Trade Union Bill
Debate between Lord Cormack and Baroness Donaghy
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support, in general terms, what the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has said. As noble Lords know, I am concerned about this Bill, particularly these two clauses. I also regret that we are having this debate at all this afternoon. We have, by a fairly substantial majority, of which I was not a part, decided that a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House should look into the issues that are brought to the fore by Clauses 10 and 11. That committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is obliged to report to your Lordships’ House by Monday of next week. No latitude is given, even though, sadly, for reasons of his health, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has had to be replaced as a member of the committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton. However, I understand that that is not in any sense impeding the progress or speed of the committee.
We will know next week what the committee of your Lordships’ House, on which there are distinguished representatives from all parts of the House, will recommend, so it seems to me that we are having this debate in a bit of a vacuum. When my noble friend responds, I should like her to tell us how the Government will manage the timetable for the remainder of the Bill after publication of that report. I hope she will be able to give a complete, unequivocal assurance that the report will be debated before we move on to Report stage. That seems to me absolutely essential. If she can give that assurance, we should not waste a lot of time today because we can then debate what the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House has recommended and the Government can respond, having reflected on that. I hope we will then be able to move forward.
As I have said, there are many things in the Bill that are not provocative or extreme. There are, however, things that give it the appearance of being a little mean and niggardly and they mostly—not entirely—centre on political funding and the deprivation of one particular party of a source of funding which we may regret but have to accept is there. That party should not be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other parties, and I hope we can get over that.
So I appeal to the Minister to give us an indication of how the Government intend to handle the Bill after publication of the Select Committee’s report. I very much hope there will be a proper opportunity to consider and debate it before we move on to what I hope will be a fairly expeditious Report stage.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for making those points about having this debate in a vacuum. I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins. I appreciate that the discussion on the role of the Certification Officer will take place on day four of Committee, but in case my silence was taken as meaning that the issue was not sufficiently important, I felt that I should place on the record that Clause 11 will provide the Certification Officer with new powers to investigate how unions’ political funds are used and where the money goes.
As part of their annual return, unions will be required to report to the CO on how all expenditure from their political funds has been used, who it has been paid to and for what purpose. This is not even-handed, as the Government claim. It might apply to employers’ associations in theory. However, none of the 94 employers’ associations listed by the Certification Officer currently has a political fund—not one. Instead, companies choose to make political donations individually or via other channels. These measures will create significant new administrative burdens for unions, as my noble friend Lord Collins said. They will need to collate detailed information on political expenditure at branch and regional level, and the Government will be able to monitor how unions spend their resources and will invite significant public scrutiny of how unions choose to use their political funds.
In itself, this might not be of significance to anyone outside the trade union movement—if it was the only thing in this area relating to the subject. However, if you combine it with the ability of anyone outside the trade union to launch a complaint, it starts to look like an attack on trade unions. The Government may not be concerned about strangling trade unions with all the extra red tape under the guise of consistency of information, which is what I think the Minister is concerned about with these amendments, but they should consider very carefully how this will change the nature of the function of the Certification Officer. It will become a much more political position and because this function will be essentially one-sided, it will lead to accusations of political bias.
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (General Duties of Self-Employed Persons) (Prescribed Undertakings) Regulations 2015
Debate between Lord Cormack and Baroness Donaghy(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I regret that these regulations are before the House. As they are here, I think they are the least worst option. I see from the impact assessment that a “probabilistic” approach was taken to these regulations. It is not a word I have ever heard of. I hope they veer towards the probable rather than towards the ballistic in their outcome.
As the Minister has said, the catch-all provision to ensure that those self-employed persons who may pose a risk to others are not exempt from Health and Safety law is at least an improvement on the original intention. The word “may”, however, leaves an awful lot to be desired. This all arose, of course, from an explicit assurance by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, to my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, who was seeking inclusion of this provision in the Bill.
I still believe that the phrase,
“may pose a risk to others”,
will cause confusion. Professor Löfstedt actually recommended exemption from Health and Safety law for,
“those self-employed people whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others”,
which is what the noble Baroness herself just quoted. There was no “may” about it.
It may be that the impact will be minimal because, even under current legislation, there is evidence that a significant number of self-employed people do not think the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act applies to them. In one piece of qualitative research, only five out of 60 people interviewed thought that they had any health and safety obligations. Not a single one of them responded to say that this change would make a difference to their working practices.
The regulations may be more about perception than a real change, as stated by Professor Löfstedt. In one sense, I hope that is correct, and that health and safety at work will not diminish. However, perceptions are extremely important, and these regulations may encourage the perception that not only is health and safety a burden but that it is respectable to avoid obligation. There is still potential for self-employed people to assess incorrectly whether the exemption applies to them. The Health and Safety Executive guidelines—to which, again, the Minister referred—are still in preparation, so we do not know what impact or coverage they will have.
With approximately 266,000 new businesses being established each year, we do not know what impact these regulations will have on them. As the impact assessment points out:
“The newly self-employed will still need to spend some time determining whether they are exempt under the proposals”.
I hope it will be made clear, in communicating information about these regulations, that there are still more than 40 sets of regulations that apply to the self-employed, either explicitly or in more general regulations. For example, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, known as RIDDOR, will still apply. When I was preparing my report on fatalities in the construction industry, I was concerned about the low level of reporting of accidents and injuries under RIDDOR. It was quite clear that hospitals were more likely to know the extent of occurrences under RIDDOR than the reporting mechanism itself. It was also clear that there was a pattern that low levels of reporting on minor injuries also saw a higher proportion of serious injuries and fatalities. I realise that these comments apply to construction, which is not an exempt industry under these proposals, but I am making the point that, if anything, there is a problem of underreporting, which can lead to more accidents. It is in the interests of government and the taxpayer, as well as the self-employed person, to be conscious of the costs to the health service and the DWP of any increase in accidents at work. This is why I remain concerned about the policy of exempting people from an Act that has served and is serving this nation well.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is very clear from what the noble Baroness has said that the health and safety of the English language are at risk. I should like an assurance from my noble friend that the word “probabilistic” will never appear again in any document or on the Floor of this House. I should like an assurance that she will take some time during the Recess to distribute to everyone within her department a copy of Sir Ernest Gowers’ Plain Words. May we also have a resolution that, when we come back in the autumn, acronyms will be banned?