Trade Union (Levy Payable to the Certification Officer) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Balfe and Lord Monks

Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, to follow on from those last points, it almost seemed to be the case from the Minister’s presentation that unions had somehow agreed with quite a lot of the proposals being put, which is very far from the case.

I do not want to go over the 2016 Act, but, at the time, many of us thought it was the product of a certain mindset in parts of Conservative Central Office, which was still bent on fighting the battles of the 1970s and 1980s. If you were that kind of Tory, why not ladle extra dollops of red tape, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just said, on the old enemy? After all, it polishes your credentials in the eyes of some of the Conservative associations, it does not cost very much and it kicks your opponents hard, which with a workable majority you can do.

Unions are now to face a Certification Officer with new and extended powers to impose these fines—very steep fines in terms of union finances—and to make unions pay the bills of the Certification Officer. These are the motives of a suspicious, hostile Government, who regard unions as conspiracies, plotting mayhem and confusion—much as some of us regard the present regime in Downing Street. Yet unlike our views on Downing Street, the Government’s view is certainly not borne out by the facts. British unions are already heavily regulated by any standard applying in western democracies, yet the Certification Officer is rarely troubled by complaints of maladministration and injustice, as has been pointed out already in this debate. There is a handful of complaints each year, and the vast majority are dismissed or withdrawn, and there were no enforcement orders last year.

So what is the problem? There is not really one at all. The motive for this legislation is ignoring the fact that unions are a hallmark of a free and democratic society, and a force for greater equality in an increasingly unequal society.

The new Certification Officer could well be like a police officer looking for work to justify his or her existence, no doubt having actively to encourage people to come forward with complaints. The Certification Officer can take them themselves, as we heard the Minister spell out. Perhaps there will be advertising for complainants, to boost the workload if it is meagre. The aim is to tie up unions in expensive litigation and force them to pay the costs of that litigation, as well as for the administration of the Certification Officer’s office.

Can the Minister tell us precisely whether there are any other regulators of voluntary, not-for-profit, democratic organisations which have to pay for their regulator? Political parties do not, as we have heard, and charities do not, so who else does? It is not the same as the City or the banks, which are profit-making, private sector bodies, yet unions collectively are likely to face a seven-figure bill for the privilege of being complained against. After all, this is fertile territory for opponents of the national executives of unions. Unions are lively, democratic organisations, with all the cut and thrust that goes with that, and sometimes it is fair to say that the losers do not always lose gracefully.

These regulations and the Act which spawns them are unworthy of a great democracy. I take this opportunity before the regulations pass into law to register my disgust and contempt for them and their promoters.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, first, I should declare an interest as the president of BALPA, the TUC-affiliated union for pilots.

This is just unnecessary, is it not? The Act was passed in 2016. I remember that my noble friend who just spoke was the Minister then and we had one or two set-tos, but in the end, to my mind, her knowledge of the trade union movement helped ameliorate that Bill and get it on to the statute book. I had liked to think that the non-activity over the past two or three years meant that the Government had had another thought and decided that these regulations did not need to be brought into being—and of course they do not. They are not going to add anything. We have heard about the 34 complaints with no enforcement orders and about the fact that no other voluntary organisation pays for its regulator, and we know that the whole of this office is really not needed for the purpose for which it is being put forward.

What I would say though, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is that we should not make this a battle between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party over funding. It is not. It is about unnecessary control of the trade union movement. The majority of my union members voted for this Government. I am absolutely convinced of that, having talked to them. Some 30% of paying trade unionists vote Conservative. We have got to get over this idea that somehow the trade union movement is comprised of hard-working, left-wing socialists.

My wife was a district councillor for some years; she dealt with unions in rural England, and said that most of them were well to the right of her in their political beliefs. Most of them were voting for the Conservative Members of Parliament to be found in the depths of East Anglia. So let us get over this idea that union members are all Labour and not Conservative. It is important to get over it because I think the Minister needs to get over it and the Government need to get over it.

I have said over many years that we will have reached an achievement in this country when, just as the leader of the Opposition goes to the CBI on a regular basis, so the leader of the Conservative Party appears at the TUC and makes a speech and answers questions. Breaking down this divide is really quite essential if we are going to have industrial relations peace in this country.

