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.

Trade Union Bill (Seventh sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Mearns]

I could not agree more; I was just coming on to that very point. There is already legislation in place that those on picket lines must, and do, comply with. That “peaceful pickets” legislation is outlined in section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and unions must also follow the relevant code of practice. If that legislation were breached on a regular basis, I could see why the Government would feel the need to push through this Bill, in order to safeguard workers and the public, but unions do comply with existing legislation. Even the Government’s own BIS consultation document supports that statement, finding that most pickets do conform with guidance in the code of practice. In that case, why do the Government believe the legislation is so necessary? Are they not using a legislative sledgehammer to crack a very small nut?

Furthermore, as the Regulatory Policy Committee’s recent review of the Government’s impact assessment of the measures on picketing found,

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

Given that such organisations have failed to find any need for the proposal or any significant benefits arising from it, why is the legislation being rushed through the House at such a pace? As we heard, we have not had much time to go through the Bill line by line, despite its importance.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman share the concern held by many, including me, that if unaltered, the clause will lead to more blacklisting within the community?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

We will discuss some of the other issues on this subject in detail when we consider the following groups of amendments. I appreciate the Minister’s clarification on the specific question that amendment 26 seeks to address.

There is a fundamental problem here, and I hope the Minister will elaborate on it in his further comments. What evidence base is he using when he talks about these examples of intimidation? No Opposition Member condones intimidation or other such activities—indeed, people carrying out such activities should be prosecuted under existing laws—but what percentage of overall picketing activity in the past year or five years does he believe has resulted in such activity? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central made a good point, and we have also heard a good point on the dispute between the London fire brigade and the FBU. The commissioner could not give us facts on whether FBU members had been arrested or prosecuted, but I understand that an agency worker was in fact arrested for potentially violent actions towards an FBU member. There is a big problem with the way in which this issue has been characterised.

The Royal College of Midwives was clear on the implications of this clause and the associated provisions:

“We believe the intention is to frighten and confuse midwives from exercising their right to protest for fear that they will make a simple mistake and be prosecuted.”

I am glad for the Minister’s clarifications, but we need to consider the overall impact of this clause and the related provisions.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Chris Stephens]

I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 9, page 5, leave out lines 1 to 13 and insert—

‘(3) A picket supervisor is required to show a constable a letter of authorisation only if

(a) the constable provides documentary evidence that he or she is a constable;

(b) the constable provides his or her name, and the name of the police station to which he or she is attached; and

(c) the constable explains the reasons for the request to see the letter of authorisation.

(4) If a picket supervisor complies with a constable’s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was complied with.

(5) If a picket supervisor fails to comply with a constable’s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was not complied with.

(6) Information about the identity of a picket supervisor and any information relating to the production of a letter of authorisation shall be retained by the police only for the purposes of giving evidence in legal proceedings directly related to the picketing to which it is connected.

(7) For the avoidance of doubt neither a member of the public nor an employer shall be entitled to request a picket supervisor to produce a letter of authorisation.”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 5, line 5, leave out “police” and insert “Chief Constable”.

The amendment would ensure there is a single, senior contact within the police force for communicating information about picketing.

Amendment 29, in clause 9, page 5, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).

[Chris Stephens]

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

This is a bad Bill, and clause 9 is a bad clause. Some of the difficulty that many hon. Members have had with the Bill has been over whether to oppose it totally or try to amend it. The fact that Amnesty, Liberty and the Blacklist Support Group have major concerns about infringements of civil liberties, and their consequences, has already been mentioned. Amendment 104 is intended to make things a little clearer to the police and the trade unions.

First, we want to remove the words “any other person” from the clause, and we believe that there will be serious consequences if that is not done. It is not clear who that other person is. It could be anyone; but who would it be? It would not be a friend of the trade union movement, that is for sure. It would not be a nice, cheerful person who supported the trade union movement. It would not be George and Zippy from “Rainbow”, Rod, Jane and Freddy or even—perhaps more appropriately—Bungle. It would probably be someone with the personality of the Lannister family in “Game of Thrones”—anyone who watches that programme will understand where they would come from politically—or perhaps Biff Tannen from “Back to the Future”, which was mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday.

I am using humour; but things could be somewhat more sinister. The other person wanting to know the information might, for example, be a member of a fascist organisation—of one of the organisations that we know share the names of trade unionists and other people on websites. A friend of mine, Iain Titherington, who is a constituent of the shadow Minister, has appeared on a website, Redwatch, for his trade union activity and for being a secretary of Searchlight Cymru. The provision is designed to target people.

We believe that giving employers details of picketing would lead to more blacklisting. We know from recent court cases that employers are still being taken to court over such serious issues. We heard from Dave Smith of the Blacklist Support Group about the possible consequences for an individual who is put on a blacklist.

Professor Keith Ewing’s written submission to the Committee contained important remarks on the principles of liberty in relation to the clause:

“It is a fundamental principle of law in this country that people are free to go about their business without being stopped by the police, unless they are suspected of having committed an offence, in which case they may be arrested. Indeed so important is this principle that it was regarded as a ‘constitutional’ principle by a Scottish court. At common law, the police have no right to stop, detain or search individuals, though there are a number of statutes that provide clear exceptions to this.”

The evidence went on:

“It is important fully to comprehend what is being proposed by the Trade Union Bill (clause 9), quite apart from the legitimate concern about armbands, badges and the like: A picket supervisor engaged in lawful activity (indeed in Convention protected activity) may be required by a police constable (whether or not in uniform) to produce a written document (the letter of authorisation); It will be necessary for this purpose for the police officer to stop and detain the individual, for as long as it takes for an exchange to take place…The demand may be made by the police officer even though the individual in question has not committed a criminal offence, and is not suspected of having committed an offence.

Failure to provide the letter of authorisation is not an offence, but there is no right on the part of the supervisor to ignore the constable’s demand, meet it with a testy reprove, and move on. This is because failure to provide the letter of authorisation will have legal consequences, in the sense that the picketing may thus be rendered unlawful and actionable at the suit of the employer.”

Professor Ewing continued:

“Moreover, it is striking that there are no formalities or safeguards to be complied with when the demand is made to see a letter of authorisation. This contrasts with the stop and search powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Terrorism Act 2000. In these cases the police officer may be required to provide…documentary evidence that he or she is a constable, if the latter is not in uniform; his or her name and the name of the police station to which he or she is attached; the object of the proposed search; the reasons for using the power; and a record of the search after it has taken place. An individual stopped while engaged in lawful and Convention protected activities might reasonably expect to have at least the same level of procedural courtesy as someone stopped while suspected of criminal or terrorist-related activities.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

That is a very good question. I imagine that the picket supervisor could communicate with the police in whatever form they wanted. I promise to check that point.

Amendment 104 further removes from the clause the requirement for the union to issue the picket supervisor with a letter of authorisation. It also removes the requirement to show that to a constable or any other person who reasonably asks for it. As I have already mentioned, the letter of authorisation relates to the picket so that it is clear that the picket is lawful. The removal of the letter of authorisation would create uncertainty about whether the picket has been authorised by the union. It would also make it more difficult for the union to show that it has complied with the requirement to appoint a supervisor.

The other substance of the amendment proposes to insert new requirements for the constable in relation to any entitlement to see the letter of authorisation. It sets out that the constable would need to provide their personal details, to which police station they are attached, the reasons to see the letter of authorisation and a written record whether the request had been complied with.

Our intention in clause 9 is that this letter authorises the picket, not the picket supervisor. Therefore, it does not need to contain the name and personal details of the picket supervisor. I would like to reflect again on whether that is articulated as clearly as it could be in the Bill.

The police will already have been informed of the name and contact of the picket supervisor so that they are able to respond quickly should a problem occur. All uniformed police officers carry a warrant card as proof of identification and authority. Those generally include a photograph of the holder as well as the holder’s name, rank, warrant number and a holographic emblem to mark authenticity. A requirement for a written record would appear an additional and unnecessary burden when considering this in relation to a letter of authorisation for a picket.

I am aware that the entitlement to see the letter of authorisation by any person who reasonably requests it has caused some concern. I am grateful for the insights provided by hon. Members and will reflect on those further. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Glasgow South West to withdraw the amendment.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with the shadow Minister that winter is coming. The Minister has not addressed issues relating to blacklisting and, like the hon. Member for Cardiff Central, I am very concerned about the approach that occurs in guidance and, whether we agree or not that it is interlocked, it will have other consequences for legal proceedings. I do not believe the Minister has addressed the concerns and consequences of that and feel obliged to press for a Division.

Question put, that the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

That is indeed revealing. I hope that sets a precedent for discussions we might have in due course. [Interruption.] Let us see where we go. Perhaps we can persuade the Minister. We will need more clever questions.

[Chris Stephens]

I assume the Minister believes that emails in relation to picketing will be safe and secure.

[Stephen Doughty]

Perhaps the Minister would like to confirm that in his remarks. Before we discuss the amendments, I want to reiterate the point at the heart of the debate. As the Minister says, we already have the picketing code, which many people comply with, and we have been clear that many of the potential offences that the Minister seeks to avoid are already covered in law. My fear is—I genuinely ask the Minister to reflect on this—that whatever the Government’s intentions are, the reality is that others will seek to exploit parts of the Bill as drafted to make the rights of others illusory.

We heard from Liberty in the oral evidence sessions that many aspects could be used by others to try to bring injunctions and proceedings. Ultimately—this goes back to our debate on the gagging law—many are frightened about potential non-compliance with the law. The RCM made that clear:

“We believe the intention is to frighten and confuse midwives from exercising their right to protest for fear that they will make a simple mistake and be prosecuted.”

That is the fear of many people who are not experts in trade union law and the existing legal provisions. Let us remember that the overwhelming majority of those who engage in such activities would never contemplate the intimidation or other unsavoury activities that the Minister outlined.

Amendment 27 would remove the requirement that the picketing supervisor must be a person familiar with the provisions of the code of practice on picketing. It is not that I hope that people are not reading and understanding it, but I believe that that requirement is excessive and creates a risk that unions could again be exposed to legal challenges because a picket supervisor could not answer a random question about the code of practice even though the picket activities they were supervising were peaceful and otherwise lawful. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister about the intention behind this measure, because it could be misused by those who would seek to make rights illusory.

Amendment 30 is on the letter of authorisation. It would remove the requirement on picket supervisors to show their letter of authorisation to constables who ask to see it. We have discussed that already, but I have concerns that the interaction between a police officer—a “constable” as defined in the Bill—and an individual could form the basis of a future legal challenge by the employer and that that could again put the police in an invidious position. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West covered the circumstances in which others could demand to see the letter. Fascist organisations or others could seek to use potential loopholes in the Bill to cause frustration to those going about exercising their rights reasonably.

Amendments 31 and 32 are important. Proposed new section 220A(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 will place a duty on picket supervisors to be either constantly present at a picket or able to attend at short notice. The Opposition believe that that would place an onerous responsibility on picket organisers, especially when pickets are scheduled to take place overnight as well as during the day, so the amendments would remove that requirement. Here again there is potential for a really unreasonable requirement to be placed on those who otherwise seek very much to comply with the spirit and intent of the existing code of practice and this law if it is to be enacted. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

We are starting to make some progress through some meaty issues. Clause 10 deals with the Government’s extensive proposals around political funding and how unions operate. We discussed such matters at length on Second Reading. We heard significant evidence from the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation and from several unions that contribute to and maintain political funds. Although there was some japery from Government Members during that evidence session, it is important to understand the historical significance of the Government’s proposals, which go well beyond what even previous Conservative Administrations have considered and well beyond the bounds of cross-party consensus on political funding. The existing legislation governing trade unions that want to contribute to political parties or engage in certain political activities is clear, rigid and tough, and rightly so. The Opposition would not want it any other way and neither would the trade unions or the trade union members with whom I have spoken or who have given evidence.

As defined by section 72 of the 1992 Act, a trade union wishing to undertake such activities must establish a political fund. Before doing so, trade unions are legally required to ballot their members to ask, through a political fund resolution, whether they agree to the union maintaining a political fund. Trade unions are also required to ballot their members every 10 years to determine whether the trade union should retain the political fund. Union members currently have the right to opt out from their subscriptions being used for political fund purposes. Let us be clear that that relates not only to union subscriptions or affiliations to the Labour party, but to all the activities covered by political funds. Members can opt out at any time. It is important that the Committee understands that, because the idea that unions are somehow giving this money away with members having no democratic role is simply not the case.

The Government’s proposals in clause 10, however, replace that arrangement with a new requirement on union members to opt in every five years if they agree to their subscriptions being partly used to fund political parties or, as could be encompassed by the Bill, party political campaigns. Union members will retain the right to opt out from paying into the political fund at any point.

The Minister said earlier that I was potentially pre-empting comments that he was going to make, and I might do so again now. He might try to dress up the clause as an attempt to bring things into line with the situation in Northern Ireland, but it is important for the Committee to understand that it goes beyond the current practice there, which requires union members to agree to paying into the political fund only once. They are not required to renew their opt-in.

The Minister might also try to argue that the clause is about levelling the playing field with the duties that apply to companies that make political donations, but, again, it goes well beyond that. Part 14 of the Companies Act 2006 requires companies to get the authorisation of a shareholder resolution before making political donations of £5,000 or more. However, shareholders do not have a right to opt out of company political expenditure, and nor is there an opting-in arrangement.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I ask again: what is the Government’s real intention? Committee members should be left in no doubt that the purpose of requiring trade union members to opt in to political funds as required by the clause is simply a nakedly partisan attack aimed at damaging the finances of the Labour party. Such a move is designed to ensure the inevitable by gifting the Conservative party an ever greater financial advantage than is already the case.

[Chris Stephens]

I would argue that it is more sinister than that. Does the shadow Minister agree that the clause is also about a trade union’s capacity to use its political fund for general campaigning?

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, I believe that to be the case. I have heard some clear evidence from unions that maintain political funds and, although affiliated to the Labour party, undertake other activities, as well as from those that are not affiliated to the Labour party but maintain political funds. The Government have already taken forward extensive regulation relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the gagging Act and so on. A lot of unions believe that activities will fall under those provisions and are worried about how they will comply.

Trade Union Bill (Eighth sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I indicated to Sir Alan that I wanted to speak on this group of amendments, to give a general overview of clause 10.

Our view is that the provisions in clause 10 are a democratic and constitutional outrage, for two reasons. Before I was elected, I was secretary of the Scottish National party trade union group, which has a total of 16,000 members from all trade unions. Some of them have decided not to contribute to the political fund of whatever trade union they are in, while others do. It is important that they have that choice. The trade union movement is having a discussion about whether it should be funding one political party or individual candidates who support its aims and objectives. The important point is that it is up to trade unions and their members to have that debate. I am concerned that clause 10 will not only interfere with donations to political parties, but ignore the Churchill convention, with clear constitutional implications.

First, it is important for our society that trade unions make a contribution to the political life of the country, and our society has been better for it. We should be looking at political funding arrangements across the board and in consultation with all parties, not just slipping in these measures as part of the Bill, which is why the SNP has tabled a new clause, which we will come to later.

Secondly, to return to the points made by the hon. Member for Gateshead about political funds being used for general campaigning, as it stands, clause 10 is clearly a way of preventing the trade union movement from engaging in such campaigning. It is important to mention some of the other organisations and campaigns that have received trade union funding. There have been health and safety campaigns, which are very important. HOPE not hate and other anti-fascist and anti-racist organisations have received the majority of their funding from trade unions. As the general secretary of the PCS trade union indicated, funding has gone to campaigns on public service provision and keeping public services in public hands.

Our position is simple: we oppose clause 10 and will join anyone to ensure that it is defeated.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

You were not with us this morning, Sir Edward, but the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth gave a broad introduction to the provisions on the political fund, as well as addressing the amendments. I do not want to take long because we are trying to save time. The arguments made by the shadow Minister and other Members betray a strange lack of confidence in their appeal to union members. It seems to me odd to suggest that the only way they can secure the donations of union members is by somehow relying on the inertia that prevents a union member from exercising their opt-out.

The hon. Gentleman talked about pension contributions and auto-enrolment. One of the main reasons for introducing automatic enrolment into a pension is that it is pretty hard to persuade individual savers, particularly young people on relatively low wages with lots of other immediate demands on their cash, of the benefits of a pension that they are not going to receive until 40 or 50 years in the future. Yet we all know that, both in their direct personal interest and in the public interest, it is important that they save for a pension. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the appeal of the Labour party and its policies is so distant or vague that it is not possible to persuade individual union members that they have an immediate, direct and personal interest in ticking a box and opting in.

Although I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, the Opposition betray their own defensiveness rather than making a strong argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I would gently point out to the Minister that many trade unions currently have a system whereby members have to tick a box for the political fund. Indeed, my own trade union, Unison, gives the choice of ticking a box next to either the affiliated section, from which funds go to the Labour party; the general political fund section, which I happen to tick; or for no political fund arrangements at all. Some trade unions already offer the option through ticking a box, so why is the change necessary?

[Nick Boles]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I think has made my argument for me. All that we are requiring is that every trade union member be asked to tick a box to contribute to a political fund, rather than being given an option to tick a box to get out of it. Since he is happy to do that and happy for others to do the same, it does not seem particularly onerous.

Amendments 34 and 35 deal with the opt-in renewal notices for political funds. It must be right that a member decides whether to contribute to a political fund and has an opportunity to renew their choice; the question is over what period. In this country, it seems that renewing political choices every five years is becoming a normal pattern, which is why we suggest five years in the Bill. We have provided that members can renew their opt-in at any time in the three months before a renewal date, reducing the burden on unions of different renewal dates for different members. The Bill also provides that members who have recently decided to contribute will not have to renew their opt-in again shortly afterwards. If a member opts in six months before a renewal date, they do not have to renew again at the next renewal point. Amendment 35 would undermine that provision, which is meant to help unions to manage the opt-in process.

