Royal Mail
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Viscount Younger of Leckie
Viscount Younger of Leckie
In terms of holding on to stakes, it is good to note that at least 50% of the original institutional investors have retained their investment, which shows an element of consistency. I point out again that nearly 700,000 retail investors took up the offer and employees took up 10% of the offer. To that extent, it has been a success.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I have the Hansard for May 2011, when many of us were on to this very point right through the Bill, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said. Could the Minister comment on the validity of the following point? Having moved an amendment to say that any initial public offering—which was initially denied by the Minister as being at all feasible—should be phased, I said that,
“if the Bill reaches the statute book in its present form, in a year or so we will almost certainly have a repeat of the public interest being prejudiced by the modalities of the sale by merchant banks, as has happened some times before”.—[Official Report, 4/5/11; col. 463.]
Is the mistake made by Mr Vince Cable simply that he had a gentleman’s agreement, according to the report, with people in the merchant banks in the City, yet he was not making it with gentlemen? They have put £3 billion into their own pockets. Is that not the most scandalous announcement that we have heard from the Government in all their life?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I think that the gist of the noble Lord’s question referred to the timing of the sale. I remind him that there was industrial action hanging over this IPO, and much discussion was had over whether one should delay or stay. However, it was very clear that one should continue because the industrial strife was not necessarily going to be resolved and that was not going to impact on the timing. That is why we went ahead at that time.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Viscount Younger of Leckie(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, it is interesting that the questions we are left with keep coming back and keep being unanswered. What is the serious public policy issue behind this proposal? What exactly is the problem? What will this Bill achieve that current legislation does not achieve? Will the measures being proposed do more than simply increase the regulatory burdens on trade unions? We have all those questions and very few answers.
We know that union membership is already regulated by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Section 24(1) puts a duty on unions to maintain an up-to-date register of members’ names and addresses so far as reasonably practicable. This legislation has stood the test of time since the days of Mrs Thatcher. As has been said already, we are not aware of any calls having been made to the Government to extend this provision. BIS, the certification officer and ACAS have confirmed under freedom of information requests that they have received no representations for such a measure.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, it may be that a better self-certification system could be an advantage. I say “it may be” because we do not know what the problem is but cloaking the issue in some spurious idea that there is some public concern out there that would be remedied by having an additional checking arrangement is simply not sufficient.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I turn to two amendments which seek to drastically reduce the effect and extent of the provisions as drafted. This would in practice undermine the Government’s key policy objective, which is to introduce a proportionate and effective reporting and enforcement mechanism alongside the existing duty of unions to maintain an up-to-date membership register so far as is reasonably practicable.
Amendment 29 would remove Clause 37 and the role of the independent assurer from the Bill altogether. Clause 37 gives credibility to the assurance process by requiring independent scrutiny, which is in line with the Government’s overarching aim to provide greater assurance of the maintenance of trade union membership registers for the benefit of members, employers and, importantly, the wider public. As some unions become large organisations representing members across a variety of employers and workplaces, their administrative requirements become more complex. As a consequence of the prevalence of very large unions in recent years, there is also now an increased public perception of a union’s scope of influence.
This may be an appropriate moment for me to restate what I said in Committee: I am not minded to comment on the media coverage of particular industrial disputes, such as the Grangemouth refinery or, more recently, the issue affecting Howdens. Instead, as I should, I will focus on the separate issue at hand relating to the obligation of unions to maintain up-to-date membership registers. Perhaps this can also be described as playing a straight bat. I hope so.
The nature of union membership data means that they decay easily—for example, addresses can quickly become out of date. About 2 million people move in and out of union membership every year, which equates to around one in four union members. The register for a union which has a 25% turnover in membership could theoretically be entirely out of date in four years. Unions are already required by statute to maintain a register of the names and addresses of their members. What we are introducing is annual reporting on the compliance of unions with this duty where currently there is none. I believe—
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. This must be about the fourth time that he has said that, on the one hand, of course there is “churn”, as the word is now fashionably used, in trade union membership—20% or something like that. That is where I suggest the figure of 80% comes from; there is always churn going on. There is then a huge leap of logic, and the word “proportionate” in this context strikes me as astonishing. It is straight out of Alice in Wonderland—words mean what I say they mean, no more and no less. It cannot be proportionate to say that, because of churn, there is only 80% accuracy at any moment in time, therefore we will make it accurate by saying we will make it more accurate because we will have inspectors running around the country making it accurate. They will not make it accurate. In terms of what we have described as the problem with churn, how can they make it accurate? So the punishment will not fit the crime, even if there were a crime in the first place. Can the Minister give a more reasonable justification for an extraordinary lack of logic in his pronouncements?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the reasoning behind this is simply to look at the bigger picture in relation to unions. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, needs to be reminded that unions with 10,000 members or fewer will be self-certificating. We are looking at those unions which have large membership lists. Many colleagues of the noble Lord—certainly in Committee—acknowledged that it is a challenge to keep membership lists up to date. This is why—in a very light-touch way—we are bringing in an assurer so that we can be sure that the lists are up to date, so far as is reasonably practicable.
I believe that the membership audit certificate will be credible for larger unions only if it is independent, and this is because larger unions often represent workers across a range of different job types and employers. They have complicated branch structures—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, would agree with that. They often have different IT systems and there may be greater time delays for updating information. A union official or rep would not, therefore, have the same credibility as an independent expert in ensuring that the systems used across the entire union are fit for purpose. This is the essence of what we are aiming to do. That may also be helpful in response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Clause 37 requires trade unions with more than 10,000 members to appoint a qualified, independent person, called an assurer, who has a duty to provide an annual membership audit certificate to the union. The membership audit certificate must state whether, in the opinion of the assurer, the union’s system—and please note this word “system”—for compiling and maintaining the register is satisfactory to comply with the duties in Section 24. This is analogous with the regime in place for financial reporting, where all unions are required to appoint an independent auditor to approve their accounts. An assurer has the right to access the membership register and other relevant documents at all reasonable times, and to require information and explanations from the union. This is necessary for the assurers to be able to meet their duties and carry out their functions. However, as I mentioned in a previous debate, they will be subject to the obligations of the Data Protection Act when handling union membership data.
