Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

As the hon. Lady will know, we work with many industries. I attend industry and sector councils, and we have strategies, including the metal strategy, of which I am sure she is aware. She will also be aware of the actions that we have taken, such as cutting energy costs, providing flexibility on EU emissions regulations, changing procurement guidance and looking at business rates, all of which will help the steel industry across the United Kingdom.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

If the Small Business Minister is right about Sheffield Forgemasters, why was it so furious about her words? Why did it make clear that it could supply 80% of the components necessary for Hinkley Point C? Should she apologise to the House, or can the Secretary of State do that on her behalf? What explains the answer that she gave to Parliament—ignorance, or lack of faith in UK steel?

[Sajid Javid]

The Small Business Minister has absolutely nothing to apologise for, and she was accurate in her statement. As I did the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), I encourage the hon. Gentleman to speak to Forgemasters himself. As I am sure he agrees, whenever we can use British steel for defence purposes, it is important that we do.

Onshore Oil and Gas

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling point. There was a day, obviously, when civil servants of that type did not engage at all with the public. Did he consider inviting a Minister to explain things, given that Ministers are responsible for policy and have the skills he is talking about?

[Graham Evans]

No, I did not consider inviting a Minister. It was a Friday night in the north-west of England, on a wild, windy and wet night. I would not expect my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me. We constituency MPs are perfectly placed. We are experienced enough, and we know the public and the area. I chaired the meeting, and I believe it is the role of the MP to do that, and to reflect all the concerns that exist. The public agencies are there to reassure the public, because not all members of the public believe what politicians say, but I also had independent people there. There was an independent professor there, who was a sceptic, but also a local businessman who was an expert in property values, and representatives of Ineos, a good local employer and well known chemical company.

Those public meetings were a great success. Despite the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I would not expect a Minister to be at such meetings, but I would expect the public agencies to be there. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made a good point, and we should have the expertise there to reassure the public. We are asked for guarantees; we cannot guarantee anything, but the whole point of the Environment Agency and Public Health England is to hold Government, the contractors and the companies to account.

I regard this as a first-world problem. We are a great manufacturing nation, and we need to keep it that way for high-wage jobs. When I became an MP in 2010 we had a wind farm application on Frodsham marshes, which went ahead. We also had four applications for energy from waste sites, otherwise known as incinerators, surrounding Weaver Vale. Two of those have planning permission, one is in operation and one is currently being built. Energy is clearly a thing of the 21st century in a constituency such as mine, which is part of Cheshire. Cheshire is regarded as a rural county, but it has expertise in engineering and chemicals.

The potential benefits of additional high-skill, high-wage engineering and manufacturing jobs and the increased security of our energy supply are too important to neglect. Hydraulic fracturing is an established technology and has been used in the oil and gas industries for many decades. The UK has more than 60 years’ experience of regulating the onshore and offshore oil and gas industry and is a world leader in the field. I believe that if the best engineering practices are used alongside a robust inspection system, fracking can be carried out safely in our constituencies. Engineering and chemical industries are a vital part of the northern powerhouse, especially if we want to ensure a high-wage, low-tax, low-welfare economy in the north-west of England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a very interesting debate. I have certainly learned a lot by listening to contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I thank everyone for that and congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing the debate. He told us that fracking—I am sorry to use that term—was a big issue in his constituency. Nevertheless, he made the case in relation to clean air, strategic interests of our economy, the industrial supply chain and jobs, including in the steel industry, tax revenues and exports. He slightly deprecated Government intervention in the economy, I think, by giving examples of economic progress where that had not happened. Then he outlined a whole series of Government interventions that he thought were necessary for this industry to work appropriately in the context of his constituency, so I think that there is a balance to be struck in relation to what the Government’s role is in developing a new industry of this kind.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The deprecation that I expressed was more about providing short-term subsidies that are then withdrawn, rather than thinking long term. The interventions that I suggest are long-term interventions that would control and regulate the industry.

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand that, although I think that there is a case to be made for saying that some of the subsidies that the Government have withdrawn could have been planned in a longer term way. We will leave that point, however, because is not the subject of our debate.

I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), as other hon. Members have done, for her speech and for campaigning assiduously, particularly on behalf of the steel industry and her constituents. She put the case very well. Whatever we may think about the industry, the House has taken a decision, although it may not be the one that we wanted. There are clearly opportunities for British manufacturing, so we have to take a pragmatic approach and plan accordingly. We need a strategic approach to ensure that UK plc and jobs in the UK benefit to the greatest extent possible from the development of the industry. My hon. Friend outlined the potential for the UK chemicals industry and for manufacturing in general. She made some good points about the pumps that would be required for the industry, about sand and cement and about the steel industry. I congratulate her on her contribution.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) described a public meeting in his constituency. I understand the difficulty of getting the message across. Energy generation is one of the great “wicked issues” of politics. We all know the rule in politics: everybody wants cheap, plentiful, clean energy at the push of a button, but nobody wants it to be produced anywhere near to where they live. Those two things, as we all know, are incompatible. We are required to wrestle with such wicked issues every day as constituency MPs, Ministers and leaders in our community and across our country. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to point that out.

I believe that Ministers might have a more direct role than the hon. Gentleman seems to think in taking the message to the public. That is part of Ministers’ responsibility, and they should not duck away from taking on difficult issues. In my experience, when Ministers take such responsibility, in the longer term they produce results for the Government in question—not that it is my duty to give them advice on how to win elections. I certainly think that Ministers have a direct role, although I appreciate that the Minister might not wish to spend his Friday nights in the way in which the hon. Gentleman described.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) gave us an interesting insight, in his brief contribution, into the fact that the industry had its place in the 19th century. Shale was exploited in his constituency in the 19th century, so it is not a new concept.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) told us about his experience in Europe, and told us not to blame him for the bad things that have gone on there. Yesterday, other hon. Members and I attended a dinner with the aerospace industries. Since the start of the European collaboration that is Airbus, the European share of the commercial airline market has gone from 18% of the world market to 50%. It was made absolutely clear to us last night that that would not have happened without European co-operation and our membership of the European Union, so it is not all bad.

The hon. Gentleman described his friend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton as brave, and I am sure that he is. I am sure he would be equally brave if his majority were 456 rather than 19,456. He is quite right that it is always tough to have to wrestle with concerns from one’s own constituents.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) made, as ever, an informative and expert speech. He pointed out—this is the elephant in the debate—that the current wholesale price makes it substantially more difficult for the industry to get going than might otherwise be the case. He made a well-informed and interesting speech, in which he pointed out the potential for other industries.

We had a speech from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who laid out her party’s position. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) had made a speech. He made many interventions, all of which were interesting and, as ever, informative. We slightly missed out, but he did give us the benefit of his interventions.

It is my responsibility to set out our position as a party. We have already laid out the conditions that we wanted to see in place before the industry developed further, to ensure the implementation of the protections that hon. Members have expressed concern about. I will not go into great detail on that, because we have not got time. Given that the UK will rely on gas, on any estimate, until at least the 2030s and possibly beyond that—we are very reliant on imported gas from Norway and Qatar, as was pointed out during the debate—we support exploratory drilling, but it must not be at any cost. We made that clear in the amendments we tabled last year to the Infrastructure Bill. Despite conceding some of those points during the debate, the Government have somewhat reneged on them since the general election. We laid out a large number of conditions that we thought were necessary before exploratory drilling could go ahead. I will not list them now, because of the time, but they are well established on the record. That remains our party’s policy.

We have criticised the Government for allowing communities to decide whether they want onshore wind farms but not extending the same community involvement to this industry. There are questions about the appropriate level of local concern over a strategic industry of this kind. In relation to onshore wind, the Government have rather undermined their argument about the industry by the position that they have taken. I will not press any further on that point.

The development of this industry offers great opportunities for manufacturing industry in this country. One might call it “manufracturing”, as some have done. The Government must acknowledge that unless they bring forward an active industrial strategy, those opportunities will not be realised. We have heard about opportunities that have been missed with other industries, including offshore wind, because of a failure to understand and exploit the supply chain opportunities of a developing industry. There is a great danger that the same thing will happen in relation to this industry as it develops, unless there is an active industrial strategy. That must be driven by the Government being prepared to pull every lever at their disposal and bring all the appropriate parties together in the same room, as the previous Government did, for example, with the creation of the Automotive Council. In fairness, that was carried on beyond 2010 and is still in existence. It has brought tremendous benefit to UK manufacturing by getting industry and interested parties together and encouraging them to understand that there is a commonality of need, even where people are in competition with each other, for the sector.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

On the subject of an integrated industrial strategy, the comments of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) about the east coast of America are quite interesting. The Obama Administration underwrote a lot of those projects with stimulus funding, which is part and parcel of the Obama Administration’s industrial strategy.

[Kevin Brennan]

On this side of the Atlantic, we tend to think that the USA is a laissez-faire society, but when we go there and see the reality of policies, not only at federal level but at state level, we soon find out that the picture is very different from our assumptions. Next time, I hope that my hon. Friend will prepare a speech, because we will not let him intervene so many times, no matter how interesting his contributions are. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about what he will do to make sure that the Government pull every possible lever.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I advise him not to take the Opposition spokesman’s suggestion of addressing us, as Queen Victoria accused Gladstone of doing to her, as though we were a public meeting.

Student Maintenance Grants

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a lively and extremely interesting debate, with contributions from 17 Back-Bench speakers, by my calculation. I will not mention them, because time is short as a result of the interest in the debate.

