Technical and Further Education Bill

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 19th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon]

The crucial point is that the vast majority of level 2 and 3 apprentices are paid more than £6.30 an hour, and 90% of them go on to jobs or additional education afterwards.

The apprenticeship programme already supports low-income groups. The funding system gives targeted support to the participation of care leavers, and this year we are making £60 million available to training providers to support take-up by individuals from disadvantaged areas. We are committed to ensuring that high-quality apprenticeships are as accessible as possible to people from all backgrounds. We will take forward the Maynard recommendations for people with learning difficulties and our participation target for black and minority ethnic groups.

With regard to the amendment’s suggestion of a bursary for care leavers, I understand that some young people have greater challenges to overcome. That is why we are providing £1,000 to employers and training providers when they take on care leavers who are under 25. We will also pay 100% of the cost of training for small employers who employ care leavers. There is scope for apprenticeships to benefit social mobility even more. We are working across Government to use the apprenticeship programme to extend opportunities.

I am grateful to Lord Storey for tabling Lords amendment 6, which introduces a new clause into the Bill to require Ofsted to take into account the quality of the careers offer when conducting standard inspections of further education colleges. I welcome the work that Ofsted has already done to sharpen its approach. Matters relating to careers provision feature in all the graded judgments made by Ofsted when inspecting FE and skills providers. Destination data—published in 16 to 18 performance tables for the first time this year—are also becoming an established part of college accountability. Those are important steps.

I pay tribute to the good work that is already being done throughout the FE sector to prepare students for the workplace. Ofsted’s annual report for 2015-16 cites the excellent work of Derby College, which has set up employer academies so that learners benefit throughout their course from a range of activities, including workplace visits, talks from specialist speakers, masterclasses and enterprise activities. However, Ofsted noted in the same report that the quality of information, advice and guidance in FE providers can vary and does not always meet the full range of students’ needs. That is why I want us to take this opportunity to go further.

Lords amendment 6 signals our determination to ensure that every FE student has access to good-quality, dedicated careers advice, which I know this House supports. That is vital if we are to tackle the skills gap and ensure that we make opportunities accessible to everyone. We have proposed some drafting changes to the amendment to ensure that it achieves its intended effect. The amendment makes it clear that in its inspection report Ofsted must comment on the quality of a college’s careers provision. I urge hon. Members to accept the amendment. FE colleges are engines of social mobility, and this is our chance to ensure that students from all backgrounds can access the support they need to get on the ladder of opportunity and to benefit from the best skills education and training.

I will now turn to the amendments that the Government are asking the House to accept without any further amendment. The Government support Lords amendment 2, which requires schools to give education and training providers the opportunity to talk directly to pupils about the approved technical education qualifications and apprenticeships they offer. I would like to place on the record my significant gratitude to Lord Baker of Dorking for tabling the amendment, and for his unstinting support for the Government’s technical education reforms. As I have explained, high-quality careers advice is the first rung on the ladder of opportunity and will play a key part in realising our ambition for high-quality skills education and training. The amendment will strengthen the Bill by ensuring that young people hear much more consistently about the merits of technical education routes and recognise them as worthy career paths. I urge the House to agree to it. I hope that never again when I go around the country will I meet an apprentice who was refused access to the school they were taught in to talk about apprenticeships.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I actually welcome that proposal. We have heard lots of evidence that schools are not allowing FE colleges and apprenticeship providers to access their students and to tell them what the options are post-16. That, of course, is because of the “bums on seats” funding regime for post-16 studies in schools. How are we going to get around the deep-seated culture in schools that prevents careers advisers and others from providing that independent, impartial advice to young people in schools?

[Robert Halfon]

The hon. Gentleman speaks a lot of sense on this issue. Every time I meet an apprentice, wherever I am in the country, I ask them, “Did your school encourage you to do an apprenticeship?” Nine times out of 10, they say that their school taught them nothing about apprenticeships and skills. We have already changed careers advice so that schools have to offer advice that includes apprenticeships and skills. I believe that Lords amendment 2 will make a huge difference, because technical bodies, apprenticeship bodies and university technical colleges will be able to go into schools, and schools will publish policy guidance on this.

I agree that a huge part of this is about cultural change. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always talks about parity of esteem. Until we ensure that we have parity of esteem between skills and technical education and going to university—that is also a wonderful thing to do—we will not achieve the cultural change that the hon. Gentleman talks about.

[Ian Mearns]

There is a problem with that, because training providers themselves have a vested interest—just as much as the schools do—in securing those students for their courses or apprenticeships. Is it not true that we need a much more robust process for the provision of impartial advice and guidance that does not include anyone’s vested interests?

[Robert Halfon]

We are looking at careers guidance in the long term, and at how we can make it more independent and skills-focused. I think that the work of the Careers & Enterprise Company in getting more people to do work experience, along with the money we are investing in these things, will help, but there are no easy answers. There are some great private providers, FE colleges and university technical colleges that I would love to see going into schools. However, I think that this is an important step forward to change the culture and ensure that pupils have the access to learn about apprenticeships and the technical education and skills that they need.

Lords amendment 3 introduces a new clause specifically providing for regulations to be made about the delivery of documents about an insolvent FE body to the registrar, and how those documents are kept and accessed by the public. Essentially, the new clause allows for the proper management of the paperwork of an insolvency procedure for an FE body.

I am pleased that the Government were able to accept amendment 4 in the other place, which deleted the words “if possible” from clause 25(2). The original drafting of subsection (2) was intended to offer reassurance to creditors and the education administrator that the education administration would not continue indefinitely while we waited for the education administrator to achieve the impossible. Instead, it caused concern, both in this House and in the other place, that student protection was in some way lessened. That was not our intention. Having sought the confirmation of lawyers that there was no change to our policy objectives, we were content to delete the words in order to address those concerns.

Lords amendment 5 replaced the original clause in the Bill with a new version in order to fully apply, rather than replicate, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to further education bodies in England and Wales. The new version of clause 40—formerly clause 37 —still allows the court to disqualify any governors whom it finds liable of wrongdoing from being governors, and now also from being company directors in any part of the UK. It fully prevents disqualified individuals from being able to repeat the mistakes they have made in a different way, potentially at the expense of another FE institution. We have amended the clause to close a potential loophole in the Bill and more fully protect learners at FE institutions from the potential actions of any governor who acts recklessly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I am grateful to the Minister. The broader perspective of social mobility is a perfectly reasonable way of going forward. However, to be honest, particularly at a time such as today when we are moving to a general election, I think that most people would be interested in some movement—some jam now rather than a promise of jam possibly in future from the social mobility study. I will come on to talk about other areas where, I am afraid, the Government have moved at, to put it at its kindest, a reasonably glacial pace. That is one of the reasons I am not terribly impressed by the Minister’s argument, although, as I say, I understand and appreciate his commitment to trying to do something.

I want to speak in support of the second part of the amendment, which talks about opening benefits to care leavers by opening up access to a bursary that has traditionally been available only to university students. Young people in local authority care who move into higher education can apply for a one-off bursary of £2,000 from their local authority, and the amendment would enable care leavers who take up apprenticeships to access the same financial support.

I remind the Minister of what the Children’s Society has said. Every year, around 11,000 young people aged 16 or over leave the care of their local authority and begin the difficult transition out of care and into adulthood—to be fair to him, he recognised that in his opening remarks—and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields tabled an amendment to the Children and Social Work Bill to provide such a local offer to care leavers. The Government have a golden opportunity to follow up on that by focusing on support that could be provided by the DWP. I am at a loss to understand why the Government are ignoring this possibility. They could make provision from the apprenticeship levy for local authorities to administer a £2,000 grant to all care leavers.

When care leavers move into independent living they often begin to manage their own budget fully for the first time, and that move may take place earlier for them than for others in their peer group. Remember that a care leaver in year one of an apprenticeship may be, and often is, earning as little as £3.40 an hour before being able to transition to a higher wage in the second year. Evidence from their services and research has revealed how challenging care leavers may find it to manage that budget, because of a lack of financial support and education. As a result, young carers frequently fall into debt and financial difficulty. The Minister really needs to put himself in their shoes. The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson), could tell us all, from his own family’s perspective, how vulnerable young people who come from disturbed and difficult family backgrounds can be.

The question remains: why are the Government not prepared to retain this amendment? Fine words are all very well, but you may know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that according to the old Tudor proverb, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. Just what are the bureaucratic arguments for doing nothing to support hard-working young people and their families—and, even more so, those who do not have families to support them—to fulfil their hopes of better times via an apprenticeship? We talk about parity of esteem between HE students and apprentices, but some of these young people, because of their circumstances, struggle to have a strong sense of self-esteem.

Why have the Government not moved on this? Once again, why have the consultations with the DWP not taken place? Was the Minister nobbled by No. 10 trusties or by those in his own Department, in the same way as Department for Education Ministers seem to have led us down the garden path of reforms to GCSE resits only to slam the door shut? I say as gently as I can to the Minister that if the Government do not retain the amendment, people will know that the Government’s rhetoric has been somewhat hollow, and apprentices and their families will suffer.

I join the Minister in supporting amendment 2, which was carried in the Lords, and I also want to talk about amendment 6. The lack of parity of esteem for apprentices starts at an early age, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) illustrated in his useful and constructive exchange with the Minister, the rhetoric on careers advice still does not match the painful reality that faces many young people.

