Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

2. What steps the Government are taking to tackle the gender pay gap for women in their 30s and 40s.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

8. What steps the Government are taking to tackle the gender pay gap for women in their 30s and 40s.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)]

The gender pay gap is now the lowest on record, at 18.1%, but that is still too high and eliminating it altogether is one of the key targets of this Government. That is why we have extended the right to request flexible working and introduced shared parental leave, and it is why, from September, we are rolling out 30 hours of childcare to the working parents of all three and four-year-olds.

[Caroline Dinenage]

The Government take that very seriously, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Justice will be coming forward with more information shortly. The Government are committed to ensuring that people from all backgrounds can access justice. Although we are very keen to see much more in the way of mediation, and ACAS has dealt successfully with more than 80,000 cases without having to go to tribunal, on Tuesday we launched a consultation on proposals to widen the support available to people under the help with fees scheme, following the completion of the fees review.

[Julie Elliott]

The gender pay gap in the north-east is 28%, some 10 percentage points higher than the national average. What is the Minister and the Government doing to address those very stark regional variations?

[Caroline Dinenage]

It is vital, now more than ever, that our economy is able to benefit from everybody’s skills. We simply cannot afford to waste the talents of a single person. That is why, from April this year, we are requiring all employers with more than 250 staff to publish those gender pay gap figures. We are great believers in what gets measured gets managed, but what gets published gets managed even better.

Draft Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 General Committees

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not about the regulations, which are sound. It is about how we implement, monitor and evaluate them and what we ultimately do when we see the disparities. She is right that I will come on to that.

We must congratulate the Government for bringing the regulations forward. I am grateful to them for doing so. I know that the Minister cares passionately about the issue and that, wherever blatant gender disparities exist, she will be there tackling them.

It is important, and to be welcomed, that the reports that will be produced will go into pay bands. That will help to demonstrate how the pay gap differs across an organisation and across levels of seniority. It is also really good news that the data will incorporate bonuses—both their amount and the proportion of men and women employees who receive them.

However, the regulations are bereft of some basic powers that would assure a benefit for women, so excuse me, Sir David, if I do not wholeheartedly celebrate them today. The Government have chosen to omit any enforcement provisions or sanctions for non-compliance, or for publishing inaccurate or misleading reports. This is especially disappointing as, in the “Closing the Gender Pay Gap” consultation paper, the Government correctly sought sectors’ views on whether a civil enforcement system would help ensure compliance with the regulations. The majority of responses—two thirds, in fact—agreed that such a system would help compliance.

Does the Minister actually believe that the regulations will be effective in getting data from employers without an enforcement regime or being backed up with civil sanctions? I take a guess that she will claim that the Equality and Human Rights Commission—another Labour creation—will be able to use its existing powers of enforcement in section 20 of the Equality Act 2006, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum. But of course, section 20 does not confer suitable powers on the EHRC to fulfil that enforcement duty. In its response to the “Closing the Gender Pay Gap” consultation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said it would

“require additional powers, and resources, to enable it to enforce compliance with the regulations, because its current powers are not suitable for enforcing, in a proportionate manner, a failure to publish.”

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the regulations, but does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main issues is not just what transparency will bring up but how that will be addressed? Once we know what the problem is, as we hope to through the information that comes forward, how will we then address the issues raised, particularly around bonuses? In my experience, bonuses are not a gender-neutral area of payment.

[Sarah Champion]

Again, my hon. Friend hits on the nub of the problem. Unless we can first reliably gather the data and then have some form of enforcement, all we will have is statistics on a piece of paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a real issue. The Minister will be able to confirm this, but I think I am right in saying that the regulations will affect 34% of women. That will obviously leave a significant number of women outside the scope of the regulations, who might include some of the women my hon. Friend refers to.

People moving in and out of companies, going from one employing more than 250 to another that does not, is a real issue. I will come back in a couple of minutes—I do not want to speak for too long—to the review mechanism that the Government have built into the regulations. They should consider that point.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that some of the issues we are discussing might be cultural problems. It is difficult to argue that we should change the culture by changing the law, but the law can be a signpost to the sort of cultural attitudes we wish to encourage. I am not saying that we should pass a law on this, but CHILDWISE published a report today about discrimination in pocket money. I confess an interest— I will need to check with my family, who are grown up now, to ensure that this did not happen for them. Apparently the gender pay gap begins early in childhood and at home, with boys receiving 20% more pocket money than girls. I hope I did not do that, but I cannot say I definitely did not. It would completely undermine what I am saying now.