I have some sympathy for the Minister for Universities and Science, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), because we all know that the decision to scrap maintenance grants for the less well-off students in favour of loans was really made by the Chancellor and not by him. I know that he and the Chancellor are old friends—this goes back to the days when they were penniless students together, having to scrape by on their student grants and meagre Bullingdon club dinners—but I find it hard to believe that he went to his old friend the Chancellor and said, “Having been appointed as Universities Minister, I have suddenly decided that we were wrong to have maintenance grants for the less well-off students and it would be a great idea for the worse-off students to have the most debt after they have been to university.”

I might be wrong about the Minister, but he does not strike me—he has not until today—as the kind of person who would think it right to change the system so that, as the British Medical Association points out in its briefing for this debate, medical students from the poorest backgrounds could graduate with £100,000 of debt. Nor does he strike me as the kind of person who thinks that it is all right to go back on promises made by Tory Ministers when the new system was introduced. It was David Willetts after all who said that the tuition fees increase was progressive precisely because of the higher education maintenance grant. That was the argument made. The Minister does not strike me as the kind of politician who would cynically pursue policies that penalise younger people who are less likely to vote Tory, or even to vote at all, than others.

Despite what was said today about page 35 of the Tory party manifesto, I do not think that the Minister for Universities and Science would think it was really okay to carry out this kind of major change of policy direction without explicitly putting it into the party’s manifesto, so that the public, including young people, could see what they were voting for or against. Is he really the kind of politician who, having done all this, would then slink away from debating such a major change openly and properly on the Floor of the House in Government time? I may be wrong, but I never thought that he was that kind of politician, or that he was that cynical.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

However, I think we know someone who is that cynical. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Simon Hoare]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to me. Will he flick back through his archives and find where, in the 1997 manifesto, the Labour party had the introduction of student loans in the first place, because I cannot remember seeing it?

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman told us in his speech how hard he has worked. Given that he is from Cardiff and that he has such an accent, I can absolutely acknowledge that he is a very hard-working individual. He will know that a general election was fought following that decision being taken and before they were introduced.

We all know that the Chancellor prefers governing from the shadows, and this shameless betrayal of previous promises and the shabby manner in which this has been handled in Parliament bear all the hallmarks of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. Being young in Britain should be a time of opportunity—a time when opportunity knocks. Instead, we have the Chancellor introducing an opportunity tax. His proposals are an assault on aspiration, on opportunity and on those who want to get on in life. That is why we oppose them and also why the Welsh Government, under Labour First Minister, Carwyn Jones, is keeping maintenance grants. By the way, those who say that these proposals affect only England should think again—I say this to Welsh Conservative MPs as well: of the 30,000 students studying at Cardiff University, nearly 9,000 are from England.

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not wish to mislead the House, but he has just said that tuition fees were introduced not after the 1997 election, but after the following general election. That is not true. They were introduced in 1998. Having said that they would not introduce them, the Government started the process 12 weeks later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point of debate, not a point of order for the Chair. We have very little time.

[Kevin Brennan]

I would have been happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Actually, I was asked about student loans, not tuition fees.

Students in constituencies such as Cardiff North are registered to vote in Wales, but, subject to the decisions that will be taken after this debate, local Welsh MPs can have their votes nullified under the constitutional monstrosity that is the English votes for English laws procedure, which the Government have foisted on this House.

Who will be affected by these measures today? This is what the IFS says:

“The poorest 40% of students going to university in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 from a three-year course, rather than up to £40,500. This will result from the replacement of maintenance grants”.

Of course, as I just pointed out, it is about not just students going to university in England but students who are attending university and who are registered to vote in Wales, a thought that will not be lost on students in Cardiff North during next May’s Assembly elections.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I would be very encouraged if the hon. Gentleman would also note that as universities in Northern Ireland have had the number of students they can take capped, hundreds and hundreds of very able students from Northern Ireland take up places in English universities, and are happy to do so. It is an absolute disgrace that this measure should be deemed exclusively English because it affects my constituents and many parents and students from Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I am happy to acknowledge that.

It is not as if this policy will save that much for the public finances in the long run, despite the claims made by the Government. The IFS says that the replacement of maintenance grants by loans from 2016-17 will raise debt for the poorer students but do little to improve the Government’s finances in the long run. The truth is that the Chancellor is fixing the figures, not the roof.

I am pretty sure that I would never have gone to university had no maintenance grant been available, let alone have been the first from my family and from my comprehensive school to go to university and to go to Oxford. There are many others in this place for whom something similar is also true. The Government must accept that that is still the case for many thousands of young people. Indeed, that is why, as David Willetts said, maintenance grants were part of the structure when fees were tripled to £9,000 per annum under the previous Tory-led Government.

The decision is mean in spirit and underhand in execution. It will be tragic in its consequences for many young people, and I urge the House to reject it by supporting our motion.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 General Committees

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. The proceedings of Delegated Legislation Committees are not always diverting or a cause for celebration on all sides, but I hope that for once we might all agree that this is a very good day and a very good set of measures, because the purpose of the draft regulations is to implement the new national living wage and to secure greater compliance by increasing the penalty for the underpayment of minimum rates of pay.

I am going to do a dangerous thing, which is to try and anticipate what will be said by my opponent in this discussion, the hon. Member for Cardiff West, who is a friend—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Don’t ruin my career!

[Nick Boles]

If it needed any ruining.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will stand up and say, “Well, you opposed the minimum wage, which is a Labour invention, so this is a shockingly hypocritical act by the Government.” I have made it plain in a number of previous discussions that the Conservative party did indeed oppose the minimum wage, perhaps for reasons that were understandable at the time—if we look at the debate in Germany, which has only just concluded, there has been consistent opposition to the introduction of a minimum wage for similar reasons—but we were wrong. We were wrong to oppose it; we have said that we were wrong to oppose it; and, with the zeal of converts, we are now among its most passionate advocates. It is therefore entirely appropriate for a majority Conservative Government, the first for a long time, to be introducing not only an increase to the national minimum wage, but a whole new level through a national living wage to benefit people aged 25 and over.

Since the introduction in 1999 of the national minimum wage, it has been a clear and unqualified success in supporting the lowest-paid British workers. It has increased faster than both average wages and inflation without any adverse effect on employment, even during recession. The UK labour market and economy are now experiencing a number of unique highs: employment rates are at a record 73.9%, the highest since records began in 1971; real wages have grown by 2.4% over the past year, a rate not seen since before the most recent recession; we have the joint highest GDP growth among the G7 countries; more than 2 million jobs have been created since 2010; and 1.1 million more jobs are forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to be created by 2020.

That is why the Government believe that now is exactly the right time to go further and to build on the achievement of the national minimum wage, to move to a higher-wage, lower-tax and lower-welfare society, and to introduce the new national living wage to ensure that low-wage workers receive a greater share of the gains from economic prosperity.

The Government intend to set the initial national living wage at £7.20 an hour, with the aspiration for the rate to reach over £9 by 2020. The Government are setting the first rate so that we may make progress towards that ambition. We are also undertaking an internal review to assess the case for aligning the national minimum wage cycle with the national living wage and tax year. The initial national living wage rate is an increase of 50p per hour—

[Kevin Brennan]

Will that review involve a public consultation or will it be entirely internal, with no opportunity for people to contribute to it?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question to which I do not know the answer immediately. However, before we conclude, I am sure I will have time to give him the full answer that he properly demands.

The initial national living wage rate is an increase of 50p per hour on top of the current adult national minimum wage for all workers aged 25 and over. That is an increase of 7.5% on the current adult rate and 10.5% since the start of this Government. This means that a full-time worker will receive £910 more a year. Although ambitious, it is worth noting, for those who retain any concerns about economic impact, that that increase is not without precedent. In 2001, the national minimum wage increased by 10.8% in a single year and by more than 30% in the following four years without any significant adverse effects on employment.

Our ambition is for the national living wage to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020, subject to sustained economic growth. According to the forecast produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, a full-time national minimum wage worker will earn more than £4,700 more from the national living wage in cash terms by 2020. Some 2.75 million low-wage workers are expected to benefit directly and up to 6 million in total could see their pay rise as a result.

The Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to recommend increases to the national living wage towards 60% of median earnings by 2020. However, we recognise that the national living wage needs to be affordable for businesses, which is why we have chosen a proportion of median earnings that is the same as leading experts recommend.

In making its recommendations for the national living and minimum wage rates, the Low Pay Commission will continue to provide independent advice. That will include consideration of the pace of increases and will account for potential blockages to higher rate increases or constraints to specific areas in relation to low pay. The Government’s stated ambition will not require a change to the Low Pay Commission’s terms of reference or to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

The Government are absolutely clear that anyone entitled to be paid the minimum wage should receive it. To ensure that people receive the pay that they are entitled to, we are announcing a package of measures that will build on Government action to date and strengthen the enforcement of the national minimum and national living wages. That includes increasing the calculation of penalties from 100% to 200% of the arrears an employer owes, which these regulations will bring into force from 1 April. By increasing the penalties for underpayment, it is intended that employers who would otherwise be tempted to underpay comply with the law and that working people receive the money that they are legally due. As with the current penalty regime, it is our intention that the penalty would be reduced by half if employers pay within 14 days, but we are ensuring that non-compliant employers always face a penalty at least equivalent to the arrears that they owe.

We can only afford the national living wage because our long-term economic plan is working. We want everyone to benefit from the economic recovery that has been secured by long and hard work by the British people. That is why we believe that the national living wage is the appropriate step up for the hard-working people of this country. I recommend the regulations to the Committee.

[Kevin Brennan]

Thank you, Ms Vaz. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship for, I think, the first time, and I look forward to many more such occasions in future, hopefully.

The Minister started by saying it is a good day, but it is rather a sad day for some of us who are David Bowie fans, because of the announcement we heard today. Nevertheless, I understand the spirit in which the Minister made that comment, as he did so in relation to the measures that he is announcing. We welcome any attempt to enforce the national minimum wage more effectively, which is part of the purpose of the regulations, and any measures that result in better wages for some of the lowest paid in our economy. All those things are very welcome.