Clause 10 creates a workable system of opt-in and renewal for trade unions with political funds. The amendments would work against their effectiveness for unions and their members, so I urge that amendment 34 be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Amendment 91 is a minor amendment to clause 10 that fixes the first renewal of an opt-in to a political fund so that it is three months and five years after the date of the political resolution. The language is more precise than the current drafting, which refers to the date that a political fund is established or the date of a ballot. The revised wording also reflects the language used in the provisions of the 1992 Act dealing with amalgamations. To be clear, this is a technical point and there is no change in policy. It should make it easier for unions to understand and apply the law in this area.

Amendment 96 deals with how the new opt-in provisions apply to the amalgamation of the unions. It fixes the first renewal date where two or more unions join together. We have ensured that renewal dates will be fixed by reference to the date of a political resolution. This means that where two unions amalgamate, the first opt-in renewal date for the amalgamated union will be the earliest of the renewal dates of the different amalgamating unions. That will ensure that all union members will be subject to the same renewal dates, which will be administratively easier for the unions concerned.

I now turn to Opposition amendments 36, 37 and 38, which would replace the opt-in renewal date from five to 10 years. Our aim is to promote greater transparency for union members. We want members to make an active choice based on a recent and up-to-date decision. We do not believe it is right that a union member makes the decision to opt in to a political fund and is not asked to do so again for as long as 10 years. That could not be judged a recent active choice.

[Chris Stephens]

During consultations on the Bill, did anyone object to having a trade union ballot in 10 years and want one every five years? What is the purpose of that? I would have thought that 10 years, which is two electoral cycles, would be sufficient.

[Nick Boles]

I certainly accept that there can be different, legitimate views on this question. As I said in response to the previous debate, given that our system seems to be moving towards regular five-year cycles of political decision making, we felt that it was, if nothing else, neat to have a five-year cycle of decision making about contributions towards political funds.

A five-year renewal date balances the need for unions to have certainty about how much income they have for political activities against the need to ensure that a member’s decision to contribute remains current and relevant. We are also taking steps to remove the burden of different renewal dates on unions, and ensuring that future renewal dates are kept the same for all members of any union. We are therefore allowing for a five-year renewal notice to take place any time in the three months before the renewal date. The Bill also provides that where members who opt in during the six-month period before the five-year renewal, they should not have to renew their opt-in again at the renewal date. That prevents, for example, new members who have made a recent decision to contribute to a fund from having to renew their opt-in again very soon after.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not have a lot to say about Government amendments 91 and 96, because we fundamentally oppose the principle of the clause and all associated measures, and intend to vote against it when we come to that point.

As the Minister has pointed out, Opposition amendments 36, 37 and 38 go with the status quo, sticking with the 10 years and three months provision as it is. That is obviously a matter for debate, although I am not sure that the Minister is making a strong argument. He certainly did not adequately respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West about who has requested the change.

When combined with the other measures, this appears like another attempt to prevent this money from reaching political causes and parties.

[Chris Stephens]

Is the shadow Minister aware of anyone who wants to change from 10 to five years?

[Stephen Doughty]

No, I am not aware of that. The point that has been made consistently to me by the unions and others who would be affected is that, of course, people can opt out at any point. The idea that people make political choices only at a fixed point every so many years is wrong. People can change their political affiliations and views about political campaigns their union might be engaged in or running—whether they were well run or had a good purpose—and that might cause them to decide at some point to decide to opt out of the fund. Obviously, I hope they do not but that is a choice they can make. They can do that, unlike shareholders in corporations, who cannot opt out once their company is making donations to the Conservative party, for example—let alone the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, which horrified me. I am a fan of Soreen malt loaf and had no idea that I was unwittingly contributing to the Conservative party through that. The Government are fond of declaratory statements on ballots; perhaps there should be one on every malt loaf, saying, “Be aware that you are giving to the Tories.”

The whole debate exposes the inconsistencies that the Bill creates.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

I am grateful to the Minister. Part of it comes from my role as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on design and innovation—it did a lot of work in this area before the election—at the time that the Speaker’s Commission was working, and part of it comes from an article in The Guardian. The Minister will appreciate that, as a lively reader of The Guardian, I pick up these things wherever I can. I can probably give him the exact date on which the article was published, if he wants to know that.

[Chris Stephens]

We are not talking about an election, though, but a ballot, which will be a binary choice. It will either be yes or no. What specifically would concern the hon. Gentleman about introducing electronic balloting in a case of industrial action or to confirm or otherwise the political fund arrangements of a trade union?

[John Howell]

I think there is a great deal of similarity between using electronic means for an election and for this sort of statutory balloting. The thing that most concerns me is that, as in the words of the Open Rights Group that I just quoted:

“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it.”

The question is how we deal with the problems of security and particularly of accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

Hear, hear. I agree with that well-made point. We are in a modern age and have to keep up with the times. That includes looking at all the options. All the evidence—not opinion—appears to show that the safety of online voting has not been undermined. It should be considered seriously.

Workplace ballots should be permitted for statutory union elections and ballots. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons. The procedure exists to give people choice. Fundamentally, that is what we need to do in this age. The public and society expect to have a choice of postal, workplace or electronic voting. They expect us to consider that seriously and rationally when we discuss these important issues.

According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way, particularly when ballots take place in the workplace. There has been a total of seven complaints about unfair practices by employers or unions during statutory recognition ballots since 2004, when new protections were introduced. Five of those complaints were made by unions and one by an employer, but none of the complaints was upheld. The Government indicate that electronic voting is not safe or that there should be caution. However, thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 secure online ballots annually.

[Chris Stephens]

Surely that is the point. These e-ballots are independently scrutinised. The trade union is not running the ballot; it is appointing an independent scrutineer to carry out the ballot on its behalf. I hope that will persuade others on this issue.

[Dr Cameron]

That is another well-made point. The report by Electoral Reform Services indicates that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting and that there are risks associated with both. Essentially, there will be a level of risk in any balloting process.

In conclusion, we are in a modern age and we want to engage people from all aspects of society. We must give people choice that is in line with their everyday lives. Yes, there has to be an element of caution, but that has to be evidence-based, not based on opinion. We have good evidence that electronic voting is already working in many spheres of our lives. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Sir Edward, you said you are not a reader of The Guardian. This summer, I wrote a piece for the Morning Star—a newspaper I commend to all Members.

[The Chair]

I read that even less.

[Chris Stephens]

The article was about my thoughts on the first 10 weeks of Parliament. The headline was “Bizarre, Surreal, Orwellian”, which I think sums up quite nicely some of the arguments we hear from the supporters of the Bill, who talk about modernisation but will deny trade union members the right to use e-balloting.

I hope the Minister will explain why, in response to every written question I have asked him, a written answer comes back with a link to a website. If it is okay for him to do that to me, it is acceptable for a trade union to email its members with a link to a ballot paper. It is independently scrutinised. Companies such as Electoral Reform Services and MyVoice have been able to do that, and there have been no concerns about those ballots.

[Nick Boles]

Before getting into the meat of this, I start by emphasising how important line-by-line deliberation on the Bill is. We have been, and still are, very keen that every Opposition Member—it is particularly important for Opposition Members—can exploit that opportunity. We also, however, have a timetable agreed by the usual channels, and I am keen that all parts of the Bill, all amendments to it and all new clauses receive the same level of scrutiny, so that nobody can claim the Government somehow prevented the Bill from receiving that scrutiny. As a result, I will not deliver the more detailed response that had been prepared. My response will relate to the amendment and all the new clauses in this group, so that we can make some progress.

Where we started from in drafting the Bill was, in a very sense, very simple. We started by suggesting that all the new decisions we were asking union members to take should be communicated according to the existing methods provided in the legislation. It may have been naive of us to think that position would be unchallenged, but it was for no more sinister—the word used by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth—reasons than that. We were simply reflecting existing provisions in the Bill.

Since the Bill was published, there has been a great deal of debate in public, in evidence sessions and now in Committee about the question of alternative methods of voting—in particular, e-balloting. From the very first time that was raised, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that we have no objection in principle to online voting or e-balloting, as it is sometimes called. Indeed, I would go further: it would be extraordinary if, in 20 years’ time, most elections in most countries in the world on most questions of importance were not decided through electronic means of communication. Just as we have been willing to accept freely and openly the principle that that is a desirable state to move towards, it is important for Opposition Members not to be quite so dismissive of the practical objections that were so well highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley.

It is incredibly important to acknowledge that the Open Rights Group, which gave evidence to the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy that only reported in January this year, is not some Tory front organisation. These people are genuinely concerned about a genuine question at hand—the legitimacy, safety and security of voting. It is important that the Opposition do not dismiss those objections out of hand by plucking out examples of very different decisions and transactions. Specifically, the particular matter when it comes to voting is the need to ensure that the system that captures the data does not allow the person casting the vote to be identified. That does not apply to banking transactions. Once someone is inside the secure system, it is fine for any part of that system to know their identity; indeed, it is critical that the system should know their identity, so that the money is transferred out of and into the right account.

With voting, the system needs to be anonymous, to preserve the individual’s privacy and secrecy; but it must also be able to guarantee the identity of the individual—that they are indeed the voter claiming that vote. It must be accountable, to guard against malpractice and fraud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I appreciate the Minister’s clarification, but I do not believe it stacks up. As we have made clear, there is a lot of support for our amendment from the trade unions that the Bill will affect, because they are entirely satisfied that the secure methods we have set out, including the security provisions—particularly given that they are used already—would enable them to conduct ballots safely and securely.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way, but I do not want to take too many interventions.

[Chris Stephens]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. Can he confirm that those organisations are doing that because they believe the turnout will be a lot higher if alternative methods of voting are used?

[Stephen Doughty]

I believe that is the case, because those organisations have the evidence for it. It was submitted in written evidence by a number of unions and in evidence to the consultations run by BIS. They made clear their experience of using those types of balloting methods and said that they feel secure with them. They also said that there is a very low incidence of claims of fraud or problems. As I said, none of the claims that were made—I think there have been only seven—was upheld.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

The proposals on facility time illustrate the lack of understanding we have seen from the Government about how trade unions operate and the benefits they deliver, not just for their members but for employers. There has been precious little evidence given for the attack on facility time in the Bill, as we saw when unevidenced assertions were presented by the witness from the TaxPayers Alliance last week.

I will talk about two aspects relating to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. My first point is a general one about facility time, in the health service in particular. In 2007, the then Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform looked at the issue as a precursor to revising the ACAS code of practice on facility time for union reps. If the Minister had compiled a report such as that one before the Bill was drafted, he would have found that union reps make a significant contribution to increasing productivity, making their workplaces safer, reducing the costs of recruitment and helping business to become more responsive to change, by helping staff acquire new skills in addition to updating those they already have. That report showed tens of millions of pounds of savings to employers and the Exchequer by reducing the number of employment tribunal cases, although I will admit that the Government have done a pretty good job on that by introducing tribunal fees and pricing people out of access to justice. The report also showed the benefits to society worth hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of reducing working days lost due to workplace injury and work-related illness. Follow-up research by the TUC pointed to overall productivity gains worth between £4 billion and £12 billion to the UK economy.

More recent research carried out for the Royal College of Nursing by the University of Warwick and Cass Business School backed up the 2007 report. The analysis found that work carried out by trade union representatives in NHS organisations was estimated to save the health service at least £100 million a year. In times of such constrained public finances, facility time is estimated to save large teaching hospitals £1 million a year. The RCN is unequivocal that, aside from the financial cost of high staff turnover when the NHS is already struggling to recruit and retain enough staff, removing effective union representation could have,

“a significant impact on patient safety.”

Janet Davies of the RCN, who we heard from last week, went on to say:

“The health service can ill-afford further damage to staff morale, or to squander even more money on recruitment costs. The trade union bill is bad for staff, employers and most importantly it is bad for patients.”

The RCN is on the front line of service delivery and understands the practical impact the Bill would have. The Labour party is inclined to listen to it.

I want to briefly mention the health and safety representatives and the impact of the Bill on their valuable work. There is, of course, a legal duty on employers to give health and safety representatives as much paid time off as they need to undertake their duties. That is laid down in regulations and it is absolute. The regulations do not say that an employer can decide to restrict that time. If a representative needs it, they need it, and that will vary from week to week, but the Bill says that any public sector employer who has at least one health and safety representative will have to record and publish all the time taken and the facilities provided. That is bureaucratic and pointless, and will just mean that employers and union representatives will have to spend a significant amount of time on paperwork.

Even more dangerous is the proposal to allow Ministers to restrict the rights to time off given to union health and safety representatives by amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. All they have to do is introduce new regulations. The proposal is extremely vindictive and underhand, sneaking in the right to do this, by statutory instrument, into a much wider Bill. At no time have the Government given any justification for that proposal.

Union health and safety reps save hundreds of lives and prevent tens of thousands of injuries and illnesses to working people. Workplaces with union health and safety reps and joint health and safety committees have half the serious injury rates of those without. Any reasonable employer welcomes the presence of health and safety representatives, including almost all those in the public sector. That is why this proposal will not save money or remove bureaucracy—nor, more importantly, will it improve safety in workplaces. It has the potential to do the opposite.

Before coming to this House, I represented many people who had suffered the death of a family member in workplaces without health and safety reps, I ask the Minister, please, to seriously consider the proposal.

[Chris Stephens]

I wish to speak in favour of my party’s amendments. First, information gathering has to be consistent, and information has to be presented in a consistent fashion. Our real fear about the clause is that it is deliberately designed to ensure that the information presented puts the trade union movement in a bad light. It is the percentage in each of the subsections that should apply, because that is the most relevant and consistent measure. The statistics need to be clear so that people really understand what the cost to employers is in percentage terms.

As the hon. Member for Cardiff Central indicated, part of the debate has been shaped by the TaxPayers Alliance, using freedom of information legislation. Part of the problem with that is that the answer often depends on what questions are asked and how they are asked. It is ironic that that organisation has flourished at a cost to the taxpayer through its use of FOIs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Thank you, Sir Edward. We are all relative newcomers in this place, so it is good to learn.

There is less difference between the Government and the Opposition than Opposition Members have tried to make out. They have made an eloquent defence of union learning representatives, health and safety representatives and other union officials who perform union duties in the workplace. No one on the Government Benches disagrees with the value that such people add to their workplaces or the extent to which they can help ensure that workplaces are safe, while also offering opportunities for people to advance and progress.

If you listened only to the speeches of Opposition Members, Sir Edward, you would have concluded that somehow we were banning facility time. All we are seeking to ensure, however, is that there is transparency about facility time. Conservative Members, previously in coalition and now as a Government on our own, passionately believe in the power of transparency to lead to good decisions. Transparency gives the public who pay our salaries and those of everyone in the public sector—the public should truly be referred to as the employers in the public sector—an ability to make a reasonable judgment about whether public sector bodies are managing their money well. The public are absolutely capable of understanding the arguments about the value of health and safety and learning representatives in the workplace.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister indicated that he is not minded to ban facility time, or that that is not his intention. Is he therefore indicating that he will withdraw clause 13 of the Bill?

[Nick Boles]

No, I am not, because clause 13 does not ban facility time. It would take a reserve power—one that we would not like to use and would only use reluctantly—to cap the amount that can be spent on facility time, which is a very different thing from banning it altogether.

[Nick Boles]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman will always think the worst of us and that I am probably not going to be able to persuade him otherwise. If we wanted to do that, however, why are we not introducing a cap now? We have a figure based on the civil service—we introduced transparency on facility time, which produced a substantial drop in the amount of public money spent on facility time—and we could perfectly well introduce a cap now. We even probably have the votes for it, but we are not doing so, and the reason why we are not doing so is that we do not want to go there. We do not want to have to resort to that. We want transparency to do the work that Conservative Members have consistently always believed that transparency does.

It is getting late, so I shall turn to the detail of the amendments. The Government want to promote transparency and public scrutiny of facility time, and encourage public sector employers to moderate the amount of taxpayers’ money they spend on such time in the light of that scrutiny. At a time of fiscal consolidation, it is unacceptable for taxpayers’ money to be spent on facility time without proper monitoring and controls.

Amendment 46 seeks to limit the range of publishable information to two figures: the total number of union representatives and the total cost of facility time. The Government resist those limitations. We have already seen the success of the reforms to facility time in the civil service. The percentage of the civil service pay bill spent on facility time has fallen by three quarters, representing a saving for taxpayers to date of more than £52 million. I have not heard reports of a lack of access to learning representatives or health and safety representatives in civil service workplaces. All employers whose spending on facility time is funded by taxpayers should be held to the same scrutiny. Taxpayers deserve that.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will make some progress, because we have had a good debate. I want to ensure that we make progress and get everybody home.

It is particularly important to monitor the amount of time spent on trade union activities, for which there is no legal right to paid time off work. I repeat: trade union activities are different from trade union duties. We all accept the not only legitimate but socially important and economically valuable role of trade union duties, but that is different from trade union activities. Public sector employers and the taxpayers who pay them must be able to distinguish between such activities and business or employee-facing trade union duties, for which there is a legal right to paid time off work.

We also consider that the percentage of public sector employers’ pay bill that is for facility time should not be omitted. Simply providing a total cost would not allow benchmarking against other public sector employers or the private sector, and would be almost meaningless on its own. The publication of the cost of union representatives’ use of their employers’ facilities should not be left out either. It can include the provision of telephones, photocopiers and dedicated office space. All public sector employers need to ensure that such use, to which there is no general legal right, is appropriate and represents value for taxpayers’ money.

Amendment 74 seeks to expand the range of information that relevant public sector employers are required to publish. They would have to estimate and publish the cost savings made from their existing facility time arrangements. They would also have to agree with relevant unions and publish a statement of the value of those arrangements. We recognise that union representatives play important roles in the workplace, which include dealing with disputes locally and effectively, helping to keep workplaces safe and meeting employees’ learning needs. We also recognise that many union representatives give their own time in addition to facility time to support their colleagues both individually and collectively, but where facility time is publicly funded, employers and unions must ensure it is spent as efficiently as possible.