We have not got a lot of time, so I am going to leave the Minister with just two questions, one of which has already been asked in one form. First, what, if anything, are the Government prepared to do about vexatious litigants? There will be people who will go to the regulator purely to cause trouble—every union has them; even BALPA has the odd member who gets great pleasure out of trying to run rings around its national executive. To what protection are the Government prepared to look to protect vexatious claims against unions? Secondly, the Government have pussyfooted around on electronic balloting the entire time I have been in this House. There are no questions about having a secure electronic ballot. Is it not time that the Government made a generalist gesture to the trade union movement and let it have what is a totally secure system, at its own choice, for running internal elections?

Those are two things the Government can give us. It will cost them nothing but it will show the Conservative-voting trade unionists of this country that the Government are a Government of the country and not just one part of it.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Balfe and Lord Monks

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I also begin by declaring my interests as the vice-president of BALPA. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, said some very kind things earlier. I have known him now for over 30 years, and I do not think we have had a cross word in all that time, and we have often worked together.

[Lord Monks]

I used to vote for the noble Lord.

[Lord Balfe]

He used to vote for me, indeed. Now, fortunately no one ever has to vote for me again.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this legislation. It is much appreciated and it is necessary. As a number of noble Lords have said, it is a work in progress. This will always be a work in progress as technology is constantly lapping around and moving us forward. Fortunately, speaking at this point in the debate, a lot of things have already been said, so I do not need to repeat them.

I say, first, that I welcome the statement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about clamping down on unsafe lasers. As has been mentioned, Public Health England recommends a limit of one milliwatt, and I believe that at some appropriate time, we should look at whether there can be some restriction on sales of lasers beyond this strength, particularly since quite a bit of evidence has been adduced and brought forward to show that lasers are often mislabelled; indeed, many people have no idea of the strength of the lasers they are using. They are now both powerful and cheap, and we need to have a look at the incorrect labelling of some of them.

I have also had drawn to my attention the fact that we tend to think of lasers affecting big jumbo jets flying into major airports. This is part of the story, but another part of it, as with drones, is the danger to helicopters. In 2016, 10 medical helicopters were the subject of laser attacks, as were a number of police helicopters. With helicopters, it is a much more dangerous situation in a way. It is the same with drones. A helicopter is much less protected and much less able to withstand an attack.

I have four questions that I should like to put to the Minister, not because I expect an answer tonight but because I would like her to look at them in developing and bringing this legislation further forward. The first is the definition of a journey as it applies to an aircraft. The contention is that a journey is best defined from the points of what is called “doors closed” to “doors open”. When a door is closed, the aircraft is officially on its way, whether it is being pushed back or using its own traction to get to where it takes off, or whether it is on its way down the runway—there are a number of instances, but the fact is that the doors are closed. That is repeated, in reverse of course, when it lands. It has not completed its journey until the doors are open; until then, it can always be moved and it can always be the subject of further developments. I should like the Minister to look at the definition of a journey as it applies to an aeroplane.

The second thing is the level of parental responsibility. We have to make sure that it is not a defence to say, “Oh, it was Jimmy who was shining it”. Obviously, you cannot say, “Last week, when he was not with you, your son shone a laser at someone and you’re responsible”, so there is a need to look at this. I do not have the solution, I am afraid, but I have the problem to address to the Minister of the extent to which underage persons can be made the liability of their guardians or parents.

The third area is the powers to find out whether people have a laser—in other words, what is known by the rather emotive term of “stop and search”. Clearly, this is a much wider issue, because you cannot have one law for lasers and another for knives or other offensive weapons. But it is something that needs to be considered. I point out that, with regard to airports, there is a separate security procedure whereby anything deemed dangerous can be removed at the security barrier. It would seem sensible that there should be the same level of security for people going on the roof or to viewing areas as there are for people passing through the airport itself. Can the Minister look at the extent to which security at airports could be bettered?

Finally, we have the question, again from aviation, of air traffic control towers, which are also part of the structure of flying but are clearly not vehicles. Can the Minister look at whether shining a laser at an air traffic control tower and air traffic controllers should in some way be brought within the Bill? At the moment, it applies only to moving vehicles which, as far as airports are concerned, does not include the air traffic control tower.

With those words, I close by welcoming the Bill and what is in it, realising that all these measures have to go forward and will be subject to revision as time moves on. I hope we are starting at least to tidy up one small and essential area of our safety in this area.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Balfe and Lord Monks

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this clause. It represents common sense and shows that the Minister has listened to the representations that have been received.

