim that the Government are complying with the Smith agreement, but I think that the only people who think so are the Government; no independent analysis shows that. I think that it is the right of all public bodies to institute their own arrangements for industrial relations, check-off and facility time. We appeal to the Minister once again to try to understand the principles behind those things, and I hope he will accept the amendment.

[Jo Stevens]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the final Committee sitting, Sir Edward.

In tabling the new clause on check-off, the Government seem extremely concerned to bring trade unions into the 21st century. For the second time in Committee I am forced to admit that I agree with the Minister—not on the content of the new clause, but on the aim of modernisation. The Government seem to believe that paying union subscriptions online, via a bank account, is an acceptable facet of 21st-century trade unionism, but that secure online balloting is not. We must ask ourselves why.

I had an inkling of that while looking back through a 2011 Conservative Home column—I have very exciting evenings—which, thanks to a quotation from the then Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, specifically tied the issue of check-off to the collection of a political levy. That makes me wonder whether the motive for the new clause has more to do with that issue. About 3.8 million public sector workers could be affected by the proposed changes, yet there is no groundswell of demand for the changes from anyone other than the Conservative party.

I want to set out a few inconsistencies to highlight how the new clause does not make sense. I have mentioned the Government’s hypocrisy in opposing online balloting, so I begin with the fact that the use of check-off is voluntary. No employer has to offer it. As with facility time, the right should be with the employer to decide whether the practice benefits their workforce or not. In the case of local government and the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland, the Westminster Government are imposing top-down solutions to problems that do not exist on the ground.

Secondly, this is not about taxpayers’ money. In many instances, as we have heard, trade unions pay for the very small cost of administering check-off. As the Minister has pointed out, this is the 21st century: payroll is automated. As Unison noted it its written evidence to this committee, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the coalition Government wrote to stop attempts to end check-off, saying that,

“Departments should be aware that there is no fiscal case for doing this, as the Unions have offered to pay any costs associated with check-off, which are in any case minimal”.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned, Unison general secretary Dave Prentis gave us evidence on 15 October about check-off arrangements and gave numerous examples of arrangements that Unison has in place where it either pays for the check-off system, or the employer that the union works with makes money out of it. He named Fife Council, East Lancashire hospitals, Bradford City Council, and Derbyshire County Council, to name a few. If cost really were the issue here, surely the appropriate response is to ensure that the costs are met, rather than to entirely abolish the system.

That brings me to how check-off is used by other organisations. From animal welfare to cancer charities, from helping the homeless to children’s organisations, payroll giving is commonplace. Workplace Giving UK says that it is the most efficient way to give to charity—it works with huge charities such as the Stroke Association and Macmillan. The Payroll Giving Centre claims that over 8,000 employers use the system, with over 1 million people donating from their salaries. It is efficient and easily understood, yet while this system of giving seems set to continue and indeed expand for charities, it is being removed for trade union members.

Finally, on transparency and accountability, check-off ensures that members do not continue to pay their subscription after they have left employment. It is a very clear and easy way for a member to pay subscriptions when in employment but not to continue doing so when they leave their job. Taken with other sections of this Bill, this new clause contributes to a new, sprawling and costly bureaucracy that is being put in place with the sole aim of impeding the ability of trade unions to organise politically and industrially. This is all that this is.

We oppose the new clause and the Bill, but if the Minister really wishes to demonstrate that he is serious about modernisation, I urge him to withdraw the new clause and instead bring forward measures to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not spent on check-off, if that really is his concern, and to specify that trade unions pay for the facility themselves, as many already do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I have no doubt that the hon. Lady quotes surveys, samples and everything else in her contributions to various debates, so she will be aware that it is possible to draw conclusions about the behaviour of organisations without necessarily interviewing every single one of them. Indeed, I believe her own party took a great deal of encouragement from various opinion polls before the election that seemed to offer predictions about voter behaviour.

The TaxPayers Alliance report in 2013 revealed that 972 public sector organisations that it had contacted and from which it received responses deducted membership subscriptions to trade unions in the check-off arrangement. Of those, 213, or 22%, charged the union for the service. Charging arrangements ranged from a proportion of the costs of subscription—between 0.5% and 6%—to a flat charge per employee or a monthly fee charged to the union. I make no claim that every single public sector employer was interviewed, but it is a reasonably large sample, and it would be surprising if the average for the whole were very different.

