Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Dykes and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

Before the Minister sits down, I intervene briefly to repeat the thanks already expressed by other Peers in the debate on these amendments today and on the previous occasion when the Bill was being considered. We give our thanks to the Government, to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, particularly for their very helpful adjustments and changes in response to the earlier debates. It was an outstanding example of how the House of Lords can be genuinely useful to the British public in improving controversial legislation. We are grateful for that progress.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, last week at Third Reading I thanked at some length all those who have worked so hard and debated so eloquently throughout the passage of this Bill. I am glad to be able to thank today my noble friend Lord Bridges, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Burns, as they are actually in the Chamber. It has been a small marathon of a Bill and I am delighted that it can now go forward for Royal Assent.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Dykes and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, on her proposed new clause. I hope that it will be fully and enthusiastically accepted in this debate today. This is a great opportunity to try to put right some of the deficiencies and weaknesses that we see even now in modern industrial relations in Britain, despite attempts at improvement from time to time.

The tragedy of the “them” and “us” disease—the two nations in industrial relations: the bosses and the employees—is still very strong. Incidentally, although this is not part of the Bill, the very fact that the highly paid executives who run companies are paying themselves far too much in comparison with what people earn on the shop floor is a very dangerous element that contributes to the anger and resentment that is felt in the great divide between the shop floor and the director’s boardroom. It is a great tragedy that, given the modernisation that we expected, with foreign companies coming in and all that the Japanese and Koreans have done to create a new, more modern system, we have not yet made sufficient progress. However, we are beginning to.

I remember vividly that when I was a Member of Parliament for Harrow, more than 30 years ago, I visited within eight weeks the Volkswagen works in Wolfsburg in Germany and British Leyland. British Leyland was going through one of its perpetual crises, mainly because of not the unions but the failure of management to engage their employees and to liaise with them properly. As you can imagine—I am not making this up—the meeting at the Wolfsburg Volkswagen works, one of the biggest motor works in Germany and the world in those days, started at 7.30 am. There was breakfast for an hour and a half, which was black coffee and black bread, and then a tour of the factory for two and a half hours. We then had an early lunch in the canteen, with the employees, directors and bosses eating at the same tables.

Some weeks later, I went to the British Leyland meeting, which, in contrast, started at 11.30 am. It was a half-hour visit to the factory, which was not very long, and we were told that we must make progress but could ask questions later. There was an hour of gin and tonics in the boardroom with the director—a very agreeable English habit that we have—and then a sumptuous lunch in the directors’ dining room, miles away from the workers’ canteen. That was a long time ago and I think that things have improved in many enterprises, so I should not decry that. But it is still not enough. There is still a sinister division between employees and employers in this country, and the pay gap is really menacing for the future of British society and its equilibrium. It has to be tackled one way or another—but that is not, of course, part of this Bill.

I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and thank him for them. He has experience both of the corporate world and of assisting in trade union activities. He cast a warning about these matters, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. So the Government, having been in listening mode on some specific amendments to earlier aspects of the Bill, have a great opportunity now to re-educate some of their ministerial colleagues about these matters, because the “them” and “us” doctrine is deeply embedded among many Conservative Ministers still. That is a great tragedy for this country and does impede our efforts. We helped the Germans have a much healthier system when we were there as the occupying power after the war. What a great irony that was. So now we have an opportunity for Ministers to respond to these matters. This may be a very general matter and not a specific, technical amendment, but it is a very important new clause. I hope that the Government will respond very positively.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to consider wider aspects of industrial relations in the Trade Union Bill. This conversation builds on the valuable debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, last November, which I found extremely useful. The knowledge and expertise in this House is, as usual, impressive. I always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, on the role of good management and the need to engage and inspire employees.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for joining the debate. He is right to mention the importance of appropriate executive remuneration. His tales of Germany reminded me of my time on a German board. But we need to bear in mind that the UK’s growth and dynamism have been greater than Germany’s in recent years. That matters to millions of employees and families right across our country.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for bringing her amendment back again and to my noble friend Lord Courtown for the work that he has done with her on this important matter. The Government recognise the value of good employee engagement. We know that it contributes to improved productivity and business growth. Indeed, as a personnel director many years ago in the Civil Service and more recently from my first-hand experience through links with USDAW when I was at Tesco, I have definitely seen the benefits. I am grateful for the work on employee engagement by my department and others and am pleased that businesses are now more aware of its importance. In 2015, the CBI employment trends survey highlighted that a top priority for business in the coming year was better employee engagement to foster productive workplaces.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, has already told us, there has been a lot of activity. The Prime Minister launched the employee engagement task force in 2011. One of its main achievements has been the development of an employee engagement community, which has promoted the benefits and various approaches to employee engagement. The task force comprised a wide range of businesses, including entrepreneurs and HR professionals. In addition, ACAS has produced an online productivity tool to allow employers to look at which of the seven levers of productivity are most important. There is a range of guidance on each element, one of which is a “strong employee voice”. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, would commend ACAS’s work in this area, and support the work of her successor there, Sir Brendan Barber, in this matter. These initiatives and others have shown that employers want flexibility to decide how best to engage with their employees, and while unions play an important role, they are not the only mechanism for effective engagement.