The Government are confident that our proposals will deliver efficiency savings. A reduction in spending on facility time across the wider public sector to levels similar to the civil service currently would deliver estimated savings of around £150 million annually—£150 million that could be spent on employing more nurses, on schools and on better serving the people who elect us to this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I said this right at the start and will repeat it: I work incredibly closely with Unionlearn. Last night, after the House rose, I was at an event with the person who runs Unionlearn. It is a terrific organisation. It is absolutely integral to our plans to increase the number of people with access to apprenticeships. I do not need anyone to tell me how valuable that work is, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a good use of public sector organisations’ time to be producing reports estimating that value. Just make the argument; they are making the argument very well. As I say, the restrictions on facility time in the civil service have not produced great reports of a lack of availability of health and safety or union learning advice in the civil service. They have just brought a welcome reduction in the amount of money spent on the less justifiable union activities that are not protected by the law and do not produce the kind of value that the hon. Gentleman argues we should appreciate.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister mentioned two figures: first a £52 million saving and then a £150 million target saving, which I think alarmed many of us on the Opposition Benches. Will he break down those figures for the Committee and explain how they were arrived at?

[Nick Boles]

I would be very happy to ask the Cabinet Office to circulate that information. The £150 million is an estimate of what saving might be achieved if the wider public sector made the same sort of journey that the civil service has made since the introduction of transparency on facility time.

On amendment 50, the Government consider that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate and would provide the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The regulations in question will impose publication requirements on different categories of relevant public sector employer. For example, the Secretary of State for Health will make regulations imposing publication requirements on NHS employers.

The negative resolution process is also appropriate for the power to add a body that is not a public authority but is to be treated as such for the purposes of the publication requirements. The power will not be used to bring into scope private or voluntary sector providers of contracted-out public services. Nor is it our intention to apply the publication requirements to private individuals, companies, partnerships or the like.

Subsection (9) of clause 12 will enable the power to be used only where the body has functions of a public nature and is funded wholly or partly from public funds. Both of those conditions have to be true. Specifying such a level of detail in the Bill enables the scrutiny that is now taking place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

If I have information to give the hon. Lady now, I will do so before I reach the end of this speech, but if I do not, I will write to the Committee before our next meeting so that the matter can be raised if there are further questions.

Including information that the trade union would need to calculate whether it pays for its own representatives does not improve transparency about what is happening with taxpayers’ money, because taxpayers are not funding the union’s contribution. If the trade unions want to supplement an employer’s publication by providing information of their own, we would welcome that move towards transparency. Our purpose is to ensure that taxpayers receive value for their money, and placing such a requirement on the trade unions would not meet that aim.

[Chris Stephens]

Surely it would benefit the taxpayer if public sector employers could demonstrate that trade unions made a contribution, whether to the office, to utilities or even, as I indicated, to the salaries of trade union reps who hold senior office in the trade union.

[Nick Boles]

I was very clear that we strongly encourage unions to make that information available where it is true. As the requirements on transparency for the taxpayer’s contribution to funding union duties and activities come through, I am sure unions will also want to present their contribution to those valuable roles, and they have every right to do so. However, it would not be right to place on taxpayers the requirement to prepare and publish that information. Ultimately, taxpayers do not pay that money to do the trade unions’ job of publication for them.

Finally—I hope this answers the question that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central asked about whether facility time has ever covered conference attendance—civil service transparency in the past few years showed that conference attendance by union officials was paid for by Departments in some cases. I will send the Committee the details of those cases, and I will circulate them to Members. There were cases of it in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 24

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Chris Stephens]

I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 12, page 8, line 37, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 8, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).

The amendment would remove safety representatives from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the publication requirements in relation to facility time.

Amendment 100, in clause 12, page 8, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 48, in clause 12, page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).

The amendment would remove safety representatives from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the publication requirements in relation to facility time.

Amendment 102, in clause 13, page 9, line 45, leave out paragraph (b).

[Chris Stephens]

Amendment 110 would remove learning representatives and health and safety representatives from the information requirement. We return to the debate about what the problem is. Is it a pressing issue that people are concerned about use of public money, or is it just pandering to the agenda of the Taxpayers’ Alliance? Again, we have outlined the benefits of learning representatives to other employees, not just trade union members, and of safety representatives to ensuring safety at work. That is a serious issue on which we have advanced by leaps and bounds. Our amendment is clear: learning reps and health and safety reps should be taken out of the requirement to publish information.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will speak to amendments 47, 100, 48 and 102. It is important to consider who is covered by clause 12 so that we understand the sorts of roles that are affected. We have already had a lengthy debate on this subject, but it is important that the Committee knows that, for example, the Fire Brigades Union trains highly qualified serious accident investigators, who work with fire authorities to investigate incidents in which, tragically, firefighters have been killed on duty, in order to identify and implement service improvements that can prevent future fatalities. I am sure both sides of the Committee would agree that that is an important function. The FBU is concerned that limits on facility time arising from clauses 12 and 13 could restrict, or even prevent, FBU representatives from ensuring that firefighters operate in a safe working environment—these clauses could endanger firefighters in the future and could mean that any safety-critical problems identified will be left unresolved.

We have just heard from the SNP about amendment 110, which would remove trade union learning and safety representatives from the definition to which facility time publication requirements will apply. Our amendments 47 and 48, in a similar vein, would remove health and safety representatives from the reporting requirements in relation to facility time.

As we have heard, trade union workplaces are safer workplaces, which is largely due to tens of thousands of union health and safety reps being trained to internationally recognised standards each year. Trade unions regularly raise safety concerns through health and safety committees and collective bargaining arrangements, which, fundamentally, leads to far fewer workplace accidents not only in professions such as the fire service, where obviously there is significant risk, but in many other workplaces too.

According to research commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry—the forefather, or foremother, of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—in 2007, by reducing time lost to occupational injuries and work-related illnesses, union safety reps save taxpayers between £181 million and £578 million every year at 2004 prices. We have just had an argument on transparency, and the Minister said that we cannot estimate some of these things, but this is a clear example of where his own Department has estimated such things, following serious research, to be worth a significant amount of money. I am sure the sum is even higher today.

Amendment 100 would remove trade union representatives in disciplinary and grievance procedures from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the requirements in relation to facility time, which would mean that public sector employers are not required to report on the amount of time that union officials spend accompanying members in grievance and disciplinary hearings each year. Fundamentally, the amendment aims to highlight the vital role played by union workplace representatives in representing members in formal procedures in the workplace.

We have already heard a number of relevant examples. ACAS research in 2008 found that managers see union representatives undertaking such work as having a crucial and positive role in the informal process of dispute resolution. The research found that union representatives often provide an early warning of potential problems and are a channel of communication between managers and employees. They are also seen as helping to monitor members involved in disciplinary or grievance issues. Within formal hearings, most managers found that union representatives help to ensure that issues are explored in a consultative fashion and that fair decisions are reached. I have experience of such issues in the workplace, as I am sure other members of the Committee do, too. The ACAS research also found—this is crucial—that union representatives are able to manage the expectations of trade union members, which is useful in avoiding unnecessary confrontation, and that union representatives are generally perceived to be well trained and knowledgeable in legal and procedural issues.

I have already talked about amendments 47 and 48. Amendment 102, much like amendment 100, would remove trade union representatives in disciplinary and grievance procedures from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the requirements in relation to facility time, for the reasons that I have previously given. Those are important issues, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about them.

[Nick Boles]

Amendments 110, 47 and 48 are designed to limit the information published under our transparency regulations by excluding certain categories of trade union representative. I have already explained that the Government greatly value the work of learning representatives and health and safety representatives from trade unions. An employer must allow them as much paid time off work as is necessary or reasonable to perform their statutory functions, and we absolutely do not propose to change that rule. We simply want to ensure that the time that trade union representatives collectively spend on union duties and activities during working hours at taxpayers’ expense is justifiable and accountable, and that it represents value for money.

Clause 12 will enable Ministers to make regulations requiring public sector employers with one or more union representatives to publish information relating to facility time for those representatives. The information that employers could be required to publish includes the number of such representatives, such as learning and safety representatives, and how many of them spend a specified percentage of their time on their union role.

Reporting on facility time for learning and safety representatives is not new. The civil service has reported on paid time off for learning and safety representatives, together with general representatives, since 2013. The information on facility time that local authorities in England are required to publish includes the total number of staff who are union representatives, whether general, learning or safety representatives.

Amendments 47 and 48 are both designed to remove the requirement to exclude safety representatives from the information that is required to be published about facility time. Where an employer efficiently uses facility time for safety representatives, it is not unreasonable to expect the employer to know who those representatives are and how much of their time they spend on their union role. Where taxpayers fund the facility time of those representatives, they have the right to know how their money is being spent. We consider that all public sector employers should have to publish information about facility time for all types of union representatives, including safety representatives. They should not be required, as is proposed in amendments 47 and 48, to give taxpayers a less than full picture of their spending on facility time; they should be transparent about all of it.

Moving on to amendment 110, in the public sector paid facility time for a learning representative is in no way less of a cost to the taxpayer than paid facility time for a general representative or a safety representative. Not to include some costs of facility time based on the specialism of a particular representative would be misleading, and it would not deliver our intentions of giving taxpayers transparency about the facility time that they fund. Removing the requirement to publish information for specialist representatives, who are in a minority, would have a detrimental effect on the validity of the publication and be unlikely to save the employer significant time, if any.

Workers have a statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union official to a disciplinary or grievance hearing. That is a significant amount of trade union facility time, which is why we believe that it should be included in the publication requirements. Because we believe that that statutory right is right, and we have no intention of changing it, we want to understand the cost of the time that is involved in fulfilling it. Paid time off for a trade union official to attend such hearings is no less of a cost to taxpayers than any other category of paid time off for facility time, so there is no reason why it should be excluded from the publication requirements. Indeed, to exclude that cost would be misleading, because it would prevent taxpayers from ascertaining the true total cost of facility time in the public sector. Local authorities in England, and the civil service, have already agreed that that information should be published without exclusions for time spent attending such hearings. It would not be helpful transparency for some parts of the public sector to include some areas in their costs while others exclude them, because that would not allow taxpayers to make comparisons. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.

[Chris Stephens]

We keep hitting a brick wall in terms of the Government’s attitude to this. They keep using the words “not justifiable”, but I believe that anyone undertaking duties as a safety rep or a learning rep is justifiable. What would be the issue on that basis?

[Nick Boles]

I have been trying to make progress, but I am stung by that remark. I have never claimed that the work of learning representatives and health and safety representatives is not justifiable—in fact, I have argued absolutely the opposite. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is absolutely justifiable, why on earth does he oppose simply publishing the cost of it?

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister keeps using the words “not justifiable”, so we will press amendment 110 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very important point. As I made clear when introducing our amendments, the Labour party believes in exempting all parts of the United Kingdom from the Bill and its provisions. It would be hugely problematic for there to be areas of complete disagreement and an imbalance among the different parts of the UK. That prompts a series of questions, and I hope the Minister can explain how the measure will work in practice, given that the devolved Governments and local authorities are already indicating that they do not wish to implement it.

Amendment 51 would ensure that the new requirements to report on facility time would not apply to employees of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive or public sector employers working for or providing services that are partially or wholly devolved to those bodies. It would ensure that the Bill does not interfere with the ability of those Governments to manage those services and decide how they engage with their staff and determine their relationships with trade unions.

In the same vein, amendment 73 would ensure that the new reporting requirements did not apply to the facility time of employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England. Again, that is consistent with the Government’s localism agenda.

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

May I remind the shadow Minister of Dave Prentis’s evidence last week? I thought it was peculiar—perhaps the shadow Minister can enlighten us—that he said that, when it comes to check-off, it is not just about the devolved nations, but the new combined authorities. They will be allowed to do everything, but not talk to staff and trade unions about having check-off or not.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very important point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to what the general secretary of Unison had to say on that matter. Unison represents a significant number of employees in local government across the UK and has exposed a very serious problem.

I want to ask the Minister some specific questions that I hope he will answer in his response to this part of the debate. I pressed him in the oral evidence session about the legal assessments that had been made in developing the Bill. Clearly, I do not expect him to share the detail of Government legal advice, but I would like to know, given the apparent paucity of consultation with devolved Governments across the UK and, it appears, with local government, what conversations took place. I am not asking the Minister to share the contents of the conversations, but can he tell us what conversations took place, given the huge implications of the Bill and the legal precedent for cases such as this ending up in the Supreme Court? What conversations took place? Did any take place? I sincerely hope that they did. Anything the Minister can share with the Committee would be very helpful.

I pushed the Minister on my second point in the oral evidence session. As we have heard from a vast number of legal experts, there is a serious risk of legal challenge to the Bill. One legal opinion can be challenged by another, but the reality is that that might be exactly where the Bill ends up: in the courts. Have the Government set aside funds to deal with legal proceedings that might result—it is inevitable, I believe—from the Bill’s proceeding in its present form?

Thirdly, I would like to know the Minister’s response to the apparent concerns of the Welsh and Scottish Governments, local government across England and local government in Wales and Scotland, and his response should they choose not to implement the Bill, because they believe that it breaches their settlement. Will he take legal proceedings against them to enforce the Bill? How much does he think that that will cost the taxpayer? Or will he just let them carry on? I am sure that he wants to enforce his Bill, but there will be a cost if there is resistance to it from the public bodies to which he is trying to apply it. Keith Ewing said very clearly that he thought that we were walking blindfold into a major constitutional crisis. I have great sympathy with that position.

Fourthly, given the nature of existing contractual arrangements in a whole series of public bodies that receive public funding, which refer to check-off, facility time, and to many other matters that are pertinent to the Bill, does the Minister propose that the measure will apply retrospectively, and that we would therefore have to unwind hundreds of thousands of contractual arrangements, particularly in the public sector across the UK? Will the Bill apply retrospectively? How does the Minister think that will impact? What estimate has he made of the cost, should any individual challenge that through the courts? I imagine that quite a significant number of individuals would want to challenge that if they believed that they had signed a contract in good faith with a public body that gave them certain rights. What estimate have the Minister and the Department made of the cost of that? How does he see the Bill being implemented?

Will he have a hit squad, which the Minister for the Cabinet Office talked about, going round local authorities and devolved Governments to check the texts of the contractual arrangements that they enter into? Will he go through every piece of paper signed by every public sector employee or by anyone who could vaguely be determined to have enjoyed some sort of public sector funding in their role? Will he interfere with every single one of those contracts? This is an extraordinarily heavy-handed approach from a Government who claim that they want to avoid regulation and interference—and that they are the Government of devolution and localism.

I have a final question for the Minister. We heard from the Scottish and Welsh Governments that they are reserving their position on whether a legislative consent motion is required for the Bill. Perhaps not all members of the Committee are familiar with legislative consent motions—LCMs—but they can be seen regularly on the Table in the House when the UK Government seek to legislate for matters that are partially or fully devolved for some practical reason. If the legislation makes sense, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive can give permission to the UK Government to do that. There are many circumstances in which that is appropriate. However, on this occasion they clearly do not believe there is a clear case for that. I would like to know what the Minister would do, should the Welsh and Scottish Governments withhold legislative consent. What discussion has the Minister had with UK Government Law Officers about the Government’s approach and, again, what would be the costs to the public purse? I suggest that the Minister makes ready a tidy little pot of money to deal with all the legal proceedings that will emanate from the Bill if it goes ahead in its current form. That will really put paid to the suggestion that the Bill will benefit the taxpayer. It will cost the taxpayer a lot of money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Yes. In a sense, the answer is the same. Everybody is entitled to say exactly what they think. I encourage it, I welcome it and we will always listen to any representations. We disagree. We believe that those people are overstating the case and that, when the Bill becomes law and the provisions are implemented—in Scotland and Wales as well as in England—it will not interrupt those very positive industrial relations, it will not interrupt those partnerships, and it certainly will not interrupt their ability to run their public services as they see fit.

[Chris Stephens]

There is a difference between employment law and industrial relations and how they impact on public services. I am curious about the Minister’s comment about the provision of public services, because political parties say how they will deal with industrial relations in public services as part of their manifesto commitments, whether for Scottish, Welsh or any other elections. Surely, those mandates have to be respected.

[Nick Boles]

We respect mandates, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will respect ours. I draw his attention to another example. The national minimum wage affects every single person who works anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is a reserved matter. It is something that this Parliament sets. I have not heard objections from the Scottish Minister—the very same Scottish Minister—saying that this is an egregious intrusion into Scottish matters and that somehow it is appalling that there is a national minimum wage. It is simply the case that we live in a system where some matters are reserved to the national—the United Kingdom—Parliament and other matters are devolved. The content of employment law and industrial relations is a reserved matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

On the effect of the provisions on existing contracts, we have asked whether they are acceptable by international obligations and we are absolutely assured that they are. Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national minimum wage. Its introduction had an impact on existing contracts, some of which therefore had to be revised to reflect it. This legislation will have no greater impact—in fact, rather less so—on existing contracts. We are confident that any effect it will have is entirely consistent with all the relevant legal framework.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

This is seriously the last time, because the hon. Gentleman has many that new clauses he wants to get to and I am just trying to help.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister has been most kind, so I will ask just this question. The cost to public bodies of reissuing new statements of particulars and contracts could be considerable. Will the Government provide finances to the public bodies in that position?

[Nick Boles]

Sir Alan, you know as well as I do that if I were even to dare tiptoe on to the question of the financial settlement with devolved Administrations, there is literally a device implanted in my brain that would explode and decapitate me. I am not going to go there, however much pleasure it might give Opposition Members. [Interruption.] However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to the Chancellor—or to me and I can pass on the request—I will, of course, reply to his question.

