Industrial Action

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and David Hamilton

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I do not think that on any basis today’s action is justified. First of all, there are negotiations going on almost on a daily basis, as I said. Secondly, certainly in the biggest trade unions, a very low proportion of the members who were balloted voted. In Unison, for example, only a little over a quarter of the members balloted voted. In all the large unions, it was somewhere between a quarter and a third. That does not amount to very much of a mandate for strike action. I think it was irresponsible and I wish it had not happened.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Some on the Government Benches, when they are baying against the unions, should understand the history. It was the Thatcher Government who gave us the political levy, and that decision allows individual trade unionists to pay the levy to the Labour party. I want to try to be helpful. The reason that we are having the dispute today, apart from all the obvious arguments about the cut taking place by the Government, is that when a union holds a ballot, it has a finite amount of time before it has to take industrial action. If the Government did away with that stupid rule, which was brought in by the Thatcher Government, we would have been able to continue negotiations. Is that not correct?

[Mr Maude]

I start by saying that we are in continuing negotiations. There will be negotiations tomorrow, the day after, next week and the week after, so negotiations are continuing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way the law works at present creates a perverse incentive for unions to take action. We suggested a number of ways in which the mandate could be kept open. For example, in order to keep a mandate open but not inconvenience the public, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has called a two-hour strike in the middle of the night. In the Royal Mail, the Communication Workers Union has occasionally called five-minute strikes in order to keep a mandate open. It was not necessary, in order to keep this mandate open, for the unions to call a full strike. I am happy to say that most of their members have ignored the call.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and David Hamilton

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is exactly our aim. It is one of the great myths—I have sometimes heard this expounded even in this august House—that all civil servants are highly paid. That is simply not the case. As he says, the average pay of the civil servant is, I believe, around £23,000, and half of civil servants are paid £21,000 or less. In the pecking order, as it were, of the different sectors, average pay is highest in the wider public sector, private sector pay is next, and civil service pay is the lowest. So my concern for lower-paid civil servants is real and genuine, and it is based on a proper understanding of the concerns that exist.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that many of the low-paid workers have accepted those low wages because of the conditions of employment, which included a pension scheme and superannuation scheme that meant something? To take that away from them takes away the very essence of why they are there.

[Mr Maude]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and the fact is that in any employment the terms that apply are those that apply when an event happens. People get sick pay when they are sick; they get redundancy pay when they are made redundant. The statutory redundancy scheme, which has the force of law—as indeed this scheme does, as it is a statutory compensation scheme for loss of office—and the compensation to which people are entitled when they lose their office is that which is in force at the time. That is the view that the previous Government took, robustly, having considered—I presume—all the issues as carefully as we have done. So there is a strong view on both sides of the House that this scheme is unsustainable and unaffordable. Even in good circumstances it would be unaffordable, but in today’s tragically difficult financial position—with the budget deficit that we inherited so out of control and high—it would be indefensible to allow it to remain unreformed, as a matter of fairness.