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice that would require all employers to establish a mechanism of employee engagement via trade unions. From my experience, I believe that a prescriptive approach would be ineffective. For small businesses and sectors that are not heavily unionised, having unions as the only mechanism for employee engagement would also be a practical challenge. While I do not believe that we should limit choice, I do agree that the role of employee engagement in positive industrial relations should be highlighted when we come to explain the changes to the industrial relations landscape brought about by the Trade Union Bill.

To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, it struck me that there have been a lot of moves forward, but those initiatives do not have the salience that they need. I would be happy to commit my department to bring together interested parties to discuss not only existing work on employee engagement but how we can raise awareness of its importance as part of the changes that we bring in with the Bill—and how that can link in to the ongoing issue of productivity, which has been a priority for my department ever since the productivity plan we published last July. I hope that I have shown that the Government value the role of employee engagement and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Dykes and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, Clauses 10 and 11 implement our manifesto commitment for a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions. We had substantial discussion last week in this House about these clauses following, and informed by, the excellent work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his Select Committee. I share the tributes paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, to the committee, its staff and the speed of its proceedings.

These clauses are about the relationship between trade union members and their unions. They are not about the relationship between union members and political parties. The relationship between trade union members and their unions should be based on transparency and choice—an active choice, not a theoretical choice buried in fine print.

There are a number of areas where I believe progress has been made and where there is consensus. Principally, the Select Committee accepted that members should be asked to make an active choice when contributing to a union’s political fund. In looking to achieve wider consensus, the Select Committee has looked for a middle ground. I appreciate these efforts, but I believe that when it comes to the treatment of existing union members the proposals have not gone far enough. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for which I thank him warmly, would not extend opt-in to existing members, only to new members. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, one of the hard-working members of the committee, put it well when he talked about this being a wrecking amendment in that respect.

The Select Committee concurred with the Government’s view that the current approach has not operated with enough transparency. All members are not consistently informed about their rights. If it is deemed right that new members are required to make an active opt-in choice, I do not understand why the same principle does not apply to existing members.

It is not acceptable in many areas of daily life automatically to deduct payment for a cause or purpose that has not been actively consented to. We see that in consumer law, financial services, marketing communications and the way charities approach potential donors. I have not heard a compelling reason why we should treat all union members differently.

We debated at length last week the wider and distinct agenda of political party funding. Some have argued that pursuing only a partial opt-in system can be justified, given the lack of consensus on party funding reform—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned this. It is a difficult problem to crack and I shall not seek to repeat what was said in the discussion last week. Our trade union reforms are about the transparency arrangements between a union and its members. I quote again from page 19 of the Conservative manifesto:

“We will … legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions”.

The Select Committee agreed that we had not cherry-picked from the 2011 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and recognised our democratic mandate to introduce an opt-in process, irrespective of agreement or not on party funding.

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and apologise for intervening early in her remarks. Her reference to a manifesto commitment is of course a valid point, except that we all know that manifesto commitments are abandoned quite frequently by parties in the course of events and do not proceed, that the manifesto is based on a Government elected by 24% of the electorate and that only some 0.4% of the population read any of its paragraphs.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Dykes and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 25th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

I rise to intervene briefly, having listened carefully all afternoon to our exchanges. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for his remarks, and I fully support both this and the previous set of amendments. The more one thinks about this obnoxious, sad little Bill—well, it is a fairly big Bill, I suppose—the more one has deep misgivings about it.

I do not mean to embarrass the Minister, but I genuinely thank her for being a listening Minister on this occasion, and for listening very carefully. It is obvious that the Bill has been contrived, through the interstices of the central office apparatus of the party in power, to produce something that does not reflect the reality of modern trade union/employer relations. I cannot think of any examples, in respect of our exchanges on Clause 16 onwards, where employers have asked for anything in this field. That is fairly telling. Normally, Governments respond to legitimate lobbies, but that has not happened on this occasion.