If there are no further requests for interventions, I will conclude. The amendments in this group seek to use the Bill as a mechanism to carve out different arrangements in employment law and industrial relations for Scotland, Wales, London and English local authorities. Parliament has already determined that these matters are reserved. The amendments are an attempt to extend devolution by the back door and that is why we cannot accept them. I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I am sorry to reduce the agricultural wages case to the level of Dr Seuss, but do you agree, Sir Alan, that within the agricultural wages case it was found, in principle, that although agriculture is a devolved matter—that matter was won by the Government—the wages aspect is not? It was because it was a mixed Bill that there was the result that there was. This is quite different. This is a Bill about industrial relations and trade unions. It is quite simple and obvious that this a reserved matter.

[Chris Stephens]

This has been an interesting debate about the group of amendments on the impacts on the devolved Administrations and other public bodies. It is interesting that some know better than others the effects that this will have on those bodies. I shall respond first to the shadow Minister’s gentle rebuke on the SNP’s amendments only applying to Scotland. He indicated that he respects our mandate on that and I agree with his point that the group of amendments seeks to enforce what has been referred to as the respect agenda. We hear from the UK Government that they respect the devolved Administrations and other public bodies, but with these amendments we want to ensure that that takes place.

Like the shadow Minister, the SNP opposes all of the Bill and will be voting for many of the amendments and against the clauses. We agree on his point about solidarity; we may have different approaches, but I assure him that we are in solidarity with all workers in the UK regarding the Bill, although there may be some differences in how we want to achieve that. I would go as far as to say that if the Bill were introduced in another nation state, we would oppose it and would be raising it in this Parliament, as we do with any abuses of workers’ rights across the world. There is no contradiction in supporting the consent amendments in this group and those that want to take workers out of it.

I turn to the hon. Member for Gateshead’s contribution about English workers having fewer rights. The general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, commented about that in his evidence, saying that that was one of the dangers that the Bill would introduce. The Minister seems to indicate that it is settled that employment law is reserved, but that is not the case. A new clause is being introduced to the Scotland Bill. I do not want to touch on the Scotland Bill too much, but a new clause is being inserted for debate, it will be put to the parliamentary test and the parliamentary verdict on that is yet to be given.

Nor have the Government taken into account the fact that Scotland has a different civil and criminal law and a different legal jurisdiction. That was also mentioned in the evidence from Thompsons Solicitors. Given that the Bill touches on criminalising certain behaviour, more consultation with the devolved Administrations is required. I certainly take the view that a legislative consent motion is needed, as is consent across the board in the public services.

The Minister asked me to write to him in relation to the costs to the public sector in terms of individual contracts. I wrote to his colleague in the Cabinet Office on this, and I am still waiting for a response. My concern is that some of the Bill relates to the agenda of the TaxPayers Alliance, which I believe is based on ignorance of the issues. It does not even take into consideration the fact that public services actually gain income from facility time and, indeed, from check-off. That is being ignored. It is very dangerous indeed to interfere with the collective bargaining units that exist across the UK, which is what the Bill seems to do.

Our view of the Bill is that it is ideologically driven. The Government seem to want to implement their ideology in all parts of the UK, even those where they have no mandate, and on that basis we intend to press amendment 90 to a Division. We will also want to press amendments 84 and 85 when we reach the relevant clauses.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Although the Minister gave his explanation in funny terms, I find it unbelievable, quite frankly. It is a very convoluted reasoning. The reality is that the ILO defines essential services in a very restrictive way because the international legal consensus, and indeed the international human rights consensus, is that the right to strike and to freedom of association should be restricted only in very narrow cases. That is why it is a tight definition. It is intriguing that the Government have chosen to move away from that. They clearly want to expand the restrictions much more widely. I have already given the example of Germany, where such provisions would be unconstitutional.

I must take issue with the Minister’s unwillingness to give us a commitment on the publication of the regulations. He said that there was a consultation. Like all consultations on the Bill, it took only eight weeks rather than the usual 12. All the consultations were done over the summer to frustrate the input from sectors such as teaching, as many of the profession’s union members are away from school at that time. It is an odd situation, and a serious one for Parliament, that we are discussing severe restrictions on the exercise of people’s democratic rights, yet the Minister is saying, “Trust me. We’ll publish them. They’ll be all right. It’ll be fine.” The regulations should have been published alongside the Bill so that we could see what the Government intend. Is the Minister going to publish them 20 minutes before the Bill gets Royal Assent, if we ever get that far? That is simply not good enough, and I would like the Minister to consider publishing the draft regulations. We need to get some clearer intent before the Bill leaves the Commons, and certainly before it gets into the other place. For that reason I am keen to test the will of the Committee on amendment 5.

[Chris Stephens]

Is the hon. Gentleman as confused as I am? The hon. Member for Cardiff Central made a similar point about some of the services being covered under existing legislation, such as life and limb cover. I am beginning to wonder whether it is not just the Government witnesses who do not know about life and limb cover but the Government too.

In addition, does the hon. Gentleman not think that the 40% threshold is dangerous? The last time a Government introduced such a threshold they had a small majority and ended up out of power for 18 years. That might happen again.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is an intriguing historical example. The hon. Gentleman’s point is a good one. Large parts of the legislation have not been thought through and appear to have been drafted by people who simply do not understand how trade unions operate in the modern workforce. The witnesses the Government called forward certainly did not know that. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff Central and for Sunderland Central have made clear, there are serious practical implications. I would therefore like to press amendment 5 to a vote, with the clear message that we believe the Government should stick to their manifesto and to their own Queen’s Speech, and stick to the definition of essential services laid out by the ILO.

In the case of amendment 4, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 5, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—

“the provision of essential public services.”—(Stephen Doughty.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to set out in more detail what sort of information we expect unions to include on the voting paper. I fear this may take a little time, but I want to address all the amendments tabled and why we will resist them.

I will start with first principles. We want unions to be absolutely clear with their members about what they are being asked to vote for, in order to ensure full transparency in any industrial action ballot. It is clearly in the interests of union members, as well as employers and the wider public who are affected by strike action, that those being asked to vote for such action can make a fully informed decision about whether to back it.

I remain concerned that merely requiring a trade union to state the trade dispute without requiring any further detail, as suggested in amendment 14, would not meet the objective of enabling members to make a fully informed decision. It would only require a very broad statement. In reality, it will in most cases mean that members have no more information about the dispute than they have from wider communications. It does not provide enough clarity for union members to determine whether they choose to support industrial action. That cannot be right or democratic.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will continue for a second and then give way to the hon. Gentleman; I owe him one, because I did not see him trying to intervene earlier.

I have a couple of actual strike ballot papers in front of me. They are quite hard to get hold of, so I have not got a huge number. On one, the only statement on the paper was “impact of redundancies”, which did not clarify in which workplace, which group of employees was affected or when the strike was proposed. That ballot paper provided a very vague, short description. Another ballot paper provided a vague but incredibly broad statement about

“adverse changes to pensions, workload, conditions of service, including pay and pay progression, and job loss.”

Neither statement is particularly helpful to those voting on the ballot because not enough information is given about when that dispute would be resolved, so that is not obvious to the person voting. Being told the location of the site of the affected workers would not necessarily help members to know what matters are at issue, and neither would knowing that the dispute is about pay, for instance.

Let us not lose sight of the potential wider benefits of the proposed change. As now, the employer will receive a copy of the voting paper, so including better information about why the industrial action is proposed should have the added effect of helping to eliminate any misunderstanding, which can creep in in such circumstances, between unions and employers about exactly what issues remain in dispute. In turn, that should facilitate employer discussions with the trade union about how the dispute might be resolved, where possible without recourse to industrial action.

Turning to amendment 15—

[Chris Stephens]

Before he turns, will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

Of course. I was ploughing on and I did not mean to forget the hon. Gentleman. It is only because he is outside my peripheral vision—

[Ian Mearns]

You should take the blinkers off, Minister.

[Chris Stephens]

If the Minister wants to access other ballot papers, he should join a trade union. In my experience, when a ballot paper is issued, the trade unions are allowed to insert a sheet of paper that sets out fully the issues in the trade dispute, so why is the clause necessary?

[Nick Boles]

I would simply say that if they all do that, and I agree that that practice is welcome, it should hardly be difficult just to provide a few more details on the ballot paper so that when somebody’s vote is decided, it is clear what they have voted for or against. I promise Opposition Members that from now on there are no blinkers on this Minister, as I am sure that they will be happy to admit.

Let me explain why we have used the words “reasonably detailed”, because the hon. Member for Sunderland Central in particular thought that was a mistake. That specific form of words is used in clause 4 to take into account the particular circumstances of each trade dispute. If there is any more detail that a union could reasonably give on the ballot paper, the requirement is not satisfied. For example, if the issue is identified simply as “pay”, it may well be right to say that there are further details that the union could have included. Those details might include which year’s pay offer is in dispute, and which employees are covered by the offer. Again, that links back to our overall objective to ensure that unions provide clarity to their members about what they are being asked to vote for so that there is full transparency in any industrial action ballot.

We think it is much more helpful to union members if a trade dispute that affects them in different ways is articulated in sufficient detail so that everyone knows the point on which they are being asked to make a decision on industrial action and how each individual is affected by the trade dispute. However, we do not want to put unnecessary burdens on unions by asking them to include a long and detailed account of the trade dispute. That would be onerous and would dilute the very clarity that we are seeking to provide. That is why the clause does not require a “reasonably detailed” description of the trade dispute. It is about balance, and the Bill as currently drafted best achieves that.

Amendment 16 would not assist members to understand what type of action they are voting for. That is particularly important because there is no definition of action short of a strike. If we do not require a trade union to state on the voting paper what specific type or types of action it is proposing, a member will not know what action he or she is being asked to back. Even stating that the proposed action is action short of a strike does not help members to make a sufficiently informed decision, because there are various types of action that amount to action short of strike. Just using that phrase will not help members to understand what they are voting for. For example, a member may support industrial action that amounts to an overtime ban, but not a period of work to rule. If the voting paper does not specifically state which of these actions the union proposes its members take, how will they know how to vote?

Having said that, I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman made about there being a degree of uncertainty at the stage when the union is drawing up the voting paper about how the negotiations will continue to play out and therefore what action the union might subsequently take. Nevertheless, if the union has reached the stage at which it is asking its members to support a ballot for industrial action, it must surely have in mind a plan for such action. All we are asking in new section 229(2C) is that the plan should be disclosed to the union members. I do not believe that is unreasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree. It is important to recognise something that Government Members seem to have lost in this debate: the vast majority of trade union members and workers, whether in public services or the private sector, will seek to resolve disputes through very reasonable mechanisms, such as talking to line managers, colleagues and others in the management of a firm or public service, before they reach the stage of even contemplating industrial action or disputes. Most people act in a human way and want to resolve things as easily as they can. It is only when frustrations build up and concerns are not listened to—for example, on health and safety or fundamental disputes with the Government about restrictions on pay or pensions—that things reach the point where industrial action is considered. I say gently that the Government do not appear to understand how things operate in practice.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me ask the Minister about an insertion that goes out with the ballot paper. Can he think of an example of any trade union that would not include with the ballot paper an insertion fully stating the trade dispute?

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, I can barely think of any possible examples in which a trade union would not explain the progress of negotiations and what might be going on and feed back to its members what is happening in a workplace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I am still debating in my head whether the clause is insidious or whether, again, it relates to the Government’s view on Jedi-like powers. This morning we discussed trade union officials having Jedi powers to convince trade union members who did not participate in the ballot to participate in the action. Does it take 14 days for those Jedi-like powers to dissipate? I do not know, but I have concerns about the clause that relate to the ever-increasing number of statutory redundancy notices being issued. The limit has been changed to 45 days, which makes it difficult for the trade union to organise and complete its ballot process within the timeframe that the Government are setting out, and that will lead to more balloting. When a trade union gets notices from an employer that there is to be redundancy, the first thing the union will have to do is trigger the mechanisms for balloting before it has even had a discussion with the employer.

The proposal also treats the public with contempt. There seems to be a suggestion that the public are somehow not aware that a trade union has served notice of industrial action to an employer, but the trade union will notify the media of that to get the discussion going with its members. Indeed, some parts of the media that are not friendly towards trade unions and are perhaps more friendly towards the Government will use that publicity too.

The population out there is not made up of hermits. I think the real purpose of changing the notice period from seven days to 14 days is to ensure that momentum is lost in support of an industrial action. In reality, the notice period starts when the employer is notified that the trade union intends to ballot for industrial action. Under existing law, employers are more than adequately able to prepare with the seven-day notices, so I am opposed to the clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a risk. Undoubtedly, when the Minister gets to his feet he will talk about ballot mandates from a long time ago legitimatising action years down the line. There is a genuine sympathy with that concern, which is why I tabled amendment 24, which would extend the period before a union would be required to reballot its members from four months to 12 months. The amendment would be likely to assist the resolution of disputes and significantly reduce the administrative cost burden for trade unions involved in protracted disputes, while avoiding the problem that the Minister will undoubtedly refer to as motivation for the clause.

It is a question of reasonableness in all these matters. Most unions want to ensure that there is a strong mandate for action if it is required, which is fair, but four months is such a short period. Given the costs involved, it reveals a different intent behind the Bill and will discourage good industrial relations.

[Chris Stephens]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Bill is potentially a rogue employers’ charter? Such employers will use tactics to continue to delay the negotiations. On that basis, if the four-month limit is coming up, they will not deal with the trade unions.

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely, and, combined with the other measures by which a vexatious employer might wish to frustrate the balloting, the wording and everything else that we have already discussed, that creates a very difficult set of circumstances that will fundamentally render illusory the right to strike, to freedom of association and to withdraw labour in furtherance of a dispute. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Let us not forget that people’s perceptions of a dispute can change over time. It is only right that unions check whether industrial action still has the support of their members. Leaving it for a year before a union checks that it still has a mandate is simply too long. In fact, any of the circumstances about strike action are likely to have moved on after four months.

I think we are all agreed that constructive dialogue is important. Negotiation is key to resolving disputes satisfactorily. A four-month time limit on the ballot mandate should not impact on the parties’ ability to negotiate a settlement. Indeed, negotiations may well be more focused when an employer has greater clarity about the trade issues in dispute and where a union has a strong and recent mandate for industrial action.

[Chris Stephens]

During the course of a dispute, trade unions will be contacting their members and having workplace meetings on every part of the process. I do not get why four months is necessary. The Minister seems to suggest that trade unions do not contact their members during that four-month period.

[Nick Boles]

Obviously we disagree on this, but the fact is that this is not only about union members—some of whom may have moved on or changed their mind—although they are incredibly important to the process. It is not only about employers, although they are also incredibly important to the process because they can lose a great deal of money and perhaps even customers as a result of strike action. This is also about members of the public who rely on services and need to know that there might be a bus strike if a ballot in support of strike action took place three months ago. No one will remember the strike ballot and its result if the period was 12 months.

Let us not forget that, crucially, the period of four months is not the only period during which negotiations will take place. Indeed, such negotiations should have started long before a union seeks a ballot mandate. Let me also be clear about what the clause does not do. It does not prevent strikes. If a union has legitimately secured a clear, decisive, democratic ballot mandate for industrial action from its members, and the dispute cannot be resolved by negotiation, that union’s members can strike. It also does not prevent unions from seeking a further ballot mandate if the dispute is ongoing when the ballot mandate expires. New subsection (1A)(a) specifically provides for that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth to withdraw the amendment.

Trade Union Bill (Fifth sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

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

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

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

The Royal College of Nursing said that:

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

and a whole series of other measures—

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott]

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

[Julie Elliott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott]

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

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

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

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

[Nick Boles]

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

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

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

[Nick Boles]

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

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

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

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

[Nick Boles]

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

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

[Nick Boles]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

One of the problems that we have in this discussion—I am sure it is a failure on my part—is that Opposition Members do not seem to understand that we are not trying to stop strikes. We are trying to stop strikes that have very low levels of support. If unions are, as a result of this legislation, enabled to ensure that every single strike ballot sails over the new thresholds, the Bill will have been successful, not least because the British public will have the confidence that the issue at stake is so important that it justifies that action.

[Chris Stephens]

I have a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Gateshead. The Minister mentioned that a 22% ballot closed all those schools. If it was able to close all those schools, it would suggest that the support for the industrial action was more than 22%. Surely this is about participation and helping trade union members participate in a ballot? Will the Minister look seriously at those issues?

[Nick Boles]

We are looking quite seriously at those issues, which is why we have introduced the legislation. Given the hon. Gentleman’s express desire to tackle those issues, I hope I can persuade him to support at least some of our measures.

On the detail of amendments 2, 7, 20 and 21, I appreciate the desire to have clarity and certainty about who is entitled to vote, but that is already well established as a result of the operation of existing provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and of case law, which provide a balance in the system by protecting trade unions against challenge over insignificant breaches of the balloting rules. For example, many of the provisions in the legislation on balloting are already subject to a reasonableness requirement. Section 227 of the aforementioned Act confers the entitlement to vote to

“all the members of the trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced”

to strike.

Sections 226A and 234A require that the lists and figures supplied in the ballot and strike notices

“must be as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union at the time when it complies.”

In addition, section 232B provides that a union still complies with the requirements on balloting even if it has made an error in the process, so long as the failure or failures are

“accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot”.

That was tested recently in court—the margin of error was considered in the case of RMT v. Serco Ltd. As a result, the obligations to give accurate notices and to ballot accurately are already governed by what is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union. The obligations are not intended to be unduly onerous for the unions to comply with. There is no obligation on the union to prepare or update records specifically for industrial action ballots. Plus, as I have explained, unions are already well used to assessing what is reasonably practicable, given that that is an established concept in the 1992 Act. Of course, we are introducing reforms to ensure that unions have up-to-date records of their membership anyway, which I will come to shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for his comments. The points that have been made are important, because with any legislation it is not beyond the ken of those who would wish to frustrate the exercise of democratic rights to attempt to use the law in a way that would at least bog down disputes in lengthy litigation. I appreciate the Minister’s reading his comments into the record, and I certainly hope that they will be considered if the Bill proceeds in its current form. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Chris Stephens]

I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2G) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.

Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2H) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services provided by the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 77, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert—

‘(4) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 78, in clause 4, page 3, line 2, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 79, in clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 80, in clause 6, page 3, line 44, at end insert—

‘(3) This section does not apply in relation to industrial action in Scotland.’

Amendment 81, in clause 7, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 82, in clause 8, page 4, line 24, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to disputes in Scotland.’

Amendment 42, in clause 10, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

‘(5) None of the provisions of sections 84 and 85 shall apply to public sector employees in sectors or providing services which are wholly or partially devolved to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on contributions to political funds would not apply to employees in public services providing services which are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive.

Amendment 72, in clause 10, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

‘(6) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on contributions to political funds would not apply to employees in public services providing services which are devolved to the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 51, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

‘(13) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to facility time of the employees of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive, or to public sector employers working for or providing services that are wholly or partially devolved to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on facility time would not apply to employees working for or providing public services which are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive.

Amendment 73, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

‘(14) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to facility time of the employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’

The amendment would ensure that the provisions on facility time would not apply to employees working for or providing public services which are devolved to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.

Amendment 84, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

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

Amendment 85, in clause 13, page 10, line 44, at end insert—

‘(14) For the avoidance of doubt, the powers in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.’

Amendment 86, in clause 14, page 11, line 11, at end insert—

‘(4) This section and the Schedules it inserts shall not apply in Scotland.’

Amendment 87, in clause 15, page 12, line 23, at end insert—

‘(4) This section shall not apply in Scotland.’

Amendment 88, in clause 16, page 13, line 26, at end insert—

‘(5) This section and the Schedule it inserts shall not apply in Scotland.’

Amendment 89, in clause 17, page 14, line 43, at end insert—

‘(11) Trade union members resident in Scotland shall not be required through their union to contribute to a levy imposed by this section.’

[Chris Stephens]

This group of amendments could be called the devolved group. It goes to the heart of principles regarding mandates—not just the mandates that trade unions derive with regard to taking industrial action, but whether there is a mandate across the nations of the UK for the Bill and for specific clauses within it. That is natural, when we have four nations in the UK with a different leading party in each.

The amendments also raise issues of consent. The devolved Administrations and local authorities are being dictated to by the Bill regarding how they conduct their industrial relations. There are issues regarding the effect on the spirit of friendship and solidarity across the UK, and regarding our mandate, which is to seek the devolution of employment law in the Scotland Bill. It is important to point out that Parliament has yet to put to the test whether employment law should be devolved to Scotland.

The constitutional issues that arise from the Bill could have serious consequences. We were told by Ministers in the evidence sessions that industrial relations are reserved, but in reality they are not. The reality is that devolved Administrations in the past have kept the two-tier workforce agreements, which the coalition Government removed for workers in the public sector in England.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, though, as the Scottish Cabinet Secretary Ms Cunningham did, that industrial relations are currently reserved?

[Chris Stephens]

Ms Cunningham then went on to make the position clear about the impact that would have. The hon. Gentleman is correct that industrial relations are reserved at this point, but an electoral mandate was given to 56 MPs who were elected in May—I could argue that there are 58 MPs in Scotland who are opposed to the Bill. The Bill is a real concern, because it ignores, for example, the work of the Scottish Government in setting up the Scottish fair work convention. They are working in partnership with trade unions rather than seeing them as the enemy of the public and using the kind of rhetoric we have heard while discussing the Bill.

The Bill brings into question the impact of the industrial relations capacity. We have heard from the local authorities in Scotland. Conservative councillor Billy Hendry said in a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities statement that COSLA is opposed to the Bill. The Bill seeks to dictate to the devolved Administrations on issues of facility time and check-off. There seems little support in Scotland and Wales or in aspects of the public sector in England for the removal of check-off. Check-off is a voluntary arrangement, and for the UK Government to dictate to parts of the public sector who have an electoral mandate to conduct industrial relations is wrong. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he has responded to the Scottish or Welsh Governments on the principles of consent.

More importantly, the deputy General Secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress at our political conference in Aberdeen at the weekend, at a fringe meeting, described the principles around facility time and check-off to be the most pernicious parts of the Bill, simply because it strikes at the heart of trade union organisation. Employers benefit from employees having good facility time. They know who they are; they are people who can deal with people and sort issues out; it leads to fewer tribunal claims, less litigation, better health and safety and, indeed it can lead to lifelong learning for employees as well. Those are the very real benefits of facility time.

There was no consultation with the public sector, this provision interferes with electoral and political mandates, and I believe that there is a lack of consent for the Bill across many parts of the UK.

[Dr Cameron]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland and the Scottish Government have had harmonious working relationships with management and unions, in terms of partnership, and that there is great concern, from constituents and from the Scottish Government, the councils and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, about the Bill’s potential to undermine this?

[Chris Stephens]

Absolutely. The current figures show that there is less industrial action in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. That suggests that partnership working is successful and leads to less industrial action and better working relationships across the board. We know that many public bodies oppose the Bill. Some public bodies have gone even further and said that they will defy the Bill. This can only lead to conflict with other public bodies, conflict across the public sector, and it could lead, as Professor Keith Ewing suggested, to a constitutional crisis across the UK. It is rather ironic that this is coming from the UK Government, when they usually point the finger at other people for causing constitutional crises across the UK.

The trade union movement is the largest group in civil society and we should be working in partnership. I look forward to the debate and will indicate in my summing-up whether we wish to push any amendments to a vote.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a pleasure to move on to one of the most significant parts of the Bill in relation to its potential legality, let alone its potential for implementation.

I wish to speak to our amendments 11, 12, 42, 72, 51 and 73, but I shall respond first to the speech by the hon. the Member for Glasgow South West, many aspects of which I have a great degree of sympathy with. I entirely understand his concerns about the impact of the Bill on Scotland, particularly in areas that are clearly devolved. Let me be clear at the outset that, in line with the principles of togetherness and solidarity that underpin the trade union movement, we intend to oppose and to attempt to defeat every substantive clause of the Bill in order to stand up for workers in every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Our amendments also highlight specific areas that we believe most clearly breach the existing devolution settlement, in line with the evidence provided to us by the Welsh and Scottish Governments and other concerned stakeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only does that apply to such relationships going forward, but we need to look at the impact of the Bill retrospectively. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on that. Obviously, local and devolved government across the UK already has extensive contractual arrangements on matters such as check-off, facility time and so on. That is particularly true in the public sector, but also in relation to bodies that receive public funding. Those things are woven into the fabric of employment contracts up and down the land. The Bill simply drives a coach and horses through that and could result in a serious number of legal challenges.

[Chris Stephens]

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, if an elected mayor, a local authority political party, or even a devolved Administration political party puts in its manifesto that it wants to deal with workers by having good facility time and check-off, surely that mandate should stand and should not be interfered with.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Who should have the power in that situation to determine the type of partnerships and arrangements that exist? Should it be for the UK Government, who claim they are pro-devolution, to interfere in those relationships and negotiations?

The implications are clear. I refer to the position that many Scottish local authorities and Scottish Labour party have taken regarding the Bill, which is essentially a position of non-compliance, particularly with the measures abolishing check-off and curbing facility time. To date, every single Labour-led administration in Scotland has passed motions to that effect. They are giving a clear signal of intent regarding the potential constitutional clash we are heading towards.

Trade Union Bill (Fourth sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Rishi Sunak]

Q 345 I understand, but there is no opposition to the threshold in principle under the convention.

Professor Ewing: Well, the ILO bodies are very unclear. In a sense, they say, “If you have a threshold, it’s got to be reasonable,” but they also say, “You should only be counting people who vote.”

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

Q 346 Professor Ewing, in relation to the devolved Administrations, what impact will the Bill have on both their policies and criminal or civil law?

Professor Ewing: This is going to be a really difficult question in the months ahead. The issue here particularly for Scotland is the proposals on the check-off and the powers in relation to facility time—the duty on public bodies to publish facility time arrangements. I think there are two problems here. One is a question of whether these provisions fall within the reserved powers of the Westminster Parliament.

I am sure that a lot of people are taking advice—legal or otherwise—about this at the moment, but I am not sure if the check-off provisions would satisfy the requirement that they fall within the reserved powers of the Westminster legislature and there are lots of reasons why that might be the case. I would hope that the Scottish Parliament will have an opportunity to think about and comment on this question. But, at the end of the day, this is a sovereign legislature and you can push through whatever legislation you think appropriate, whether or not it is incompatible with the devolution settlement. I have doubts about whether all of this package will be compatible with the devolution settlement, but I have no doubt that you have the right to push it through, despite the incompatibility.

The problem that I think will come will not necessarily be a legal one. The problem will be a very severe political problem in the future. The problem will be if a Scottish public body decides, “We are not going to comply with this ban on the check-off,” or “We are not going to publish the facility time arrangements that we give to trade union representatives.” What will happen at that point? We are looking at the question of who will enforce those obligations against Scottish public bodies. Are we really saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring a case against a major Scottish public authority to enforce those obligations? The Government are walking, almost blindfolded, into a major constitutional crisis around the Bill. That constitutional crisis could be as explosive for this Government as the poll tax was for the Thatcher Government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is a big, big problem, and I am not sure that people have really thought through the consequences.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 347 One last question on the thresholds. Do you think that there are also gender equality issues, where in workplaces a majority of women workers might not be able to go on strike because a shift change would impact on them more than it would on male workers?

Professor Ewing: That is a good point, which I had not thought of, and it is something that I would like to think about before coming back to you. I am happy to address the Committee on that point, but I would like to think about it first.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Q 348 You talked about the ILO conventions. A great deal of your report is concerned with ECHR conventions, and I accept you cannot mention everything in your brief summary today, but would you accept that as recently as last year, the European Court acknowledged that it was legitimate for the Government to legislate to impose some constraints on article 11? Would you accept that there is a wide margin of appreciation for the Government in the way that this can be handled?

Professor Ewing: Are we talking about the RMT case?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

May I point out to people giving evidence and answering questions and to Members that we are approaching having used two thirds of our time? We should make it more succinct if you want to get the answers in. I call Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 368 Thank you, Sir Alan. First, I ask the panel for their thoughts on whether they regard the threshold proposal to have any impact on women who wish to pursue industrial action. Secondly, can they give examples in relation to their political funds? I believe that they are all at the moment not affiliated to a political party. How will the Bill affect those political funds, and what organisations will it affect?

Mark Serwotka: Very briefly, the changes to political funds will have an enormous effect. People should not confuse it with affiliation to the Labour party in our case, because we are non-party politically affiliated. It is timely that we have been asked that question, because I am here on the very day that the Government announced that they were essentially backing down on the privatisation of criminal fines enforcement in the Ministry of Justice. My union has waged a five-year political campaign pointing out that that privatisation is wrong, and the Government have accepted that argument today.

A year and a half ago, we made a political argument not to privatise the Land Registry, which was also successful. Those campaigns are funded by political funds, which would be devastated by the opt-in, rather than opt-out method. It would massively curtail things. Directly, there is evidence that had we not run those campaigns, the Government would probably have made the wrong decision on two occasions.

On the right to strike—I will keep this short so other people can speak—all I would say is that in my union, it is predominantly the women membership who are suffering from 11 years of low pay and freezes to tax credits. Some 40% of PCS members claim tax credits. It is quite clear that there is a disproportionate effect on them if their ability to strike is undermined.

All I would ask the Committee is to consider this: do the Government really care about thresholds? Over the past 10 years, during the last Labour Government, the coalition Government and now, I am on record as saying that we would love to sit down and talk about changes in ballot methods to allow secure, online workplace balloting. In my union, we have done pilots. Where the law allows ballots in the workplace, the turnout is treble what it is when you have a statutory ballot by post. There is irrefutable proof that in comparable elections, three times the number of people vote in work. We have the technology to do it securely. That is what the Government should be talking about, because that would have a massive upwards effect on turnout.

Matt Wrack: Very quickly on the political fund, we were affiliated to the Labour party. We are not currently affiliated to the Labour party, but we have a political fund. Our members have the right to opt out of that political fund. In our union, they also have the right to make clear that they would not want any political fund going to a political affiliation, even if we were affiliated. They have a number of choices on the political fund. As Mark said, our political fund is primarily used for key political campaigns around the terms, conditions and safety of firefighters. In our view, were the Bill to proceed, it would seriously undermine our ability to function in that regard.

On the point about balloting, we note that both major political parties have recently used modern forms of balloting—for example, electronic balloting has been used by the Tories for the appointment of the candidate for London Mayor—so it seems bizarre to us that trade unions are being told that we cannot use such balloting methods going forward.

[The Chair]

May I pause you for a second? We have 10 minutes remaining and four Members want to ask questions, so we need to speed up the replies and the questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I wonder, Ms O’Grady, whether you can send us the stats you have been referring to. If you can send it to the members of the Committee, we will distribute it on either side.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 397 I think all four of you have an interest in public services. Obviously, you will be aware, as was alluded to at the start, that not all UK employers, including the devolved Administrations, support the Bill and the impacts it will have. Can I ask each of you whether you believe that all public sector employers in the UK should either provide their consent to parts or all of the Bill or get opt-outs to parts or all of the Bill?

Len McCluskey: First, it is a serious issue that, again, I have raised publicly and Conservative members of this Committee will want to take it on board. At the general election, the Conservative party ran part of its campaign on English votes for English laws. The reality that we find with this Bill currently is that the Scottish Parliament has indicated that it will not implement the Bill; Stormont has indicated that it will not implement the Bill; and the Welsh Assembly voted yesterday not to implement this Bill. There is a real danger that English workers will be the worst treated workers not only in the whole of Europe, but indeed in the British Isles themselves. That is what is deeply divisive. The direct answer to your question is, yes, we know that there are local authorities and employers right throughout the British Isles who are indicating that they will not implement this measure, and certainly the devolved powers should have that view.

I will finish on a quick point, which is again for colleagues on the Conservative side. I deal with every single major manufacturing company within our nations—blue chip companies. Not a single CEO of any of those companies is in favour of this Bill, and I ask that that is taken seriously on board. So, yes, I am in favour of an independent approach to this.

Sir Paul Kenny: I will be quick. I think the consent issue is quite clear.

Just dealing with the issue about check-off, as it is commonly called, effectively it will still remain lawful. If the wagons roll on for a deduction to be made to just about any organisation—to the bowling club, to Uncle Ben’s shop, to any appeal whatsoever—despite all the arguments about how difficult it is and costly, it seems the only organisations that will not be allowed to use that facility are trade unions. I am sort of getting the drift that someone has got it in for me, you know? Basically, when you look at it like that, you cannot justify that argument.

Also, in terms of facilities, there are statistics coming out of the walls about the job that people do in saving so much in employers’ time: stopping stuff going through to litigation, dealing with health and safety issues and dealing with grievances. You know, kettles have spouts for a reason and you are trying to put a sock in it, and that will not do. That is not the way to deal with genuine grievances and disputes. So it is one of those occasions when I am beginning to think that devolution is a pretty good idea.

Dave Prentis: I will concentrate on check-off and sign-off, as I did at the beginning, and I will remind you that we have 7,242 employers who operate check-off systems and with whom we have agreements on time off. Not a single one of those employers has said anything in relation to this Bill that would lead you to believe that they want this blanket ending of check-off arrangements. In fact, nobody was asked before the Bill was put together. The NHS employers were not asked; the local government employers were not asked; individual employers were not asked. It takes away all these ideas of localism and the idea that employers should have a right to talk to trade unions or not, as they feel, and reach agreements that they wish to have.

The Bill brings in draconian central planning, and all the discussion has been not just about devolution within the nations of Britain—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—but also in English regions and the combined authorities. Combined authorities will be allowed to do everything, but what will be taken away from them is the right to talk to their staff trade unions about the arrangements that they want in place, either for check-off or not for check-off.

At the moment, any employer can withdraw check-off; it is in their gift. There is nothing in law that prevents them from doing that, and it would be virtually impossible to take industrial action to stop them doing it. And some employers do take us off check-off. Wandsworth did; one of the new private probation companies has just done it; and we deal with it as a local issue, because it is an issue between us and that employer, and maybe we will reach compromises. But the thing I will say, which seems to have been forgotten completely, is that we pay for these check-off arrangements. They are not the gift of the employer; it is not costing the taxpayer money.

I will give you examples: Fife Council and East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust. Both of them cost us at 5% for collecting it, and it does not cost them anything like 5%. Bradford City Council charges £38,000—that is the cost of running our social workers. You end check-off and you are talking away one and a half social workers in Bradford. Derbyshire County Council charges around £5,000 a quarter. Others will hold on to the money for three months, put it in the bank account, get interest on it—it is small at the moment, but it is usually fairly big—and then give us the money and they make arrangements from it.

What I will say is I do not believe that any taxpayer should pay for this arrangement. Where we do have agreements, we are more than willing to pay a commercial amount of money to have these arrangements stay in place. Taxpayers should not pay, but neither should central Government issue a diktat saying that employers are doing something unlawful in reaching an agreement with their local union reps about the collection from source of union dues when there are so many different areas where the member of staff can have deductions from salary, including MPs and councillors, which are denied to our members for reasons that we do not understand.

[The Chair]

Mr Prentis, can you also get the detail of that and send it to the Committee? We will distribute it. It has been a very useful piece of information and I think both sides would welcome it.

Dave Prentis: I am saying categorically here that we believe that taxpayers should not fund this arrangement. If that is the issue, we will make sure that we have stronger commercial arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

Q 415 Like you, I listened intently to John Cridland’s evidence on Tuesday, but the intention of the questions we have been asking has not been to show that the Bill is a pro-business measure. What we have tried to show is the impact of that on parents, patients, carers and commuters. I think we have actually demonstrated that quite effectively. Would you like to comment on how that fits into the purpose of the Bill?