The assurer may request access only to documents which may be relevant to the union’s duties in Section 24. At the outset, when the assurer is appointed, the union and the assurer could agree terms as to the relevant documents to which the assurer should have access. If, after making inquiries, the assurer’s opinion is that the union’s system for maintaining the register is not satisfactory, or the assurer is unable to obtain the information necessary to provide the certificate, they must state this on the certificate and give reasons for doing so. If the certificate is not satisfactory, the assurer is required to send it to the certification officer as soon as is reasonably practicable but after submitting it to the union. Again, as part of the contractual arrangements, it would be possible for the union and the assurer to agree that the assurer must alert the union of any possible issues before the certificate is finalised.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Viscount Younger of Leckie
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, my first point is that I do not wish to make any reference to reports that I read in the Sunday Times yesterday. As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, correctly said, the certification officer has been called in to investigate; it is not for me to comment further and it is for him to progress or otherwise.
Secondly, I want to acknowledge the many distinguished Members opposite who have led unions and have had substantial responsibility for individuals within the unions in the past. Some of these unions have been very big, with many hundreds of thousands of members, so I want to thank those noble Lords for their contributions. I realise that in the past they have been very much in the public eye with all that has gone on over several decades.
I shall deal with the amendments to Clause 36 and the question of whether the clause should stand part together. Clause 36 is intended to give widespread assurance that unions are able to contact their members and that, as a result, union decisions reflect the will of their members. This should enhance the democratic credibility of union actions to a wider audience. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, could not have put it better. This is important because unions have extensive influence—in public life and in the daily lives of their members. Actions they take can also have an impact on non-members. As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, have rightly highlighted, the statistics demonstrating the value that the public place on the unions is high. This is why there is a need to be sure that the registration lists are up to date.
Union members work across a range of critical areas, including in the public sector. Union membership is around 56% in the public sector and 14% in the private sector. We do not want to change or inhibit the vital role that unions can and do play in society—which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—but we want to ensure that there is confidence in their accountability to their members. Since 1984, there has been a statutory duty on unions to maintain a list of members’ names and addresses. This is currently enshrined in Section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which requires unions to keep the list up to date,
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
This register will be a union’s primary source for ensuring that its communications, including ballot papers, reach members. I think everyone agrees with the principle of maintaining the register. That principle is not under scrutiny today, and the existing duty remains unchanged. However, there is no mechanism to require reporting on compliance with the statutory duty.
Clause 36 introduces a reporting regime that is proportionate to the practicalities of the duty to which it relates. Unions will be required to supply an annual membership audit certificate to the certification officer, alongside the annual return. As this provision is about giving widespread assurance, all unions will have to make the most recent certificate available to those who request to see it, either free or for a reasonable charge. The certification officer will also have to keep copies of all certificates and allow the public to inspect them. This addresses the fact that there is currently no real way for members, employers or the wider public to check how far the existing duty is being complied with. Finally, Clause 36(3) and (4) ensure that a trade union can discharge the new duty on behalf of its branches and that federated unions must comply with the new duty.
Amendment 118A—and Amendment 118D, which is consequential on it—seeks to limit the duty on unions so that they do not have to submit a membership audit certificate every year, but only if a complaint is made. In practice, if a complaint is received by the certification officer and he investigates, he will want to be satisfied that there is no breach of the duties in relation to the register. If he discovers such a breach, it would be more appropriate to provide a remedy as soon as is reasonably practicable, rather than to impose a reporting requirement. If there were no annual reporting requirement, the legislation would not achieve the level of routine assurance that we want for union members and the wider public. Only individual union members have the right to check their details on the membership register, and they must be predisposed to do so. Even if the member does this, he or she has no right to see all of the register and, in any case, cannot know whether other names and addresses are up to date. Nor can the member know who should or should not be on the register. Therefore the member cannot ascertain or guarantee the accuracy of the register in its entirety. If the member checks the register and finds problems with the accuracy of his or her details, they can make a complaint to the certification officer. However, only the member has the right to do this and, as I have said, they will not be able to determine the accuracy of the register as a whole. If anyone else has reason to believe there might be inaccuracies, they could not make such a complaint. Even if the certification officer received allegations about the union’s register, under the current law he would have insufficient powers to investigate.
I am aware that unions and some noble Lords have argued that there have been a very low number of complaints about union registers. However, given the limitations of the existing regime that I have just set out, that is not a particularly effective indicator of the overall accuracy of union membership registers. Over the summer we carried out a targeted consultation exercise, which was mentioned by noble Lords opposite. Evidence from that suggests that unions face difficulties in keeping their records updated. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, stated that in his opening speech and I will say more about the consultation on it later. The CIPD commented:
“Unions have stated difficulties at times maintaining the addresses of members”.
A member of the Engineering Employers Federation also commented that trade unions,
“do not have a unified way of tracking membership and it remains difficult for them to do so”.
I believe that most noble Lords opposite acknowledge that.
When these measures were debated in the other place, a number of references were made to the challenge of maintaining registers because of the high degree of turnover in members, which was alluded to this afternoon. Around 2 million people move in and out of union membership a year, which equates to around one in four union members. That means that if a union does not regularly update its register, it could quickly become inaccurate. We propose a modest and proportionate approach to providing greater assurance that registers are as up to date as is reasonably practicable. We are not changing the way in which unions record member details, nor are we changing the existing duty to keep a register. Our focus is on the reporting requirements and effective enforcement. That means greater confidence that union members are receiving all necessary information, including the opportunity to vote on key matters such as a new general secretary. That also means greater confidence that when unions decide that they need to take industrial action—which is entirely their right—those affected know that members have been contacted and given the opportunity to vote. Membership audit certificates will be beneficial to unions, give confidence to individual members and more widely enhance the credibility of their decisions.