I look back—it is a long way—to when I first entered the House of Commons in 1970 and the nightmare of the Heath Government, the National Industrial Relations Court, the Official Solicitor being called on to adjudicate, the dockers on strike, and all the rest of it. That all arose from anti-trade union legislation built on principles of prejudice, dislike and antagonism, rather than genuine constructive industrial relations—the kind of thing we see routinely in Germany and other civilised European countries where there is a much more balanced picture.

Given that the Minister has been a patient listener, and given that an expectation is building up that we will return on Report, which, if my memory serves me right, will be on 14 March, to lots of these fundamental points, I ask her, at this late stage in the Committee—we only have a short time to go before we conclude this four-day Committee stage—to indicate that she will come back with modern modifications to reduce the onerous and extreme extra bureaucracy being placed on the Certification Officer’s activities. They are not necessary and have not been requested by anybody, least of all the professionals in that department. I ask that she listen to these correct objections.

I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have been involved in objecting, and not just the Labour party, which is the main expert on industrial relations. It shows the authority of the genuine overall opposition—including on these Benches—to these really undesirable measures in a Bill that is widely unpopular among the people observing it. It is a pity that many are not bothering to observe it; they should be, because it is one of the worst examples of the Government’s illegitimate use of a so-called mandate based on 24% of the electorate. It is nowhere near a genuine majority of people in this country. People want proper, modern, civilised industrial relations that do not oppress trade union members.

I thank the Minister for her patience. She has the chance to indicate, either in her reply today or on another occasion, that, when the time comes, the Government will respond and make sure there is a definite change in the text of these clauses.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank Lord Mendelsohn for the amendment. This short debate has raised an important question about the proportionality of penalties for breaches in this area, and I want to emphasise the seriousness with which we should all view the requirements and obligations on unions. The impact assessment helps us to have a useful discussion in this House. It reflects conventions—I do not always agree with the conventions, as I am sure noble Lords opposite will remember, but penalty estimates are one bit of good practice that is rightly included when these assessments are prepared. I emphasise that it is not a target. It is about encouraging good compliance, including as a deterrent, and creating and maintaining public confidence by removing those unfit for union office and ensuring accurate trade union registers. Union leadership elections or political fund rules and ballots should all be carried out according to due process. Any irregularities, quite rightly, would raise concerns and damage confidence among not only union members but employers and the wider public.

We intend that the maximum penalty would vary according to the seriousness of the breach. This is a normal approach among regulators. Within this maximum, the Certification Officer may also set a lower penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case. In a number of areas that the Certification Officer regulates, he is currently limited to being able to make an order requiring the union to correct a breach. There is nothing to sanction a union that has failed to comply with a requirement, no matter how significant the failure. The additional option of a financial penalty being applied will ensure that appropriate sanctions are available as a remedy and a deterrent, as I have said.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Dykes and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We do need clarity. I have listened to what has been said in relation to the reasonably detailed indication. We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Oates and Lord Pannick, about what that might mean in practice. I would like to reflect on whether we have got that right. Probably what everybody wants is a balance, so that there is sufficient detail and members can make an informed decision without unnecessary burdens being put on unions by asking them to include a long and detailed account of the trade dispute.

I turn to Amendment 25. Terms such as “action short of a strike” are too wide. The type of industrial action proposed will depend on the circumstances of each dispute and the industry concerned. It is important that members know which type they are voting on because of the different impacts on people’s lives. I reassure noble Lords that we have considered that there might be a degree of uncertainty when a union is drawing up its plans about what action it might subsequently take. But it must surely have in mind a plan for such action. All we are asking is that that plan is made available to members.

I am concerned that Amendment 26 would mean that there was no requirement to provide any information on the voting paper about the timing of industrial action, which is a key point. We want to avoid the situation where a member might have made a different decision had he or she realised when the strike would take place. For example, Unite conducted a ballot where British Airways staff voted to strike, but it is not clear that they would have supported the strike action had they known they would have been called out for 12 days over Christmas. We want to avoid that sort of thing.

[Lord Dykes]

I will be brief. Coming back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, made earlier, and allowing for the fact that the example the Minister gave about the airline dispute over Christmas was a very esoteric example and not a generalised one, why can the Government not be more benevolent and consider that in the background and the immediate run-up to the ballot being launched there would have been plenty of explanation in the union’s communications to its paid-up members? Presumably, the intentions of the trade union and details of the dispute would have been reported in the press so that the public would be well-informed as well. Everybody would know about it. Why does the ballot paper itself have to be sullied with further extraneous detail of that kind?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord. Having the necessary information on the ballot paper is important. You cannot always rely on the press to give you all the information you need to know.