The reality is that careers advice has been devastated over the last Parliament and since 2010, certainly at a local level, and young people who want to take a vocational and apprenticeship route are in danger of being short-changed again in their careers advice. Despite the work of the Careers & Enterprise Company, which is still in its infancy, support in schools remains poor. Careers England—the trade body for careers advice and guidance—and the Career Development Institute have confirmed to me recently that in their view, nothing has greatly changed. They estimate that only a third of schools can adequately deliver careers advice. Taken alongside the shortage of careers advisers and the fact that the remaining advisers earn far less than they used to, it adds up to a very difficult position.

That is one of the reasons why last November the co-chairs of the Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy, the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), said that the Government had been complacent over careers advice. They said:

“The Government’s lack of action to address failings in careers provision is unacceptable and its response to our report smacks of complacency.”

I know that the Minister challenges that strongly, and I know that he has put on record that the Government are working towards a thorough careers strategy in that respect. But we have to deal with the situation as it is today, not with what it might be under a careers strategy developed by whatever Government are around at the end of the year.

In the survey conducted by the Industry Apprentice Council last year, just 42% of respondents found out about apprenticeships from school or college, and using one’s own initiative remained by far the most common way for a young person to discover apprenticeships. The council also said that there needed to be a change in careers information, advice and guidance because the proportion of respondents who said that theirs had been very poor remained high across the three surveys.

That is why the House of Lords has produced these two quite detailed and comprehensive amendments; those overall issues are not being addressed. Strong careers guidance is critical to promoting apprenticeships in schools. If we are to make a success of the institute, it is crucial that young people are alerted early enough in their school life to the importance and attraction of technical routes. That is one of the things that amendment 2 from the other House, which we supported, makes very clear.

If the Minister does not think that the Lords amendment on careers advice is necessary, perhaps he would like to explain just how and when the Government are going to get a grip on the existing fractured landscape of careers advice revealed by his own Department. Last month—it was not bedtime reading, so I will not be surprised if hon. Members have not read it—the Department for Education published a research report, “An economic evaluation of the National Careers Service”. The report was produced by London Economics, which was originally commissioned by the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to evaluate the impact of the National Careers Service.

The National Careers Service has changed considerably during the five years since it was introduced by the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I had the benefit of discussions with him at the time, and he was very clear when it started that the National Careers Service would principally be for the over-24s. That process has changed. I am not necessarily criticising that, but the process has certainly migrated in an unplanned fashion. The National Careers Service website says that anyone aged 13 and over can have access to the data, and that adults aged 19 and over can have access to one-to-one support. The problem is that only 15% to 22% of the customers—again, I am taking statistics from a report that the Government have commissioned—were referred by Jobcentre Plus, while the remainder were self-referring. Does that not speak volumes about the lack of joined-up government between the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions?

[Ian Mearns]

In some respects, my hon. Friend is actually being generous to the Government. I do not believe that the careers service as it existed has been decimated; I believe it has been laid waste by the Government’s policy since 2010. We really need to get back to youngsters having independent and impartial advice and guidance on their future career available to them. Without such independence and impartiality, we could unfortunately get back to having those with vested interests giving advice to young people. I remember the late Malcolm Wicks referring to this in the 1990s, when he said that much of the advice given to young people about their future careers was akin to pensions mis-selling because the service was packed with vested interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and the shadow Minister for their speeches. I understand that the hon. Member for Southport is stepping down. He is an experienced Member of the House, and I send him every good wish for the future.

To answer the hon. Gentleman we are essentially accepting de facto Lords amendment 6, which was suggested by Lord Storey. We have just made it tighter for legal reasons and, in fact, stronger. Ofsted will now be required to comment on college careers offers in its reports. However, we accept the principle of Lords amendment 6.

I set out earlier the Government’s position that the majority of the Lords amendments serve to strengthen the measures in the Bill and ensure their success in practice. I urge hon. Members to accept all the amendments made in the Lords, with the exception of Lords amendment 1. As I explained earlier, that amendment is subject to financial privilege and I ask Members to reject it on that basis, while noting the work I have set out, which demonstrates our commitment to finding the most effective ways to address barriers and support the disadvantaged into apprenticeships.

The shadow Minister said, in essence, that we should put our money where our mouth is. It is worth remembering that we have 900,000 apprentices at the moment, which is the highest on record, and that 25% of apprentices come from the poorest fifth of areas. The Careers & Enterprise Company has more than 1,300 enterprise advisers going into schools, and they are set to target something like 250,000 students in 75% of the career coldspots in the country. The National Careers Service is there to give careers advice and CV advice, and to provide personal contact either face to face, over the telephone or on the internet. The bodies have different roles.

I ask Members to accept our amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 6, on which many noble Lords spoke. I spoke earlier of the positive activity at Derby College. It is by no means the only college taking active steps to provide high-quality careers advice to students. I have seen incredible work in my own college in Harlow and in Gateshead in the north-east of England. We want to ensure that all young people can access such support, and I ask Members to support that ambition by accepting the amendment in lieu.

[Ian Mearns]

I know that the Minister is determined and full of good intentions, but good intentions do not provide sound careers advice and guidance to young people who are in the system now. We need to see more urgency from the Government in backing up his decent intentions, to make sure that young people get the impartial advice and guidance they so deeply need as soon as possible.

[Robert Halfon]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman our intention. Given the financial climate, £90 million is no small sum of money to spend on careers, predominantly with the Careers & Enterprise Company, which has enterprise advisers going into schools. There is £20 million for mentoring services in schools. As I mentioned, enterprise advisers are going up and down the country to coldspots. The National Careers Service alone is getting more than £75 million this year to advise on careers. That is real financial backing for two very important services.

[Ian Mearns]

I am listening to the Minister. I was a member of the National Careers Service national association board prior to the invention of Connexions. I seem to remember that the national budget for careers at that time was something like £130 million. That was more than 15 years ago. In the current climate, the figures the Minister is talking about are inadequate.

[Robert Halfon]

Given the financial climate, the £90 million to be spent predominantly with the Careers & Enterprise Company and the £77 million that is going to the National Careers Service this year alone are sizeable sums of money. As I have said, we are developing a careers strategy. Obviously the election is occurring, but I hope very much that we will see careers with much more of a skills focus, and do much more work in schools on mentoring and on work experience.

I have said that the Bill is a Ronseal Bill. It is very much part of our reforms to create an apprenticeships and skills nation and to give millions of young people the ladder of opportunity to get the jobs, security and prosperity that they need. It is a Bill to ensure that technical education is held in the regard it deserves. In the unlikely event of a college insolvency, students will be protected. The measures in the Bill make vital changes to support young people to build the essential skills that our nation needs, and they provide the right support to enable young people to climb that ladder. Many Members on both sides of the House and in the other place have spoken in support of that ambition, and I take this opportunity to thank them for their ongoing commitment to the Bill and for supporting all our young people to reach their potential.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

New Grammar Schools

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

We will set out our policies much more broadly, but I assure hon. Members that there will be no return to the past. This is about moving forward with a 21st-century approach to our school system, and precisely not one rooted in the 1960s and 1970s. I just hope that the Labour party is able to engage in a modern debate, rather than one that is 40 to 50 years old.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

In the clamour from some areas about creating new grammar schools, many people forget that the creation of new grammar schools de facto creates secondary modern schools, because the intake is skewed by grammar schools. In his speech to London Councils on Monday, the chief inspector accepted that grammar schools, where they exist, do “a fine job” with the intake they have, but said that they have a very poor track record in admitting youngsters from “non-middle-class backgrounds”. If we are to go down this road, what can the Secretary of State do to confirm that that would not be the case in other parts of the country?

[Justine Greening]

That again underlines why we are right to open up this agenda for debate. In a way, we will not be able to tackle any of the issues that the hon. Gentleman cares about without a broader look at what a modern policy approach to grammars should look like. We should not simply discount the excellent education that so many children get at grammars, including children from very disadvantaged backgrounds. We should look harder at how we can make sure that grammars play a role more collaboratively in a wider, broader school system, while ensuring that they build capacity and provide more good places as they steadily improve.

School Funding

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Again, this is an incredibly fundamental and important issue. I simply assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the need to ensure that, alongside all the other changes that are rippling through the education system, we have enough places for the children of our country, that we have enough teachers who can be in those classrooms teaching them, and that those teachers are outstanding and excellent and able to excite children in the classroom, help them learn and give them that best start in life.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her place. I am sure that she is looking forward to her appearances before the Education Committee, probably starting in the autumn.

Fairer funding inherently means a process of redistribution, and many schools, heads and governors whose budgets are already at the margins and who are possibly looking forward to a 1.5% per pupil cut will be looking at that with real trepidation, particularly if they are already in receipt of tight budgets. There is a great deal of social need in an awful lot of schools in constituencies such as mine. It is mainly a shire county appeal that has come from the f40, and an awful lot of schools in the inner cities are wondering whether they will be on the receiving end of a cut.

[Justine Greening]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I underline the rationale behind why we introduced the pupil premium in the first place, which was to address many of the points that he has made. His comments underline why I am setting out this statement today. It is a substantial change in funding for all schools and therefore, ultimately, we need to get it right.

“Educational Excellence Everywhere”: Academies

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for the conversations we have had. Yes, of course—this is all about lifting standards and making sure no child is in a school that is failing or underperforming. Of course, if a child is in a good school being supported by a strong local authority, I want the authority to get on with doing that.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The chief inspector said he looked forward to a more diverse system, but how will changing all schools to the same system, as in the Secretary of State’s vision, make things more diverse? How will killing off the alternatives—our local education authorities, which are being denied the funds to provide the services that have improved schools in boroughs such as mine—facilitate improvement in the future? Lastly, what will happen to schools that are languishing in poor, failing academy trusts?