Amendment 118B would amend Clause 36 to allow a union to delay submitting a membership audit certificate if it is launching an appeal against it or the certification officer’s acceptance of it. I appreciate that unions will want to ensure that an assurer does not, mistakenly or otherwise, send a qualified certificate to the certification officer without the union knowing about it. I hope that I can provide some reassurance that this amendment is unnecessary. The current drafting of Clause 37 ensures that the assurer will send a copy of the membership audit certificate to the certification officer only,
“after it is provided to the union”.
Therefore the union will have seen the certificate and will have an opportunity to engage with the assurer. If the union is able to demonstrate that the certificate is inaccurate, it should be able to remedy it at that point. Furthermore, unions will themselves appoint their assurers and agree their contractual relationship with them. That gives a union discretion to require an assurer to allow the union to comment on any draft certificate or to discuss concerns before it is issued to the certification officer. However, we believe that it is reasonable to require that qualified certificates are sent to the certification officer as soon as reasonably practicable after they are given to the union so that he can decide what steps to take. We regard this as a necessary part of the assurance process.
If a union is required to appoint an independent assurer to provide a certificate because it has more than 10,000 members, that certificate is the membership audit certificate for the purposes of Clause 36. Clause 36 also sets out what is necessary for unions with 10,000 members or fewer. Those unions will be able to authorise a union officer to sign off the certificate, with a statement that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the union has complied with its duties under Section 24. As we expect smaller unions to have a less complex register, we think it is reasonable to consider that a union officer will have sufficient familiarity with the content to be able to make such a statement. Amendment 118C seeks to alter Clause 36 so that the assurer would no longer provide the membership audit certificate for unions with more than 10,000 members. That would mean that all unions would provide a self-assurance that they are complying with the statutory obligation under Section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. This amendment would not give sufficient assurance that unions are maintaining accurate and up-to-date registers and can contact their membership. We already have a regime which relies on individual union members actively checking their membership details.
Nowadays, some unions can be extremely large organisations. For example, as many noble Lords opposite will know, UNISON has 1.3 million members and Unite has 1.5 million. To put that in context, the NHS has around 1.7 million employees. Record-keeping for such large organisations is likely to be complex, and maintenance will need to be ongoing to ensure that the register is up to date, particularly given the high level of reported churn in union membership. Equally, where a union consists of many individual branches with individually held membership information, regular and diligent maintenance of the membership register as a whole will be critical. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, recognised that. We acknowledge that these lists cannot and will not necessarily be 100% accurate. In addition, the larger the organisation, the more probable that communication between the union and its members relies on being written rather than oral. Branch secretaries are unlikely to know all their members and may not even have met some of them. It is therefore appropriate that there is independent assurance for larger unions.
This amendment could also have the unintended consequence of placing additional burdens on larger unions. In defining the independent assurance, we have focused on the assurer awarding the membership audit certificate to larger unions on the basis that they have adequate systems in place to allow them to comply with Section 24. That is because we considered it unduly burdensome and unreasonable to expect the assurance to be an audit of every individual record. The effect of the amendment, however, would be to require these unions to give assurance that they have complied with Section 24 to the best of the union officer’s knowledge and belief. That means that the officer who signs the certificate essentially guarantees, to the best of their knowledge, that the register is accurate and up to date—again, so far as is reasonably practicable. We believe that this could be much more onerous for larger unions than what the Government propose. The annual assurance of unions’ compliance with this duty will demonstrate to members, employers and the public that unions are diligent in their maintenance of such complex records. It will also provide greater confidence that union activity is accountable to the membership.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Will the Minister address the point made by many of us about the report of the business advisory committee, which reached the conclusion that the so-called cost-benefit analysis carried out by the department and the impact assessment are not fit for purpose?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I was about to attempt to answer the many questions that were put to me. However, before I come to answer the noble Lord’s question, I wanted to say that the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, basically said that they considered Part 3 to be a politically motivated attack on the unions. I think the noble Lord, Lord Monks, used the expression “vindictive attack”. Perhaps I should not be surprised at their reactions, as we are perhaps being accused of placing our tanks on their lawn. That is just not the case; if anything, it may be only the front of the front wheels. However, this is not intended to make it harder for trade unions to operate. They are membership organisations, and as such have a responsibility to their members to keep their register of members’ names and addresses accurate and up to date so far as is reasonably practical. That general principle is already a statutory obligation, and it is right that the Government should try to ensure that these requirements on unions to fulfil this responsibility are adequate. As I said earlier, trade unions are vital participants in the economy. They work with employers to maximise employee engagement and deliver practical solutions to workplace issues. This is why we currently engage with trade unions on key policy areas, much more widely than we are talking about today, such as employment rights, skills and manufacturing strategy. The Business Secretary regularly meets the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss current policy matters.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Will the Minister respond to what many on this side have been driving at? Both in the retail sector and the construction industry there is widespread use of casual and agency workers. Obviously, the employer knows who the workers are. Unions, in recruiting members to represent them, have great difficulty in getting data on who is employed, who is on sick leave and so on, so the word “reasonable”, which we understand to be used for the new union audits, should be constructed on the premise that there must be a level playing field.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I assume that that was a specific question relating to contractors. I hope I have got that right. If the noble Lord’s question was broader than that, I pledge to write to him to clarify the position.
It would seem unnecessarily restrictive to require that the certification officer could never appoint that firm again, no matter what happened to the individual concerned.
In addition, if the appointed inspector—or any other individual, for that matter—has breached data protection rules by mishandling personal data, the union may apply to the Information Commissioner, who enforces the Data Protection Act. The Information Commissioner has a range of powers at his disposal, including imposing a fine of up to £500,000. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 152 would change Clause 38 so that the inspector appointed by the certification officer to investigate discrepancies would also have to take “all steps necessary” to protect a member’s name and address, instead of “all reasonable steps”. I find it difficult to see what the amendment achieves in practice. The assumption appears to be that there are steps that might be necessary but are in practice unreasonable. I consider “all reasonable steps” to be sufficient.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Viscount Younger of Leckie(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I note, however, the point that the noble Lord has made.