The new report from CHILDWISE reveals that between the ages of 11 and 16 the gap grows to 30%, which mirrors what happens in the adult population, where the gender pay gap rises as women get older. Between those ages boys receive an average weekly income of £17.80, and girls of the same age lag behind on £12.50. I do not know how accurate those figures are; I am just quoting them. I do not think I gave my son £17.80—maybe a month, but not a week.

The serious point I am trying to make is that the cultural attitudes in our society are what we need to address, think about and challenge, but the law is a good place to start. I take my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham’s point that these regulations come seven years after the primary legislation, but the Government did try a voluntary approach. The explanatory memorandum shows the failure—not a catastrophic failure, but a very real one—of the voluntary approach. We are told on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum that according to the ONS:

“Whilst over 300 organisations signed up to this initiative, we are aware of only around 11 of those that have voluntarily published gender pay information.”

That initiative was set up in 2011, so the necessity of the regulations cannot be overestimated.

[Julie Elliott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that voluntary measures in these areas of employment law never work? That is why transparency is important, but it is essential that action follows from it to make it work and to make the average gender pay gap disappear. Is he as interested as I am to see which Departments the Minister thinks will be the worst when their transparency is revealed? Will they be the high-pay, high-value Departments rather than the smaller, more niche Departments?

[Vernon Coaker]

I am interested in that, and it takes me to my next point. Legislation is crucial, and to be fair, with our support, the Government have brought it forward. We can argue about whether it should have come sooner, but we support it. The lack of enforcement is a problem, though, and I am disappointed about it. The Government recognise that there may be an issue with enforcement, because a review mechanism is included in regulation 16. They say they will carry out a review of the regulations and publish a report, which must look at whether the objectives have been achieved and so on. However, that report must be produced before the end of a “period of five years.”

The Minister may want to address this point in her closing remarks, but does she really think that we ought to wait five years before we see whether we are achieving our objectives, or does she believe, as I do, that five years is too long? We should say today that, although the regulations specify five years, we will look at the first published results and see whether something needs to be changed. Certainly after the publication of two sets of results it will be clear whether the objectives have been reached. It is important that she addresses that point.

May I say that it is a privilege to speak in a debate such as this? I do not mean this in any way as a flippant remark, but it is really important that men speak in these debates and demand better treatment of women and their rights, not just as something we ought to give them but as something that they should have as of right. That is important, and I know that colleagues on the Committee will have no issue with that.

I say this as a criticism of my own gender: we should be louder in speaking up on these issues. I will not digress from the subject the Committee is considering, but on domestic violence, sexual violence and other such issues, men should be louder in demanding the proper treatment and the proper rights for women in our society.

I thought it was good—other people may disagree—that there were an estimated 20,000 men on the “Women Against Trump” march in London at the weekend. I am sure there were many in other cities, too, and I think it was a good thing.

Soft Drinks Industry Levy: Funding for Sport in Schools

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and my fellow Health Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup). I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for bringing this very important debate to the House.

I realise that this is not a debate about the sugar levy per se, but I would like to state at the outset that I fully support the levy. In fact, if anything, I would like it to be extended to include milk-based sugary drinks. It addresses a very important issue, and it is worth reminding ourselves of the data on health inequality from obesity. Now, in the most disadvantaged areas, 26% of the most deprived children are leaving year 6 not just overweight but obese, with extraordinary long-term consequences for both their mental and physical health, so we should remain focused on what the purpose of the measure is.

Let me also stress that we should not think about tackling obesity as just about sport; it is also about nutrition. We should not lose sight of that in the debate. Reducing calories has to be the mainstay of addressing childhood obesity. That said, we should also have a message that exercise and physical activity matters, whatever one’s age and weight, and has extraordinary benefits. I fully support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon about how we can incorporate sport as part of the anti-obesity strategy and about the importance of hypothecating the money raised by the sugary drinks levy so that it goes to these types of project and is focused on the most disadvantaged groups.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the 26% in the most deprived areas are probably children from the families who are least able to afford some of the things that have been mentioned, such as the £12.50 a day for sports activities, and that the cost of things should not rule out children who probably need that activity more than others?