[Nicky Morgan]

I think there were three questions in that one question, but I will give the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Education Committee, the benefit of the doubt. First, let me answer his last question. We take swift action in any academies that are failing. Regional schools commissioners have already brokered over 100 schools and issued 94 warning notices. However, the hon. Gentleman’s question shows a worrying lack of understanding of what we are doing. There has been a one-size-fits-all system—and that was local education authority control. We are now saying that there will be freedom for schools to decide the right future for them; that could be continuing in a strong, supportive local authority, but it could also be converting into a stand-alone academy or joining a small local cluster, a bigger multi-academy trust or a diocesan trust. Schools are free to make the decision that is right for them and their pupils.

Education Funding in London

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. I want a fair system based on principle in which need is assessed, and where the money follows the pupil and that need. That is precisely what all of us should want.

Given that the Government have set out, in a transparent way, how to bring about this fairer funding formula, the suggestions that have been made are for political purposes; I know there are elections for London Mayor tomorrow. The House should rise above that. If the details come out and they are found not to fit with the principles, they will be worthy of criticism, but right now, such criticism cannot be made. When we have a badly broken system, the failure to demonstrate how it should be changed is not good enough.

What we should be talking about now is what emphasis we want to be placed on deprivation, for example, or population movements. Those things are all reflected in the proposed formula. The Government have touched on all of them. I do not see how it is acceptable to say, “We have a problem with a lot of people for whom English is a second language”, when that features in the formula. It is the same with deprivation needs in London—that, too, is in the proposed formula. The truth is that we have the ingredients for a fair system.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I give way to my extremely experienced and knowledgeable north-eastern colleague.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are many different facets to the differential funding around the country, and one of them is the historical choices of the relevant local authority. We used to have what was called the standard spending assessment, and some authorities chose to spend above the standard level. They funded the extra out of local taxation, which was built into the funding taken forward into the current distribution. It is one part of many facets, but it is a crucial part.

[Graham Stuart]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and well-informed point. Westminster has been mentioned, so let us look at that as an example. People in very expensive properties are paying council tax rates that are absolutely on the floor; their rates should be compared with those paid by my constituents living in homes worth a tiny fraction of the value of those in Westminster to see how much more those constituents are paying.

It does not wash to suggest that a fairer funding system is undermined because people paid more or less council tax in the distant past. The truth is that there are very high levels of council tax in many of the areas, including my own, that have the lowest funding, while there are very low levels of council tax in some of the richest and most prosperous parts of London. What we need is a system that is fair to all.

[Ian Mearns]

rose—

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a delight to follow the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). We all seem to agree that there is no point in trying to compete on bleeding stumps and regions by saying, “My stump is more bleeding than yours.” We know that there are enormous issues in rural communities, seaside communities and across cities outside London. However, we are here to talk about London schools and how very proud we are of them. As others have given examples from their constituencies, may I say that Haringey schools are among the most improved in the country, particularly at GCSE level? We know that 43% of pupils on free school meals in Haringey achieved five A* to C grades at GCSE level in the 2014-15 academic year, which is significantly above the national average of 33.1%, and 50% of Haringey’s pupils are eligible for free school meals. Our ranking has gone up to 44th in the country from its position of 90th some years ago. The theme here is continuous improvement and the nub of the matter is that we do not want it to stop.

[Ian Mearns]

The point my hon. Friend is making exemplifies why we do not need any rounding down, anywhere across the country. We are getting real evidence that the right systems, the right approaches and the right innovation, backed by the right investment, can bring school improvement to every child in the country.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: it is about believing in every single child in our country, regardless of where they live, what language may be spoken at home or whatever other background they may have. On that point, may I mention the high number of students who have a particular educational need? I am sure that the excellent civil servants will have taken into account in their formula the fact that a lot of children face both language difficulties and other educational needs in London, and many of them come to our advice surgeries. There is nothing more tragic than hearing the stories of certain children who have had a difficult journey through school. I hope that that is reflected in the funding formula. We know that sustaining educational outcomes and improvements in all schools are essential across the piece, and that a reduction in funding would put all of that at risk. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber talking about the productivity puzzle, and we know that education is crucial to understanding why, in terms of our productivity, we as a nation are not doing as well as some of our comparative neighbours. Much of that comes down to our basic skills.

Let me provide one further example from my constituency—a Wood Green primary school. The Trinity Primary Academy required improvement the last time that Ofsted visited, but now 86% of its pupils achieve level 4 or above at key stage 2. I am so very proud of those children, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is too, because many of them live in his constituency. When we go to the schools, we tell the children that we are very proud of them and that we talk about them all the time in this Chamber, and they seem to respond to that.

I will be brief, as I know that others wish to speak. Housing has been mentioned. We know that a deposit for a home in London is £91,000, which is far beyond the average starting wage of a teacher, which is between £20,000 and £30,000. We know that recruitment challenges are likely to be on the horizon, particularly for leadership and senior roles, both at a regional and a national level. The report “Building the Leadership Pool in London Schools”, which was published in November 2015, found that 58% of headteachers in London-based schools are considering leaving their role in the next three years and that 44% of governors in London schools are reporting difficulties in attracting good candidates for senior roles. We have all learned from the school improvement lessons of the past 20 years that school outcomes are very much down to the leadership in schools. I am talking about the wonderful outcomes, the wonderful school exam results and those wonderful smiles on the faces of children when we visit them in August, take photographs of them and praise them up to the heavens. It is a wonderful experience as an MP or an elected representative.

Finally, we have unique challenges in London. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) talked in detail about mobility, which we are very keen to see reflected in the funding formula. There is also English as an additional language, looked-after children, of whom there are many in London, the high levels of deprivation and the population growth. We know that, due to the wonderfully fertile families that we have in London—our baby boom—we have an 8.2% growth, compared with an overall reduction nationally of 0.2%. Although we delight in having a young city, it is a pressure that creates costs within the system and they should be reflected in the funding formula. Forecasts show that the pupil growth rate in London over the six years from 2012 is twice that of any other region and that, by 2017-18, pupil numbers in London are expected to have increased by 18%, which is considerable. There is also the mobility issue and teacher retention.

As we are coming to the end of the Session, may I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the very best for tomorrow and Friday?

Schools White Paper

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I will, and I recognise that there will be challenges for smaller schools in taking on the responsibilities of becoming stand-alone academy trusts, and we look forward to working with Members across the House on that.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Point 4.49 on page 65 of the White Paper states:

“The role of parents is crucial…Our approach puts parents and children first, not through symbolic representation on a governing board, but through engagement with schools.”

What conclusion are parents meant to come to when the experience of parent governors over three decades is wrapped up in the world “symbolic”?

[Nicky Morgan]

The conclusion they will draw, one which I will come on to, is that we want parents to be engaged not just via governing bodies but through parent councils, through the ability to make complaints and be involved in their child’s education, and through being aware of how their child is taught. There are many more ways, in addition to being parent governors, that they can be engaged.

Further Education

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joan Ryan]

rose—

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

rose—

Trade Union Bill

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the Bill’s provisions on opting in to, rather than out of, the political fund. There has for many years been a gentlemen’s agreement that political funding should be decided on a cross-party basis. Many Conservative Members would agree that this is not the type of Bill into which they should insert a clause which would so greatly restrict the finances of an opposing party that it would struggle to fight a general election. As well as tackling the issue of dissent, the Bill is an attempt to ensure that the Opposition do not even have the finances to fight. It is about the Conservatives believing that they have the right to rule—not govern, but rule, and that is quite different.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I cannot help reflecting on the comments of the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who said that legislation should be appropriate to the time. We are in a time when industrial action in this country is at an all-time low. What problem to do with industrial action is the Bill trying to sort out?

[Ian Lavery]

We are in a time when more than a million people, most of them in work, are claiming family tax credits, and more than a million people who are in work and have families need to use food banks. I mentioned gagging and eradicating dissent. The Bill is about keeping people quiet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

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

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

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

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

[Ian Mearns]

Perhaps it is regrettable that, having consulted on the matter, the Government have now withdrawn their proposal to outlaw secondary or wildcat tweeting. [Laughter.] Does my hon. Friend also agree that the evidence from the Police Federation and the National Police Chiefs Council made it clear that even the police do not want this legislation?

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed; the fact that they did not want it was clear from the evidence of the Police Federation in particular. Satire is a powerful tool, and even when the Government make proposals that are apparently beyond satire, my hon. Friend manages to make a good point with his remark about wildcat tweeting.

Picketing will now be lawful only if unions appoint a picket supervisor and notify the police of their name and contact details. The supervisors will be required to carry a letter of authorisation which must be shown to the employers or their representatives on demand. It is also astonishing that they will still be required to wear armbands to identify themselves. Sara Ogilvie of Liberty said the following during the oral evidence sessions:

“The thought that we would require a person in 2015 to wear an armband and carry a letter of authorisation at the behest of the state in order to exercise their rights does not seem right.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c.58, Q157.]

She was understating it. Any person with a feeling for freedom and liberty would feel uneasy at these provisions. They smack of a political culture alien to that which, whatever our political differences in this place, is normally shared across parties in this country. Why do trade unions engaged in a lawful trade dispute deserve to be singled out for what I can only describe as un-British treatment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Depending on the union, unions can have several political funds. For example, Unison does, which goes back to agreements made when the National Union of Public Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association amalgamated.

[Ian Mearns]

Don’t forget COHSE.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

They amalgamated with the Confederation of Health Service Employees, as my hon. Friend says. The legislation does not recognise internal agreements that have been reached over decades.