Let me now turn to the second part of the Bill. Part 2, put simply, requires those who want to influence the outcome of a general election to be transparent in doing so. The changes proposed update a system of regulation which has been in place at the past two UK parliamentary general elections.
Noble Lords will no doubt be aware of the influence that third parties can have on elections. This influence is often very positive, but we believe it should be proportionate. Despite existing controls, there is a real risk of distortion by those who seek to unduly influence the outcome of the election. The Bill takes forward a number of important measures to prevent this occurring.
Expenditure will now be more fully recorded and disclosed. Donations to third parties will now have to be published in advance of an election, rather than after. Certain third parties will also have to provide a statement of accounts. The spending limit for third parties will be lowered. Thirteen years ago, the existing spending limit was fixed in legislation at 5% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit for political parties. This amount was considered quite generous by the organisation that recommended it, the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The committee also noted that groups of third parties could outnumber expenditure by candidates or political parties. That argument remains valid today. Reducing the limit to 2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit for political parties combats the risk of third party expenditure being used to influence elections. The reduction to a lower, but still very significant, sum is justified. To that same end, the Bill also introduces a measure that will prevent third parties directing the entirety of their spending limit at a single constituency or local area. It will become more difficult for large, well-funded campaigns to overwhelm the local political landscape.
The test for determining if a third party’s expenditure is in fact controlled expenditure is the same in both the Bill and existing legislation. Only expenditure that can,
“reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,
of parties or candidates will be regulated and count towards a third party’s spending limit.
Currently only expenditure on election material is regulated. This Bill extends the range of activities that are regulated to other activities such as public rallies and organised media events. This is the same list that applies to the activities of political parties. It implements a very sensible recommendation by the independent regulator, the Electoral Commission.
I should also make clear what this Bill does not do. Noble Lords will be aware that some charities and other organisations have expressed concern that the Bill will prevent campaigning on policy issues. I can reassure the House that only those campaigns that promote electoral success will be regulated.
It is the Government’s belief that the vast majority of charities or other groups campaigning for their preferred policies will not be affected by the Bill. This belief is based on the guidance of the Electoral Commission and its experience of regulating third parties at the 2005 and 2010 UK parliamentary general elections. At those elections charities and other campaign groups were not prevented from engaging with, commenting on or influencing public policy.
No elements of this Bill will deprive third parties of the ability to make a contribution to political debate. The regulatory requirements strengthened by this Bill are proportionate. Third parties will not be precluded from campaigning. They will simply be brought into an enhanced spending and donations reporting regime. As a result, the process as a whole will become more transparent.
I now turn to Part 3, which addresses a gap in enforcing existing duties. Section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 requires unions to maintain a register of their members’ names and addresses, and, so far as is reasonably practicable, to keep it accurate and up to date. I hope noble Lords will agree that this measure always was, and remains, reasonable.
Under the Act, however, union members, employers and the public cannot be wholly assured that a register is up to date. The Bill therefore requires unions to provide an annual assurance to the certification officer. Those with more than 10,000 members will be obliged to appoint an independent assurer. The Government are keen not to inhibit the operation of small unions—
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. Does his last comment imply that certification officers have had problems with the current regime?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
One of the issues that we wish to address is the fact that the certification officer has a passive mode so that anybody who wishes to make a complaint can do so, but only if he is a union member.
As I was saying, the Government are keen not to inhibit the operation of small unions, so those with 10,000 or fewer members will be required to submit an annual self-certification that their membership list is up to date.
The Bill will also enable the certification officer proactively to investigate possible discrepancies in the register. He will be able to require documents to be submitted and to appoint an inspector. If a union is non-compliant with the duties in Section 24, the certification officer may make a declaration and a civil enforcement order. Unions will always be given an opportunity to make representations before a declaration or order is made.
I look forward to these measures benefiting from the scrutiny of noble Lords. The Government are committed to implementation which is both effective and proportionate, and we will support the transition by producing guidance. I am aware of concern regarding the impact of the proposals, and I hope to reassure noble Lords now. First, I reiterate that the Government are not challenging the vital role that unions play representing their members’ interests and contributing to public debate.
Secondly, I reassure noble Lords that these proposals do not breach human rights to privacy or freedom of association. If a union is non-compliant with duties under Section 24, it is important that every opportunity is given for that to be remedied. The investigation powers will be proportionate: the certification officer can require information only where he deems there is good reason to do so. Existing safeguards in the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act will apply as they do elsewhere. The Bill also includes additional protections to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of member data. These provisions will not allow employers unauthorised access to such information.
I believe that these proposals are reasonable. By proactively providing an annual assurance, unions will give even greater credibility to the important voice that they have in public debate. I also hope that unions themselves will recognise the benefit: many unions have up-to-date registers but there is anecdotal evidence of doubt that that is always the case. The annual assurance process will bring greater credibility in future about the result of ballots; for example, in electing a new general secretary.
This Bill will shine the light of transparency on those represented by consultant lobbyists as they meet key decision-makers in government. This Bill brings further clarity on the influence third parties have on the outcome of elections. This Bill will provide assurance that trade unions have accurate membership records, given that their influence extends far beyond their members. This Government believe that transparency generates accountability.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Viscount Younger of Leckie
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Lea, for their interventions. As I made clear in my opening remarks, we do not believe that the provision in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, is necessary. It should be up to employers to recruit as they see fit. If a company wants to recruit an employee shareholder, as companies already do with employees and workers, it should be able to do so in its own way. Taking the argument further, if an employer wishes to post a notice for, or advertise, an employee shareholder position, they should be free to place this as one role, just as they would be able to do in an advertisement for any other role. While the House has raised concerns on behalf of the individual, and particularly given the concessions we have made, we must ensure that we do not tie the hands of employers. The noble Lord’s Motion would do just that. Therefore, I hope that it will not be supported by the House.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps I should first mention my thanks to my noble friend Lord Morris of Handsworth, who some 15 years ago was the chairman of the TUC working party on rights at work. I recall that this was part of a hugely successful programme of improving the quality of the contract of employment in many ways. This is the first time I have seen legislation that explicitly states that you can have a contract of employment of less satisfactory quality. That should be a source of concern. It would have been a source of concern in Whitehall in the days of the Ministry of Labour. At the moment we have legislation that is like a dog with three legs. There is input from the Treasury, Customs and Excise and BIS, but because there is no ministry of labour, the collective experience of people who know about recruiting and agreements seems to have been totally lost.