I do not intend to speak again during this debate but I will pick up on a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who mentioned twice that he had been to an USDAW conference. I am sure that he had a very good welcome there. I was a member of USDAW for a few years, when I worked for the Co-op. I will place on the record that the understanding of the trade union movement would be much enhanced in the political comity of Great Britain if the unions extended invitations to their conferences beyond just one political party. One of the difficulties, which has been seen in the Bill and is seen in other places, is that although 30%-plus of trade unionists vote Conservative and a good number vote for the Liberal Democrats and the nationalist parties, the trade unions persistently seek to relate to only one political party. It would be for the good of the trade union movement and that of the noble Lords sitting opposite if the union movement could be persuaded to look a little beyond its comfort zone and to engage with all legislators. That could possibly avoid many of the misunderstandings that have occurred in the past. Having said that, I welcome the clause; it is a very good step forward and I thank the Minister for his introduction of it.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, after the starring role that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has played in these debates on the Trade Union Bill in a number of areas, he may find himself inundated with requests to go to union conferences.

[Lord Balfe]

And to Blackpool.

[Lord Monks]

I speak as someone whose job description included at least 26 visits a year to Blackpool for union conferences of one form or another—a burden that I am sure my successor would be very pleased to share with me.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Balfe and Lord Monks

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may jump in. The procedure is a little muddled but I think that it makes sense for the general points to be made and for the Minister to reply at the end, provided that she replies to all the points made by my Front Bench colleagues.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for the trailer for this speech, in which I shall talk about Amendment 68. The reason we have a bit of teamwork going on is that in 1984, when the noble Lord, Lord King, was Secretary of State for Employment, the then Government, under Mrs Thatcher, considered this very issue.

Opting in was on the agenda, possibly, but they decided to ask the TUC to come up with a transparent scheme to ensure that people have the right to opt out. I call it the King-Murray agreement; Len Murray was the negotiator and I was his assistant and scribe on the job. They reached an agreement on opt-out, of which I have a faded copy from 30-odd years ago. We undertook to remind members about their right to opt out and to give them the procedure whereby they could do it. It was done by an information sheet, as it was called then, and we did it. As I say, that was 32 years ago, and we have never had any complaint in the TUC that this agreement has not been carried out, from members, from government—from either of the two major political parties—or from employers.

As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Collins, unions already have to ballot every 10 years on whether it is legitimate for them to have a political fund at all, and they have done that four times since 1984, most recently in 2014. If we are going to go down the deregulation route of two out for one in, then this is one of the ones that should go out at some stage. However, we are still doing the ballot and we have never lost one. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Collins said, we have actually put on some extra funds.

I am expecting that the Government will say that the King-Murray agreement has not been honoured in full by the unions—I have seen the letter to which reference was made earlier. But the fact is that it has been carried out, and it has been carried out in various ways: by inclusion on the membership form, which more than half the unions do, and by reference on the union website. I dug out a copy of the Unite exemption form that I printed from the website, which makes it extremely clear. Unite, UNISON, USDAW and the GMB—the four largest unions, and 90% of the affiliated trade union membership of the Labour Party—provide it in a very prominent place on their websites, and with references to it in union journals and communications. Thirty-two years on, unions are still carrying out that agreement.

Have there been any problems? None that I know of, and I have been around all those years, since carrying the bag into the office of the noble Lord, Lord King, for Len Murray. If there are any problems, and we are very ready to listen to those, we will take them up. If any union is not doing what it should be or what the four large unions are already doing, we will take them up on that; we will tell them what is at stake and that they need to get into line.

My amendment seeks to provide for the drawing up of a code of practice on contracting-out—an updating of the King-Murray agreement, because obviously information sheets are not quite the same thing in the age of digital technology, websites and so on. In that way, much more cheaply, efficiently and effectively, and without any accusations of political partisanship from the Conservative Party, we could sort out any problems there are that the Government know about and we do not. That was the wise course taken by Mrs Thatcher and the noble Lord, Lord King, in 1984. They did not want to hit the Labour Party—and they could easily have done so at that time—or the funding base, but they did take on a particular issue, to which we responded.

Despite the nice way that the Minister often puts it, I believe that the only possible explanation for this measure, a return to contracting-in, is an attack on Labour Party funding, the impact of which will be measured by the Select Committee. It is also, by the way, an attack on unions not affiliated to the Labour Party, which the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has been championing, that have developed political funds since 1984 and get caught in this particular cross-fire, and quite unfairly too.