The Minister is wrong; I am not going to go over the fact that the Conservative party kept us up all night back in the days when we were trying to get the national minimum wage put into legislation. I will not mention at all that we were kept up night after night, because we all welcome conversion to a righteous cause, and the Government have now accepted that the national minimum wage is a good thing. The Minister gave a mea culpa with regard to the decisions taken and the fears expressed back then about the national minimum wage, which resulted in the bitter and difficult parliamentary battle to get the legislation through that I will not mention today.

We welcome any such attempt, and it is not our intention to divide the Committee on the regulations, so the Government Whip can safely send away all the troops he has assembled without any fear—I give him my word—that we will spring a surprise vote on Government Members at the end. They are, however, welcome to stay if they want to.

I have a number of questions, as the Minister might have anticipated, one of which I have already asked and on which he might have received some in-flight refuelling. I will allow him to come back on that after I have finished my remarks, although he is free to intervene if he wants to.

The point I raised in my intervention is that there is some concern that the review will simply be an internal one, setting a single date for increasing all the rates; the word is that it might be April 2017. It would be better to have a short public consultation, rather than the Government simply changing the rules by fiat and having an internal—I will not use the word “secret”, because I do not think it is meant to be—and private review. Will the Minister reflect on that, if he has had advice from his officials to the contrary?

[Nick Boles]

It might be more efficient to answer that question directly. We are not proposing a formal public consultation. We are currently consulting both trade unions and employer associations on the changes to the cycle, and we are obviously talking with the Low Pay Commission about its view of the proposed alignment.

[Kevin Brennan]

On the surface, that sounds welcome, but others may want to ask further questions and we reserve the right to pursue that in future. If dates are to be tidied up, proper care needs to be taken in order to ensure that no group of workers has its minimum wage increase delayed by any process of realignment. There are real issues that need consultation, and I hope the Minister has taken that observation on board.

I have a number of other questions. As the Minister rightly said, the penalty for employers that fail to pay the national minimum wage will increase under the regulations from 100% of the total underpayment to 200%, while a reduction if there is prompt payment by the errant employer will be maintained. I note that the maximum penalty of £20,000 per worker is not being changed. The reason given in the Government’s impact assessment is that the maximum penalty can only be changed through legislation—presumably primary legislation, rather than secondary legislation such as the regulations before us. Will the Minister clarify whether that £20,000 maximum penalty remains adequate, given that the legislation is now nearly 18 years old? In that time, the national minimum wage has been uprated, as the Minister rightly pointed out, on a significant number of occasions. Do the Government have any plans to uprate the maximum penalty in future through legislation or some other legislative vehicle that might become available along the way? I would be grateful for any thoughts he has on that.

Will the Minister clarify whether the reduction for prompt payment within the 14 days, which he proposes to retain under the regulations, is proving effective? How many employers actually pay up quickly as a result of that provision? Any information on that would be helpful for the Committee. Will he also clarify whether particular sectors of the economy are serial offenders in failing to pay the national minimum wage? It would obviously be useful to the Committee, if we are doubling the rate from 100% to 200%, to know which sectors are most likely to be affected. If it proves to be the deterrent the Minister hopes, it may bring those sectors more into line in paying the national minimum wage properly in the first place. Clearly, it would be useful to the Committee to know which sectors are the most likely offenders and, therefore, most likely to be impacted by the Government’s proposed change.

On the impact of the national living wage, which also forms part of the regulations, the Government’s impact assessment suggests that the cost to employers of introducing the national living wage will be in excess of £1 billion—perhaps the Minister can confirm that. It also suggests that there will be benefits of £137.5 million, split between employees, who will receive greater pension contributions as a result of their minimum wage payments being increased, and the Exchequer, which will receive higher national insurance contributions as a result of the increase in the minimum wage through the Government’s national living wage proposal. There is a similar split in the impact assessment of a £46.2 million benefit estimated to accrue to employees and the Exchequer as a result of the so-called ripple effect.

I am at a loss as to why the Government put those two together. There is no breakdown of the £137.5 million benefit to workers and the Exchequer that the Government say that there will be and no breakdown of the £46.2 million benefit to employees and the Exchequer that they say there will be from the ripple effect. Surely that is something we need to know. Is it the case that of the £137.5 million, £135 million will be a benefit to the workers and £2.5 million a benefit to the Exchequer? Is it the other way round, or half and half, or 60:40, or 70:30? Why have the Government chosen to put together in the impact assessment the £137.5 million benefit to employees and the Exchequer without telling us how much will go to the workers and, perhaps significantly, how much will go to the Chancellor?

I think we are entitled to know that figure and I hope the Minister will be able to provide the breakdown. If it is not readily available, I hope he will give a commitment to provide it as soon as possible after our deliberations to every member of the Committee. Perhaps he could also tell us why the figures were presented in such a way instead of being broken down between workers and the Chancellor.

Will the Minister tell us the Government’s assessment of the possible impact of the introduction of the national living wage on migrant labour entering the United Kingdom from Europe, as I could not find it in the impact assessment? Obviously, the debate about the free movement of labour across the European Union is a significant and live issue in the House of Commons, in Parliament and across the country at the moment. The Government propose to increase the minimum wage in a significant way, calling it the national living wage for over-25s. Surely they have made an impact assessment of the likely draw factor for workers from the European Union who want to exercise their right to free movement of labour and to work in the United Kingdom.

Some commentators believe that the impact of the increase in the national living wage will be far greater than any impact of restricting the availability of non-contributory benefits to European Union workers seeking to come to work in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us his estimate, or whether the Government have attempted an estimate—I will find it rather shocking if they have not—of the impact of the national living wage on the movement of labour from European Union countries into the United Kingdom?

Of course, the national living wage is a confusing term, because it is not a living wage at all. The Chancellor stole the term for a piece of political theatre in the House of Commons, but of course the living wage was a pre-existing construct, determined independently and based on what it actually costs to live—whether in London, where it is currently set at £9.15 per hour, or in other parts of the country, where it is set at £7.85 per hour.

It is welcome that the national minimum wage for the over-25s will rise to £7.20 in April as a result of the regulations before the Committee, but that is well short of the estimated living wage for places outside London, leaving aside the living wage for London. However, I appreciate that the national minimum wage is set for the whole country and that there is no separate rate for London. We might note in passing that as the term “living wage” has been adopted by the Chancellor, it might, some might say deliberately—I would not say so, but it is possible—cause significant confusion when it is introduced, as people confuse the national living wage and the living wage. I wonder whether Ministers have any plans to try to help the public to understand the difference between the two ideas and the two things.

The age limit for the national living wage has been set at 25, and it is understandable that the Government have chosen that age. It is specified in the original legislation, but it is a relatively high figure in comparison with other countries. In fact, many countries with minimum wages have youth rates, but it is almost unprecedented to wait until workers reach the age of 25 before paying them the full rate. It is, I believe, only Greece in the European Union that makes people wait so long before getting access to the maximum minimum wage, to coin a phrase, so the only available comparator in this context for our treatment of younger workers is, apparently, Greece.

It is important that the messages about the new national living wage do not leave younger workers behind. I would like the Minister to explain the Government’s position, in the light of the creation of the so-called national living wage, on the growth of the minimum wage for under-25s. Do they intend, through the creation of the so-called national living wage, to create a larger differential between the minimum wage paid to under-25s and that paid to over-25s, in the longer term? If that is part of the policy intention of the change, there will be a significant impact on younger workers—and on older workers—and it would only be fair for the Minister to explain that to us.

[Nick Boles]

I shall try to answer as many of the questions as I can with the information available to me.

First, the hon. Gentleman asked about the maximum penalty per worker of £20,000. It is important to point out that that was increased in May 2015 through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, so it is not the same as it always has been. There are very few cases that would go over £20,000 per worker but that is something that will be kept under review. If it becomes completely outdated, it can be further amended in future legislation.

The hon. Gentleman asked which sectors would most likely be affected by the enhanced enforcement measures being introduced in the regulations. Without singling out any sector absolutely, we know that low-paid work is most prevalent and that, in certain instances, there have been problems with a failure to implement minimum wage legislation in the care sector, retail and some other service sectors. I do not want to suggest or imply that there is not a majority in all those sectors of responsible employers who always abide by minimum wage legislation.

The hon. Gentleman will have seen that we do a regular naming and shaming exercise of employers who have failed to abide by minimum wage legislation. We intend to continue that. Sometimes we single out particular sectors for a spotlight and for investigation by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ resources because we know that they have a greater tendency of being close to the minimum wage for many of their workers. Care, retail and other service sectors would be first in that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the estimate of some of the benefits from the national living wage and identified a figure. I think the total figure for the two elements is £183.7 million, by which the employees and the Exchequer will benefit from employer pension and national insurance contributions. Those are not stripped out because, in a sense, employees ultimately benefit from increased employer pension contributions as they then receive the pension, and from national insurance contributions because that is how we support employees’ rights to state pensions.

The benefits that employees receive directly through the wage impact are captured elsewhere. That figure—the total increase of wages of £932 million—and the other payments do not immediately go to employees. They go to private pensions or to national insurance contributions, but they ultimately benefit employees. It does not make sense to try to strip out how much the Exchequer benefits and how much employees benefit because, ultimately, employees benefit from all of it through the pensions that national insurance contributions support.

[Kevin Brennan]

I accept that that is the Minister’s answer for now but I will probably want to press him further on another occasion because I am interested—and it is in the public interest—to know what is coming into the Exchequer as a result of the changes so that we can scrutinise them effectively. Obviously, I could pursue that through written parliamentary questions but if the Minister wants to reflect further on it, I am happy to let him do so.