I think that our predictions will come true and that the Government—or the Government in power at the time, because we are only two years from a general election—will see this programme staggering on its feet. All the difficulties, from those raised by my noble friend Lord Myners to those raised in our last debate by other noble Lords on all sides of the House, will come to pass. However, in light of the hour and having had a full debate on this question over many days, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Viscount Younger of Leckie
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)
My Lords, I am grateful for the full and wide-ranging debate that has taken place during our consideration of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. Last week the other place disagreed with the amendment to remove the employee shareholder clause from this Bill. In today’s debate I will explain why the Government support the position of the other place to retain it in the Bill.
I intend to focus my initial remarks on the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Business and Enterprise who gave an important assurance about jobseeker’s allowance claims. I will also explain to the House why I believe it is important to support greater choice for companies and individuals with the creation of a new employment status.
Last week, my right honourable friend the Minister for Business and Enterprise announced in the other place that jobseeker’s allowance claimants will not be mandated to apply for employee shareholder jobs. This means that individuals receiving jobseeker’s allowance do not need to worry about their benefits being affected if they do not wish to apply for, or accept, an employee shareholder job. This is an important point. The Government will not compel jobseekers to apply for these jobs even if the job fits within their job search specification and we will leave it up to jobseekers themselves to choose whether to apply or not.
During the Third Reading debate on the Bill we discussed the guidance that will be made available for jobcentre staff to help them understand the new employment status. We have now updated the draft guidance for DWP jobcentre advisers. It now states explicitly that a jobseeker cannot be mandated to apply for an employee shareholder job. A copy of the draft guidance was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 16 April.
We are debating a wholly voluntary new employment status. As I have said throughout the debates, we do not want people to be coerced into accepting these new contracts and it is worth us considering other protections that this clause provides. On Report in the other place the Government amended the clause to give strong protections for existing employees, enabling them to turn down an offer of an employee shareholder contract by their employer. First, we created a new unfair dismissal right that applies from day one of an employee’s contract. This means that if an employee turns down an offer to change their contract to an employee shareholder one and they are dismissed because they said no, this would be considered an unfair dismissal. Secondly, we created a new right not to be subjected to a detriment from day one of an employee’s contract. This means that if an employee turns down an offer to move to an employee shareholder contract and they then suffer a detriment, such as being passed over for promotion or for a pay rise for no good reason, they may be able to make a successful claim at an employment tribunal. These two protections allow employees to turn down an offer of an employee shareholder contract if it does not suit them and they can do this with the knowledge that the law protects their decision.
The clause has further protections. The shares, which must be worth at least £2,000 when given to the employee shareholder, must be fully paid up by the employer. This is an important point because if the company became insolvent and the shares were not fully paid up, the employee shareholder would otherwise be liable to pay any outstanding amount against the value of the share. It is important that we consider the context in which the new employment status fits. Employment law offers a choice of different employment contracts.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way at this stage. However, he has rattled through the circumstances in which someone could apply for a job: he says there is no compulsion and that there are options. I want to put a question absolutely clearly and directly. It arises from the guidance, which post-dates where we were last time in this House; in fact, it post-dates where the Commons were a week ago. The guidance refers to the circumstances where the vacancy is an “employee shareholder job vacancy”. Where, therefore, is the option for the jobseeker who does not want to be an employee shareholder? There is none. Is it not disingenuous to suggest that there is an option?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. This currently remains an entirely voluntary procedure and jobseekers will not face a detriment if they are due to apply for a position.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am sorry; it is very unusual to intervene twice. However, where is the option? The Minister has said that there is no coercion. Of course there is none in the sense of having a whip, but where is the option to get a job if it is solely an “employee shareholder job vacancy”?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am not sure I entirely understand where the noble Lord is coming from. If a jobseeker is seeking a job there are various options for him or her to look at in terms of roles, and the employee shareholder role will be treated equally alongside any other option. The only difference is that there will be absolutely no detriment to that individual if they apply for an employee shareholder role, and if they decide to turn it down. On the matter of guidance, I clarify that it remains in draft form. If this is an issue concerning the way that the guidance is written up, I am more than happy to listen to the noble Lord if he has any comments to make.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I know of many employee contracts—not those for an employee shareholder—where serious advice is required. However, the status of being an employee shareholder is wholly new. The individual concerned may well require advice but noble Lords are talking about the circumstances of entering the employment phase and the proposal we are discussing would set a new precedent. As we know, often very difficult discussions take place towards the end of the employment contract. That is where it has become the custom and practice for companies to pay fees. That is the difference. I hope that I may be allowed to move on.
The recruitment of skilled personnel is normally taken very seriously. It takes time and commitment and involves searching for suitable candidates, sifting applications and interviewing. This will be no different with the new employment status. In fact, companies will need to take time to consider whether this type of contract is right for them. The owner of a company offering the status should think about the impact of giving up equity in the company. This is a decision that is not easily reversed, as once you have given away your shares it may not be easy to get them back. We must remember that the owner is giving away a stake in the company. Companies will need to be sure that the person to whom they offer the contract is right for the company. An employee shareholder may be able to influence the decision-making of the company and take a share of the profits. This is not something a company would do without being sure that it was the right move for them.
The new status will not be applicable or suitable for all companies or all individuals but it might be right for some. This new employment status represents more choice for individuals and companies. I have been clear throughout our debates that the status is voluntary. Indeed, it may well be used only by a minority of companies, but what is important is that we allow them to choose what is right for their own personal and commercial circumstances.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I hope that I may be allowed to finish. I urge the House to keep this innovative proposal as part of the Bill. We should not deprive individuals or companies of choice that may lead to more jobs and better company performance. Above all, it is good for growth in the UK. I beg to move.