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I absolutely agree. It is essential, if we are to address some of the accusations that this is a regressive tax, that we ensure that it becomes progressive in the way the money and the resources are allocated. I think there has been a commitment to that. We can look at how the Government have stated they will spend the money—providing up to £285 million a year to give 25% of secondary schools in the most disadvantaged areas the opportunity to extend their school day, and £10 million of funding to expand breakfast clubs in the most disadvantaged areas. I absolutely agree with the hon. Members who have already commented that that could be extended into holiday periods. I am talking about how we look at nutrition, and expanding nutritional education and, in particular, targeting that on the most disadvantaged areas. We know that Mexico’s experience is that those on the lowest incomes end up spending more of their income on products such as sugary drinks, so we must be absolutely clear that the benefit returns primarily to the most disadvantaged, and of course it is the most disadvantaged areas that have the highest levels of childhood obesity, so I absolutely agree with what the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) has said.

This is primarily about school sport and how we hypothecate the money for activities in the most disadvantaged areas, although not just in the most disadvantaged areas. We have already heard the hon. Member for Falkirk pay tribute to Elaine Wyllie, and I add my tribute to her extraordinary achievements. She told me when I met her recently that if directors of public health take this initiative on board, that gives it much a greater impetus. She has looked at where it has been most successfully rolled out, and it is where directors of public health work together with education to push for it and see the benefits. Of course, the benefits are not just for children. The initiative is now being rolled out to families and staff in schools, so there is a whole-community approach to changing attitudes to mobility.

I would also like to make a point about active travel. The all-party parliamentary group on cycling, of which I am a member, held an inquiry in the last Parliament, “Get Britain Cycling”. One issue that was very clear from that was that active travel is one of the forms of activity that people are most likely to engage in over the long term. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider how schools can engage with the programme and get children cycling to school and college. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash pointed out that the cost of a bike can sometimes be a deterrent, but there are many things we can do about rolling out Bikeability to all ages across schools and ensuring that we focus on active travel, because that is the form of activity that people are most likely to sustain throughout their life.

I would also like to pick out the importance of play. I pay tribute to Play Torbay, in my constituency, and the work it is doing. That has been pointed out by the all-party parliamentary group on a fit and healthy childhood. I do not know whether the Minister has had the chance to read its excellent report, which considered how we can use the money effectively. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash that evaluation is critical. We need to see what delivers results in the long term, particularly because, if the tax is effective in the way we hope it will be, the revenues raised from it will decrease as a result of behavioural change. We need to ensure that the money available is targeted in the most effective ways.

We should also look at the difference in activity rates between girls and boys. Girls are not as physically active; particularly as they go through the school years, activity levels decline. I urge the Minister to continue to support Sport England’s “This Girl Can” programme, which has already been referred to. We need to look across the piece and make sure we engage children at every level in a way that they are most likely to continue to keep active. I have a concern that if we just talk about sport, we risk taking our eye off the ball. Tackling obesity first and foremost has to involve calorie reduction. We must take empty, wasted calories out of children’s diets. There are other harms; obesity is not just about sugar levels. The biggest single cause of admission to hospital for primary school children is to remove their rotten teeth. The benefits of reducing sugar in children’s diets go beyond tackling obesity.

Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues on the rest of the money from the sugary drinks levy that we are raising? As it stands, the Government have indicated that a significant proportion will go towards the academisation programme, but now that there has been a change to the policy objective of forced academisation, I think the sugary drinks levy would command far greater public support if every penny of it was hypothecated to public health measures to support children, particularly at a time when public health grants are being cut and measures to support children who are already obese are being cut back in local authorities. I hope to see even more of the sugary drinks levy being hypothecated to progressive measures to target children who are already obese and to help prevent children from becoming obese in the first place. I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon in saying that sport is a key part of that, and that matters whatever a child’s weight and whatever a child’s age.