[Chris Stephens]

Since the Minister published the new clause, how many public sector employers have written to him supporting the removal of check-off? I am curious about it. If some have decided to provide it freely, there does not seem to be a lot of support in the public sector for banning it completely.

[Nick Boles]

Funnily enough, the hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the heart of the difference between the Conservative party and the Scottish National party. We believe that the public sector employers are the taxpayers—the people of Great Britain who work and pay taxes in order to pay for us and for everybody else in the public sector, and for everything that the public sector does. They are the employers, not the board of this NHS trust, that police force or this local authority, which are charged by the taxpayer to discharge their responsibilities and handle taxpayers’ money cautiously and carefully. It is entirely reasonable for us as representatives of the ultimate employers of the public sector—the taxpayers—to represent their interests and insist that they get value for their money, which they are currently not getting through check-off. I will now move to the amendment, unless—

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Stephens]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I refer to remarks I made when we were discussing the proposed schedule to the Bill that interference in political funds in this way is a democratic and constitutional outrage. Trying to suggest, or even thinking, that political advantage is to be gained by changing political funds in this way is wrong. As we have already heard, the approach being taken on this Bill breaches the Churchill convention.

The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that Government will try and seek agreement with all political parties. This is important because it is not just the Labour party that has benefited from trade union funds. Plaid Cymru candidates have received money from trade unions, as have SNP candidates, Green party candidates and candidates from various socialist parties in all their guises. We simply propose a mechanism for dealing with political fund arrangements and to take a gold standard approach to these matters.

[Stephen Doughty]

I support the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and to indicate our formal support, we have added our names to it. During the course of the debate on political fund opt-ins and so on, we also made it very clear that if the Bill receives Royal Assent in its current form, it will mark the abrupt end of the long-standing consensus in British politics that the Government should not introduce partisan legislation that would unfairly disadvantage other political parties. We also made reference to what is known as the Churchill convention, as raised by Professor Ewing in oral evidence to the Committee.

We support the new clause that would provide that before the Government introduce the Bill, which would affect trade union political funds, they should make a clear statement about whether it is being introduced with or without the agreement of all political parties represented in the House of Commons and that statement should be published. Certainly, I believe that that is the clear aim and that we should encourage the Government to seek political consensus with other political parties before introducing legislation that interferes with unions’ ability in this respect. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned examples. This is a point of principle. We have not seen this attempted before. The Government can, of course, impose their will—they have the maths—on the Opposition if they wish to do so. We all know that that is the case. The question is whether it is right to do that. We have discussed these issues at length, but this clause will seek to make it clear that the Government will have to be very clear about their intentions in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Very far from it, and long may he not be.

Our manifesto stated very clearly that a future Conservative Government would ensure that

“trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions”.

We were elected on that basis after a prolonged debate in the country of all the policies in all the different parties’ manifestos. That is exactly what we are doing.

The right and proper place to consider the provisions relating to that manifesto promise is in Committee and on the Floor of the House. In that way, the debate is transparent and democratic, and the electorate can see what is agreed and whether it is indeed what they were promised in the manifesto. Those debates should not happen behind closed doors and be presented to the public as a fait accompli.

We heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and other hon. Members during the Committee’s deliberations about excellent campaigns such as HOPE not hate that receive support from trade unions through their political funds. I think we can all agree that those are very worthy causes that would command the support of all of us. I see no reason why they should not command the support of union members in exercising their opt-in to the political funds. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

[Chris Stephens]

I am not going to press the new clause to a Division, because I think the case should be heard before the whole House, with all political parties present, so I will bring it back on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion,

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.



New Clause 10

The Certification Officer

In section 254 of the 1992 Act (The Certification Officer) for subsections (2), (3) and (4) substitute—

“(2) The Certification Officer shall be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, and the person appointed shall have expertise in trade union law.”—(Stephen Doughty.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to appear again under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The new clause pertains to agency workers. We have heard quite extensively from many public sector bodies about their concerns in this regard. They have very clear concerns relating, for example, to patient safety, which has been highlighted again and again.

Repealing the existing prohibition on hiring agency staff to replace workers participating in industrial action fundamentally undermines the right to strike. It reduces the impact of strike action and upsets the power balance between workers and employers. Deploying a replacement workforce during a strike serves only to prolong the dispute, delay resolution and embitter industrial relations.