Contracting in was introduced after the General Strike in 1927, and it poisoned the trade union mind, so much so that the very first thing that the Labour Government of 1945 did was to repeal it and go back to contracting out. I think it was Hartley Shawcross who said, at the other end of the corridor, “We are the masters now”—not a very pleasant thing to say, but that gives some sense of the bitterness that there was around the question of opting in. So I ask the Government to follow the examples of Winston Churchill in the late 1940s, who warned against interfering in the other parties’ funding mechanisms without agreement, and of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, to eschew any suggestion of political malice and to show some statesmanship.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Balfe and Lord Monks

Monday 11th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I start with a declaration of interest that does not usually come from this side of the Chamber. This month I celebrate my 50th continuous year of membership of the TUC-affiliated trade union movement. I am the president of the British Dietetic Association, which is a TUC-affiliated union, and I am an adviser to BALPA, which still has blessed memories of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and more recent memories, of course, of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Monks. So I speak with some sort of background.

I was struck by the level of consensus that I detected in the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. The role of this Chamber is to revise, and there are certain areas of the Bill that could well be revised without us departing from the manifesto commitment of the party on this side of the House. I noted that the noble Lord made reference to the 1980s and compared it to today; what he did not say, of course, was that the last Labour Government kept in place all the legislation that was passed by their predecessor, by my noble friend Lord King and other Conservative Secretaries of State. I would predict that the central part of this Bill, on thresholds in public sector services, will not be repealed when the Labour Party, as it eventually will in a democracy, comes back to power. They will probably stay, because the point has been made—my noble friend Lord King made it—that there is a distinction between the industrial workforce and the public sector.

There is no doubt in my mind that a number of public sector strikes have been deeply unpopular. I have a briefing from the Mayor of London—I do not know whether the Opposition have had it—which says that, of the 26 disputes in London which have led to Tube strike action since 2008, 19 would have been prevented under this new legislation in relation to workers in essential services. That is quite a high figure, but of course it also presents an organisational challenge. There is a tendency, which people sometimes slip into, to think that trade unions are somehow led by people who are not followed by their workers. One has only to look at the strike that is going to take place tomorrow to see that you get quite high turn-outs for industrial action in ballots. One sometimes must reflect, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mentioned, that in a dispute there may be two sides to a story and that both sides need to sit down and talk to each other. That is the whole purpose of ACAS.

I would also say to the trade unions that they need to get out of their sectarian silo. I am sorry to keep on referring to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, but he has been the secretary-general of the European TUC. He will know that, outside this country, it is very unusual for the entire trade union movement to be dedicated to the support of just one party. That is not good for the trade union movement, particularly when we know that one-third of its members actually vote for the Conservative Party. Of course, a good number of the others do not vote at all and a handful, I am sorry to say, vote for the Liberal party. I think both sides of the Chamber can agree that that is not what either of us would like, but it is none the less the case.

I say to the trade union movement: reach out. You could have a Conservative Government for some years yet. Good relations and the interests of the members of the trade union movement are not served by the blanket refusal that you get on the part of some unions—I single out Unite particularly—although not all of them, to engage in any sensible dialogue with the governing party. That is not sensible. It is not good news for the members of that union.

[Lord Monks]

Does the noble Lord accept that the publication of the Bill makes that kind of dialogue even more unlikely?

[Lord Balfe]

I say to the noble Lord that the publication of the Bill probably arises in part from the fact that there is no strong trade union voice on this side of the House. There is no one around to say at the higher policy levels of the Conservative Party, “Hold on a minute, there is another side to this story”. I was about to say that unions such as BALPA, the BDA—the union that I am president of—Prospect and others have reached out and begun a dialogue, and I hope that that will continue.

We are, I hope, going to join together and look for some concessions from the Minister. I do not propose to go through them in detail because they will come up in Committee. With regard to facility time, the Conservatives’ manifesto actually said that they would legislate to,

“tighten the rules around taxpayer-funded paid ‘facility time’”.

You can tighten rules and still preserve a local interest and the right of local democracy to determine what happens. It is, frankly, not a localism agenda if you start telling district councils, such as the one my wife served on in Suffolk, how to regulate the 25% of the week that one person spends on facility time—generally doing things for the local authority, actually. We need to look at this with a broad brush. We want transparency on facility time, but we do not want day-to-day control. We cannot exercise it. We cannot say what matters in Forest Heath District Council in Suffolk or any individual authority. We can say, “You must publish—you must be in the daylight”, but we cannot lay down the rules.

Similarly, if e-balloting is okay for selecting the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London, the ruling body of the Royal Statistical Society, of which I am a fellow, and the board of directors of a venture capital trust that I am investing in, I do not see that we can rule it out. Certainly, if we look at making it subject to some control or sanction by the certification officer, there must be a way forward. We cannot just write it off.