Key Stage 2 Tests

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Lady simply overstates her case. Our plan for reforming the education system was put in place in 2010. We have reviewed the curriculum. That was overseen by a national curriculum review panel of experienced teachers and headteachers. The new curriculum was advised on by a panel of curriculum experts. It was consulted on widely between 2012 and 2013, informally and then formally. It was published in final draft in July 2013, giving schools over a year to prepare for the first teaching of it in September 2014. This has been a carefully planned review and reform of the curriculum. It has been as swift as it can be, because children need the best education possible, as quickly as possible. This is an important reform. This was always going to be a difficult month, as children were assessed for the first time on the new curriculum. However, schools have had a significant amount of material since July 2013, and they are ready—all our surveys have shown that they are confident about teaching the new curriculum.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I hope the Minister will agree that stability is key to a child thriving at primary school. As has been said, however, the Department for Education has changed documents and resources almost every other day recently, and that has been compounded by the disgraceful leak of the tests. Government Members are rewriting history—something the UK Statistics Authority told them to stop doing—because the Labour Government improved standards from 1997 to 2010. I will give the Minister another chance to apologise to teachers, parents and pupils, and to allow teachers to get on with teaching and children to thrive. Apologise!

[Mr Gibb]

Again, I think the hon. Lady overstates her case. The primary curriculum was published in final form in July 2013, sample questions were available as early as March 2014, and there were later sample questions in 2015. In reference to her point about changes being made to materials on-site, the Standards and Testing Agency has responded to telephone queries from teachers about certain aspects of the curriculum and the sample materials. To help teachers, it revised some of that material so that it responded to those concerns. There were other, very minor changes—for example, when, in response to representations from the NAHT, I changed the date on which the STA collected the teacher assessment materials. That decision was taken in response to the concerns expressed. There were real reasons why we wanted the date to be earlier to ensure fairness between the schools that were moderated by the local authority and those that were not. Of course, that required all the documents online to have a date change. The hon. Lady can make a song and dance about these changes, but they were all done for professional reasons by the very experienced professionals of the Standards and Testing Agency, and they were the right thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of availability of broadband to businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of availability of broadband to businesses in the north-east.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)]

I recently announced a joint review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of business broadband to ensure that businesses are able to access the affordable, high-speed broadband that they need and deserve. More than 250,000 homes and businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber, and more than 100,000 in the north-east, have superfast broadband available for the first time thanks to the Government’s investment programme.

[Sajid Javid]

No, I do not. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that superfast broadband coverage throughout the UK has increased from 45% of the country in 2010 to almost 90% now, and that we are fully on target to reach 95% by 2017. It is important that we keep looking at new ways to extend coverage through fixed wireless and mobile, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Julie Elliott]

A senior adviser at the Institute of Directors has said that they expect the Government to meet the universal service obligation, but that is only because the bar is set so low. How are the Government going to provide the physical infrastructure to maintain Britain’s position at the forefront of digital innovation in business? Will the Secretary of State also answer the question about the lack of provision for SMEs, which he did not address?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am sorry that it seems the hon. Lady did not hear my answer; I remind her that productivity is now 1.7% higher than it was in 2008 and we saw its largest annual increase since 2011 only last year. I do not know where she is getting her information from—I have my suspicions—but unfortunately she is wrong. This Government are absolutely committed to improving productivity, and we have already heard, by way of example, the Minister for Skills talking about the work we are doing to ensure that we have the right skills—that is an essential part of an effective productivity plan.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)]

Ministers and officials across government continue to work around the clock to support Britain’s steel industry—I have updated the House on progress several times and will continue to do so, whenever appropriate; our two major pieces of legislation, the Enterprise Bill and the Trade Union Bill, are moving closer to the statute book; and we are on the verge of naming the National Environment Research Council’s new polar research vessel. The final decision on that will be made by the Minister for Universities and Science—Joey McJoface, as we like to call him.