Trade Union Bill (Ninth sitting)

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Stephens]

I reiterate the comments I made on clause 9. This is a bad Bill and this is a bad clause. As the shadow Minister has outlined, we now know the wider implications.

I wish to confine my observations to the comments made by the Minister on Thursday, which he has followed up in writing. First, it appeals to my dry sense of humour that, having rejected amendments on publishing percentages, the Minister writes to us with percentages, in the letter on spending. I am encouraged by that and I hope the Minister will go back and consider publishing percentages on facility time.

The Committee owes a debt of gratitude to the shadow Minister for skilfully wheedling out of the Minister the prospect of the Secretary of State for Health dictating to devolved Administrations on the level of facility time. Presumably the same applies to local government. I am willing to wager that the Minister has not thought through the implications for local governments that have agreements with devolved Administrations on funding and powers through agreements or concordats. It leaves the public with the impression of a Government who conduct first-rate bullying, only days after they declared some Members second class, by a third-rate Administration whose casual approach to legislation does not even provide them with the foresight to realise the constitutional crisis they are sprinting towards.

In no other case do the UK Government have such powers to interfere or dictate to a devolved Administration how to conduct their affairs. The fact that the Government do not consider a legislative consent motion to be appropriate in these circumstances is either remarkable ignorance, gross incompetence or simply the act of a bully. This is dangerous terrain for the Government. I hope the Minister declares what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations surrounding the reserve powers in the clause, and how they will be enacted.

These proposals are being made in the context of the Scotland and Wales Bills, which have still to conclude their parliamentary journey. It seems extraordinary that the Government can reveal their intentions at the last stages of this process. As the shadow Minister said on Thursday, creating reserve powers signals the intent to use them. The Minister must tell us what, if any, discussions he has had in that regard.

I signal our support for amendment 101. There are clear contractual obligations, and there will be clear costs to public sector employers, which will have to issue new statements of particulars or new contracts to public sector employees.

The proportion of spending on facility time is extremely low, as the Minister confirmed in his letter. Will the Government consider democratic mandates? The Conservative share of the vote at the general election in Scotland was the lowest since universal suffrage. The Conservatives have no mandate in that regard. I was considering whether to press amendment 85 to a Division but, because of the correspondence that we have received, I now feel obliged to do so.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. In the context of clauses 12 and 13, I have been remiss in not declaring a non-financial interest in as much as I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, which is the umbrella body for local authorities in England and Wales.

Clause 13 includes a Henry VIII power whereby Ministers will be able to use secondary legislation to push through restrictions on or to repeal the right to paid time off for trade union duties in the public sector contained in primary legislation, and Parliament will have very limited opportunity to debate or amend such regulations. It is worrying that Ministers are taking such powers unto themselves and, in essence, sidelining Parliament from effective overview and scrutiny of their actions.

The clause demonstrates the Government’s total lack of understanding of the practice of good industrial relations. First, the clause is, in effect, a blank cheque for the Government: if passed, it would give Ministers the power to limit facilities for trade union officials. It contains no explanation of how or why that power would be exercised, and it certainly provides no logic or justification.

Secondly, the provision applies only to the public sector, just like the provision to record time off for facility time, and we need to ask ourselves why that is. First and foremost, like bad employers, this Government feel it is appropriate to threaten and intimidate their own workforce. Of course, the other people who will be affected by the measure are not directly the Government’s workforce but people who work for other public bodies such as local authorities, local government and the emergency services—public servants. The main reason why the provision does not apply to the private sector is because private sector employers do not really want it.

Good employers know and understand the value of working together with their workers and with trade unions. Good employers know and understand that their greatest assets are the good people who work for them. Good employers invest in their workers—they pay them well, train them and reward them; they do all they can to encourage loyalty and dedication. They try to retain their workforce because it costs a lot of money to train staff in a range of different skills and professions. That is why the best employers work in partnership with their workers, and it is why they encourage independent trade unions.

Trade union officials are an integral part of the best companies, working tirelessly to improve relations, productivity and profits. Trade unions know and understand that workers prosper only in growing, profitable firms.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the review of facilities and facility time conducted by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in 2007? The report concluded that the work of union representatives actually reduces the number of cases proceeding to an employment tribunal and the number of working days lost due to workplace injury and workplace-related illness, and that such reductions result in significant financial savings.

[Ian Mearns]

Yes, I was aware of that, but I thank the hon. Lady for bringing it to the Committee’s attention, because it certainly helps to make the point that I am pursuing.

Clearly, there is a vision of trade unions that this Government do not understand, and that vision is shared by many private sector employers. Unfortunately, this Government see trade unions as the enemy within. They still hark back to the miners’ strike of 1984-85 and to the 1970s, when, we all accept, industrial relations in this country could have been a lot better. However, we are not in the 1970s; it is 2015, and the landscape of industrial relations is very different.

I have been a trade unionist all my adult life. On my second day of employment with British Gas I asked the personnel department how I could see a union official to sign up for my union membership, and I joined the National and Local Government Officers’ Association—NALGO—which is now part of Unison. I think that NALGO was an acronym for “Not A Lot Going On”—[Laughter.] I have been a trade unionist all my adult life, and I had the honour of working with many very decent and honourable union officers, both full-time officials and lay officials who were elected by their peers in the workplace.

I have also been an employer; I was deputy leader of Gateshead Council. Back in the days before we had the severe and harsh cuts that we currently have to go through, we had something like 11,000 employees in Gateshead. They covered a whole spectrum of different professions, providing public services for the people of the borough and the constituency that I represent. We prided ourselves on having good industrial relations and having good dialogue with our workforce on a regular basis. There were of course times when there were problems, but we managed to talk through the vast majority of those problems through good, robust and—on occasion—friendly industrial relations.

I have been above that as well; I have also chaired a national negotiating committee of the LGA called the Soulbury committee. We looked after the interests of advisers for schools, educational psychologists and other professionals of that nature. I therefore have an understanding of the strategic role that employers play in good industrial relations.

The Government need to understand why business is not that keen on these provisions. For instance, they should read Personnel Today, the journal for human resources professionals and practitioners. An article in that journal states that:

“You can have the most sophisticated industrial relations structures, follow all the rules and negotiate ad infinitum, but you will get nowhere if your relationships with staff and their union reps aren’t based on trust”.

It continues:

“This was abundantly clear during the recent civil service industrial action and the narrowly averted strike at British Airways (BA). We see this time and again. An organisation might call us in because it can’t get an agreement signed off, or the process has become too uncomfortable for both sides. What we frequently find when we get there is a climate of mistrust, entrenched ideas, and even outright hostility between union and management, employer and worker.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Look at Co-operative Financial Services, where we recently facilitated a management/union agreement over outsourcing—one of the most sensitive industrial relations issues over the past five years. Similarly at Gillette where, faced with redundancies, the business consulted with employees at the earliest opportunity and asked the staff representatives for alternative proposals, how to approach the situation and what the final redundancy package should contain. Larger, more complex organisations can learn from these successes”.

The UK Government need to learn lessons from the real world. Instead of fighting the ideological battles of the last century, they need to start equipping this country with legislation that fosters and supports good practice, and supports workers and their representatives. The legislation needs to recognise not only that it is right and fair to support the weakest and the most vulnerable but that, ultimately, as the best employers have repeatedly demonstrated, it is good for business too.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to be starting what I hope will be the final day under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Sometimes during this debate it strikes me that the two sides of the Committee are discussing completely different pieces of legislation. Both Opposition parties portray the Bill as one of the most egregious attacks on fundamental human rights since King John, whereas I would describe it as, to borrow a phrase from the previous speaker, a NALGO Bill, in that there is not a lot going on.

What the Government are proposing here is nothing more than a set of provisions that seek to change behaviour within the public sector. After all, the public sector is funded by taxpayers: they go out to work to earn money and they pay taxes, so they have a right to see that money spent responsibly. We hope that, in the light of public scrutiny of the information relating to facility time that public sector employers will be required to publish under clause 12, public sector employers will voluntarily renegotiate their existing facility time arrangements with trade unions and bring their spending on taxpayer-funded facility time under control.

We could, of course, have legislated now for a cap, so the idea that the clause, to cite another famous monarch, is a Henry VIII measure, an egregious attack, is false. We have heard a lot about the constitution in recent hours. We could have legislated for a cap now and no doubt the Opposition would have attacked that. We have taken the more modest route of suggesting reserve powers, which—the clue is in the name—will be kept in reserve and used only as the last resort. Only if transparency shows unacceptable inefficiencies in relevant employer spending on facility time and poor value for money for taxpayers from existing facility time arrangements with trade unions will Ministers set a cap on the time and money spent on facility time.

Amendment 101 would prevent the reserve powers being exercised so as to effect changes to a contract of employment or collective agreement, or limit the relevant employer’s discretion as to the contents of the contract or agreement concerned. The amendment would, in effect, neuter any consequential provision that regulations could make amending or otherwise modifying contracts of employment or collective agreements. As I have said, it is by no means certain that the reserve powers will ever be exercised and, should they be exercised, it is also by no means certain that this would interfere with, or override, existing contractual rights and rights under collective agreements. Most union representatives do not have contractual rights to facility time over and above their statutory rights, which we are not seeking to change.

--- Later in debate ---

That shows the ideological origin of these proposals. No one knew what that manifesto statement meant, and what we now see goes far beyond any reform by completely recasting the role of the certification officer and transforming it into something entirely different.