[Nick Boles]

If there is any information about the breakdown, or if that can be arrived at, I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman. I will copy other members of the Committee into any letter I write.

The hon. Gentleman made the point about 25 being a relatively high age for the transition to the maximum rate for a minimum wage. He is right about that but he will be aware that, as well as not wanting to leave younger workers behind on wages, we do not want to leave them behind in employment. Unemployment rates are significantly higher for people under 25 than for those who are over 25. Given that this is a relatively substantial jump in the minimum wage payable, we thought it was right to set the transition age at 25. By that age, most people who will have been affected by minimum wage legislation will have amassed a sufficient level of experience to start commanding that level of wage. As we introduced the national living wage, we absolutely did not want to see employers refusing to employ young people because they have relatively less experience, and favouring older workers.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the differential between the national living wage and the national minimum wage, and whether there was any intention for the differential to grow. First, there is no intention that the differential should not be relatively stable. Ultimately, on all these questions, as indeed on the rate of increase for the national living wage, we will take advice from the Low Pay Commission. It is important, although we have set a level for the starting point of the national living wage, that the level for the point at the end of this Parliament should be a very clear aspiration to move on to 60% of median wages, but the path by which we get there is one on which we want the Low Pay Commission’s advice to be critical. The same is true for the commission’s judgments on the national minimum wage.

Ultimately, it is not inconceivable that the Low Pay Commission might at some point make different recommendations for increases in the national living wage and the national minimum wage that would apply to under 25-year-olds. Obviously, if the commission ever did that, we would want to understand why it thought it appropriate. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on occasion, we disagree with the commission’s recommendations, as we did on the apprentice minimum wage. Such disagreements are quite rare, and we would rather not disagree—we think that the commission does excellent work, and we generally want to be guided by it—but if it were to recommend an increase in differentials, we would want to test why it thought that was necessary and appropriate to ensure that the minimum wages supported the economy as well as the low pay of working people.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on the incentives for migrant workers to come from other European Union countries. He will want to take into account the Prime Minister’s ongoing negotiation with the European Union on access to working benefits, particularly tax credits. Obviously, in isolation, the national living wage may be a pull factor in one direction but, when combined with a reduction in access to tax credits, which is a core objective in the Prime Minister’s negotiation, it might play in the other direction. Given that there is not long to wait, we should probably wait to see the outcome of that negotiation before estimating any relative effects on migrant flows from other European Union countries.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not want to labour the point, but the Government should have some sort of view on what they expect the net impact of those two changes to be and on whether the pull and push factors will be equal or whether one will be greater than the other. The Government should be doing some work on that and should have something public to say. I will press further on that when I have an appropriate opportunity.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman is anticipating the conclusion of the negotiation. Although I am confident that the negotiation will be an absolute triumph, I would not want to put a figure on it, let alone start commissioning research on the impact. He will have to wait a little longer. His general point is that an increase in wages for all workers in a certain age group will, needless to say, increase the attractiveness of employment in this country, but the improvement in the state of the economies of many continental European countries relative to two, three or four years ago also has an extremely positive impact on people’s desire to get into secure employment in their own country. It is a complex picture, and it would be a mistake to think that any one factor is determinative in an individual’s decision to come and work in the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2016.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I spoke to a lot of Indian businessmen and women and many Indian students last week. There is certainly one area in respect of which we could certainly increase our exports to India, and that is education.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is all very well, but it is not working, is it? The UK’s latest balance of trade deficit is widening. It was up to £2.4 billion in the last quarter. Exports of goods—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise should have a little listen to this. Exports of goods from the UK actually fell last month by £700 million. It is a pity we cannot export spin, because the Government are very good at that. The “march of the makers” was very good, and now we have the “midlands engine”. What is the Secretary of State’s excuse for the Government’s dismal record on the trade deficit?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman should not do down our world-class exporters. They are doing a fantastic job. Let me give him a few examples of what they can export. They can export wine to France, chocolate to Belgium and even boomerangs to Australia, although I fear that it is sometimes the same boomerang that keeps coming back.

National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out, from direct experience, how good the ACAS hotline is. On the national living wage, which is coming in next April, a substantial Government communication campaign will start in the new year. We feel that it is in the months leading up to its introduction that communication will be most effective in making sure that employees and employers know that it is coming in, know what is required and begin to work out how to implement it in their systems.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Sports Direct scandal has occurred even though the national minimum wage has become a national treasure. Everyone supports it now, but, like all great social reforms, it had to be fought for in the teeth of bitter, all-night opposition in this House. Even when great social reforms become part of the political consensus, they still have to be fought for. The battle to sustain and enforce the minimum wage must be continuous and, frankly, requires more than just warm words from Ministers.

The TUC estimates that at least 250,000 workers are not being paid the minimum wage. What is the Minister’s estimate? Have the Government even made one? In the last Parliament, it was revealed that just nine firms had been charged for non-compliance with the minimum wage. Will he update the House on how many legal proceedings are under way against firms for non-compliance? Can he even tell us how many workers have received the money that they are owed after a notice of underpayment has been issued by HMRC, because up to now the Government have failed to provide those data? Will he order an urgent investigation into Sports Direct concerning the alleged abuses, which have led the Institute of Directors to label it

“a scar on British business”?

The Minister says that he is acting, but where are the results? How will he get results with the closure of so many HMRC offices? It is easy to talk the talk on low pay, but it means nothing to millions of low-paid workers, whose labour employers feel they can turn on and off like a tap, unless Ministers walk the walk on the minimum wage. When will we see real action to enforce it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

Proposals for individual sixth form colleges to become academies will be considered alongside other recommendations from the relevant area reviews, which are taking place between now and March 2017. When a college’s application is approved, it will be eligible for VAT reimbursement as soon as it has been re-established with 16-to-19 academy status. Once all the area reviews have been completed, we will of course review which sixth form colleges have not yet taken up the option and what course they want to take.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

What justification is there for treating sixth form colleges differently from other schools for tax purposes?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Lord Maude is overseeing an important review of the way in which UKTI works, to make sure that we are developing a sector focus and a strategic market focus around the world. We are maintaining momentum—and we will improve on it in the years ahead—in order to hit that ambitious target.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The deficit for which this Department is responsible is the trade deficit. The current account measures our ability to pay our way in the world and its deficit recently reached its highest point since the second world war. It is still at 3.6% of GDP. How on earth will refusing to have an industrial strategy help British exporters overcome the failure of this Government’s trade policy?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Gentleman has picked the wrong Minister to talk about industrial strategy, seeing as I lead one of our most successful ones on life sciences. The Secretary of State’s speech yesterday made very clear our commitment to innovation, and this Department, though our investment in science and innovation, is leading in building a long-term economic plan for the science, industries and innovation of tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman can cite trade balance figures all he likes, but the truth is that we are in a global economy and we cannot control the rate at which other economies grow around the world.

Trade Union Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I do not want to detain the House and I will not seek to divide it on this matter, but it is important to put on the record that we sought more time for the remaining stages of the Trade Union Bill, and that time has been further truncated by a lengthy statement on Europe. Suffice it to say that if the Government continue to use programme motions in this way, and insert statements to truncate debate on very controversial matters, it will only serve to weaken this place and its ability to scrutinise legislation, and to strengthen the other place, which I am sure will be very keen to scrutinise further the Bill when it arrives there after today’s proceedings.

Trade Union Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

As I said before, we are looking at the optimum way of voting. The Opposition’s new clause 9 provides for the possibility of a combination of voting methods to be used, but I note that the combination is to be selected by the union. Unless I have read it wrong —someone might want to put me right—this could imply that workplace-only ballots could, in effect, be reintroduced via the back door. Again, I would see that as a step backwards that should not be supported.

On electronic voting, it could be said that this is where society is heading, a point made very strongly by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and that union law should take the lead on something that will be generally adopted. I have not seen the most recent opinions of the Electoral Commission on e-voting, but I recall that it had serious concerns about its security a few years ago. Will the Minister please advise the House to what extent he has discussed this with the Electoral Commission, and whether he has reviewed the role of the certification officer with that of the Electoral Commission in the conduct of ballots? In that regard, if in the future we wished to move towards electronic voting generally, could this be effective for unions under existing legislation, such as the provisions in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004? In other words, are the e-voting amendments required at all?

If only because of the technological changes, this has been a useful debate. However, I am not yet convinced, in terms of security, that the proposals are the correct way to go at the current time.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Musicians Union and Unite, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

This group contains our new clauses 5 to 9 and amendments 7 to 9. It is good to return to the Bill after a jam-packed Committee stage, as it is clear from reading the proceedings that the Government did not provide sufficient time. The Minister said earlier that the proceedings finished early, but neglected to tell the House that they had run late the night before because the Government were afraid there was not enough time to conclude proceedings. He missed that bit out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

This oppressive Bill will particularly affect women, as three quarters of trade union members are women. The Government talk about aggression, but the only aggression is coming from them and their attack on the rights of working people.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I well remember as a young boy how my mother’s trade union helped her when she got a hernia from lifting tables as a dinner lady. Without its help, she would never have got the support she needed, and might even have lost her job. That experience of what trade unions actually do is something that Government Members often do not understand.

[James Cartlidge]

Talking about women, who do we seriously think is most affected when schools close because of ballots with low support? In Committee, we heard about the effect of school closures in 2011 on millions of parents. In most cases, those strikes had the support of well under 40%.

[Kevin Brennan]

I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman wants higher turnouts in ballots and so will be supporting our new clauses and amendments allowing for workplace balloting and e-balloting.