Motion B1
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2013
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Viscount Younger of Leckie
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)
My Lords, this order amends the rules on collective redundancies. It makes three changes. First, it reduces the current 90-day minimum period for 100 or more redundancies to 45 days. Secondly, it makes an equivalent change to the requirement to notify the Secretary of State in advance of the first dismissal taking effect. This period will also be reduced from 90 to 45 days. Thirdly, the order removes fixed-term contracts that have reached their agreed termination point from the obligation to consult the individuals affected. These changes will be complemented by guidance on how to consult, which is being developed by ACAS.
I shall set out the changes in context by explaining the current rules. The rules are set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and implement a European directive on collective redundancies. The directive aims to protect employees in large-scale redundancies but not to prevent employers from taking necessary steps to restructure. However, UK legislation builds on the provisions in the directive by introducing minimum periods before the first dismissals can take effect. Where the employer is proposing 20 or more redundancies at a single establishment within a period of 90 days or less, no redundancy can occur until at least 30 days after the start of consultation where between 20 and 99 redundancies are proposed, and no redundancy can occur until at least 90 days after the start of the consultation where 100 or more redundancies are proposed. This does not affect individual notice periods. These do not begin until redundancy notices have been issued, which cannot happen until consultation is genuinely complete.
The 90-day minimum period looks long by comparison with other countries. There is no minimum period in the US, Japan, Australia or New Zealand. In addition, the European directive governing collective redundancy law does not mandate a minimum period. As a consequence, the picture across Europe is varied. For example, there is no minimum period in France or Germany. It is 30 days in Spain, Belgium and Ireland, one month in the Netherlands, and 45 days in Italy and Poland.
Collective redundancy obligations have been in place for 40 years and there have been no changes to the 90-day minimum period in that time. However, I doubt that anyone who retired 40 years ago would recognise today’s working environment. Modern communications technology has made consultation easier and faster to carry out. People have easier access to details about employment opportunities, and CVs can be created and sent out in a matter of hours. Although it was once common for people to spend their career in a single firm, nowadays careers are made up of jobs in a variety of organisations.
In 2011, the Government carried out a call for evidence on the collective redundancy regime as part of a wider review of employment law. We then consulted from July to September 2012. The evidence from both exercises identified a number of issues. Employers were concerned that the rules delayed their ability to respond to challenges and opportunities. A business may need to restructure because it is involved in a merger or acquisition, or it may gain a new contract that requires a change of product or process. Of course, a business may also fail. Whatever the reason, the ability to adapt can create a stronger business from which it might expand in future, and that may include the creation of new jobs. Alternatively, restructuring might simply be about assuring survival and salvaging some jobs rather than losing them all.
For employees, a particular issue was the impact on morale and productivity caused by uncertainty about their future. This affected everyone, not just those being consulted. The evidence suggested that concerns about protecting the rights of those who are ultimately made redundant can crowd out the interests of those who are not.
Trade unions were opposed to any change because they believed that it would reduce job protection and make employers more likely to make employees redundant. However, they also wanted to see an improvement in the quality of consultation so that employees were genuinely engaged in the outcome.
As a result, we identified three objectives for reform: first, improving engagement and therefore the quality of consultation; secondly, ensuring that employers can restructure effectively to respond to changing conditions; and, thirdly, balancing the interests of the employees made redundant with those who remain.
On the minimum period and the treatment of fixed-term employees in the order, as I have said our consultation identified a number of problems with the current 90-day period. Employers considered that the 90 days prolonged consultation beyond the point at which it was constructive. Most told us that meaningful consultation usually lasts only 30 to 45 days. Genuinely viable alternatives to employer proposals were either hard to find or quickly identified.
A second major concern was the effect on staff. This was described by one leading trade association as leaving employees in a “state of paralysis” and,
“unmotivated on a day-to-day basis”.
In addition, the prolonged uncertainty hampered the retention of skilled staff. Investors, suppliers, customers and lenders were also affected.
We considered these responses carefully and decided that, 40 years after it was first introduced, it was appropriate to reduce the 90-day minimum to 45 days. This is a statutory minimum, which means that companies are entirely able to extend the period.
I remind the House why employers need to consult. Consultation improves communication and engagement. It ensures that employees feel included in what is happening. It allows them to get used to the idea of change. It allows employees to identify alternative options that the employer might have overlooked. It allows them to ask questions and consider their own personal options. For all these reasons, good employers take employee consultation seriously.
We are not changing the requirement that employers consult on ways of avoiding, reducing or mitigating proposed redundancies, nor are we changing the need to demonstrate that the consultation has been meaningful. The consultation might have to last longer than the minimum period if the employer is to do this, or the employer might decide that a longer period is necessary because it makes sense for them and their workforce. We have also retained the level of punitive penalty that can be made to employees who have not been consulted appropriately. This can be up to 90 days’ pay per affected employee.
The 45-day period, though, will introduce increased flexibility for the employer, who can carry out meaningful consultation quickly. It will also have benefits for the employee. Individuals who have found a new job quickly will be able to accept a job offer and leave with a redundancy payment. Employees who are part of the consultation but who end up being retained get reassurance sooner, and individuals who lose their job can begin to plan for and get help with their future.
On the change relating to fixed-term employees, our consultation identified confusion over whether the ending of a fixed-term contract at the agreed point of expiry triggered an obligation to consult. For example, if an employer had more than 20 fixed-term contracts coming to an end within a 90-day period, employers were not clear whether they needed to consult. This has proved particularly difficult for the higher education sector, where the cycles of academic funding mean the routine use of fixed-term appointments related to the academic year. Universities can end up carrying out multiple consultations about appointments where no one is any doubt that they are limited.
As a result, we have decided to take advantage of the provision in the directive that allows member states to exclude fixed-term contracts that have reached their agreed point of expiry. This would mean that in my earlier example there would be no obligation to consult. Where, however, the employer seeks to terminate the contract early and on grounds of redundancy, consultation is still required if the thresholds are met.