[Ian Mearns]

I was interested to see a TV interview this morning in which the former editor of Conservative Home suggested that the provisions with which the Government are having problems in the House of Lords were in their manifesto, but that as they did not expect to win the election, they did not expect to have to enact many things that were in that manifesto. That theory is very interesting, as it is possible that the Government did not expect to have to enact the Bill.

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I think that we will see more of that during this Parliament.

What was the inspiration for the changes? The Government propose to give the certification officer a whole armoury of weapons. They will be able to investigate, demand documents, demand explanations and start proceedings, which they themselves will hear, acting as prosecutor and judge, before giving a verdict and delivering a sentence. They will be able to impose a fine and, as we heard in evidence, a quasi-criminal sanction. This is an extraordinary attack on the rule of law.

Certification officers’ powers will be extended into areas that have historically been way outside the remit of the role. The CO’s role is to regulate the internal workings of unions and their relationship with their members. That is clear from the existing jurisdictions and procedures involving complaints by union members. The certification officer’s website states that his role is to

“maintain a list of trade unions…ensure compliance with statutory requirements for annual returns…determine complaints concerning trade union elections…rules”

and trade union mergers,

“oversee the political funds”

and

“certify the independence of trade unions”.

That work involves seven staff, and the net cost of the certification officer’s office, according to his most recent annual report of July this year, was £560,232. That represents a 3.7% decrease. Hon. Members might think that that is good value for money, yet the Government want to increase massively bureaucracy, cost and intrusion.

I also note from the annual report that in March 2015, the certification officer’s premises were found to be structurally unsafe. I fear that the proposals in the Bill are equally structurally unsafe. No longer will the CO’s role be confined to legitimate complaints that are not ruled out as scandalous, vexatious, hopeless or misconceived. The real purpose of the proposals was revealed in the questions from the hon. Member for Banbury to Professor Ewing in Committee on the afternoon of 15 October. The hon. Lady envisaged the certification officer being required to take action at the behest of

“someone with a legitimate cause for complaint—someone who is affected by strike action…The certification officer himself might be able to take a view that it was appropriate to investigate non-compliance.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 131, Q352-354.]

Professor Ewing was understandably perplexed by that question, as even the certification officer’s expanded role would not encompass non-compliance with industrial action requirements, yet it is clear that Government Members believe that it should, and that the certification officer should act as a state enforcer who steps in at the behest of any individual to interfere in the workings of trade unions. One can imagine that the Conservative party’s friends in the TaxPayers Alliance will be keen to waste more public money and resources by pestering the certification officer on all manner of issues and seeking enforcement orders on unions, especially in the light of the oppressive reporting requirements on industrial action and political funds.

The situation shows that the Government and Conservative Members are proceeding on the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and of the role of a certification officer. They are creating a bloated and distorted role that undermines the independence of the office and offends universally accepted legal principles. As a final insult, they will require trade unions to pay for the privilege. Under the Conservatives, we are used to attacks on trade unions, but now we will have an open-ended tax on trade unions—a blank cheque—on which unions will have no say and no control. It is taxation without representation at its most extreme, enabling ideologically motivated complaints to target union resources. It is another direct, politically driven attack on the finances of unions and their capacity to represent their members.

[Jo Stevens]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that shows the inconsistencies throughout the Bill.

I hope that the Government will rethink their proposals on the certification officer. I believe that they should be withdrawn, as they are pernicious, and that the current role of the certification officer, which is widely respected, should be retained. To do otherwise betrays a disdain for independence, impartiality, fairness and, most importantly, the rule of law.

[Ian Mearns]

I rise to support the amendments. The clause will increase substantially the investigation powers of the certification officer, giving him or her powers to investigate the activities of a union even when a complaint has not been received from a member of that union, or from any trade union member at all. Surely the provision completely misses the point of a trade union certification officer’s role. Trade unions are independent organisations whose function is to represent the interests of their members. Whether or not this Government approve of trade unions, the fact remains that they perform a legitimate—some would say essential—role within a free society.

The certification officer performs a vital role, but that role does not and should not involve attacking the rights of trade unions and their members who, after all—apologies to my colleagues from north of the border—are citizens of the United Kingdom. The role of the certification officer is to protect the rights of trade union members by ensuring that unions operate openly, democratically and at all times in the interests of their members. The guidance on the Bill describes the provision as giving the certification officer new enforcement powers so that action can be taken without the need for an application or complaint from a member to be received first. The certification officer will therefore be able to investigate and take enforcement action in a number of areas where that is currently not possible or appropriate. In particular, the guidance states:

“For example the Certification Officer could act upon information or concerns he had received from a third party or on his own initiative.”

That provision is totally unacceptable in a free society.

There are more than 6 million trade union members in the UK. They are all intelligent and fully capable of raising a complaint or concern with the certification officer if they have a problem with their trade union. Why does the certification officer need powers to act when not one single trade union member raises a concern? On whose complaint or on whose authority will the certification officer act? We all know on exactly whose authority that will be. Every scare story and sensationalist headline in the “Daily Wail” or the “Daily Hexpress” will be followed up. Six million members may be completely content and satisfied, but the editor of the “Daily Wail” screaming about Len McCluskey, Sir Paul Kenny or Dave Prentis having the bare-faced audacity to stand up for their members will in future be the subject of a full investigation. That is a total waste of time, and the costs of such investigations will be passed on to the trade unions, which will have no alternative but to pay.

[Chris Stephens]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provision could lead to more malicious complaints being sent to the certification officer? It could lead to fascist organisations making complaints about the funding of anti-racist groups.

[Ian Mearns]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Once enacted, the provision will give the certification officer the right, or possibly even the duty, to act on any complaint, no matter its source. That is a matter of grave concern. The provision is concerning and an expensive waste of time for trade unions.

As a means of restricting the rights of trade unions and their members, the provision is nothing short of disgraceful, and that has been borne out by the evidence from a whole range of international organisations and lawyers representing many interests. The provision will turn the certification officer’s role from one of protecting trade union members into one that is highly political. They may be forced to react to politicians and newspaper editors, instead of members. Where the certification officer becomes the investigating power, they will become judge and jury over trade unions, their members and officials. Trade union members—the ones we are all concerned about with the Bill—will have to foot the bill while having no easy mechanism to hold the certification officer to account for their actions.

[Nick Boles]

The Government believe that it is entirely appropriate for a modern regulator to be able to investigate properly when non-compliance with statutory requirements is suspected. The idea is nothing new, as the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission have investigation powers that can be used proactively when they suspect a breach.

The powers are important because we want the certification officer to be able to determine as quickly and efficiently as possible whether there is a problem so that that can be swiftly remedied. If no problem is found, the quicker the doubts, representations and complaints can be dismissed, which is better for everyone concerned, including unions, employers and the public. The Bill therefore extends the certification officer’s investigatory powers into a number of areas: political funds; union mergers; union leadership elections; and the appointment of a person to, or the failure to remove a person from, a union office when they have been convicted of certain financial offences. To ensure that all the certification officer’s investigatory powers are set out in one place in statute, the Bill also replicates not-yet-commenced investigatory powers in relation to statutory requirements to maintain an accurate register of members’ names and addresses.

We want the certification officer to have investigatory powers in those areas because they relate to statutory requirements that are not only of concern to union members, but of wider relevance to the general public. Members of the public need the assurance that unions are complying with statutory requirements, and they will be given that assurance if the certification officer is able to investigate of his own volition. The investigatory powers will also allow the officer to bring in additional resources or specialist knowledge, should an investigation prove complex and technical. That will give them flexibility when choosing an appropriate inspector, including a third party, to deal with such investigations and then resolve them swiftly and effectively. It will also assist their ability to manage the certification office’s workload, should there be a sudden spike in cases.

The enhanced investigatory powers that we are giving to the certification officer are not entirely new; they are based on those that he already has in relation to a union’s financial affairs. The powers have been exercised fairly and proportionately in the past, and there is no reason to believe that that would not continue to be the case for the certification officer’s enhanced investigatory powers. We believe that the investigatory powers are necessary to ensure that there is robust and effective regulation of trade unions. Effective regulation promotes public confidence.

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister seems to be implying that there is zero chance of the certification officer being a political appointment in future.

[Nick Boles]

There is no proposal to change the appointment procedure for the certification officer. As the hon. Member for Cardiff Central reminded us, the appointment is made in consultation with ACAS. I remind the Committee that ACAS is currently run by Brendan Barber, the former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress. The idea that we are going to be able to stuff in some political stooge is somewhat far-fetched, like almost everything that Opposition Members have said during the Committee.

On amendments 69, 70 and 71, I am happy to reassure Members that a union will continue to have the opportunity to present its case in written representations to the certification officer before a declaration is made. The officer may also allow the union to make oral representations. That right will also apply before the certification officer issues a financial penalty or conditional financial penalty. In practice, a union may have several chances to reply to any allegations and put forward a defence. Any inspector appointed is likely to make a series of enquiries, which will include dealing with the union directly, before providing their report to the certification officer.

Finally, the union will be able to appeal a certification officer’s decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. That will ensure that a union has the opportunity to make further representations to an independent tribunal should it believe a decision made by the certification officer was unlawful. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

There is no limit, but as the hon. Gentleman points out, if a union is subject to vexatious complaints, the certification officer will not find in favour of the complainant or impose a penalty. As I have explained, the union will have every opportunity to appeal any penalty imposed improperly. Although I understand the drift of his concern, the provisions already protect unions from vexatious complaints that might lead to an accumulation of penalties.

[Ian Mearns]

There is, of course, a downside for the trade unions even in that situation, in that it is the trade union that will have to pay for the investigation.