A change of this nature has implications for all workers. If rogue employers can draft in low-paid temporary workers to break strikes, that is likely to drag down pay and working conditions for workers right across the economy, as fewer people will be willing to stand up for themselves when facing injustice at work because they will know that they can simply be replaced. The change could also have an adverse implication for the agency workers themselves. It places them in an extremely difficult situation. They may risk not getting further work if they refuse such placements and they would have no statutory protection. Furthermore, introducing inexperienced workers to take on the role of the permanent workforce in a workplace that they are not familiar with has implications for health and safety and the quality of the services, as we have heard. That would impact both on the workers and on the public, who may want or require to use the services.

A recent YouGov poll found that of those surveyed, 65% were against bringing in temporary agency workers to break public sector strikes, with more than half saying that they thought that that would worsen services and have a negative impact on safety. Only 8% of the public who were surveyed believed that hiring agency workers during strikes would improve services.

[Chris Stephens]

In the evidence sessions, we heard from passenger transport groups, which made it plain that if train or bus drivers, for example, were replaced during a strike by people who were not trained, that would have real effects on public safety. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Dr Cameron]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We have heard it time and again not just from the workers to whom he refers, but from healthcare and other workers.

The drawbacks of allowing agency staff to be used in this way are recognised by other European countries. By repealing the current legislation, the UK Government would become an outlier in this regard, as the majority of other European countries prohibit or severely restrict the use of agency workers during industrial disputes. In effect, this would be taking us back in time to the 1970s—a time when workers were pitted against one another. Often, that led to greater discord and disharmony for all, but particularly for the ordinary working person, who had difficulty sustaining their livelihood.

Again, this is partisan legislation and it is just not right. Our new clause is designed to ensure that agency workers would not be brought in. It states that a business

“shall not introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer to perform…the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action…or…the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker”.

The new clause is designed to give the everyday worker in public services the same rights as others. It would give them the ability to engage in right and proper action as a last resort when they have to but not have their causes undermined. As we have heard, the public do not want that and it would also potentially undermine safety. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman does not just want to anticipate the publication of the response to the consultation and the Government’s decision whether to proceed with removing the ban; he wants to anticipate the contents of the response to the consultation by asking what the responses were. I am afraid that he will have to wait until we publish the response. There were numerous responses to the consultation, which closed in September, from a wide range of respondents, including businesses, schools, local authorities, emergency services and trade unions and their members, and we are analysing those responses. We will consider all representations made, and will publish a Government response in due course.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is right that we are trying to pre-empt it. Does he not recognise the concern that some of us have? In some places, agency workers have been used during industrial action. The current law is weak in trying to stop that, and we are trying to improve the situation. Does he recognise that?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

It is my pleasure to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Sir Alan and myself. We both found the Committee most enjoyable. Obviously feelings run high, but you have all conducted yourself brilliantly: the Minister, the Opposition spokesman, the Opposition Whip, even the Government Whip—[Interruption.] I love teasing him. I love him really; he is a great man. Perhaps he is one of these sinister forces we hear so much about. Seriously though, it has been a good Bill. The fact that we have finished only an hour early shows, as the Minister said, that we have given it a good going over. We have done our job and held the Government to account. All Committee members should be proud of their efforts.

Does anyone want to say anything more?

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[The Chair]

Oh, we must have a last word from the SNP.

[Chris Stephens]

This was my first Bill Committee and it has been a most interesting experience. In any event, I have come to the conclusion that it is no way to run a country. In future, consideration should be given to having more evidence sessions, because some of them were crammed in. I am just putting that out there in general terms as the views of a new Member on proceedings.

I thank you, Sir Edward, and Sir Alan. You have both been very encouraging and explained the processes as they arose. I thank the Clerks, who have been very helpful and talked us through tabling amendments. I agree that we have tried to maintain good humour; I tried myself with cultural references to “Star Wars”, “Game of Thrones” and, I think, “Rainbow” in one instance. I thank all Committee members. The Labour Members have done themselves proud in providing opposition to the Bill, while the Conservative Members have tried to justify it as best they can. I look forward to continuing the debate on Report.

[The Chair]

On these happy occasions I always feel like I am at a count—I feel like I should thank the returning officer and the policemen. Thank you for all being so fraternal in the best traditions of our trade union movement.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.