Finally, we have asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—ACAS—to produce guidance, and ACAS is working with employers and employee representatives to develop its content. When it is complete, it will represent the agreed approach between employers and unions.
I anticipate that noble Lords might want to be apprised of the guidance document. With this in mind, I have already prepared a letter to send out to all your Lordships. This guidance is an important part of the overall package of change. Consultation showed us that statutory solutions were neither desirable nor achievable for all the difficulties arising with the collective redundancy rules. The guidance emphasises the importance of looking after employees. What employers do and how they treat employees in difficult circumstances is crucial to the future success of their businesses. Good practice suggests: first, maintaining a constructive ongoing relationship with employee representatives; secondly, having a plan for restructuring; and, finally, having recognised procedures for handling redundancies.
In the last 40 years we have seen a revolution in the working environment, and as a result our labour market has changed significantly. Modern communications mean that things happen faster and more easily. Individuals move more regularly from one job to another and, to remain competitive in global markets, businesses must respond effectively to commercial pressures.
The changes this order will make—
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I think the Minister said that this is his final point and that he is about to sit down. Is he really going to sit down before telling us what is clearly in the impact assessment: that policy option 2—the 45 days—means a reduction in output, and costs for employers, through making employees redundant more quickly, of £230 million per annum? For employees, there is,
“the reduction in the amount of time paid by their current employer, and therefore in the pay received. We expect this reduction in pay to total £252m per annum across all affected employees”.
Are the Government trying to get this measure through while hiding that information, or does the Minister think that I have somehow misunderstood that information? Does he not think that that loss of pay of £252 million is mere chicken feed?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I was just about to finish my opening speech, and there would have been the opportunity for replies. I am, however, very happy indeed to address that concern. The figure that we have is actually higher. It is £300 million, which is the saving that would be made in the reduction to 45 days. Let me try to address and explain where we get that figure from. It is based upon the number of people being made redundant as a result of collective redundancies involving 100 or more people. It is based on UK-specific European Restructuring Monitor data, and 96,000 people were involved. I will not go into the specific details. I am delighted to furnish the noble Lord with the specifics, but if we take the median weekly pay and multiply it up it comes, if I can reassure him, to £300 million. It is purely based upon the amount that is not paid out to employees because of the reduction to 45 days.
The changes—
Lord Lea of Crondall
The clarification is not complete. The Minister is using the figure of £290 million or £300 million. That is classed as a benefit, if you wish. I gave the figures under the section of costs. Under benefits, the benefit to employers is the,
“reduction in wage costs by allowing large scale redundancies to take place more quickly. We currently estimate this to be in the region of £290m per annum”.
I repeat my question: if this is a benefit and the only benefit to employees is a reduction in periods of uncertainty and a possible reduction in stress, is that not rather like saying that if you are on death row for capital punishment it is more motivating to make it quick?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I would not take that track at all. I was merely making the point that if the consultation period is reduced from 90 to 45 days, there is obviously a reduction in costs in terms of the salaries that are paid out to employees who are made redundant more quickly if that is the case. Equally, another figure could be included, because employees might move on more quickly anyway. The answer is that I am more than happy to give the noble Lord, who clearly understands this exercise by this issue, a full answer in writing and to give the figure in more depth, but the £300 million figure is the one that we have.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, there is one very good thing I can thank the Minister for: making a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. There will be many hundreds of thousands of workers who, when this is explained to them, will be determined to make sure that in two years’ time this will be reversed by a Labour Government.
The Minister’s speech raised my blood pressure, probably noticeably so, by hiding, sweeping under the carpet, the huge costs to workers in this change. There is a basic fallacy in saying that we stand in good stead in comparison with Germany and France on this front. Germany and France, and, indeed, Scandinavia, have one thing in common. They all have permanent machinery for consultation with workers through information and consultation bodies, bodies called works councils. We created the whole philosophy and structure of the modern industrial economy in Germany in the British High Commission zone, under Ernest Bevin, in the scheme signed by Field Marshal Montgomery and Marshall Rokossovsky, one of the most interesting footnotes to that period of history. That means that there is no doubt that there is access to the top decision-makers in the company.
Where does the Minister think that those decisions are made? I will try to answer my own question and see whether he has any logical disagreement with it. They are made at top level by the board, or at least by the CEO. As the research done for ACAS by the Warwick Business School demonstrated, the local managers generally know as little about what is going on as do the shop floor. To say that the shop floor representatives can talk to the local managers is a waste of space. Indeed, our system is so second-order to those in the countries I mentioned that redundancy is almost always a fait accompli by the time that it gets announced, whether it is over 90 days or 45. Why is it always a fait accompli? Because there has been no history of knowledge about what are the company's problems.
I have made this point once before. If you have a structure of involvement of the workforce, it cuts out this “us versus them”—much derided in the 1970s. Instead of having the machinery to say, “We are all in this together”, we simply mouth the words and drive the two sides further apart. The workers’ representatives are put together literally overnight with no background knowledge about these matters. Is that a sensible way to run a railroad in the year 2013? Of course not.
This is such a dialogue of the deaf. There is no one on the Conservative Benches, so I could speak all night and it would not make any difference. There are no brains there, there is nothing there. I think that I had better conclude by saying that the development of our alternative thinking on this has been given a big boost tonight. It has given us absolute clarity of the target area where we need to create machinery at board level, workers’ representatives on remuneration committees and throughout the enterprise.