[Paula Sherriff]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the worst aspects of the Bill is that it is being applied retrospectively? Five million long-standing union members will have their political fund subscriptions cancelled without their permission or that of their union. It is no wonder the Government want to scrap the Human Rights Act.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by straying from the amendments, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the retrospective elements are particularly pernicious. Governments should refrain from retrospective legislation. I cannot believe, either, that the time periods were recommended by officials. When I was a Minister in the Department, any time period for consultation on a major change to a system involving business was always at least 18 months, so I am shocked if officials have advised Ministers that two months is sufficient.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Government have often used the rhetoric of fairness in trying to conceal their savage attack on workers’ rights. Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals to replace striking staff with agency staff are draconian? This measure was banned almost 10 years before I was born.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she will have a chance to develop her point further when we debate that very matter.

[Joan Ryan]

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) talked about people voting in the safety of their own homes. Will my hon. Friend comment on that? It was a slur on trade unions and employers, because it implied that electronic or workplace voting was not secure and that unions and employers bullied people. That is not my experience of how unions conduct themselves and their ballots.

[Kevin Brennan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, workplace ballots take place all the time, as other hon. Members have pointed out, and have to be independently scrutinised and verified as fulfilling all the statutory requirements for fairness. So it is absolute nonsense to imply that there is anything unsafe about it.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I agree that this is a terrible attack on trade unions and their rights, but we also have not yet heard any evidence of a serious problem, which proves again that the Bill is a straightforward attack on the trade union movement.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right. This is just what Tory Governments do, regardless of the evidence. They have not presented any evidence. I have read through the Committee proceedings and looked at the evidence given, but there is no evidence to support the changes in the Bill. It is a knee-jerk instinct, and that is greatly to be regretted.

We tabled many amendments in Committee, but, rather surprisingly, the Government did not accept any of them, despite the cogency of my hon. Friends’ arguments and their excellent drafting. We have therefore had to submit further new clauses. In answer to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), I have to say he has been in the House a long time and is very experienced. He knows that Report is not a repeat of Committee and that, given the extremely truncated time limit, it is necessary to focus on a small number of items. That makes no difference to the fact that in Committee we made clear our fundamental disagreement with the Bill in almost every respect.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman says he does not have enough time, but how could he come to this place today having not tabled amendments on, for instance, trade union funding or the vote percentages? Everyone, including all the union members who have written to Members, has been talking about these things, yet there is not a single amendment dealing with any of them.

[Kevin Brennan]

There were many amendments in Committee, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find there is not enough time to discuss those amendments that have been tabled, let alone additional items. However, if he wants to lobby his Ministers and Whips for more time so that we can put down more amendments, I would welcome that.

New clauses 5 would permit electronic voting in trade union ballots for industrial action, and new clause 6 would permit trade unions to use electronic voting in all other statutory elections and ballots, including elections of general secretaries and political fund ballots. Throughout the Committee stage, the Government sought to dress up the Bill as some kind of modernisation, but their continued refusal to introduce e-balloting alongside secure workplace balloting clearly demonstrated they were not serious about modernisation. Online balloting can be as safe and secure as any other form of balloting, and is already used for a variety of purposes in the public and private sectors, including at J. P. Morgan Asset Management, Lloyd’s of London, Chevron and, of course, the Conservative party itself, which recently selected its London mayoral candidate by e-balloting.

If Ministers’ reason for resisting e-balloting in the Bill seriously was fraud and concern about what the Speaker’s commission said about voting in parliamentary elections, why would they employ the very same method in their own party elections? We all know that the real fraud is the fraudulent argument of Ministers. In reality, they want to discourage turnout and make the thresholds harder to reach. That is rule 1 from the Tory party political playbook: disfranchise those who might disagree with it.

[Ruth Smeeth]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there has not been a single case of fraud in online or workplace balloting, and that of the seven cases of bullying, harassment and other fraud taken to appeal, not one was upheld?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right, and she probably also knows that most of those complaints about the conduct of ballots were made by trade unions themselves. I was going to make that point later, but perhaps there is no need to now.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has noted that none of the reasonable amendments put forward by Labour and other Members have been accepted. What does he make of the fact that combined authorities throughout England have stood in opposition to the fundamentals of this Bill, while the First Minister in Wales, Carwyn Jones stood up in the Assembly in Cardiff today and said he would oppose it? This shows that there is no respect and no attempt to find any consensus whatever.

[Kevin Brennan]

So much for the respect agenda, as my hon. Friend rightly points out.

[Dawn Butler]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those outside this place will look in bemusement at the argument that sitting in front of a PC and voting electronically will not be safe?

--- 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—

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

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I had not quite finished the sentence, but I will give way to my parliamentary neighbour.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend who is doing an excellent job as shadow Minister. He will know that I am transmogrified in my position, but it is a delight to be here speaking on this Bill again. Is not the greatest irony the fact that one of the architects of this Bill, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, stands up at the Dispatch Box at Cabinet Office questions extolling the virtues of the Government Digital Service and the digitalisation of online services in lots of highly secure and complex matters? That same Minister is one of the architects of this Bill, which does not allow e-balloting.

[Kevin Brennan]

One is not allowed to use the word “hypocrisy” in this House, so “irony” was the correct word for my hon. Friend to use.

As I was saying, none of this seems to matter to Ministers. Our new clauses also require unions to use postal ballots alongside electronic and workplace voting, where necessary, to ensure that everyone has a chance to vote and that members who may be absent from work due to sick leave or maternity, paternity or adoption leave will be able to vote. None of that matters to Ministers either. Our new clause allows unions to provide members with a choice of voting methods, including postal and electronic voting, and employers would be under a duty to ensure that union members can vote free from interference or constraints. The use of faster and more efficient balloting methods could also assist in the earlier resolution of disputes as ballots and subsequent negotiations would take place more quickly. But you’ve guessed it—none of this matters to Ministers.

I am sure that this Minister is going to trot out his line that he is not against e-balloting in principle, but that the Speaker’s Commission provided evidence of concerns about safety. However, the Open Rights Group’s evidence was based on comparison between general election voting in polling stations and online voting; it made no comment on the safety and security of wider forms of online voting. In any case, the commission’s report concluded that e-balloting should be available for all electors by 2020. The Minister could easily have allowed for the option for regulations to be laid within this legislation, which would permit e-balloting to commence when any concerns he had were satisfied.

There is no genuine reason whatever why trade unions should be the only organisations in the UK that are required by legislation to use postal-only ballots for elections and ballots. If the Government were genuinely concerned about levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate for all bodies to be required to use postal-only ballots. They will not, because they are not genuinely concerned. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manage over 2,000 secure online ballots annually, and a recent report concluded that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. In any case, union elections and ballots are more tightly regulated than voting systems used by other organisations, meaning even less chance of a problem.

[Mr Anderson]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He says there is no reason, but if we look back to when the legislation was introduced in the 1980s, we see that there was a reason. People were told then that ballots of this nature would deliver the turnouts, but why is this being pushed? It is a huge cost on the trade unions, so even if a union got the answer it wanted in a ballot, it would have cost a fortune to run that ballot, undermining the union’s capacity to work.

[Kevin Brennan]

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

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

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

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

[Kevin Brennan]

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

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

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

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

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Welsh Government will present a legislative consent motion in relation to Wales? I can assure him that he will have the support of Plaid Cymru if they do.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think that I would be equally guilty of arrogance were I to assume the role of devolved Ministers in the Welsh Government. However, the letter from the First Minister clearly indicated that a legislative consent motion was under consideration.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister for Public Services, Leighton Andrews, made it clear in his oral evidence to the Select Committee that he, too, was considering the matter. He also said today that the Bill, unamended, was

“an all-out assault on the devolution settlement”.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am always slightly nervous when I give way to my hon. Friend, because his expertise on all these matters is so thorough. He is absolutely right.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. Is he aware that the Bill is opposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, whose human resources spokesperson is none other than a Conservative councillor by the name of Billy Hendry?

[Kevin Brennan]

If that is the case, it does not surprise me, although it might surprise some Members. I should have thought most Conservatives would believe that arrangements entered into voluntarily, at a local level, between an employer and employees should not be interfered with by central Government. I should have thought that that was in the DNA of Conservative principles. Surely Conservatives believe that voluntary arrangements and transactions between parties that are entered into freely, and are not immoral or criminal, should not be tinkered with by central Government. That is what is extraordinary about some of the provisions in the Bill, which illustrate the blinkered nature of the Government’s views on trade unions and their role in our society.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Taken in conjunction with the Government’s wish to pull out of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the cuts in legal aid, the Bill constitutes a direct attack not only on the trade union movement, but on the general public in general terms.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sure that many of those human rights implications will be examined further in the other place, although the unfortunate time constraints prevent us from doing so here. No doubt many of those in the other place will consider the Bill with a great deal of interest.

Under current legislation, trade union workplace representatives have a right to reasonable paid time off to perform duties, which has huge benefits for employees and employers alike. Clause 13 could allow the Government to set a cap on the percentage of the employer’s pay bill that could be invested in facility time. It would also give the Government power to impose an arbitrary limit on the amount of time that union officials could spend not just negotiating improved pay and conditions, but training, promoting learning opportunities for the workforce, accompanying people to grievance and disciplinary proceedings, and carrying out health and safety duties.

Furthermore, as was pointed out in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, the clause establishes a democratic deficit. First, Ministers will be able to use secondary legislation to restrict or repeal trade union rights, so this place will have no opportunity to amend that legislation. Secondly, the clause will prevent democratically elected devolved Administrations from deciding how to manage their employment relations in their workplaces, and how to engage with their own staff. Thirdly, it will enable the Government to pick and choose politically which local authorities it will force to impose a cap. That is an extremely dangerous precedent.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the “reserved powers” elements of the Bill show that the Government intend to use that opportunity?