[Julie Elliott]

In The Sunday Times this week it was reported that meetings are taking place in France to look at how people could take advantage of getting business from the UK in the event of a Brexit vote. Does the Secretary of State agree that remaining in the EU is vital for British trade, particularly in the automotive and aerospace industries, and for the health of the British economy as a whole?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady on that. She mentioned the automotive and aerospace industries, two of our strongest manufacturing sectors in the UK, which rely heavily on a supply chain that is international—much of it is in Europe. Equally, she could mention our services industries, which account for 80% of our GDP.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

Of course, we offer people information. The British Business Bank puts together the various funds that are available to small businesses. One reason why I am in favour of the great devolution deals is that they take that sort of activity right down to the local level. The coming together of local authorities, businesses and local enterprise partnerships enables us to get this sort of information out. The Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce also have a huge role to play, because they do excellent work, often at a local level.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

15. What recent discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary on the effect on businesses of the UK’s membership of the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)]

I work closely with the Foreign Secretary, particularly through the exports taskforce, which I chair, to deliver growth for British business. UK businesses send 45% of their exports to the EU and benefit from the single market. The reforms that we are pursuing are good for the EU, good for the UK and good for British business.

[Julie Elliott]

Some 160,000 jobs in the north-east rely on trade with the EU. We are the only region in the country consistently to deliver a trade surplus. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents, many of whom are understandably concerned about what an isolated Britain on the fringes of Europe might mean for their jobs and livelihoods? Will he vote to stay in the EU and stand up for British jobs?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady has some excellent manufacturers and other companies in her constituency, including Nissan, which recently announced a huge investment. What business wants in respect of the EU is more certainty and reform, so it welcomes the reforms that we are fighting for, and the certainty that the referendum will bring.

Trade Union Bill

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

That is right.

[Julie Elliott]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Precisely, and I shall develop that a little further in a few moments. Under our proposals, electronic or workplace ballots would be overseen by an independent scrutineer, and before the ballots are run, that scrutineer would confirm that the proposed method met the required standard, that all members entitled to vote had the opportunity to do so and that votes were cast in secret with the risk of any unfairness or malpractice minimised. That is the same standard as set out in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. None of that, however, matters to Ministers.

[Julie Elliott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as he said in Committee, the provisions in this Bill fly in the face of every other bit of legislation that this Government have brought forward, whether it be using online means to apply for benefits, filling in tax forms or anything else? It is entirely at odds with everything else this Government are doing.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right, and for some reason, that does not seem to matter to Ministers—

Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Stephens]

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

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its continues:

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I have clearly stirred a hornets’ nest. I am spoiled for choice. I will start with the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, because we have not heard from her today.

[Julie Elliott]

I have made a couple of interventions. Can the Minister advise from what return the figure of 22% was derived? My understanding is that it is not based on 100%, so it is not an entirely complete figure.

Trade Union Bill (Seventh sitting)

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Would the Minister expect that information to be given to the police in writing, or by electronic means?

[Nick Boles]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade Union Bill (Eighth sitting)

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 35, in clause 10, page 5, line 43, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 5 on page 6 and insert “it has been renewed”.

The amendment would define an opt-in notice as expired if on its expiry date it had not been renewed.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Howell]

Not at the moment.

[Julie Elliott]

Just on that specific point.

[John Howell]

Not at the moment. If we look at Barclays bank, for example, we see that the level of tolerance of this is phenomenal. It is frightening to see that; in fact, it makes one wish to change one’s account straightaway.

In answer to the question asked some time ago by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth about other organisations that use these methods, I fully accept, as I said at the beginning, that electronic balloting—electronic voting—is gaining wider and wider significance and acceptability. However, the organisations using these methods are approaching that in a systematic way. All I wanted to say at this point was that tremendous caution needs to be exercised. I shall finish again with the opinion of Mr Killock that

“internet voting is a bad idea.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

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

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

[Julie Elliott]

I will try to be brief. Amendment 39 addresses electronic communications in regard to political funds. Electronic communication is essential in order to hit the Bill’s deadlines. As I have said before, there are almost 6 million trade union members in this country, and to communicate effectively with that number of people, and to get them to participate in a ballot, purely through the post is unrealistic.

The Bill says “either personally” and several other things. I am not sure whether the Government understand the way in which trade union branches are organised. Small workplace branches at the end of the street or in a place of work are few and far between. I have been a member of various branches in my several decades as a member of three different trade unions. At certain times I have been a member of a workplace branch, a branch particular to Sunderland, as I am at the moment, and, for many years of my career, a national branch based in London. Are the Government suggesting that travelling to the other end of the country is a reasonable thing to expect someone to do?