[Nick Boles]

We will move on, I believe, to the question of how the costs of the certification officer will be paid for. It is absolutely right that the Government are proposing that, in common with other regulators, the certification officer will be paid for by the regulated. However, again, if vexatious complaints are made, we have every reason to expect the certification officer, who has all the powers necessary to do so, simply to dismiss them and not to pursue them to the detriment of union finances.

On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

Trade Union Bill (Eighth sitting)

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Good afternoon, Sir Edward. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see the speed at which you got here today to be on time.

I wish to speak in support of amendments 34 and 35, which were tabled in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. This Government and the previous Government, which the Conservative party was part of, have made great play of their desire to get rid of red tape, but the Bill is full of red tape and this clause makes it extremely difficult for trade union members to contribute to political funds.

In all the evidence we heard last week on political funds, no one said that they were a problem or that there were any problems associated with them. Further than that, the thrust of the Bill and these clauses is all about the links to funding the Labour party. That is important from my point of view, but we must not forget that political funds are used for other campaigning measures. Two of the most prominent campaigns that I was involved in during my time working for a trade union were the campaign to stop needle injuries for clothing and textile workers and the campaign to promote recognition of the subtle signs of domestic violence taking place and causing people to lose days at work. Political funds are used for a much broader range of things than just helping to fund the Labour party, although obviously that is an area that I am very concerned about.

The clause is politically motivated. To limit the ability of a political party to raise funds legitimately through its affiliated trade unions is nothing less than scandalous. It goes against 100 years of common practice, where any changes in this area have historically been agreed between parties through cross-party talks. If this is what the Government want to do, then instead of just taking a sledgehammer to what has been common practice all these years, they should call for cross-party talks and have a serious discussion about some of the issues in these clauses.

As it stands, the opt-in works. Because it works, no one is calling for change—except the Government. There is no problem with the opt-in. When I administered part of a political fund in my previous life before entering Parliament, no one raised a problem with it. If people wanted to opt out after they had opted in, that simply was not a problem. They contacted us, and we opted them out. I have to say that very few people choose to opt out, and that is bearing in mind that members of trade unions are not just Labour party supporters—they vote Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP, and some even vote Conservative.

That said, let us look at the detail of the clause and the amendments. I firmly believe that the Government’s proposals are not workable; the thrust of the amendments is to make them workable. Our amendments are clear and straightforward and would extend the time limits to a more realistic timeframe. Almost 6 million people are members of trade unions in this country. It is absolutely ludicrous to think that unions could physically sign up, by paper, nearly 6 million people in three months. I do not know what resources the Government think trade unions have, but that is not a workable option. It is impossible. By default, the Government would not be giving the opportunity for trade union members to sign up, because it would be impossible for trade unions to make their full membership aware within the timescale set out in the Bill.

There are obviously issues around using electronic means to sign people up—we will come on to that in our consideration of later amendments, when I will go into more detail—but it would have a significant impact on the Bill if we were allowed to use e-means to sign people up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth outlined, the Bill goes way beyond the Companies Act 2006. That Act covers political donations from companies, which the Conservative party gets most of its funding from. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friends would bring the Bill into line with existing legislation, in particular in relation to the 10-year ballot to decide if a trade union holds a political fund or not. Let us remember that trade unions do not have to hold political funds, although I think they all do.

The existing legislation, which has been there for many years, is very workable. It is a well trodden path, and there are no problems with it. The way to make the opt-in measures practicable is to have sensible time limits and link them to existing legislation. Even the Minister has said, with regard to the code of conduct, that these things work well. Let us simplify the Bill and bring it together with the existing legislation. The bureaucratic nature of the Bill at the moment means that it simply will not work in practice. Removing the time limits would make it a workable piece of legislation, although I would still disagree with it.

Legislation covering the operation of political funds should be fair and reasonable, to be in line with all international agreements covering the rights of trade unions, freedom of association and a union’s ability to engage in political debates. This is key: we must allow unions the freedom to engage in political debates. As it stands, the Bill will not do that, so I urge the Government to support our amendments. If they want their Bill to be workable, bringing in sensible time limits is the only sensible way forward.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. The clause represents nothing less than a cynical attempt by the Government to restrict the political rights of millions of working people in this country. The Government claim that trade union members will retain the right to opt in to political campaigns if they so wish, but in reality they know that this will effectively end trade unions’ ability to represent their members’ political aspirations.

Let us be clear from the outset: trade union political funds are not and never have been solely about donations to the Labour party. Indeed, a significant proportion of the TUC’s member unions—unions such as the Fire Brigades Union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the National Union of Teachers, the Public and Commercial Services Union, NASUWT and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers—are not affiliated with and have no connection to the Labour party. There are, however, many millions of members across such unions.

Trade unions represent those members’ interests in the workplace. They negotiate wages, health and safety, conditions of service and various terms of employment. However, workers’ interests do not end in the workplace. They have family lives and interests outside of work. Workers care about the quality of their children’s education. They care about housing conditions, the quality of our health service, our public services and many other aspects of everyday life that cannot be negotiated with an employer. Trade union political funds exist for that very reason: to campaign on those topics and areas of interest.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear” campaign, for example, is about tackling the intimidation of and violence against shop workers, but it has nothing to do USDAW’s funding of the Labour party. It is a very important campaign that I have attended representations of. USDAW is concerned that it will fall within the scope of this measure, as a result of the legislation.

[Ian Mearns]

I concur entirely with my hon. Friend.

Every single trade union member is fully entitled to participate in the democratic processes of the union of which they are a member. The policies that the union may campaign on are democratically decided by those members through the trade union’s internal democratic structure. The Government, and their friends in places such as the Daily Mail, try to portray union political funds as personal gifts from people such as Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis or Sir Paul Kenny, designed to buy influence in the Labour party. I know all those individuals, and none of them has ever told me what to do. I maintain my independence from them. I listen to them closely and carefully, but I have never received an instruction from any one of them.

By contrast, the Conservative party, which last year alone received nearly £29 million in private donations from the rich and powerful, has no concept of the unfairness of this measure. I will compare and contrast, because the money siphoned into political campaigns and political parties such as the Labour party is very open and transparent in its transmission and its source. It comes from the very small individual weekly or monthly donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of trade union members. That money is easily trackable and auditable.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this measure would cause a great imbalance between the influence of corporate donors and sponsors who wish to influence politicians or political parties and the influence of the ordinary person on political life and political campaigns? Ordinary working people, such as nurses, midwives and teachers, are often the backbone of society.

[Ian Mearns]

I could not agree more. This measure seeks to undermine the political armoury available to the ordinary citizenry of this country. By comparison, the Conservatives, the party of government, get their money from direct donations by large corporations and middle-ranking organisations. They siphon money into the Conservative party, but we do not know where the small donations come from—by small donations, I mean donations up to £7,500. People donating to the Conservative party via the United and Cecil club do not have to declare who they are if their donation is less than £7,500. That is not open or transparent. Another middle-ranking organisation that siphons money into the Conservative party in a similar way is the Midlands Industrial Council. Again, we do not know the origin of its donations under £7,500.

The millions of trade unionists who will potentially have their political voice stifled by this clause continue to donate to the Conservative party inadvertently. Every time they buy a Melton Mowbray pork pie or a Ginsters pasty or meat slice, they are making very small but regular donations to the Tory party. If they buy their clothes at Next, their car through Auto Trader, their bread from Warburtons or even indulge in an occasional Soreen malted loaf, they will be making a small donation to the Tory party. The clause aims to stifle direct donations to political parties and/or campaigns on one side, but no action is being taken on the other side, because that would not be in the interest of the party of government.

Trade union funds are the weekly pennies, tuppences, 10 pences and 20 pences contributed by millions of working people, and those funds are audited and regulated by the Government’s certification of trade unions. Every last penny has to be accounted for. The policies for which those funds campaign are not the whims of trade union barons; the funds are used to campaign and promote policies agreed by workers through their democratic organisations. I am trying to put on record the gross unfairness of the measures within this clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

I used to be rather fond of Soreen malt loaf, until I discovered the awful truth. I think it could have a public health warning: “Eating Soreen malt loaf could be detrimental to your health service.” [Interruption.]

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a witty observation, and I heard the Government Whip—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend referred earlier to the fact that the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London was elected using a form of e-balloting. I wonder about the double-standard put forward by the governing party. They say it is perfectly legitimate for electronic voting to be used for one of the most important political positions in the country, but not for a potentially small industrial dispute in a remote part of the United Kingdom.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. If the Government were genuinely concerned about the levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate to require all bodies to use postal-only ballots, and they would re-run the election for the candidate for Mayor of London using a postal-only ballot.

I simply cannot understand the Government’s argument, and nor can the public. On the one hand, the Government say that they want to increase participation, that we need to ensure that everybody has their say, and that strikes and actions must not take place without everybody’s consent. But they will not extend the most simple modern methods to allow people to participate in a democratic process, which is their right as established in many conventions—indeed, in this country’s historic laws and principles. The Government seek to deny unions the right to exercise that franchise. It simply does not make sense.

It certainly does not make sense, given that secure workplace balloting is already used, as I have described. Why can it not be extended to industrial action ballots and other elections that unions undertake? It is certainly bizarre, given that I can list 40 or 50 different organisations that use e-balloting. The Electoral Reform Society and others have produced plenty of evidence that such methods can be used securely, safely and effectively. They meet all the tests that any Government, employer or union would want to apply to ensure they are safe and secure on both sides. The Government’s arguments and their refusal to engage do not make sense. I hope, given that the Minister said that he will reflect on other parts of the Bill with the best of intentions, that the Government will look at this issue again. I hope they look favourably on our new clauses and commit to supporting them, or at the very least pledge to introduce Government amendments mirroring ours on Report.