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; I do not think that those provisions would be in the Bill if the Government did not intend to use them. Parliament should not grant the Government those reserved powers on any assumption other than the assumption that they intend to use them. Conservative Members should think very carefully about what they are granting in this Bill.

There are significant questions to be asked about the legal basis of such a change in relation to European Union law on health and safety representatives, on the rights of trade union representatives to facility time during consultations on collective redundancies, on outsourcing, and on rights protected by the European convention on human rights and the International Labour Organisation conventions. Moreover, according to research commissioned in 2007 by the Department of Trade and Industry—now the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—workplaces with facility arrangements have lower voluntary exit rates, which leads to significant savings in recruitment costs.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cuts in facility time, along with the employment tribunal charges, will deter women from pursuing cases of maternity discrimination? The number of those cases is apparently rising, but women have not been receiving justice recently.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Other Members have also drawn attention to the degree to which the Bill discriminates against women in the workplace.

[Jo Stevens]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.

[Jo Stevens]

Is my hon. Friend aware of any other cases in which the Government have retrospectively interfered in private agreements between consenting parties in order to undo them?

[Kevin Brennan]

My research may have been inadequate, but I have not come across any such examples. However, the Minister must have dozens. Surely he would not single out one particular group in society for this draconian treatment unless he were meting out such treatment to other organisations as well.

[Lucy Frazer]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

Oh! The hon. and learned Lady has an example.

[Lucy Frazer]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when an employer and an employee enter into a contract, it is agreed between them that the employee will turn up for work and will not engage with others to disrupt the employment—[Interruption.] May I finish? The unions’ power to engage in collective activity is an exception to that principle—an exception that must be exercised only in circumstances in which it is justifiable and legitimate.

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand the basis on which, under our law, it has, for more than 100 years, been possible to undertake industrial action lawfully. The hon. and learned Lady may well know that it was a judgment in the part of the world that I represent—along with my hon. Friends the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Cardiff Central—that, more than 100 years ago, led to the requirement for changes to ensure that, as in any civilised democratic society, working people had the right to withdraw their labour if they were involved in a trade dispute. I hope the hon. and learned Lady is not suggesting in any way, shape or form that there should not be that right. As I said earlier, if she was serious about wanting more people to be involved in decisions around trade disputes—in balloting and so on—she would support our new clauses and amendments, which allow for workplace balloting and e-balloting, and easier access to democracy for the people she purports to speak about.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having facility time improves industrial relations in the workplace and therefore lessens industrial action?

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree; there is plenty of evidence that it saves money and facilitates good industrial relations. It is draconian and illiberal of the Government to interfere in voluntary agreements between employers and employees by means of central diktat in this way, and as regards their reputation, I believe that they will live to regret that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman must be a mind-reader; I am coming on to that shortly.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose expertise it will be interesting to hear.

[Mr Wright]

Following on from the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), does the shadow Minister agree that the hallmarks of a good, productive, innovative economy are collaborative, harmonious industrial relations? The likes of Airbus with Unite, and Community throughout the beleaguered steel industry, will help to make sure that we can stay competitive. Trade unions are good for not just individual workers but for a modern, productive economy.

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, and they would be part of an industrial strategy if this Government believed in one, but instead, the Government are basically walking across the street to pick a fight where no provocation exists.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Brennan]

Let me make a bit more progress, because I want other colleagues to have an opportunity to participate in this section of the debate.

Negotiations between employers and unions can play a very positive role in workplaces. The Welsh Government realised the value of such benefits, and based relations with trade unions on a partnership approach. As Carwyn Jones said in his letter,

“it cannot be right for the UK Government—blind to policy priorities and devolved service delivery reforms in Wales—to specify how much union ‘facility time’ devolved public sector employers should allow. Nor am I convinced that the intention to end ‘check off’ arrangements for trade union subscriptions in the public sector is necessary or appropriate. The Welsh Government operates these arrangements as part of its approach to effective social partnership and is not seeking to change this.”

Despite this, the Tory Government plough on. This is not the agenda of respect. This is an attitude of contempt towards devolved Administrations. Since I have referred to “check off”, I will now move on to amendment 9—

[Joan Ryan]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

But prior to moving on, I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Joan Ryan]

I rise to offer my hon. Friend support. Some 60 local councils and NHS organisations agree with the point he is making on behalf of Carwyn Jones. The leader of Enfield Council has said:

“It would seem rather farcical to expect a Council to develop efficient organisational structures, internal employee consultation and negotiation systems, and deliver million pound services to the public but deny its right to set the level of facility time appropriate to meeting these objectives.”

[Kevin Brennan]

The leader of the council has put it succinctly and appropriately.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I have been both a shop steward and the leader of a council, so I have seen this from both sides. Let me explode the myth: most good employers in big companies will say that facility time saves them money; they do not want hundreds of their employees disrupting the foreman when he is organising production. It is apparent that those on the Conservative Benches do not have any experience of industrial relations or employment practices.

[Kevin Brennan]

If it was felt there had been abuse in some areas, that could be dealt with, but to legislate to outlaw something of this kind is shocking. Yet that is, in effect, what the Government are doing.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The point is that under the law, a human resources director of a large company would still have to consult individuals. Through collective consultation, a lot of agreements can be made very quickly; the union can communicate with its members very quickly and negotiate with an HR director. With this legislation, an HR director will have to go round to every single employee. We are talking about the NHS, and councils that have several thousand employees. That will cost vast amounts of money, take vast amounts of time and leave the Government and those employees in a really peculiar situation in which they could be taken to judicial review.

[Kevin Brennan]

As ever, my hon. Friend brings his vast experience of these matters to bear in the debate.

Our amendment 9 would ensure that the ban on check-off arrangements would not apply to services that were wholly or partly devolved. In Committee, the Government introduced a new clause—it is now clause 14 of the Bill—to prevent all public sector employers from deducting union subscriptions via the payroll. The proposed ban is clearly designed to target union finances and to make it harder for individuals, including lower-paid workers, to access union representation in the workplace. Under the clause, the Government will be able to introduce regulations imposing a ban on check-off arrangements across the entire public sector.

The Government claim that that will save the taxpayer £6 million, but many unions already cover the cost of check-off services. There is a real risk that if the ban on check-off services comes into effect, the Government— and therefore the taxpayer—will actually incur costs, potentially including legal costs arising from the need to compensate trade union members for the loss of their contractual right to have their union subscription deducted at source.

The proposed ban on check-off arrangements has been introduced without consultation with employers, without engagement with the unions and without any proper assessment of its impact on employment relations. It was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto or in the Queen’s Speech, and there was no reference to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the impact assessments that accompanied the Bill. I note the concern that has been expressed by Conservative Members on this matter in amendments that we will consider later today.

[Kirsten Oswald]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when many organisations already make provision for payroll deductions for credit unions, charitable giving, cycle schemes and for many other purposes, it is an absolute farce for the Government to suggest that it places a burden on such organisations to make deductions for trade union subscriptions?

[Kevin Brennan]

I have to disagree with the hon. Lady: it is a tragedy rather than a farce that the Government are doing this. I understand the point that she makes.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend has already punched holes in the figure of £6 million and the calculations that underpin it. Does he agree that if the Government are to have any credibility, they should also publish an estimate of the extra costs that the taxpayer will be landed with as a result of the increasing unrest and decreasing co-operation that these ridiculous arrangements might engender in the public sector workforce?

[Kevin Brennan]

I do indeed. My hon. Friend represents an area that has many trade union members, and he is absolutely right. It is shocking that the Government have not published those figures. I hope that the Minister has deep pockets, because he might well have to dip into them when he finds out how much this policy is going to cost.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Some councils actually make money from check-off arrangements. One or two examples have been given to me of councils not only repaying the costs of check-off but getting extra funding that supports council services.

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[Tom Blenkinsop]

In Committee, we raised this issue about other things that can be collected centrally by an HR department or the payroll. For example, some members of staff may be chartered accountants or nurses who pay for their qualifications on an annual basis through their payroll, and that would not be affected but their trade union membership of course would be.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is entirely appropriate from time to time for payroll to be used in this way. Often, members pay into a credit union through their payroll. These things should be encouraged; they are very good for industrial relations.

This ban was not included in the Conservative manifesto or the Queen’s Speech, and no reference was made to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the Department’s impact assessment. As we have heard, there have been concerns among Government Members about this move as well. It is almost universally opposed, except by the TaxPayers Alliance, known colloquially as the tax-dodgers alliance, which gave evidence during the oral evidence stage.

In pressing ahead, the Government have failed to secure substantial employer support for their proposals, with many employers, particularly in local government and the health sector, having expressed concern that they could undermine positive industrial relations, which are vital for the delivery of quality public services. Is it any wonder that that is the case, given that employers and trade unions were not consulted? We believe these provisions are unnecessary and draconian, and I give notice that we may wish to press amendment 9 to a vote later—for some strange parliamentary reason, it does not come at this knife.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this further complicates the situation in the health environment when people pay not only a levy for the industrial support of a trade union, but a professional levy that goes towards the professional support they have with their work?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend highlights the lack of thought, consultation and proper scrutiny that has gone into this proposal. It is unravelling by the minute as hon. Members bring their expertise to bear on the implications that it has out there in the real world.

Let me draw attention to some of the other amendments in this group. The Scottish National party has tabled a raft of amendments, some of which were moved in Committee. I understand that the SNP may wish to divide the House on new clause 2, which is in the spirit of our new clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Given the time available, if the SNP does that, we will support it in lieu of our new clauses—the same applies in respect of new clause 10. At this point, I should allow somebody else an opportunity.