In evidence last week the Government showed a misunderstanding of who trade unions represent. Quite a number of trade union members are retired, because people do not stop being a trade union member when they retire. By virtue of being a retired member of society, such people are on a very limited income. In fact, many members that trade unions represent are on very small incomes. Do we really expect those people to be left seriously out of pocket when fulfilling their legitimate right to take part in a ballot to decide whether they want a political fund?

Moving on, electronic communication is absolutely common working practice in 2015. In every other arena, this Government want people to communicate electronically. I sat in a Committee Room for many weeks during the proceedings of the Welfare Reform Bill of 2012, in which the then Government introduced online applications for universal credit and discussed them for many other benefits. The Government therefore think electronically is a reasonable way to communicate sensitive personal information, the secure transmission of which leads to people getting the money that they need to live on, but they do not deem electronic communication acceptable for the communication of whether someone wants to contribute to a political fund. A debate was held just yesterday about registering to vote, which involves incredibly sensitive information such as national insurance numbers and dates of birth, but the Government view the electronic transmission of such information as acceptable.

We have also talked about the acceptance of online banking in this country. The hon. Member for Henley did not take my intervention, but regarding the 48% increase in banking fraud, I wonder what figure that is a percentage of. I think the hon. Gentleman was a tax adviser in his former life, and most tax returns—what more sensitive information is there than a tax return?—are done online. It is unbelievable to say that electronic communication is not widely accepted, is insecure and does not transmit information that is far more sensitive than a trade union member’s indication of whether they want their union to have a political fund.

Moving on to e-balloting, ballots and getting them right are absolutely key. As has been said previously in Committee, the balloting process is crucial. Everyone wants the result as quickly as possible, and an accurate result is essential for all sides to feel that procedures have been adhered to properly. In the evidence sessions, Opposition Members explored the fact that internal political ballots take place all the time, including for the Conservative mayoral candidacy in London. I also have much experience in secure workplace balloting, which is commonplace for recognition voting under right to recognition legislation. It is up to trade unions, their members and employers to decide in which format they want a ballot to take place, which varies enormously depending on whether the workplace is nine-to-five with people sitting at computers all day or a shift-pattern, industrial workplace. The range of balloting arrangements is enormous, but certification officers are always happy with such arrangements, and there are few challenges.

Secure workplace balloting is less disruptive and is over much more quickly than the methods proposed in the Bill. Let us not forget that trade union members could be taking part in a ballot that could affect their income. Many trade union members are low-paid workers, so the decision to lose a day’s pay is a significant decision that they would not take lightly. From the employer’s side, the quicker that it gets a result and thus a conclusion to what will have been by that point protracted negotiations will be to the benefit of all. I really cannot see why the Government are so opposed to e-balloting or secure workplace balloting.

Surely the aim of any part of the Bill is to get the maximum participation possible. That is what it should encourage, in line with the compliance measures for thresholds earlier in the Bill. On the one hand, the Bill seems to say, “We absolutely want almost everybody to take part in the ballot,” but on the other hand, it says, “We want to do everything to discourage and dissuade people from taking part by putting every possible obstacle in place.” This morning, the Minister acknowledged indirectly that electronic communication in other parts of the Bill is acceptable. I struggle to understand the Government’s opposition to our amendment and new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 98 would remove the Government’s power to increase the minimum threshold over which unions are required to report on items of political expenditure from £2,000. Given that we have not seen the regulations and that this is one of the “Trust us, we’re the Government” clauses of the Bill, I want to understand whether—and, if so, when—they plan to increase the threshold, because the power could be used to compound even further the effects of this discriminatory clause, which affects only trade unions and not other political donors.

[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.

[Nick Boles]

I will try to reassure Opposition Members on a few points. They seem to be suggesting that this is somehow an egregious singling out of trade unions to require a level of transparency that does not apply to anyone else.

First, let me assure the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that employers associations will be covered by the provisions in clause 11. Even more importantly, companies are already required to declare the details of spending on political activity above £2,000 per annum and have been for a long time. To require the same of trade unions therefore does not seem unfair or unreasonable.

There is currently inconsistency in the level of detail provided in union returns on political expenditure. Some unions are transparent and provide detailed information in their annual returns to the certification officer. We want the example of those unions that provide clear information to be followed by all. That is why we propose that where political expenditure is more than £2,000 per annum, expenditure should be broken down to detail the different items of spending. An equivalent provision applies to companies.