Nick Boles: That is absolutely right. We were always thinking, when drafting the Bill, about what to tell the public when a strike has happened to reassure them. The public support unions’ and individuals’ ability to strike, and they often would like to feel that they have the ability to avail themselves of that right in an extreme situation. There is absolutely no question about it; the public do not support something that withdraws people’s legitimate right to withdraw their labour in a case where they are being badly treated or a dispute that cannot be resolved otherwise. The public are frankly not very impressed when a strike happens that closes schools or bus services on an incredibly low turnout or a ballot that is several years old, and we are responding to that concern.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 416 Mr Boles, in relation to political funds, I want to outline my discomfort with dealing with this issue via the Trade Union Bill and not through other mechanisms in Parliament. Political funding should be dealt with across the board. I also point out to you that it is not just about those trade unions that fund the Labour party—those unions are in the minority, actually—but a trade union’s ability to campaign to change Government policies. The general secretary of the PCS made that point. Do you not think that it is inappropriate to deal with political funds only through this Bill and not to look at political funding arrangements across the board?

Nick Boles: I do not, and perhaps I could explain why. We have heard about the contributions that the political funds made to HOPE not hate. We certainly heard that on Second Reading. We have heard of other very worthwhile causes that are supported by unions’ political funds, but we live in a society, thank God, where there is an amazing proliferation of charities and campaign groups that are successfully and endlessly raising money from members of the public. They are lobbying for all sorts of changes in laws and practices here and around the world. It does not seem to me to be an unfair restriction or to be likely in any way to undermine the support for fantastic organisations, such as HOPE not hate, to say that if an individual wants to contribute part of their income towards an organisation, they should make an active choice to do so. That will not choke off any worthwhile campaigning activity in this country, where there is a huge array of it happening already.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 417 That breaches the Churchill convention, do you not agree? What you propose in the Bill breaches what has been referred to as the Churchill convention.

Nick Boles: Yes, there was a gentleman, a member of the Labour party, who gave extensive and fluent evidence earlier this morning, which we were all gripped by. He referred to a Churchill convention. Winston Churchill was a great man who said many great things, but not everything he said necessarily becomes a constitutional convention.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 418 Professor Ewing also referred to the Churchill convention.

Nick Boles: Yes, he would, wouldn’t he?

[Chris Stephens]

Q 419 Surely employers, when they are given notice of the ballot—currently, it is a seven-day period—at that point they know that there is a potential for industrial action, usually 45 days down the line. Why would you want to change the strike action period from seven days to 14?

Nick Boles: Again, this is a very revealing question and, I hope, a revealing answer. This is less about the employers than it is about the public. The public are not going to know, necessarily, because frankly we do not all read the papers or listen to the radio every day, when notice of a ballot has been given. What they will know is when a union that effectively controls a service on which they rely will have a strike. That is when the public, as colleagues of mine have adequately described, will know. Frankly, it could make a huge difference to the public if they had two weeks’ warning, rather than a week’s warning, to have to arrange emergency childcare because their school is going to close.

[The Chair]

I appeal to Members that we have 10 minutes or so left and five speakers. Could both Members and Ministers please be a bit more succinct?

[Chris Stephens]

Q 420 I will just ask Mr Hancock one question. Why have the devolved Administrations not been consulted or contacted by you in relation to facility time or check-off? Surely, they should have the right to maintain good industrial relations by keeping those things in place.

Matthew Hancock: The reason is that this area of policy is reserved, as confirmed by the Smith commission.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 421 Industrial relations is not reserved. That is the point. Surely, the Scottish and Welsh Governments have the right to make a policy decision on industrial relations in terms of check-off and facility time.

Matthew Hancock: This is a question of labour market policy. Labour market policy is reserved, as confirmed by Smith.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 422 So it is okay for a staff association to use check-off, but not a trade union?

Matthew Hancock: It is very different. There is a difference between deducting something from source when it is paid to an external and outside body compared with when it is part of a wider set of non-pecuniary remuneration such as a staff association or, indeed, a pension. These are two completely separate matters.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 423 Charities, credit unions—these all come off employees’ salaries. I am aware of many organisations that are external bodies that get check-off arrangements. Are you looking at them as well?

Matthew Hancock: No. It is perfectly reasonable. For instance, your pension, which is often deducted at source, is completely different. It is part of your non-cash benefits of being in work. If you look at each item on its merits, in a modern trade union system and a modern labour market—this is an area of labour market policy—it is perfectly reasonable and sensible that the relationship between a union and its members is just that and not one that is intermediated by the employer.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 424 I think the Minister needs to do more research on this.

[The Chair]

Let me appeal once more, finally, to Members. You only have a few minutes left and five Members want to ask questions. To be fair to each other, make it short and make the replies short, too.

Trade Union Bill (Third sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[John Howell]

Q 247 May I follow up with one question? I am still struggling to see what harm the notice period causes.

Deputy Chief Constable Hall: I do not believe it causes any harm, as such. The challenge for policing is whether it is necessary for us, how we then administer it within police forces across the country, and whether we could obtain that information in other ways, either through local authorities or directly with the employer. As I say, we do not see any direct harm in receiving it, but we feel it could be discharged in other ways.

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

Q 248 It may appear that I am shouting at you, but I am not; it is so the other members of the Committee can hear me. I apologise.

I have two quick questions. Do you both agree that the proposal to allow agency workers to come in and replace striking workers would result in increased tensions in the workplace and that the police would have to become more involved in those sorts of issues? What more resources would the police need to police some of the aspects in the Bill?

Deputy Chief Constable Hall: I do not think it is for the police service to determine the merits of whether agency workers should come in or not. We know from disputes we have policed in the past that the mention of agency workers tends to increase tension within picket lines. I think there is certainly the possibility that that could be the case if agency workers are brought in to cross picket lines. Clearly, within that we would need to judge each situation on its merits, and potentially we would need to increase police resourcing accordingly.

Steve White: It probably would not surprise you to hear me suggest that our current resource levels in policing would make it extremely—

[The Chair]

Mr White, you are talking to us.

Steve White: Sorry, let me try that again. You will not be surprised to hear that, from a federation perspective, we are saying that in terms of the resource requirement needed, we would find it very hard to cope with current resource levels should there be large-scale disputes. We are finding it extremely challenging to cope with day-to-day policing with the current resource levels, and the likelihood is that they are going to become squeezed even more. If there is an increased requirement for police involvement around the policing of industrial disputes, that would be more challenging.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 249 And on agency workers.

Steve White: I agree with Charlie’s view. It is not for us to give a view on that.

[The Chair]

As you are a main Opposition spokesman, Mr Stephens, if you want to have the same amount of time as Mr Doughty, I am very relaxed about it. Are you happy?

[Chris Stephens]

I am happy.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Q 250 Thank you for coming in today. I want to focus on the point about identification. Mr Hall, you said that it may be of benefit to be able to identify who to speak to and know who is the organiser. Is that not currently the case, in your experience of dealing with disputes?

Deputy Chief Constable Hall: I think it is generally the case that you can find out that detail, but I would not say it is always the case. Certainly, when we attend, our ability to find who is supervising the picket line and discuss and negotiate with them about the way the picket is conducted enables people to continue to cross the picket line if they wish to do so and enables those on the picket to approach vehicles or individuals trying to cross the picket line. It is always helpful if we can fairly quickly identify who that supervision is. Generally we can do it, but that is not always the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Kennedy]

Q 276 Could you describe some of the effects that has had on the workers?

David Palmer-Jones: Clearly, people feel very intimidated. They have now moved from Wilton to our other sites within the north-east, where we have a number of energy-from-waste plants. They attended yesterday another protest—the 29th protest—so they seem to be changing tactics. They disrupt local people. They stop the traffic. They cause an undue amount of disruption, and it is not nice for people to have to go through picket lines, with people only yesterday saying, “We know where you live. We’re going to visit you.” It is not at all something I can condone. We have to protect my staff. I have come here to protect my staff. It is really important that you understand the normal situation. I am not an employment lawyer at all, as you can hear; I just see the effects on our business and on my feelings about whether I continue to invest in Teesside in the future.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 277 I have some questions for Commissioner Dobson. Could you confirm whether you believe that the evidence collected in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultation on intimidation in the fire and rescue services is pretty thin? Could you also confirm that according to the Carr review, the decline in allegations of intimidation between the two disputes you referred to was down to better contingency planning? Given that you have intimated that industrial relations are more positive, would that not demonstrate that the Bill is unnecessary?

Commissioner Dobson: In relation to the evidence submitted to the Carr review, the majority of that is in relation to the London fire brigade during the 2010 local dispute. The evidence there is not thin; it is quite substantial in terms of the intimidation and bullying that some non-striking workers and people who were providing our contingency plan experienced. I would not say the evidence was thin. I do not have any particular basis on which to compare it with other industries, so the evidence is as it is.

My view is that the relationships with the Fire Brigades Union are difficult at times, but they are being managed well and are improving. We are working very hard to improve relationships, and I do not see anything in the Bill that would particularly make relationships between management in the London fire brigade and the Fire Brigades Union worse. There are potentially some safeguards within the Bill that would help both the London fire brigade and the Fire Brigades Union in respect of our relationships.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 278 Okay. The Carr review said that allegations of intimidation decreased between those two disputes because of contingency planning. Do you agree with that?

Commissioner Dobson: There are a number of reasons why bullying and intimidation decreased in the national dispute. There are differences between a local dispute and a national dispute, and the feelings they generate among the people going on strike and the unions. We learnt some lessons in terms of the management of the strikes during the 2010 dispute. It is true to say that, managerially, we have put some things in place to try to prevent intimidation of non-striking workers and the blockade of workplaces. We learnt some things and we think we did well.

During the 2010 dispute, because of some of the behaviours in relation to picket lines and striking workers elsewhere in London following around our contingency crews and trying to intimidate them at the incident ground, we sought to go to court to have the code of conduct on picketing enforced. We did not actually need to get the court order in the end, because we managed to reach agreement with the Fire Brigades Union prior to getting to court. Since that agreement was made and the code of conduct was adhered to, we have seen much lower levels of intimidation and bullying. The conduct of the picket lines and the strike generally in the past two years has been in line with how we would expect people to behave.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 279 I have one last question. My understanding is that you gave evidence to the Carr review.

Commissioner Dobson: No, I did not.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 280 Okay. Did you have any private meetings with Mr Carr?

Commissioner Dobson: I did. I had a private meeting with Mr Carr.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 281 Was that in a professional or personal capacity?

Commissioner Dobson: It was professional, because I was commissioner for London, but it was in my personal opinion, rather than that of my fire authority.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Q 282 Mr Palmer-Jones, you were just touching on intimidation and the picket line you saw yesterday. Could you tell us a bit more?

David Palmer-Jones: I was not actually there yesterday, but we had reports back from my staff. Again, there is a movement from the Wilton construction site to our own sites and threats of other, secondary protesting. That was why I was very keen to come today, to explain the grey area that could expand.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I will stop you there and Chris Stephens can ask the last question.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 315 Just a quick question to Commissioner Dobson. In an answer to Mr Cartlidge, you indicated that you agree with the thresholds in the Bill. Is that your private opinion or were you speaking for you organisation?

Commissioner Dobson: That is my opinion.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much for your evidence, gentlemen.

Examination of Witness

Byron Taylor gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

We do not intend to intrude upon the conversation among members of the Labour party, who seem to be having a very good time.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 320 Just a couple of questions, Mr Taylor. Can you confirm that, in many cases, the workplace will be multi-union and that some unions will be affiliated to the Labour party, and some will not? Therefore, many people already have the choice, because they can choose which trade union to join depending on whether they want to fund the Labour party or not. I should have congratulated you on the fact that you separated Scotland from the UK when you referred to plastic bags, and I welcome that.

I must emphasise to you, as someone who is a trade union activist, that if trade union members are uncomfortable with the trade unions’ relationship with the Labour party, it is up to them to raise that, and there are plenty of democratic opportunities for them to do so. It is also up to the Labour party to justify to the trade unions why it should be funded. The political funds are not just about the Labour party; there are many organisations that receive money from political funds, such as HOPE not hate, so what impact would there be on them?

Byron Taylor: Multi-union representation in the workplace is a reality. I used to organise British Bakeries down in Avonmouth docks, where we had seven trade unions on site. There are a clear number of trade unions, and members can join the appropriate one as they see fit. As for the political fund and its use, it is important to recognise that trade unions do not simply use the political fund for the purposes of the Labour party. There are 52 trade unions here in the UK, 13 of which are affiliated to the Labour party. In the other trade unions, there are a good couple of million people out there paying the political levy to allow their union to conduct political activity. That is what the political fund is for; it is for the conducting of political activity.

There is a proud history for the trade union movement of political activity: the campaign for the eight-hour day, the minimum wage, universal suffrage, campaigns for the NHS, campaigns for housing, peace movements after the second world war—all those things have been supported out of the political fund, and they are appropriate uses for it. What is being proposed is to strip trade unions of that political voice to a great extent. My real fear about this Bill is that it is designed to reduce participation in political activity. Such activity is well established. The European Court ruled just eight years ago that it is perfectly legitimate for trade unions to conduct political activity. The Court said:

“They are not bodies solely devoted to politically-neutral aspects of the wellbeing of their members, but are often ideological, with strongly held views on social and political issues.”

That is a legitimate role for trade unions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

Q 335 Mr Taylor, have you ever made a contribution to the Conservative party by means of buying a good or service from a company whose profits from that transaction were then used to make a donation to the Conservative party?

Byron Taylor: I have, and I had no opt-out from that.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 336 Just one quick question, Mr Taylor. When it comes to legislation affecting elections, party political administration and funding, or trade union political funding, do you agree with me that it should have the agreement of either all the political parties represented in the House of Commons or a majority of the political parties represented in the House of Commons?

Byron Taylor: Yes. This comes back to my initial point about the Churchill convention, which has existed in UK law for the best part of 80 years, and I will say it again:

“It is a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over another, but an agreement reached either between the leaders of the main parties or by conferences under the impartial guidance of Mr Speaker.”—[Official Report, 16 February 1948; Vol. 447, c. 859.]

Even Margaret Thatcher realised the danger of interfering in the affairs of other parties. What is being created here is a circumstance in which the party of government is seeking to undermine the party of opposition. That is a very dangerous place to go in our democracy. It is deeply concerning that we find ourselves here, discussing a matter of this kind, when there is no clear agreement between the main parties.

[The Chair]

I think that is it. Thank you very much, Mr Taylor, for your evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Barclay.)

Trade Union Bill (Second sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[John Howell]

Q 105 Would you like to give us a view of what you think it will look like, and how the Bill would affect that in five to 10 years’ time?

Julia Manning: Again, I will try not to get too technical or philosophical. The Bill does not go into the detail of the many different NHS roles and responsibilities, but those are going to change. As patients, as the public and as what we call “participatients”, we will have information and access to all sorts of things that we currently do not have access to, which have been the preserve of the NHS. Down the line, the impact of action could be quite different because of what we as the public will have access to, which will no longer be within the control of NHS professionals. That is something we should be mindful of.

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

Q 106 It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

I would first like to ask: are you aware that the current law in terms of trade unions participating in industrial action is that they must provide life and limb cover? If so, does that assuage your fears? In addition, what surveys have you taken of the members in your organisation? You did intimate to Mr Doughty that you are organised across the UK. Also, do you believe that, with any changes at all within any of the health services across the UK, there has to be a negotiated change and a mutual partnership arrangement between employers and the trade unions?

Julia Manning: On the first point, in terms of like for like—

[Chris Stephens]

Sorry, it is life and limb cover. Trade unions are legally obliged to provide life and limb cover in any industrial action.

Julia Manning: Sorry, could you repeat the question?

[Chris Stephens]

Basically, are you aware that trade unions have to provide life and limb cover in an industrial dispute? Does that assuage your fears of what is currently taking place in the workplace? Are you more relaxed that because a trade union under current law has to provide life and limb cover that you are comfortable with that? You have raised a lot of points on some of the earlier questions about the impact on patients.

Julia Manning: My concern with that is about the projected increase in the number of patients and, therefore, the workforce we will potentially need. We already have shortages in skill sets in all sorts of areas. If I understand you correctly, the opportunity to provide cover is going to be harder.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 107 Do you know what life and limb cover actually is?

Julia Manning: Give me your definition.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 108 In an industrial dispute a trade union is obliged to maintain services while workers are on strike, and to provide cover in case of emergencies: health and safety emergencies, for example. In the NHS, there would have to be some sort of provision for those who are critically ill. Have you considered the life and limb cover issues that are in existing trade union legislation?

Julia Manning: As an organisation, no we have not.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

Q 142 Would you like to sum up the overall impact?

Janet Cooke: It is the attrition. For the first strike, people can often make other arrangements. Strikes have a particular impact on people in jobs where they do not have flexibility. I could work from home if I could not get into work or I could start late and finish late, or whatever. People working in critical, front-line jobs, who do not have that flexibility, are affected disproportionately, because they have no options.

David Sidebottom: Back in 2009-10, London Midland inconvenienced passengers as a result of its inability to roster railway staff to work on Sundays. That is a traditional working pattern that was provided largely through overtime and informal arrangements. We have seen a bit of that with one or two other train operators in recent years, but not on a large scale.

The bigger impact for passengers is short notice and cancellations. It is not a week’s or two weeks’ notice. The ability of a train company to buy out those working arrangements is very much between it, the unions and the staff. It seems to be something that is not quite cured yet. I do not know how that would fit with the Bill, but it does come across as inconveniencing passengers slightly more.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 143 I just have one question for the organisations. If for any reason existing staff, in this case train drivers or bus drivers, were replaced by agency workers, who would be inadequately trained, that would cause both your organisations concern for passenger safety.

David Sidebottom: If that manifested itself to us through representations from passengers, it would of course, yes.

Janet Cooke: Whether they were staff employed by the operator or agency staff, if they were not properly trained, it would be inappropriate for them to work.

[James Cartlidge]

Q 144 I want to focus on the point about timing of ballots. You may be aware that the Bill introduces a four-month time limit. You are talking about the uncertainty caused by striking. It seems that it is on the transport network that these long-standing ballots have been used. What is your view? Do you support that time limit, so that there is greater certainty for yourselves and your passengers?