I turn briefly to the specifics of the amendments and new clauses. Amendment 39, which I have not touched on in detail so far, relates to the section on political funding. It is absurd and ludicrous that the Bill requires individuals or their authorised agents to deliver opt-in, renewal or withdrawal notices to the trade union head office or branch office personally or by post. The amendment would enable trade union members to renew their opt-in via email or online. Most trade unions are concerned that they will have just three months—we will come on to that issue—to sign members up to their political funds after the Bill comes into force. If members do not opt in within three months, they will no longer be considered valid contributors. That is unworkable and unreasonable, and in practice it will mean that many trade union members who want to pay into the union political fund will be prevented from doing so.

The provisions also fail to recognise that trade unions will be required to revise their rule book to comply. Many trade unions hold their rule-making conference once a year, every two years or, in some cases, every five years. It is therefore unreasonable for the Government to expect trade unions with a political fund to convene a special rule-making conference within three months to comply with the legislation. For many trade unions, it would be simply impossible to book venues and make the relevant logistical arrangements in time. The costs are likely to be astronomical, representatives might not be able to secure the time off to attend the conference and there might be problems with quorums and so on. Again, they will not be able to use electronic methods. People will have to hand in a hand-written notice to a head office or a branch office. Again, it reveals the Government’s true intent. If the Minister does not want the public and trade union members to believe that that is the intent behind the Bill, why does he not go some way towards a compromise and provide methods to encourage the maximum participation, both for opting in to political funds and for ballots?

I have detailed the new clauses. Briefly, for the Committee’s benefit, new clause 1 would permit trade unions to decide to use electronic voting for industrial action ballots. For example, union members would be able to vote online, on smartphones or via secure phone lines. They would also be able to vote electronically in workplaces using secure laptops or electronic booths. New clause 2 would permit unions to use electronic voting in other statutory elections and ballots, including the election of general secretaries, political fund ballots and ballots on mergers. New clauses 4 and 8 would permit trade unions to decide to use similar electronic means to those in new clause 1, or workplace ballots, similar to those used in statutory recognition ballots, for industrial action ballots. In workplace ballots, union members would be able to vote using paper ballot papers and secure ballot boxes in a secure location at the place of work. New clauses 5 and 6 would permit trade unions to use electronic and workplace ballots for all other statutory elections and ballots.

This comprehensive set of amendments and new clauses is about bringing trade unions into the modern age, as the Government say they want to do, and being able to use modern methods that are already used elsewhere and are seen to be successful. Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the Government would wish to oppose them.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government have consistently described the Bill as an attempt to modernise trade unions, but it does not appear that that is being allowed. We must seriously consider and take forward the use of electronic and workplace balloting. People are individuals for whom different options must be available. We all have preferences for how we like to conduct our business in our own lives, and this matter is no different. Ballot papers are sent to members’ home addresses. Given the amount of mail that people receive daily, they can often be misplaced. The postal system is not always the best way of getting things done. I would add that many legislatures, including the Scottish Parliament, already use electronic voting. I recommend it.

[Ian Mearns]

One of the pleasures and privileges I have in the House is being Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. In the previous Parliament, from time to time we were presented with e-petitions from the official Government website. Of course, the Government accepted that those petitions had been signed in accordance with the rules and strictures, and that 100,000 online signatures were enough to secure a debate on a particular subject in either Westminster Hall or the main Chamber. Her Majesty’s Government accept the security of online petitioning; why not online balloting?

[Dr Cameron]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, to which the Minister must respond.

A 2014 Electoral Commission survey involving adults aged over 18 found that 42% of respondents felt that online voting would increase confidence in the way that elections are run in the UK by either “a lot” or “a little”, so there seems to be a level of public confidence. Those views were particularly prevalent among younger age groups. It is extremely important that younger people are able to engage in political parties, whether through joining those parties or though joining trade unions with political funds. I would like to see young people being encouraged to vote and make their voices heard. That way, methods such as postal voting, which might appeal more to other age groups, just as online voting appeals to the young, do not skew results towards certain sectors of society. Again, I emphasise the importance of personal choice for individuals in voting, as in every other aspect of our lives.

[Ian Mearns]

The hon. Lady has highlighted the fact that voting by post is becoming quite cumbersome and difficult. In Gateshead, there are fewer post boxes than there used to be and fewer daily collections. The Government really need to think about online voting, which would give trade unionists the right to take part in the important internal democracy of the trade union movement.

[Dr Cameron]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Ian Mearns]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will give way briefly, but I will not take many interventions.

[Ian Mearns]

I am very grateful to the Minister, but even with the traditional form of voting in a general or local election in this country, it is still quite easily possible for the returning officer to identify the way in which a particular voter has voted; because when they go to a polling station they are given a ballot paper on which there is a number. There is a counterfoil on which the individual identifying letters and numbers from the register are put down, which has the same number on it, and the person puts their ballot in the box. At a later stage the returning officer could, if they were so minded, identify the number, check back and see who cast that ballot.

[Nick Boles]

That may well be the case, and of course there are also problems with postal ballots; but pointing to problems of fraud and malpractice in other traditional voting systems does not necessarily give support to a move to an entirely uncharted voting system.

There is only one—I think I will put it in layman’s language—respectable democracy, which we would all admire, that uses online voting for elections. That is Estonia, and the reason it can do it is that they have identity cards there. It is much easier to see how a system could work in such a situation, but the Conservative party and, indeed, many Members in the Labour party, resisted identity cards as a profoundly un-British step, because we do not want anyone to march up to us and say “Ausweis, bitte.” That was why we resisted them; but it is hard to see how online voting could happen without identity cards.

We are not willing to make piecemeal or rushed decisions about possible ways of overcoming the practical objections that have been identified to online voting, e-balloting or online communication. However, we have been clear about our position on the principle. We are willing to go through those arguments in later stages of the Bill. I assure the Committee that there is at least as much interest in the question in the other place, where there will also be an opportunity for scrutiny of the Bill.

I have no doubt that at some future time the practical objections that I have outlined will be overcome. It is a matter of time and human ingenuity. I have no doubt that we will get there, and we are happy to work with all members of the Opposition, and all groups outside Parliament, to ensure that eventually we do get there. However, at this point I urge the Committee to resist the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

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

[Ian Mearns]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the different forms of voting in a particular ballot are not mutually exclusive? Members of a union, prior to a ballot taking place, could easily inform the union about the way they would prefer to participate in the ballot. If, because of the reasons outlined by the Minister, they do not want to be seen to be voting in person in a secure workplace ballot, they would have the right to vote by post if they wished to do so.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is indeed the case. That is the very purpose of new clause 6, which would allow for so-called combination ballots. One, all or a combination of the different methods available could be used, depending on the practical circumstances of the organisation or union. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central set out clearly the different structures of the ways in which unions operate and the methods they might choose. Of course, employers are set up in many different ways. There are dispersed workforces and ones with a couple of out facilities. We need as many methods as possible to ensure the maximum participation.

This comes back to a very simple issue. If the Government are serious about increasing participation, democracy and the legitimacy of union engagement and decision making in society, most Committee members—and, I hope, the Minister, too—in their heart of hearts know, whatever they feel about the trade union movement, the Labour party and these issues in general, that this is not right. It will essentially prevent people in this country—we heard from the TUC that one in 10 people in this country may want to participate in such decision-making processes—from exercising their rights in the most sensible way possible. It will deny them the right to take part in decision making, and that cannot be right, given this House’s history of extending suffrage and the methods of voting, especially in this year, the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. I do not say that lightly: this is simply not right, and the Government are refusing to contemplate these matters.

I accept that there are arguments about how to make these methods secure—nobody is denying that—but we have examples of where they are used already. They are used in many other parts of public life. They are used, for example, by law firms. King & Wood Mallesons holds online votes for members’ resolutions, board directorships, adoption processes and partners. I am sure it would want to ensure that the people taking part in those votes could not be identified either, yet it managed to use these methods. Pinsent Masons is currently holding an online election for its managing partner. Chevron had an online directors’ election for its May 2015 pension plan decision. Those are all serious, regulated matters, with serious implications if things are done incorrectly or if there is fraud or a lack of security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I intend to be brief. I do not have a lot to say about Government amendments 92 and 93, which, as the Minister pointed out, are minor. Given that we oppose the principle of this clause and what the Government are trying to do, I do not feel the need to say much more.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 40 on extending the transitional period. We will likely return to this issue on Report or in the other place. It is out of the ordinary for the Government to introduce such a short transitional period for extremely major measures that affect the funding and operations of trade unions’ political funds and other matters. We heard in oral evidence, and probably on Second Reading, that England has had two years to prepare for the introduction of the 5p plastic bag tax, so why, in such major legislation, are we being given only three months?

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even after two years, the 5p plastic bag tax is not being operated correctly by many, many places of sale.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister says that 10 years is far too extreme, but amendment 40 is a probing amendment. Will he explain the reasoning, so that if we return to this issue, we can understand the Government’s full intent? What justification is there for a three-month transitional period? What other example is there of such major legislation allowing only three months to transition? Again, this looks like a deliberate attempt to frustrate legitimate adherence to the law by trade unions and other organisations. This is just another pile on top of a whole bunch of sinister regulations. The Government would not dream of doing this to any other part of business or to anyone else, claiming as they do to be the party of deregulation. There is one standard for the trade unions and one part of our civil society and another standard for others, including the Government and their own provisions—we have heard about plastic bags. I would like the Minister to explain that point, to which we will undoubtedly return at a later stage.