The third thing I want to mention is the financial aspect. If it were left to me, I would ban all financing of political parties beyond a very low amount, probably £5,000 per head. I would not have any hedge funds donating to parties. I would make parties fight for votes. But I say this: is it healthy for democracy to work in this direction? I just put that question. Is it a good thing that we should patently attack one of the three unsatisfactory wings of funding? I leave that question up in the air because, if it were left to me and if I were the Labour Party, I would not turn the clock back. When I came into power, I would immediately ban donations to political parties above a quite low level and say that everybody above that level could not donate. It would not be that they had to say how much; I would say, “You cannot donate. You cannot buy democracy”. But until that day comes, let us be careful to look at what we are doing and think about our responsibilities to democracy, which go further than our responsibilities to one or other side of the House.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Balfe and Lord Monks

Monday 12th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe]

Did the noble Lord not hear my other speech?

[Lord Monks]

I am sorry, I did not, but this one made for a nice change and I commend that example to the rest of your Lordships on those Benches and hope to hear more remarks of that kind.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has admirably covered the BALPA case. Monarch Airlines is the current case, and BMI was the previous one. We are beginning to struggle as these airlines in trouble pass their pensions obligations over to the Pension Protection Fund. There are other similarly paid workers in the same category. I hope that the message of this amendment is that though this cap is essential—I understand that very well, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, does—in order to stop exploitation of the fund, which after all is contributed to by well run pension schemes around the country, it is very important that we take those obligations seriously.

The cost to the fund is not enormous; it is quite modest. I hope therefore that the Government will consider the idea of a review of the arrangements around the cap and that we can get extra justice for some people who are hard working, who do responsible jobs, who are not fat cats and who deserve rather better than they have had recently from the fund. I am very happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I want to make a brief comment on this amendment since I am a non-executive director of the Pension Protection Fund. I declare that interest and hope that I can offer some thoughts that may be helpful to the Committee. The PPF was set up by the Pensions Act 2004 to be a lifeboat for members of defined benefit pension schemes whose sponsoring employer has become insolvent, leaving the scheme in deficit. The PPF saves thousands of members from potential penury who otherwise would have received only a small fraction of the pension promised to them in their employer’s scheme. The benefits it pays to insolvent scheme members are paid for, in large part, by a compulsory levy on other DB schemes with solvent employers, which of course is a cost on the employer.

When the PPF was set up, it was always recognised that there was a fine balance between on the one hand protecting those who had saved and who, through no fault of their own, were now the casualties of their employer’s insolvency, and on the other, not unduly penalising schemes which had made prudent assumptions or decisions, or employers whose businesses remain solvent, providing jobs and funding for their pension schemes. One way in which this was reflected was the benefit cap: the maximum benefits normally paid for someone who is not above the normal retirement age and drawing pension, are 90% of what the pension was worth, subject to a cap.

The cap at age 65 is currently £36,401 per year, which equates to just over £32,500 when the 90% level is applied. The earlier a person retired, the lower the annual cap is set, to compensate for the longer time the person will be receiving payments. So the full expectations of high earners who have built up a number of years in their schemes would not be met. The average annual compensation in payment per member in the PPF is just over £3,500 per annum, so the average PPF member has clearly received less than the amounts which would have been earned by high earners such as those who would be affected by this amendment.

The important point to note is that the PPF board has no role or responsibility in setting the financial limits in the fund. That is the responsibility of Governments. However, back in 2004 there was a general political consensus, which I believe still holds, that there was a need to balance the interests of members against the cost to those who fund the PPF—the levy payers, who ultimately are the employers and members of other pension schemes.

There is obviously a debate to be had about appropriate levels of compensation. I have every sympathy with those who have been made a pension promise that their scheme can no longer afford. However, that is a matter for the Government and I do not want to comment on it, except to say that the PPF board has an obligation to keep the fund’s finances on a sure footing in changing economic conditions. It has a particular responsibility to balance its liabilities within a reasonable framework of constraints so that it does not impose an undue burden on the pension schemes and businesses which pay its levy. The PPF also has to be sustainable over the very long term, and the level of protection given to pension scheme members has to be such as to make that possible. The PPF has faced some significant calls on its resources as a result of big household names going bust. At November 2014, the net deficit of the 6,000 PPF eligible schemes is £221 billion. PPF provides a protective wrap for these liabilities in the event of insolvency. The amount of levy that would need to be raised to cover all members’ benefits in these schemes would be much higher.

To add a final note of caution, requiring solvent employers with DB schemes to pay more levy for higher levels of compensation will not come without problems.