I strongly take the point made by my noble friend Lord Monks that we cannot be the victims of deliberate gerrymandering of constituencies in the company, whereby company X says, “This is the decision-maker”, when we know that the structure of the capitalist company—obviously I am teaching everybody to suck eggs, but please tell me where I am wrong—means that it is at the level of the enterprise as a whole where strategic decisions are taken. It is at that level that we need machinery, as well as, side-by-side with that, a substructure. You do not need to be Einstein to understand, and we are certainly not advocating, that there should be machinery only at the top level with nothing underneath or machinery at local level with nothing on top. There has to be a strategic change in the British economy so that we can look at the real problems why our world export market share is diminishing. As my noble friend Lady Turner pointed out, if you are talking at least about 100 employees, you are not talking generally about SMEs, where I think the cut-off point is 250 in the BIS rules. We are talking about companies here that all need permanent machinery. As has already been stated, that is supposed to be consultation with a view to reaching agreement. That is a joke. We know that that is the way that the world is working at the moment. I strongly support my noble friend. We will get a majority on this because there is no one there to vote against it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will start on a point of definition. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, raised the issue of whether “an undertaking” should be exchanged for “establishment”. The test of establishment is used in the European directive, which this legislation stems from. The test of undertaking is not used. Also, the case law dealing with the definition of establishment is still being developed and it would be very difficult and risky to try to define the term in legislation.
The Government believe that the changes in this order are needed to ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose in today’s commercial environment. I want to start by echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. I, too, acknowledge that job loss is a very serious matter and that every individual who loses their job deserves our sympathy. However, we need to balance the important right of the individual to be consulted with the need for employers to implement change efficiently and quickly to meet market pressures. We need also to address the needs of those employees who do not, in the end, lose their job but have had to live with the possibility that they will. Ultimately, the right of the employee to be consulted is not intended to prevent the employer from making necessary changes. For businesses to remain competitive in the global economy they must be able to respond swiftly to commercial pressures. The 90-day minimum period has been in place for some 40 years and it is right that we now make some changes.
A number of specific points have been raised and I will attempt to answer as many as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, asked, “What about the workers?”. He said that they need a fair deal. I certainly agree with the latter point. Collective redundancy consultation affects a wide pool of employees, many of whom may remain secure in their jobs at the end of the process. The government consultation on the collective redundancy rules showed that concerns about those employees who ended up being made redundant could crowd out the interests of the remaining workforce. The changes to the collective redundancy rules are therefore focused on providing better flexibility so that where consultation can be concluded within 45 days employees gain certainty sooner. I would like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Monks, that, as I mentioned earlier, research shows that the vast majority of decisions between the employee and the employer have been made at between 30 and 45 days. We are not proposing 30 days; we are actually proposing 45 days, which is at the other end of that scale.
Change is also focused on improving the quality of consultation so that during consultation both the employer and employee representatives will be free to concentrate on important issues. These are also issues that have been raised by many noble Lords today and they are valid points.
For employers concerned about losing skilled staff due to uncertainty a shorter minimum period is likely to mean that it will be easier for employees to wait and see if they are personally affected and if so, how. The Government do not believe that the changes will affect how long those made redundant are out of work, or that employers will make different decisions about how many employees to make redundant. Employers do not take lightly the decision to make employees redundant. It has an impact on the morale and productivity of the workforce and means a loss of skills and capability.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Viscount Younger of Leckie
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I would like to check that I have understood. He referred to the words “pay policy”, and an amendment is coming up shortly on the question of top to bottom ratios. If this is now an acceptable form of words, why do the Government not think there is now a need for a top to bottom pay policy, which we will come to in a minute?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will come to this in a minute. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I think it is best that we continue with this rather than move on to that particular subject. We can then focus on the noble Lord’s comment during the debate on the next amendment.
I should reiterate that throughout our consultation shareholders with considerable experience in investments research and analysis consistently expressed concerns about the downside effects of annual votes and special resolutions. This was acknowledged by my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. It is a fact, and it is the main point I want to make. Stakeholders have expressed their support for the Government’s proposals. For example, the Association of British Insurers stated that it is,
“pleased the Government has decided to proceed with this with a 50% voting threshold”.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, raised some questions. First, he asked to which year a policy would relate if it were renewed annually. Well, he did not raise precisely this question, but it was alluded to. It is important to provide companies with the flexibility to decide themselves how the timing of the pay proposals will best work for them. Whether a pay policy relates to the current financial year or the following one is a decision for companies and shareholders to take together.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, also raised the issue of the Cox review. I acknowledge this review, and the Government welcome its publication. The review raises some key issues about directors’ pay. I reassure the House that we will consider the recommendations made in the Cox review in the context of the Kay report. The Kay report provides a framework to restore relationships of trust and confidence, and to realign incentives throughout the investment chain. I remind noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to taking forward the recommendations made in Professor Kay’s review that investment in equity markets supports UK companies to deliver sustainable growth.
To conclude, my noble friend Lord Tugendhat raised the matter of annual votes, on which some fairly strong comments were made. I stress that in the end this is about giving companies and shareholders the flexibility to do what is best for them. However, the noble Lord is correct that a vote would be required in the event of any change in policy, so annual changes would lead to an annual vote.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Viscount Younger of Leckie(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am afraid I can describe the dialogue between this side of the House and the Government only as a dialogue of the deaf. I referred to people having no voice. The Minister referred to people getting e-mails or this, that and the other, but he did not say that they would have a voice. He said that there was progress in this field. Does he not accept the figure that I read out, which showed that there had been a 10% increase from the mid-1970s in the proportion of enterprises with zilch consultation and no machinery—no works councils and no joint consultative committees at all? The noble Lord implied that I had inaccurately said that unions were locked out at the gate, and purported to correct me.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I did not imply that the figures were inaccurate; I just noted that the noble Lord had mentioned them. I am sure that what the noble Lord said about unions being shut out at the door was accurate, but I would be interested to hear examples of this.
Lord Lea of Crondall
That is very interesting. The impression given was that there was another route via the Central Arbitration Committee for workers who had the same obstacle to which I referred. However, the organising of workers across an enterprise is no straightforward matter for a union; you cannot just ring up one person.
The picture that HMG seem to have is quite incompatible with what the workplace employment relations survey describes. When it comes to a so-called voluntary model, it will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that in Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany, the works council is part of the machinery and does not require this complicated obstacle course. All I am saying is that the Minister should go away and reflect on the fact that 10 years of experience has produced progress backwards and that it is about time the Government revisited this issue, not wait for the progress that will be made in two years’ time under the Labour Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.