Amendment 92 agreed to.

Amendment made: 93, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘(4) During the period of three months beginning with the commencement date (“the transitional period”), the member is treated as a contributor to the fund for the purposes of the 1992 Act (as amended by this Act).

This is subject to subsection (5).

(5) If during the first two months of the transitional period the member gives an exemption notice as mentioned in section 84(1) of the 1992 Act, as it had effect immediately before the commencement date, subsection (4) ceases to apply to the member at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the notice is given.”—(Nick Boles.)

The existing transitional provision, in subsection (4) of clause 10, treats union members who on the commencement date had not opted out of contributing as having opted in under the new provisions, for a period of three months. The amendment enables such people to opt out of contributing during this period.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott]

I have two brief points to make, because I know we are short of time. I want to speak in support of our amendments. The proposals in the clause are over-bureaucratic and, quite frankly, over-intrusive into the workings of trade unions.

The money raised in political funds is the most regulated money in politics anywhere in the world. It is transparent. If anyone looks at trade unions’ returns, they will see where the money has come from and where it is spent. To get to the level of declaring exactly what under £2,000 is spent on is absolutely ridiculous. Trade unions make other declarations and people make declarations about where trade union money is spent, and that links into the political funds. It is not just the political funds that have to make declarations; the Electoral Commission also gets spending declarations from trade unions.

A candidate who gets support from a trade union over a certain amount of money has to declare that to the commission. Election returns to returning officers throughout the country will also clearly state when trade unions have spent money on specific campaigns. What the clause asks for is already in the public domain, so I think it is nothing but politically motivated.

[Ian Mearns]

As my hon. Friend stated, information on all the funds that go directly from trade unions to political parties for campaigning is already open and transparent. What this clause does is put a fetter on trade unions’ other political spending for campaigns that will be imposed on no other part of civil society. I do not understand what is special about trade unions as membership organisations as opposed to organisations such as the women’s institute or the Mothers’ Union. It is an odd situation where a trade union has to be fettered to the extent that it has to release detail about every single campaign that it is involved in.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I have said, there is no reason for this clause other than political motivation. If the Conservative party in government wants to look at how political parties are funded, I urge it to use the system of all-party talks that has worked for decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The Government have an air of greater relaxation now that they realise they have their full team here. I will comment not just on my amendments in the group, but also on those of the SNP and on clause 12 more generally.

The proposals in clause 12 have the fingerprints of Lord Maude of Horsham all over them, because they mirror the measures implemented in Whitehall Departments by the Cabinet Office in 2012-13. Departments were expected to carry out more detailed monitoring and reporting of facility time, to report quarterly to the Cabinet Office, and to publish annually how much was spent on facility time. The Cabinet Office issued a guide figure for spending on facility time; in the first year, it was 0.1% of the pay bill. That included all facility time, time for health and safety representatives, and time for union learning representatives, who I believe we heard elsewhere had been funded, in fact, by the Government.

I will endeavour not to touch too much upon the arguments that will be made in response to Government new clause 11, which I know we will come to in due course, regarding check-off. But in tabling new clause 12, the Government are seeking to go much, much further than the measures they have already introduced, as it would provide the Government with the power to require all public sector employers—hospitals, schools and many more—to publish information each year on the amount of funds used for trade union facilities. This information would include the number of union officials employed, or the number of union officials within specified categories, for example shop stewards, health and safety representatives and union learning representatives; the amount of money that the employer spends on facility time, including what percentage of the total pay bill it constitutes; the amount of facility time spent on specific duties or activities, including health and safety, and accompanying members in grievance and disciplinary hearings; and information relating to facilities provided by the employer in connection with facility time, for example office space and the use of phone lines.

It is important to remind the Committee—as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow has just done—what facility time is and why it is so vital. Facility time is the amount of time that workplace representatives, shop stewards, learning representatives, and health and safety representatives can spend representing their members in the public sector. These are people who do hard graft on the front line to protect their members’ interests effectively, for example by raising safety standards or promoting access to skills and training, and, of course, accompanying individuals to grievance and disciplinary hearings, which is crucial.

The benefits of facility time are clear, and not just for the employees but for the employers. I have experienced that myself. I worked at one point for Oxfam, which had a trade union representative who was able to use facility time, for example, to work with me—I was a manager at the time—in dealing with redundancy processes and other matters, to ensure that they were carried out to the benefit of both the employer and the employees, and so that everybody was satisfied.

Workplaces that have good facility time are likely to have better family-friendly policies and more effective equality policies, and indeed they are also likely to be safer workplaces. These workplaces also had lower voluntary exit rates, which led to an estimated saving in recruitment costs for employers of between £22 million and £43 million per annum. Negotiations between employers and unions can also facilitate innovation and change in furtherance of mutual objectives, and trade unions can also play a positive role in promoting skills, upskilling and training in workplaces, which I am sure the Government would wish to see increasing.

Also, where organisations face difficult economic conditions, or indeed the challenges that we face in the public sector with the type of changes and cuts that the Government have brought in, union representatives can develop fair processes for managing redundancies and restructuring. Clearly, there have been many examples of that in both the public sector and the private sector, particularly since the economic crisis of 2008. Constructive negotiations have taken place with a view to saving jobs and retaining skilled employment.

[Ian Mearns]

Another role that trade union officials can play is a welfare role. Many good employers are very good at looking after the welfare of their employees, but there are occasions when an individual will want to keep a welfare concern confidential from their employer, because they are concerned that the employer’s esteem for them could be damaged by it. In those circumstances, the care that the union can provide, in terms of looking after the welfare of the individual member, can be good for the employee and union member, and also good in the long term for the employer.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I believe that business, the public sector and society are mutually dependent—I am sure my hon. Friends agree with that—and that all succeed when individual workers succeed and feel supported, and vice versa. The MacLeod report, which was commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and endorsed by the Prime Minister, suggested that managers should listen to concerns expressed by employees and their representatives, and concluded that addressing those concerns would increase levels of employee engagement, thereby helping to deliver sustainable economic growth—and, I am sure, efficiencies in the public sector.

Similarly, research by ACAS found that trade union representatives play an important role in improving workforce engagement and morale, by helping ensure that employees’ concerns about their working conditions are listened to and addressed. In turn, that can improve productivity, service quality and ultimately—a crucial point for the Government—the financial performance of organisations. All of those mutual benefits and many more could be at risk if the Government’s proposals on facility time are implemented in their current form.

I am pleased that other Governments across the UK have a different view from that of the Westminster Government. As we heard, the Welsh Government realise the value of such benefits. Their relations with trade unions are based much more on a partnership approach—the Scottish Government take a similar approach—rather than being provocateurs, which seems to be the position that some of the Minister’s colleagues have comfortably slipped into.

The proposed restrictions on facility time could damage constructive employment relations and undermine effective joint working between employers and unions in public services. The proposals also risk damaging the devolution settlement—we had a lengthy debate on that the other day—and could be subject to serious legal challenge. They are not a model for modern industrial relations, which is why we will oppose the clause.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the SNP, and if they are pressed to a Division they will certainly get our support. The amendments represent a more useful and effective way of looking at facility time, and we agree with many of the concerns the SNP has raised.

Amendment 46 would mean that public sector employers would be required to publish only the number of union officials employed and the total amount invested in facility time, rather than more detailed breakdowns of those figures. Amendment 74 would require public sector employers to provide the cost savings of facility time. If the Government proceed with further punitive measures, it is important that public sector employers should explain the cost savings that are driven by facility time so that we have full transparency.

Amendment 50 concerns the process by which any regulations are agreed. We need to ensure maximum scrutiny of any regulations on this matter. We have already seen the Government attempt to sneak in all sorts of things through the back door with the Bill: they have not published regulations or brought out the responses to consultations, which should have happened before we were in Committee. Amendment 50 would ensure that future regulations requiring public sector employers to publish information on facility time would have to be debated in both Houses. The Government currently plan to use the negative procedure for such regulations, so there would be no debate unless the regulations were prayed against. Given the rushed nature of the consultation, and of parts of the current scrutiny process, I am sure many people outside this place would agree that any future regulations deserve much more adequate scrutiny so that we can get to the bottom of what the Government are trying to do.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on the clause and on the amendments we have tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I have absolutely no objection to any employer trying to estimate such figures and publishing them. The difficulty is that the cost of facility time is a fact that will already be in the system of any employer. Employers know who they employ. They know how much employees are paid and therefore how much their time is worth, as well as what time they are spending on their job and on union duties and activities. The hon. Gentleman is asking employers to project or estimate values, because that value is not captured. Nobody is paying for it, and there is no customer putting a price on it. I am not saying the value is not real; the value is very real, but it is not automatically captured. We are trying not to place in straitened times a huge burden of calculation, projection and estimation on public sector employers. We want them to be able to focus on spending taxpayers’ money on the things taxpayers employ us to do, such as run hospitals, schools and the like.

[Ian Mearns]

I cannot help feeling that in the past couple of minutes the Minister has encapsulated what an awful lot of people have thought about the Conservative party for an awful long time: they know the cost of everything, but the value of very little.

[Nick Boles]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

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

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

[Ian Mearns]

The provisions in the clause take us beyond the civil service. What happens in the civil service is different from what happens in other public sector areas.

[Nick Boles]

And the beauty of transparency is that it will reveal all, and if there are no problems and if nothing is unjustified, the public will be reassured and I will be entirely delighted. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw their amendment.