Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I associate myself with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has said. In particular, strengthening the rights of those in the retail trade in relation to Sunday trading is very important. I am glad that, however it has come about, it has ultimately been a government proposal which I hope noble Lords will agree to very quickly.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments. I am also grateful for the welcome for these changes from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The provisions on Sunday trading were still being developed when the Bill was in the House. This is one of the reasons why I did not expect to be leading a discussion on Sunday trading. As noble Lords have said, the measures were originally intended as part of a much wider package, including measures on Sunday trading hours. The House of Commons spoke clearly; it had a debate; it has left the enhancement of shop workers’ rights in the Bill and this has been welcomed. We have not, therefore, had the chance for a full debate but it is good that we have had today’s debate.

In conclusion, some shop workers can still face pressure to work on Sundays, despite existing measures to protect them. This strengthening of shop workers’ rights makes it clear that this should not be the case. I beg to move.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, it may be that I should have grouped today’s amendments, but they are all obviously different and reflect an important debate that we had in Committee. They show that we are moving forward.

We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we want to ensure that any industrial action is based on a current mandate on which union members have recently voted. That is our manifesto commitment. We have been equally clear that we want disputes to be resolved by negotiation, before the matter results in industrial action. We proposed a period of four months for the ballot mandate to balance our objective of, on the one hand, ensuring that strikes cannot be called on the basis of ballots conducted years before and, on the other, allowing sufficient time for constructive dialogue to continue.

I listened very carefully during the Committee’s scrutiny of this clause. Two points came across clearly, which I indicated at the time that I should reflect on. The first was about the effect which a period of just four months would have on the parties’ ability to continue negotiating. The second was about extending the ballot mandate, if that is what the employer and trade union agreed. I listened closely during that earlier scrutiny and have given careful consideration to the points raised. In order to underline just how committed the Government are to providing proper opportunity for negotiations to continue, we are making a substantial concession by extending the time period for the ballot mandate from four to six months. A mandate that lasts six months provides plenty of time for a trade dispute to be resolved while ensuring that the mandate does not become stale. We are also allowing the union and the employer to agree between them an extension of this for a further period, up to a maximum of three months. We accept that this may be particularly useful where negotiations are progressing well and a resolution of a dispute is in sight. It may avert a situation where a union might otherwise feel that it has no choice but to take industrial action before the mandate expires.

We have thought carefully about how long the overall mandate, including the extension, should be. We believe that the employer and union should not be able to agree an indefinite extension. We need to ensure that, after an appropriate period, a union is required to seek the views of its members about whether to continue with industrial action. We believe that, overall, nine months is more than sufficient. This takes account of the need to balance the interests of not just employers and unions but the wider public, who may be affected by impending industrial action. I beg to move.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad that the Government have thought it right to do this. I felt strongly that to constrain too strongly the time for which the ballot has authority was dangerous from the point of view of prejudicing resulting negotiations, which might take some time. In particular, I thought that to make the end independent of the view of the employer was unnecessary and really rather dangerous. I am very happy that the Government have moved this period up, from four to six months, and allowed the ballot’s authority to continue if the employer agrees to a further three months. This seems a very practical solution to a quite important problem.