David Sidebottom: The message that we get loud and clear from passengers whenever there is any disruption, whether it be industrial action, bad weather, or engineering works is, “Get me out of the mess that you are putting me into. Give me the options, give me the information on which I can make choices. When I get up in the morning, is my train going to run, because there are three inches of snow outside and the wind has been blowing, or is there a threat of industrial action?” The requirement for quality information comes across loud and clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Can I just help you? We have got a lot of names down to ask questions and you have got a very short period of time to answer. If you feel that you want to give a fuller answer than you can on the floor, it is open for the Committee to receive written documentation. If, on any of the questions put to you, you do not think that you fully replied, you are more than entitled to submit more evidence in writing to the Members of the Committee, who will read that and take it into account in their deliberations.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 162 I want to ask Amnesty and Liberty if they have done any analysis on the basis of thresholds and the impact that would have on gender equality issues. For example, female workers are probably more affected by shift changes than male workers. Have you done any analysis on the democratic mandate of the devolved Administrations and other public bodies in terms of check-off and facility time as proposed by the Government?

Mr Smith, a lot of people watching these proceedings will wonder what a blacklist is. What are the consequences for a picket supervisor who is put on a blacklist?

Sara Ogilvie: On the issue of gender inequality, this was a surprising statistic to me: there are more female trade union members than male trade union members. So it seems likely that reducing the right to strike of trade unionists will impact more on women. Certainly, when we look at low-paid jobs across society, many more women are employed in them than men.

I am ashamed to say that I do not know a huge amount about how much it will impact on the devolution settlement. I am aware, however, that the proposals in the Bill do not seem to reflect adequately the make-up of government, local authorities and other public bodies in Scotland and Wales. If the proposals are to be introduced—I hope that they will not be—there will need to be much further thought about how they will work in practice.

Shane Enright: Briefly, I have seen figures—I do not have them in front of me—from the TUC that indicate that 72% of those who will be affected by these public sector strike thresholds are women. Women represent a greater proportion of employees in the public sector and, as mentioned, are now a majority of trade unionists overall in our economy. Inevitably, there will be a disproportionate impact on women workers and their ability to defend their interests, pay and conditions in the public sector.

Dave Smith: Blacklisting is not a myth. When we talk about this, people sometimes think we are making it up. The impact on the 3,213 people whose files were found in the construction industry has been that every time they applied for a job, because their name was on this list—this is the key thing for us: the police are going to be holding a list, and the police have been complicit in the blacklisting that has been going on in the building industry. The building industry will not be something special; it will happen everywhere. The impact was that every time we applied for a job, our name was checked to see if it was on this list. If it was, you were dismissed or not given a job in the first place. It means that people had massive periods of unemployment, even though they were very skilled workers, and, prior to becoming involved in a union, had unblemished unemployment records. It means that people lost their houses. It means family breakdowns and divorces, and in some cases, we have reported that there have been suicides.

To be crystal clear about this, I would like to quote something put out last week by Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Costain, Kier, Laing O’Rourke, Sir Robert McAlpine, Skanska and VINCI. They changed their defence to say that they were actually involved in blacklisting and have produced new documents. The statement from their PR people says that the new documents

“contain a full and unreserved apology for our part in a vetting information system run in the construction industry first through the Economic League and subsequently through The Consulting Association; we recognise and regret the impact it had on employment opportunities for those workers affected and for any distress and anxiety it caused to them and their families.”

My fear, which I keep repeating, is that blacklisting exists and that police involvement in blacklisting is a fact. Last week, I was at the High Court. Theresa May has set up the Pitchford inquiry—

[The Chair]

Mr Smith, I have been really quite kind. You went very wide of the mark. If you get the documentation you refer to and wish to submit a new written piece to the Committee, I will more than willingly distribute it, but I am going to move the Committee on at this stage. We need to get more questions in, because we have little time left.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

Q 189 And the effect of the thresholds in the Bill?

Tony Wilson: To me, the thresholds are all about proportionality. We rely entirely on collective bargaining within our organisation. We have a very good relationship with Unite. Across many years, I have never had any great issue with them. For us, it is the fact that very low numbers of the organisation can dictate to the mass. Some of that is to do with the fact that our particular company has quite a low percentage of union members in the first place, but even they do not all go and vote. I think something like 12% of the total bus driver workforce actually voted yes and dictated to the vast majority.

I heard something earlier on about picket lines. On 13 January, there was no police presence on our picket lines, but there were a lot of people, and a lot of staff who would otherwise have come to work were deterred from doing so. Most pickets were not particularly antagonistic—some were a bit different—but the sheer number of people that they had to pass to get into work was a barrier to them. At one depot, the roadway was blocked, so we could not actually get buses in and out. On the second day, co-ordinating with Transport for London, we had a large police presence on all of our sites. It was far more organised and there was a lot less disruption. It was noticeable that people do not want to come to work and cross that barrier. Whether on the day or the stigma afterwards, they do not feel comfortable.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 190 This is a question to the TaxPayers Alliance. I know from my previous employment that your organisation is well-versed in freedom of information. In relation to facility time, what do you consider to be a trade union duty and what do you consider to be a trade union activity? When you have done research into facility time, have you been able to establish how many trade union activists have had either part or all of their salary paid by a trade union?

In terms of check-off, why is it correct that public sector employees—even those who would be in a staff association—can pay council tax, rent and charitable donations via check-off, but not a trade union?

My last question goes back to the taxpayers and the democratic mandate. If a political party has been elected in a devolved Administration or a public authority and it has a democratic mandate to carry out good industrial relations by providing check-off, either charitable or free, or good facility time, who is anybody to interfere in that? Surely, it has the democratic mandate and the taxpayer has made that decision.

Jonathan Isaby: There are quite a few points there. You talked about the difference between activities and duties. Those things are defined, are they not? ACAS has defined them and our most recent report quotes exactly what they are.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 191 Have you specifically asked employers what duties and activities are in a major freedom of information request?

Jonathan Isaby: No. I am not sure of the wording of the exact request that we put in, but the difference is that employees can take paid time off for duties, while the time off for activities is unpaid. What we are concerned about is the paid time off when it is taxpayer-funded time that is being used.

Obviously, in that respect, we are talking here about duties rather than activities, although this comes back to the point that we uncovered. I think I am right in saying that it was 344 public sector bodies, of which 154 were local authorities, 122 were NHS trusts and 37 were quangos, that either did not record facility time or only recorded it partially. That comes back to the whole issue that this Bill is seeking to address: it is unclear how much additional subsidy unions are getting and whether time is being spent on activities rather than duties, which is absolutely not what the current law envisages. That is why it is right that the law should be seeking to better define this.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 192 But you are making an allegation—I want to be clear about your answer—that in the public sector what is being allowed to happen is that activities that should be unpaid are being paid. Is that what you are alleging?

Jonathan Isaby: We do not know. The fact that so many bodies—literally hundreds of public sector bodies—are not properly recording this means that we have no idea. They are not recording it. Therefore, I think the Bill is absolutely right to be saying that this should be recorded properly, so that there can be proper accountability and knowledge that there is absolutely no abuse going on.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 193 So have you established that the trade unions make a contribution to employees on facility time?

Jonathan Isaby: Obviously, trade unions have people that they employ and they are not solely funded by the taxpayer, but there is clearly a big subsidy here.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 194 Trade unions give money to public sector employers for some trade union activists who are on facility time, usually in cases of full-time facility time. You have not been able to establish that?

Jonathan Isaby: I do not know off the top of my head the extent of that; I do not know is the honest, quick answer.

[The Chair]

Mr Isaby, in the context of the request that I made for Committee members, when you submit material could you also submit a paragraph or two on your view on that and how you arrive at those estimates or projections? If you can do that, it would be helpful to members of the Committee.

Jonathan Isaby: Yes, happily.

[The Chair]

Mr Stephens, are you finished, or do you—?

[Chris Stephens]

Q 195 I asked questions that I do not think I have got an answer to, in terms of check-off, and obviously the taxpayer and who represents the taxpayer in the democratic mandate.

Jonathan Isaby: If there was a check-off, I simply do not think that it is for the public sector—that is, a taxpayer-funded employer—to organise its employees’ memberships of any organisation, whether that be a trade union, a political party, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, or whatever it might be. It is a private decision that people need to make. With direct debits and banking these days really making these things very easy for individuals to handle, there is no justification for that to be done by the employer.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 196 Surely, it is a contractual obligation. Have you established that in many public sector bodies there is a contractual obligation between the employee and the employer to have a check-off?

Jonathan Isaby: I simply do not accept that there should be. It is not the role of the public sector—whether it be a Government Department or a local council—to organise those things.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 197 That might be your view, but surely if a public body that is democratically elected has decided to put that in individual employees’ contracts, who are we to argue with that?

Jonathan Isaby: I think you are to disagree because you are the Parliament of this country, and if you change the law and say that you can no longer do that, then that will stand, surely?

[The Chair]

I think we will move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Can you hear me, Minister?

Roseanna Cunningham: Yes I can. I cannot see you, but I can hear you.

[Chris Stephens]

Is Mr Smith there, too, from the STUC?

Roseanna Cunningham: He is sitting beside me.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 233 I will ask you a question first from the STUC point of view. Can you outline for the Committee what discussions the STUC has had with the Scotland Office on the Trade Union Bill? Do you have specific concerns in relation to check-off and facility time?

Grahame Smith: Perhaps I should introduce myself, given that Members may not know who I am. I am the general secretary of the Scottish TUC. I have had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office to discuss a variety of things, among which was the Trade Union Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q 234 Presumably, you do not think that industrial relations should be an English, Welsh and Scottish issue. You think they should be devolved.

Roseanna Cunningham: Yes, I do think they should be devolved. I would offer as evidence the different industrial relations picture here from what is happening south of the border.

Trade Union Bill (First sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I have a few preliminary points. Welcome to this Bill Committee. Today, we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. We will then have a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. Please turn off your mobile phones. Banned substances such as tea and coffee are not allowed. I am sure that, in view of the time available, we can take these early motions without debate. As we are now sitting in a public session, it might be a good point for anyone who wishes to make a declaration of interest to do so now.

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

I declare my membership of Unison and my trade union activity over the past 20 years as a trade union activist prior to my election.

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

I declare my membership of Unite the union and my trade union membership and representation as a senior rep over the past 14 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Q 6 It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The Bill has already been described by Mr Doughty as “draconian”. Can you give me your impression of how much this is a fundamental change to the way that trade unions operate and how much you think it is more of a step-by-step increase in the modernisation of the trade union movement?

John Cridland: I echo Mr Martin’s comment about a failsafe. In most workplaces, relations are harmonious. Most workplaces are now not unionised, but in the unionised part of workplaces, most relationships are harmonious, and employers recognise that. There is a small minority of situations, which we have already described, where many people—businesses and consumers —are significantly disrupted. If that is to happen, and if the right to strike is to be exercised, I think it is reasonable, given the level of disruption involved, that there is clear evidence of a significant mandate. That is a modernisation of a system that is broadly working well.

Dr Adam Marshall: I would probably agree with my colleague and simply add that having an expiry for ballot mandates is an important thing in this day and age, given that we are in a more complex world for both business and industrial relations than perhaps ever before. Having a clear mandate renewed on a regular basis is very important.

David Martin: I again echo the comments. I can only refer to what I said earlier—that in the event of a breakdown in industrial relations, which does not happen very often, let us have a very clear mandate that reflects the wishes of the membership as a whole, and let us have a situation where we can minimise the overall impact on the travelling public and the UK economy at the same time.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 7 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My question is for the CBI. First, I was a bit unclear in your answer to my colleague about secure workplace balloting. You have said that trade union recognition ballots work well, but in trade union recognition ballots there is scope for secure workplace balloting. Can you clarify that?

Secondly, in your submission, you say that you are looking to extend the notice periods from seven days to 14 days on either side. That is 28 days in total, even without a ballot period. Do you not think that seven days’ notice to ballot and seven days’ notice to strike, with a period in between of at least 14 working days, is sufficient for a business to look at what they need to do and the steps that need to take place for disruption and any industrial action?

John Cridland: Thank you for the question. On your first point, the analogy I was using for trade union recognition was with ballot majorities. That is a relevant point, I think, about the ballot majorities and thresholds that the Government are proposing for the Bill. The current notice periods are inadequate. Many corporate members of the CBI faced with these situations simply do not feel that they have enough time to provide information and to put in place mitigating measures. I think the business community does want to see longer notice periods.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 8 Part of the difficulty, though, is that the notice for compulsory redundancy is now 45 days. The danger of the Bill—I am curious to hear your views on this—is that trade unions will have to ballot right away when an employer issues a statutory redundancy notice, because it is now 45 days. Given the timescale, does it not worry you that there will actually be more balloting, rather than less?

John Cridland: For employers, we are trying to get the principle of clear consent. If a trade union and its members are going to withdraw their labour, which is clearly their right, we want to see evidence of consent in those situations. The difficulty with the current legislation is that it can leave employers faced with a situation where there is a low turnout—we have already heard the situation that Dr Marshall described of a ballot, prior to a situation where the ballot was some period before. These are not giving clear signals to the employer. So the spirit of our evidence is, “Can we have a system that both in time and in signalling makes it much clearer to the employers the nature of the dispute, and allows the employer to deal with that?” That is what we are after.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Q 9It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Dr Marshall, you raised the point about productivity, and I just want to ask about some of the wider economic impact of the Bill, if it is passed—in particular, the impact on investment, including inward investment, and on making the UK an attractive place to invest, and perhaps, Mr Martin, in terms of your industry, on whether having greater confidence about industrial relations will enable you to have stronger management and therefore attract more investment into it.

Dr Adam Marshall: Many thanks for the question. Undoubtedly, businesses that believe that the framework for industrial relations is modern and secure will be more confident when it becomes time to invest, particularly in those industries, such as the one represented by Mr Martin, that are affected by some of the enhanced thresholds that this Bill puts in place.

We have been very supportive of the definition of which areas should fall under those enhanced thresholds, in part because those businesses are extremely capital-intensive and do things that are extremely important to the functioning of the broader business community. So whether we are talking about transport, the delivery of energy supplies and indeed—vis-à-vis the supply of future skills—whether we are talking about the education sector, these are things that have a huge knock-on effect on the rest of the economy. So we believe that these measures are proportionate to help with that particular challenge.

Vis-à-vis our attractiveness to overseas businesses, one only needs to look at the media impact of transport strikes in London—how they are reported—and what you see are the knock-on effects on the economy of this particular area, and of course we have seen that played out in other cities as well, right across the UK. That has a deterrent effect on would-be investors, and I think that we would see that deterrent effect being lessened with a modernised system.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay. We have a long list of questions. You are warming up your audience, gentlemen, so we will be as brisk as we can.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 58 Gentlemen, both of you have extensive trade union experience. In your experience, what factors lead to low turnouts when it comes to ballots? Do you support the modernisation of the ballot process—for example, secure workplace balloting? Do you think that it is going to be more difficult to obtain industrial action on issues where there are now 45-day notices of changes to terms and conditions and voluntary redundancy? Lastly, do you think that the picket proposals will lead to more blacklisting?

Roy Rickhuss: There are a lot of questions in one there and it is difficult to answer. I am not sure why there are low turnouts in ballots. We do not experience that. In our union, we recently had a ballot on a pensions issue in one of our traditional industries and we had a well over 75% turnout. I think one issue is the way ballots are currently run. There are already significant, onerous conditions on trade unions in terms of balloting.

One issue in our response to the Bill has been the use of modern technology and electronic balloting. For the life of me, I just cannot understand why there would be any objections to that sensible move forward. I have seen some commentary saying, “Well, it’s not safe and secure.” That is so ridiculous, in fairness. You have to realise that people are not stupid; they do everything online these days. You can do all your banking, you can sign legal documents—you can do everything possible online. To suggest that you cannot vote in a ballot because it is not safe and secure undermines the whole principle of the debate. I think if we had a sensible debate about how ballots are conducted, we might make some serious progress.

Blacklisting is not an issue that my union has experienced significantly. Other unions, predominantly in the building and construction industry, obviously have major concerns about that, so yes, I would imagine that for some unions, it would be a serious concern.

John Hannett: A union like USDAW organises completely in the private sector. We operate in sectors that operate 24/7, seven days a week. My experience when I was particularly active as a union representative was that we had workplace arrangements whereby you could ballot. That used to enable people to go and vote. Of course, the world has changed and it is difficult to facilitate that kind of arrangement, but in terms of the technology, we know that the number of members who join online and who are communicating with the union online is increasing on a regular basis, so the idea of providing a new form of voting is, I think, a sensible one. Like Roy, I have heard nothing that persuades me it could not be done.

The other thing is the industrial relations side that you are picking up. We have a big productivity challenge in the UK. Everybody understands that. What I fear with many of these issues, including the argument about making it harder to run these events, is actually going the other way. So if you are really serious about turnout, you would consider electronic balloting. And in terms of engineering and encouraging good industrial relations, it is not about control mechanisms; it is about engagement, partnership and talking. In fact, if anything, I think this makes it harder for the employers, because this is seen more as controlling mechanisms than constructive relationships. I think it will have a negative impact.

[The Chair]

I still have seven people who want to ask questions, so from now on we will have one question and one brisk answer, if you do not mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

Q 84 This is the basic issue of fairness—of people’s contributions being taken without their active consent at the time of membership. We heard in earlier evidence that some unions support that but it is very much not the widespread practice among all unions to provide that information to their members. If you support transparency, it is clear today that that transparency does not exist across the entire board.

Stephen Cavalier: It is a legal requirement to tell members that they have the right to opt out of the political fund. If they wish to, they do so.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 85 I have several questions. First, do you agree that there is a danger in introducing thresholds—the impact that it will have on some gender equality issues, for example? Shift changes impact workers trying to pursue equal pay issues and the like. Secondly, is there a new danger of public bodies having to reissue new, individual contracts on the basis of opportunities to check-off and those sorts of issues? Do you see any impact on the devolved Administrations given that your organisation has offices across the UK?