[Lucy Frazer]

Trade unions play an important role in protecting the rights of employees: through their collective power, they have the ability to balance the scales against an employer, who invariably has greater economic and social power than the employees in its workforce. Last week, I met a few trade union officials from my constituency, and was struck by the passion and desire they have to do their job in representing others. But therein lies the crux of this legislation: it is a union’s job to represent its workforce, so its actions must represent their wishes. It is important that when a union has the power to bring a school, hospital or factory to a temporary standstill, its actions actually reflect the will of its members. I say that for three reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I will speak primarily to amendments 15, 16 and 21, tabled by the Scottish National party, which relate to the clauses on thresholds and the termination of the ballot mandate. My understanding is that if they were added to the Bill, they would, in effect, be completely redundant because they would require the provisions to be agreed by all the devolved authorities and, interestingly, by the Mayor of London, who I expect would very strongly agree.

It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee, my first as a Member of Parliament. I can genuinely say that I, for one, have a great admiration for the union movement. As a new MP, I found it stimulating and interesting to cross-examine the five most powerful union leaders. I went up to them afterwards and shook their hands. In fact, Sir Paul Kenny, perhaps sensing my inexperience in these matters, asked me whether I would like to come and join him on a picket line to find out what it was like. I am not sure which picket line he was referring to—perhaps the Chief Whip’s—so I declined it on that occasion.

[Kevin Brennan]

You have made that illegal, haven’t you?

[James Cartlidge]

Well, he gave me an invitation.

I must confess that there are many parts of the Bill on which I would not have been an expert had I not sat on the Public Bill Committee, but many members of the public think the same. If we were to talk about parts of the Bill to people who were not au fait with the details of unions or who were not themselves unionised, they would not necessarily be familiar with or see its significance. I do not say that with any disrespect to such issues, which I recognise are important to many Opposition Members.

For most members of the public, the key issue is the threshold. This is about the large strikes that, although relatively small in number, have had a massive impact, such as the London tube strikes. I would say to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who made a very impassioned speech, that if he wants to see fury and people considering civil unrest, he should go and watch London commuters trying to fight their way on to a bus because the tube was out of action because of a ballot on lower than the threshold we will require.

--- Later in debate ---

Union supervision of picketing

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move amendment 6, page 4, line 31, leave out clause 9.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 38, page 5, line 6, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 10, page 5, leave out lines 7 to 19 and insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 39, page 5, line 7, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 40, page 5, line 10, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 41, page 5, line 15, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Government amendments 2 and 3.

Amendment 42, page 5, line 17, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 43, page 5, line 20, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 44, page 5, line 25, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Government amendment 4.

New clause 1—Industrial action and agency workers—

‘(1) Subject to subsection (3), an employment business shall not introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer to perform—

(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action (“the first worker“), or

(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker,

unless in either case the employment business does not, and has no reasonable grounds for knowing, that the first worker is taking part in a strike or other industrial action.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) an employer (“the hirer“) shall not procure an employment agency to supply a work-seeker to perform—

(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action (“the first worker“), or

(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker,

unless in either case the hirer does not, and has no reasonable grounds for knowing, that the first worker is taking part in a strike or other industrial action.

(3) Subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply if, in relation to the first workers, the strike or other industrial action in question is an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action for the purposes of section 237 of the 1992 Act.

(4) For the purposes of this section an “employment business” means an employment business as defined by the Employment Agencies Act 1973.

(5) Breach of the provisions of this section shall be actionable against both the employment business and the hirer for breach of statutory duty.

(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the duty in subsections (1) and (2) above are owed to—

(a) any worker who is taking part in the strike or industrial action; and

(b) any trade union of which such a worker is a member.”

New clause 3—Statements on Bills affecting Trade Union political funds—

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill, if the Bill contains provisions which are likely to affect the machinery of Trade Union political funds—

(a) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has been introduced with the agreement of the leaders of all the political parties represented in the House of Commons, or

(b) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has been introduced without agreement of the leaders of all the political parties represented in the House of Commons as the case may be.

(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.”

New clause 4—Certification Officer—

For subsections (2) to (4) of section 254 of the 1992 Act substitute—

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

(3) There shall be a Certification Officer for Scotland, equal in status to the Certification Officer in subsections (1) and (2) above.

(4) The Certification Officer for Scotland shall be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, and the person appointed shall have expertise in trade union law.””

Amendment 27, page 5, line 31, leave out Clause 10.

Amendment 1, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

‘(2A) After section 85 of the 1992 Act insert—

“85A Payment of political funds directly to political parties

(1) The opt-in notice at section 84 of this Act must include a provision to permit the member of a trade union to direct the trade union to transfer the member’s political fund contributions directly to a UK political party rather than the trade union’s political fund.

(2) In this section a “UK political party” is a political party that is on the register of political parties in Great Britain and Northern Ireland maintained by the Electoral Commission.

(3) Where a trade union member indicates that his or her contributions should be transferred directly to a UK political party, the union must make the transfer within 31 days of receipt of the contributions from the member.””

This amendment would empower trade union members to direct their political fund contributions be paid directly to a political party rather than into a union’s political fund.

Amendment 28, page 7, line 11, leave out clause 11.

Amendment 37, page 8, line 17, clause 12, leave out “how many” and insert “the percentage”.

Amendment 25, page 8, line 19, leave out “total amount” and insert “the percentage”.

Amendment 26, page 8, line 29, at end insert

“and whether these are met in part or in full by a contribution from a trade union.”

Amendment 24, page 8, line 29, at end insert—

“(f) the percentage of relevant union officials whose facility time is met by a contribution from a trade union in whole or in part.”

Amendment 23, page 8, line 42, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

Amendment 11, page 9, line 32, clause 13, at end insert—

‘(1A) A minister shall not exercise powers under this section except to the extent that the exercise of these powers is compatible with treaty obligations.”

Amendment 12, page 10, line 37, at end insert—

‘(9A) The regulations may require an employer to take any steps under this section except to the extent that these steps are incompatible with treaty obligations.”

Amendment 13, page 10, line 45, at end insert—

“(d) (1B) “treaty obligations” means treaties of (a) the Council of Europe and (b) the International Labour Organisation, which are in force and which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.”

Amendment 5, page 11, line 12, clause 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) Subject to subsection (2A), an employer is a relevant public sector employer if the employer is a public authority specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.

(2A) An employer is not a relevant public sector employer so far as trade union subscription deductions are concerned where there exists an agreement between the employer and a trade union which provides for—

(a) the remittance by the employer to the trade union of those deductions, and

(b) the making of a payment by the trade union to the employer in respect of that remittance.”

Amendment 36, page 11, line 37, at end insert—

‘(8) The regulations may require an employer to take any steps under this section except to the extent that these steps are incompatible with treaty obligations, where ‘treaty obligations’ means treaties of (a) the Council of Europe and (b) the International Labour Organisation, which are in force and which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.“”

Amendment 35, page 12, line 8, at end insert—

‘(4) A minister shall not exercise powers under this section except to the extent that the exercise of these powers is compatible with treaty obligations.”

[Kevin Brennan]

I must say I thought we won the last debate, but somehow or other we lost the vote. As Disraeli said, perhaps a majority is its own repartee, but perhaps things will be different when these matters are discussed in another place.

Amendment 6 would delete clause 9 and leave picketing arrangements as they currently stand. Picketing activities are already heavily regulated in the UK by an extensive range of civil and criminal laws. Unions must comply with the requirements for peaceful pickets contained in section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and operate in accordance with the accompanying code of practice. The Conservative Government have failed to demonstrate why the picketing provisions in the Bill are necessary or justified. The Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee concluded that the BIS impact assessments on picketing restrictions were not fit for purpose.

The Government have made some minor concessions, which I will come on to later, but these new provisions go far beyond what is fair or necessary. In fact they were described by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) as Franco-style and I think that is an appropriate description by a Conservative Member.

The clause will introduce a new restriction on picketing activities by trade unions and their members, and failure to comply with these over-prescriptive requirements will expose trade unions to legal challenges. Employers will be able to apply to court for an injunction preventing, or imposing restrictions on, a picket or even for damages for failing to wear an armband on a picket line.

Over the summer, the Government ran a very short consultation. It was utterly insufficient given the scale of the Bill’s proposed changes. The Government sought to rely on evidence gathered during the Carr review, even though the Government’s own impact assessment confirmed that

“this evidence could not be substantiated”.

Carr decided he was unable to make evidence-based proposals or recommendations for change as originally instructed

“due to the increasingly political environment within which [he] was operating coupled with the lack of a significant enough body of evidence to support any recommendations for change”.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend see the irony in the supposed party of free marketeers intervening in an agreement between two other parties?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

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

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

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

Liberty’s briefing for today’s debate states:

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

[Kevin Brennan]

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

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

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

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

[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 ---

[Jo Stevens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill in effect creates two tiers of civil liberties and human rights in this country? One tier has much higher restrictions for trade union members and the other tier is for the rest of the population.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Why is it only trade unions that are being singled out in this way? I think we explored some of the reasons earlier in this afternoon’s debate.

New clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and his colleagues, is similar to the new clause 12 we tabled in Committee. It would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during industrial action. As we know, the Government are planning to remove the ban on agencies knowingly supplying agency workers to replace striking workers. Kate Shoesmith, the head of policy at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, which has nearly 3,500 corporate members, has said:

“We are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients.”

The CIPD, the professional body for HR, which has about 140,000 members, warned that the Government’s plans to reform trade union laws are “an outdated response”, given the challenges employers face today.

[Rachael Maskell]

In the dispute at Northampton hospital, the pathologists were locked out of the lab and the trust brought in agency workers. That escalated risk to such an extent that samples were not able to be used for testing. Is it not the case that agency workers can make things far worse rather than better?