Stephen Cavalier: First, on the equality point, the TUC has already submitted evidence. There is a disproportionate impact of thresholds on women workers; it is absolutely clear that there is a discriminatory impact. On the question of check-off and facility time, we are also a large employer. We have check-off and facility time and we are pleased to do so. It is something that we have agreed with our workforce and it works very well for us. I very much endorse the comments made in a 2012 paper by called “Stop the Union-Bashing” by Robert Halfon MP, who says that Whitehall should not dictate to employers and that it should be a matter for employers to agree facility time. I commend that paper to the Committee. It is certainly right that employers should agree facility time and check-off. It is a matter for them.

There are serious issues here associated with the devolved Administrations. As I understand it, they have the right to determine these arrangements within their own spheres. This does cut across that, and it does so in a very negative way. It is very concerning that the impact assessment itself—in fact, I think the European convention assessment that the Government have produced says specifically that this removal of existing contractual arrangements and collective agreements may have retrospective effect. That is a serious potential breach of article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention.

[James Cartlidge]

Q 86 Thank you both for coming. You have both spoken about thresholds and their potential impact, but neither of you seem to have focused on the key point that matters to the country at large, which is that it is so unfair to our commuters, our parents and so on that their public services can be brought down for days on low turnouts. We heard earlier from Arriva that on a 17% ballot, 50% of their buses were out for a day, causing massive disruption to its passengers. Do you not accept, in principle, that it is right to deal with that?

Mike Emmott: Our view is that although it is conceivable that the increased threshold will influence the outcome in some cases, it is quite unclear whether it is going to make striking more or less likely. There are lots of way of causing problems. We do not have a view on whether or not the thresholds are right in principle. We simply take the view that they are just as likely to cause more trouble as they are to reduce it.

Trade Union Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

It is good enough for all sectors. There is nothing wrong with facility time—the Bill is clear about that—but it should be open and transparent, and the current rules do not ensure that.

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

Why have the Government not consulted the devolved Administrations and local authorities across the UK about facility time? They would tell him about its benefits, because these employers and organisations see the benefits of facility time.

[Sajid Javid]

I am a bit baffled by the hon. Gentleman’s question because there are three consultations that relate to the Bill. The main consultation is a nine-week consultation and it is open to every stakeholder in the United Kingdom, including those in Scotland.

Finally, the Bill enhances the role of the certification officer—a role that has served workers, unions and employers well over the past 40 years. It equips the certification officer with appropriate new powers for a modern regulator, such as allowing investigations to begin based on information from a variety of sources, without having to wait for specific complaints from union members.

For the first time, the certification officer will have the ability to impose financial penalties on unions that do not comply with statutory requirements—the very requirements that Parliament has deemed necessary. The Bill passes the cost of that regulation on to the unions. That is entirely in line with modern best practice. It is why banks fund the Financial Conduct Authority and why utility regulators are paid for by utility firms.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I rise in total opposition to this Bill. Let me declare my Unison membership and my 20 years of trade union activity before my election. In my maiden speech in this place, I said:

“The trade union movement gave me a political education and the confidence to stand for election, and I know that this experience is shared with other Members who did not have a privileged start in life.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 832.]

I will never be ashamed of being a trade unionist.

The irony of this Bill is that it comes from a political party that believes the answer in today’s world is to deregulate—except in the case of the trade union movement and trade union law. The unions are subjected to heavy regulation, which the Tories bitterly oppose in other circumstances. This is a timely reminder that this Government fear the trade union movement and that this Government know they can be defeated. That is because the trade union movement is the largest group in civic society that stands up against exploitation. The Bill will lead to a deterioration of good industrial relations and it has no support within public opinion. It is designed to reduce civil liberties and human rights.

The Bill also displays a remarkable ignorance—we have heard about that from several speakers already. The Government attempt to justify this Bill by citing industrial action that actually meets the thresholds. The Bill seeks to introduce the 40% rule, but I think it is dangerous for this Government to introduce that rule because the last time a Government tried to introduce such a rule, which affected Scotland, they had a low majority and they ended up being kicked out in a vote of no confidence. We will have the situation where dead people will be described as “not supporting” industrial action. That is why the thresholds are dangerous.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does my hon. Friend not think it even stranger that the 40% threshold is demanded by a Government who got only 24% of the electorate vote overall and only 10.5% of the electorate vote in Scotland? They were rejected by 90% of the voters of Scotland.

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, I agree. In Scotland, at the last election, the Conservative party received its lowest share of the vote since universal suffrage began. If the Government are going to introduce thresholds, they need to consider securing workplace balloting, which could be easily sorted out by Electoral Reform Services, or online voting. Political parties use online voting when selecting their candidates, so the suggestion that there might be fraud is nonsense.

[Angela Rayner]

rose—

[Chris Stephens]

I will give way to my Unison comrade and friend.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that some of the rhetoric we have heard from Conservative Members is offensive to public sector workers, who do not take strike action at the drop of a hat and who are dedicated public servants? I am talking about home carers, cleaners, cooks, social workers, bin men, bin women and all those other people who safeguard our public services today. They do not take strike action at the drop of a hat, and it is disgraceful that Conservative Members have been using this rhetoric today.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree completely, and I will give some examples confirming what the hon. Lady describes. Introducing online voting and securing workplace balloting would be modernisation. We keep hearing about modernisation from Conservative Members, and we will come on to deal with it.

The other danger about thresholds relates to issues of equality and, in particular, gender equality. We know that in some male-dominated trade union workplaces women who have young families are affected when there are shift changes, and thresholds would have an impact on the rights of women workers to pursue industrial action on that basis. That happened recently in the case of a fire brigade control service in Essex.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

We have heard rhetoric from Conservative Members about how the Bill will help hard-working people go about their business. Does the hon. Gentleman not therefore find it ironic that curtailing the rights of working people to organise collectively through trade unions, which is what this Bill is designed to do, will stop those people arguing for and bargaining for better working conditions?

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, I do. The Bill is designed to continue austerity—that is exactly what it is about. It is about trying to curb the largest organisation in the UK that is campaigning against austerity.

These issues of gender equality are very important, because recent trends have shown that what is on the increase is pregnant workers being dismissed and women workers coming back from maternity leave being made redundant. That is a recent phenomenon and this Parliament will need to address it. The Government have not taken any of those issues into account. As we heard earlier, 270 Conservative Members would not have been elected if those thresholds had been in place.

There is also the issue of the deadlines on ballot times. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say that industrial action would not be curbed, but in actual fact it could be. Let us say that a large employer issued a 45-day redundancy notice. If the trade unions have to give 14 days’ notice of a ballot and 14 days’ notice to take industrial action, it will be very difficult for them to organise themselves within that timeframe, and it could well make industrial action impossible.

We oppose the changes on political funds. This is about not just party politics and attacking the Labour party, but the general campaigning that the trade unions fund as well. I am talking here about equal pay; stronger maternity leave; 50:50 gender representation; and giving money to organisations such as HOPE not hate and other anti-racist organisations, community groups, and international aid organisations such as Justice for Colombia and Medical Aid for Palestine.

[Dawn Butler]

On that point, the Bakers Union is campaigning for fair rights for fast food workers, and is trying to increase hourly pay in America from $7 to $15 and in the UK to £10. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this measure is trying to restrict that kind of activity?

[Chris Stephens]

That is exactly what it is designed to do. This attack is to weaken the rights of trade union members. When it comes to political funds, it should be up to the trade union members to decide. If members have issues about who trade unions are funding, it is up to them to organise themselves and to take up the matter with their trade unions—just as I always do. When my union funds a campaign that I might not necessarily support, I am told, quite rightly, that it should be up to us to organise.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this area is much regulated at the moment? Not only do union members have to vote every 10 years on whether they want a political fund, but individuals also have a right to opt out of a political fund at any time they want. All the accounts of a political fund must be not only validated by the internal accountants but published. How much more transparency can we get?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, indeed. I think the system is transparent. In my own trade union, we had the choice to fund the affiliated political fund within Unison or the general political fund, or even to opt out of the political fund.

The other danger with this Bill is that it politicises the role of the certification officer. We are also concerned with the new proposals on picketing and providing names. Such measures can only result in a new blacklist. Anyone who is a picket might as well wear two armbands—“union picket” on one arm and “blacklist me” on the other. That sets a very dangerous precedent. It also does not take into account the fact that Scotland and England have different criminal laws. I believe that is why we have heard comparisons with Franco’s regime.

The other concern relates to agency workers who are not supported by the agencies themselves. That can lead only to distrust within a workplace between those who are agency workers and those who work for the employer. Any time an employer asks a trade union about bringing in agency workers, there will immediately be suspicions about what the employer is up to. It is a rogue employers’ charter and the Government must think again on the matter.

I want to talk about check-off and facility time, and the incredible statements we have heard from the Government in that regard. I submitted a written parliamentary question on check-off and received the following answer from the Cabinet Office:

“It is no longer appropriate for public sector employers to carry the administrative burden of providing a check off facility for those trade unions that have not yet modernised their subscription arrangements. Employers are under no obligation to offer this service. There would therefore be no cost associated with an employer not providing this service”.

That shows a lot of ignorance, because what the Government appear not to know—they seem blissfully unaware of this—is that in many instances trade unions pay for check-off and for workers on facility time.

Let me give some examples of the deductions that could be made from a worker’s salary: charities’ give-as-you-earn, season ticket loans, credit union payments, staff associations—under these proposals there can be deductions for staff associations, but not for trade unions—bicycle loans, council tax and rent. Those are just examples of what can be deducted from a worker’s salary, and the Government call removing check-off modernisation! What a ludicrous suggestion.

[Chris Philp]

First, all the examples that the hon. Gentleman has just given involve the employee opting in, rather than opting out, which is exactly what this legislation proposes. Secondly, of the 972 public bodies that do check-off fees, only 213—that is 22%—charge for the service; 78% do it for free.

[Chris Stephens]

The point is that they have chosen to provide the service for free. If there was a genuine consultation on this, many public bodies, including the Scottish and Welsh Governments, would say that they are not interested in removing check-off. Indeed, my former employer, Glasgow City Council, has today said that it is not interested and that it will ignore the request. The hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that people join trade unions automatically, but that is not the case. I signed a form and decided to tick my political fund arrangements on that basis.

Our view is that the Government have no right to interfere in the industrial relations of councils, health boards or devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. Facility time improves industrial relations. It negates issues that would otherwise go to tribunal. If an employer has good facility time arrangements, disciplinary hearings and grievance hearings, for example, are conducted in a timeous fashion. If facility time is interfered with, those timescales will slip. Facility time is a good thing; it is good for industrial relations and it gets things done.

[Geraint Davies]

Do the hon. Gentleman’s points not illustrate that this Bill is causing division where there was harmony—between the nations, within organisations, between agency workers and workers, and between management and workers—and that it will therefore undermine productivity, cause conflict and protest and be contrary to its alleged objectives? In fact, it is just an ideological, mean-spirited measure that should be voted down by any sensible person.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree. The Bill is an ideological assault against the largest group in civic society that is standing up to the Government’s policies and to austerity.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with what the International Monetary Fund has said about the benefits of collective bargaining when it comes to economic success and prosperity? The Government are clearly either unaware of the IMF’s support for strong trade unions or not interested in having strong trade unions.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree, because what has happened to collective bargaining is tragic. In 1979, for example, 81% of workers in Scotland had their pay determined by collective bargaining, but that figure is now 23%. Collective bargaining should be encouraged across the board, because it leads to higher wages.

The Government should be going in the opposite direction. We need stronger trade union rights and stronger employment rights in this country. It cannot be right that an employer can issue a 45-day redundancy notice to a worker. That was one of the big mistakes of the previous Administration. We believe that trade unions have the right to bargain collectively. We believe that this Bill seeks to undermine the great work of the trade union movement. It is a 19th-century solution in a 21st-century world.

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill by the British Government is a real threat to the positive working relationships between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Trades Union Congress? The secretary-general of the STUC has said:

“The Westminster Government is essentially arguing, on the basis of an apparent desire to save ‘taxpayers money’ that the Scottish Government”—

a devolved Government in this United Kingdom—

“should not be allowed . . . to promote positive working relationships”.

Should not this Bill just be thrown out, because if we are “better together” it doesn’t bloody well feel like it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin John Docherty]

I will rephrase it, Madam Deputy Speaker. It feels like murder. [Interruption.]

[Chris Stephens]

Murderopolis, indeed.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The TUC, the STUC and the TUC in Wales are having these discussions. The STUC and the Scottish Government oppose the Bill, and the TUC in Wales and the Welsh Government oppose it. Local authorities oppose it. Health boards oppose it. It has no support whatsoever across the public services.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Stephens]

I am just finishing.

The Bill is an attack on our civil liberties and our human rights. As such, it does not deserve a Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I will be a lot brisker than the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). I hope I will be able to get through what I want to say in three or four minutes. If I do it briskly enough I will irritate everybody in this debate, because there are fallacies on all sides. I was not going to declare an interest, but the contribution by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has provoked me. I do not have a financial interest, but my grandfather was blacklisted.

[Chris Stephens]

I merely quoted the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about Franco.

[Mr Davis]

The reason those comments resonate with me is that my grandfather, who brought me up, was as a young man blacklisted and unemployed for 17 years because he was an organiser in the coalfields in the north-east. The House will understand that I am a little sensitive to some of the impingements on civil liberties that can come out of industrial relations.

It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. I keep calling him my right hon. Friend. He was a fabulously good trade union leader. As we just heard, he is a great debater, but he and I have also served occasionally on the same side in negotiations. Every single time, we managed to get an outcome that was helpful to the workforce and to the companies we were dealing with. That does not mean, however, that he has everything right here.

I have been very helpful to the Labour party in some of the comments I have made, but I will say this: there is an issue when a monopoly—it does not matter whether it is a private or public sector monopoly—goes on strike. The victim is then the public. It is not the workforce, because they tend to get their money back in overtime, and it is certainly not the owners, because their market share does not go away and they do not lose anything. The public, however, have nowhere else to go. I have some sympathy with much of Labour Members’ criticisms of the Bill, but they have to address this issue: how do we deal with a problem where action by a trade union, without proper and sufficient support from its membership, discomforts the public very badly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I rise to oppose the Bill in the strongest terms on behalf of Plaid Cymru. As the son of a retired trade union shop steward and the representative of an area steeped in coal-mining history, I value the role the trade union movement has played in advancing the lives of working people since it was legalised in 1871. It should be remembered that a royal commission in 1867 advocated the legalisation of unions as it would benefit both employees and, crucially, employers. My party believes that instead of pursuing further draconian measures aimed at restricting trade union activity, a speedy inquiry on industrial relations and employee rights should be convened to look into the role trade unions should play in a modern economy and the challenges faced by working people, such as zero-hours contracts, low pay and the increasing lack of workplace rights.

If we are serious about creating a more socially just society, trade unions have a vital role to play. Instead of reducing their influence, I would like to see Government action to increase workplace democracy. In Germany, for instance, in an economy that has outperformed the UK’s over many decades and is more balanced both in terms of industrial sectors and geographical wealth, trade unions play a key economic role in formulating industrial strategy. In the German legal framework of co-determination, representatives also sit on company boards, giving workers a direct say on company strategy and the hiring of management. I would also add that Germany’s decentralist federal governance system has also greatly helped to distribute its economic success more evenly geographically, unlike in the UK.

The Bill has been labelled the biggest attack on trade union activity for 30 years and follows a long line of anti-trade union laws brought in by Conservative Governments, most of which were not overturned by Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there are trade union traditions within many of the political parties, even the Conservative party, which has the equivalent of what can only be described as a “walk out”—a privilege denied to the trade union movement in this country?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that well-made point. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech as the spokesman for the SNP.

By my counting, there were 10 Acts between 1980 and 1996 that attacked the trade unions. The coalition Government, much to their shame, tied in a further assault on trade unions with the issue of trust in politics in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.

The Bill aims to make it more difficult to take industrial action by forcing unions to give further notice before striking, introducing even higher thresholds for successful strike ballots and further restricting the right to picket. I note from elsewhere—this is critical to how the Bill will work—that the Government are minded to allow employers to bring in agency workers in the event of a strike. They are consulting on that currently. The Bill will undermine facility time, which will reduce the ability of union officials to represent their members at work.

The UK has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in the western world. It is a shame that an early priority for the new Government is to bring in another Bill at rapid speed, less than a week after three separate consultations on some of the measures in the Bill were completed. That raises the question of whether the consultations were valid exercises.

The Bill applies to Wales, Scotland and England. It does not apply to Northern Ireland, where employment law is a devolved issue. Regressive measures such as those in the Bill should make progressive politicians and individuals in Wales consider whether the responsibility for these issues should be devolved, instead of being held here in Westminster. I note that the Scottish Government are keen to press ahead with the devolution of employment rights. If these issues were devolved to Wales under a future Plaid Cymru Government, I suggest that there would be an alternative scenario to the one that we are faced with here today with this Bill—a scenario where the role of trade unions in the workplace and public life is enhanced, helping to shape economic and industrial strategy; one where trade unions play a pivotal role in the management structures of the public and private sectors; and one where the pay and conditions of employees are strengthened to resemble European norms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this is not just an attack against one political party and that many organisations have benefited from trade union political funds?

[Richard Burgon]

That is right. One example is the anti-racist organisation HOPE not hate that I have enjoyed campaigning with over many years. The Government who say that they are against red tape and regulation now want the biggest voluntary member group in our country to drown in red tape and bureaucracy—or “blue tape”, as it should indeed be called. What is this obsession with things that could be done electronically being done on paper? Do we want to live in a society where supervisors must be appointed for picket lines, wear a badge or armband, and have to give their names to the police in advance? That is in clause 9.