[Kevin Brennan]

They can make matters far worse. When we look at this proposal alongside clause 7, it becomes clear that the introduction of an extended notice period is there to give the employer additional time to organise agency workers to undermine the industrial action, as well as to be able to prepare for legal challenges. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: this is bad for safety and bad for service users, and bad because it could serve to prolong industrial action unnecessarily. It will also be bad for the general public. Conservative Members ought to care about the fact that it will also be bad for social cohesion in this country. Presumably, as a next step the Government will be getting the Department for Work and Pensions to sanction the unemployed for refusing to act as strike breakers.

[Christian Matheson]

Has my hon. Friend also considered that in the long term the resentment that will be caused in the business affected will also mean that those actions will be bad for business?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He knows well, and Conservative Members ought to know, that the festering resentment that would arise as a result of this kind of approach to industrial relations would last for many years, and in some communities would never be forgotten.

The TUC is firmly opposed to this proposal, which in its opinion will breach international law. The International Labour Organisation’s freedom of association committee has confirmed that

“the hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term...constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association”.

New clause 1 would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes, and we will therefore support it if it is pushed to a vote tonight. I also want to press amendment 6 to a Division—the lead amendment in this group, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.

Let me say a few brief words about amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It would allow check-off if employers and unions agreed that they wanted it, provided that the unions paid for the service. I understand why the hon. Gentleman would table such an amendment, as it seems to reflect some of the basic values that I thought were supposed to be in the DNA of his political party. When one party is willing by agreement to provide a service to another party in exchange for payment, the state should not interfere unless the service forms some kind of criminal or immoral activity.

Check-off is a voluntary agreement by an employer to collect through its pay roll the union subscription of trade union members who are its employees. Despite what the Government seem to think, that is not a criminal or an immoral activity. Why on earth would a Conservative Government think it is right for the state to proscribe a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee where a payment for that service is involved? I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled his amendment.

What is wrong with an employer, in whatever sector, voluntarily agreeing, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with employees, to help collect the trade union subscription in exchange for an administrative payment? How on earth is it the responsibility of Government, particularly a Conservative Government, to introduce a provision of this kind?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated the remarks that I would have made had I caught Mr Deputy Speaker’s eye. Does he agree that many employers in both the private and the public sectors have said how convenient, positive and mutually beneficial this arrangement is and how they do not see any downside to it whatsoever?

[Kevin Brennan]

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is as baffled as I am as to why the Government are going down this road. It really is quite an extraordinary provision in the Bill. Can anyone on the Government Benches answer this: in what other sphere would a Conservative Government legislate to ban a simple, mutually beneficial transaction?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Brennan]

I am waiting for an intervention from a Government Member. Not even the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) can manage an intervention.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Brennan]

Whom shall I choose from the Labour Benches? I shall choose my neighbour first.

[Stephen Doughty]

There is also the absurdity that there are many other similar arrangements in place for charitable giving, cycle-to-work schemes or childcare schemes. It seems extraordinarily discriminatory to be acting in this way with regard to these voluntary arrangements for trade union subscriptions.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and gives further power to the point that I am making and the point that the hon. Member for Stafford is trying to make by virtue of his amendment.

[Dawn Butler]

I noted that nobody on the Government Benches could help my hon. Friend with his question. The only reason I could think of for such a ban is to try to destroy the trade union movement.

[Kevin Brennan]

Well, I am quite shocked by that accusation from my hon. Friend. On a serious note, there are many colleagues on the Government Benches who are members of trade unions. It was not so long ago that my old union, the National Union of Teachers, used to sponsor Conservative Members of Parliament. I will give hon. Members some benefit of the doubt here. I will actually believe for a moment that the majority of Conservative Members do not want to destroy the trade union movement, because they are democrats and we live in a democratic society. What conclusion could somebody looking at this proposal draw, other than that it exists to inflict damage in an illiberal and absolutely inappropriate manner on voluntary trade union associations and employees’ voluntary agreements with their employers?

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I know that in a former life the hon. Gentleman was a teacher, and he is making a very didactic case for his point of view. He is obviously a born-again libertarian. Is not the corollary of his argument that it is for individuals with free information to decide whether they wish to make a contribution to a trade union? That is the spirit of the Bill, rather than an element of compulsion.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is talking my language. I absolutely agree with that proposition, but has he read the clause? Does he understand what it means? Has he read the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford? The Government are banning any opportunity for an individual to enter into an agreement with an employer, and banning the employer from entering into such an agreement with its workforce, even in exchange for ready money. That service is not being given away, but its provision will be banned even when employees are paying for it. I was a teacher, and I was not trying to be didactic; I was trying to tease out a reaction, and obviously I got one from him. He should have a closer look at what his Government are actually doing and what he is actually voting for. A majority may be the best repartee, as Disraeli said, but I do not think Disraeli would have thought that this fitted with the principles of a one nation Conservative party.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to a fellow Cardiff Catholic. He may recall that similar predictions of the death of the trade union movement, of which I am a huge fan and supporter on this side of the House, were made when earlier legislation was passed—for example, in the early 1980s. The trade unions came through; they survived and blossomed. Why does the hon. Gentleman think this Bill sounds the death knell for trade unions, when in 13 years of Labour Government there was no repeal of previous legislation?

[Kevin Brennan]

I am glad that trade unions are strongly supported in the Hoare house, but the hon. Gentleman should read the provision and then the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford, which seeks to tease out the fact that this measure is particularly illiberal.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Brennan]

Before I give way to hon. Friends, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon because he is usually paid by the word.

[Mr Djanogly]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have now looked at amendment 5, and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who made the point that an individual may want to contract with his employer, I point out that the measure talks about the trade union contracting on behalf of employers, which is a rather different point.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman does not understand that trade unions are democratic organisations. They do things on behalf of their members because they are elected and chosen to do so as democratic, voluntary organisations. There is no attack on the individual, and unusually for him his intervention is specious.

[Steve Rotheram]

Does my hon. Friend remember the Prime Minister’s promise of a bonfire of red tape? Does he believe that this measure makes arrangements more or less bureaucratic for employers and trade unions?

[Kevin Brennan]

The so-called one regulation in, one regulation out rule—[Interruption.] Oh, it’s two out, is it? The rule is not being followed in the case of trade unions. Clearly, regulation of trade unions is not considered to be regulation at all, when in fact it is an extraordinary piece of regulation.

[Paula Sherriff]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this move to end check-off discriminates against trade unions, as the ban is unlikely to extend to other payroll deductions, including those for charity payments, pensions and cycle-to-work schemes?

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed. Other hon. Members have made that point and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise it.

[Clive Efford]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way one last time, then I will try to conclude so that other hon. Members can speak.

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The intervention from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) gives away how the Conservatives are prepared to dance on a pinhead in order to support the Bill. To suggest that an employer would be better off to contract with each employee individually to collect their union dues, rather than to do so collectively through the trade unions, is barmy.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) referred to our Catholic backgrounds, and my hon. Friend makes a veiled reference to St Thomas Aquinas when he refers to dancing on a pinhead. That is absolutely what the Government are doing—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend may not have known that he was doing so. His theological education is slightly lacking. The Government are dancing on a pinhead to try to justify an unjustifiable provision.

Given that no Conservative Member can understand why the Government would want to ban a simple mutually beneficial voluntary transaction which involves payment for a service by one party and its representatives to another, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford on his amendment. In its basic decency it has unmasked a fundamental illiberalism at the heart of the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

Many of the arrangements are contractual, so removing them would cost the employer a significant amount, estimated to be around £6 million.

[Kevin Brennan]

So much for the party of business, imposing costs on businesses that have entered into voluntary agreements.

I hope the hon. Member for Stafford will seek to divide the House on his amendment, which is thoughtful and moderate, rather like the hon. Gentleman himself.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

The Trade Union Bill was my first experience of sitting on a Public Bill Committee. Our sessions were lively and often educational, like the previous speech. The bit about St Thomas Aquinas was greatly enjoyed in all parts of the House.

As a former public sector worker myself for 17 years, I know what it is like to cross a picket line. I enjoyed questioning union greats, including Len McCluskey. Today those on the Conservative Benches have been called Dickensian, Stalinist and draconian, but many of us firmly believe that trade unions are valuable institutions in British society. It is vital that they represent accurately the views of their members. This Bill aims to ensure that hard-working people are not disrupted by under-supported strike action, but it is the human rights considerations that run through the Bill that have been of particular interest to me.

The rights of workers to make their voices heard are, of course, important, and striking is an important last resort. We recognise that it is part of the armoury of trade union law. Article 11 of the European convention on human rights provides to everyone

“the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests”.

It is, however, important to recognise that article 11 is a qualified right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I understand my hon. Friend’s argument, but of course the choice would be made by the employer and the union, not the individual members. I have not yet been persuaded by his arguments, and will resist his amendment, if he pushes it, but I hope I can reassure him that we absolutely do not intend the measure to be a way of making life difficult for unions or of reducing their membership. We will double the time trade unions have to transfer members from the existing check-off arrangement to the new direct debit arrangement from six months to one year. That will not satisfy him and those who support his amendment, but I hope that it will at least reassure him that we do not intend this to be a way of making life difficult for unions. If there is anything further we can do on that point, I am happy to have further discussions with him.

On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will be persuaded not to press his amendment. We will talk about this more. I hope that I have reassured him that trade unions will have time to form the direct relationship with their members that the Bill seeks to provide.

[Kevin Brennan]

I just wish to confirm that we wish to push amendment 6 to a vote.

[Mr Speaker]

I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I had rather anticipated that.

Question put, That the amendment be made.