Trade Union Bill

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am tempted to be sanctimonious about this. What I found most risible about the Government’s explanation for their somersault was when Nick Boles, when asked why he had changed his mind, said:

“I urge my hon. Friend to look at the people who spoke in the debate and voted, or very assertively chose not to vote, in support of the Government’s position. They included not just Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe but Lord Forsyth, who supports the same campaign on the European Union that my hon. Friend has supported”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/16; col. 1545.]

I really do resent being cited in support of a very shoddy deal. Later he said—contrary to what my noble friend has been saying—that he did not want to listen to the arguments at all. He said:

“I did not want to listen at all. I am afraid I simply acknowledged that, faced by an array of forces—it is not just led by the noble Lord Burns, but includes most of the Cross Benchers, all the Liberal Democrats, all the members of Labour party and very influential Conservative peers, such as Lord Forsyth, Lord Deben, Lord Balfe and Lord Cormack—neophytes in this game like me perhaps need to concede defeat”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/16; col. 1549.]

This is something I shall quote on many future occasions.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Forsyth has unravelled a puzzle. I, too, am disappointed by what has happened. I assumed that when the Conservative Party put in its manifesto the commitment to move from opt-out to opt-in, it thought it was the right thing to do. When it appeared in the Bill, I thought it was the right thing to do. I thought the party thought it was the right policy, and I think it was the right policy.

I have heard the word “compromise” used today. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, used it several times. I understand that we are at the end of the Session. I understand the need for compromise, concession and deals. But this is none of these things. This is the abandonment of a Conservative manifesto pledge, and we should say that. I notice that my honourable friend in the other place, Mr Nick Boles, turned what was a manifesto commitment into what he called a suggestion in the manifesto. It was not a suggestion; it was a promise. When we debated this last time, my noble friend the Minister said it was right for Governments to honour their commitments.

Of course I accept the decision of the other place. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has given his explanation of why this manifesto commitment was abandoned. I say only that junior Ministers in this Government, who are extremely able and good, often have a very hard task.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will not speak for long because we have discussed this at length. I think we have all reached agreement as to why, as my noble friend Lord Sherbourne said, we are going from opt-out to opt-in. We have been through some people’s perception that there has been legislation in the past that has affected political disclosure, if not donations, and have discussed PPERA. But we have now reached a point where we have something before us. This time, unlike on previous occasions, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on where we are.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for crystallising my mind: clearly I am not an influential Conservative Peer because my suggestions have not been adopted.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I served on the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which he chaired in a consensual, conciliatory and characteristically subtle way. I use those words in a complimentary sense, but I also think that his amendment is deceptively subtle. Ultimately, it is a wrecking amendment and I shall explain why I say that.

The background to the amendment is the report produced by the Select Committee. One of its conclusions—this was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons—was that the principle of opt-in should, in effect, be accepted for all members, the only difference being over when and how it should be introduced. A second conclusion was that we were very clear that the transition period for change was far too short and should be extended. The amendment extends the transition period, and I support that.

The amendment is 50 or so lines long and I agree with about 49 of them, but I disagree with the very first line because it takes out the new section that would extend opt-in to existing members. The amendment deals, quite properly, with the transition period for new members. But by taking out the new section that deals with existing members—a proposal which was a manifesto commitment by the Conservatives and was not dependent on party-funding reform—their position does not change and they continue to be able only to opt out. Therefore, although it is deceptively persuasive, it is a wrecking amendment because it strikes at the heart of the Government’s manifesto commitment and I am afraid that I cannot support it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I apologise for having a somewhat croaky voice. My noble friend Lord Collins tells me that I sound like a House of Lords version of Fenella Fielding but, as the only film I can remember her being in was “Carry on Screaming!”, I hope that the voice is as far as any similarities go.

We return to the issue of the trade union political levy and whether members should opt in to or opt out of contributing to trade union political funds. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his explanation of the amendment. To try to cut through the political rhetoric, your Lordships’ House agreed to our Motion to set up a Select Committee, its primary remit being to examine both the detail and the likely impact of the Government’s proposals. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who chaired the committee, and to the members and support staff for the way in which they have dealt with these issues. Both the report and the evidence transcripts show detailed and forensic analysis, which was possible only because of the commitment of the committee members and their support team.

As other noble Lords have said, a week ago we had an excellent debate in this House on the report. It featured contributions from many noble Lords, including those who served on the committee. When the Minister replied to the debate, she was unable—not unreasonably, given the timeframe—to respond fully to the Select Committee’s recommendations. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, both she and the Minister in the other place, Nick Boles, have indicated that they are in listening mode and that the Government may be willing to make some changes. There was some hope that we might hear more about that before Report, but—we never know—perhaps the Minister will surprise us tonight and soothe us by saying, as I hope she will, that the Government are able to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, or at least the spirit of it.

In establishing the Select Committee, we set it a tough task. Because broader party-funding issues had been raised, we asked that the Government’s proposals be examined in the light of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and that the committee look also at whether new legislation was needed in the interests of balance. However, the committee did better than that. It used the remit to go beyond political views and opinion and to dig deeper than any political differences in order to interrogate and analyse the facts. It also sought to find a way through that would recognise the intention of the Government’s manifesto commitment that we have heard about tonight. It is made quite clear on page 49 of the manifesto that the Government will seek a “transparent opt-in process” for union subscriptions to political parties and, in the very next sentence, will seek,

“agreement on a comprehensive package of party funding reform”.

That is all without placing unreasonable and unrealistic demands on the trade unions in meeting that commitment to ensure that opt-in would happen rather than be made too difficult.

I think we all accept now that, although clumsily and inaccurately worded, what the manifesto meant was not trade union subscriptions per se but the process by which union members pay into their political fund. I think it was helpful of the Select Committee to affirm that of the 163 unions, only 25 have political funds and, of those, just 15 are affiliated to the Labour Party, with an average political levy for each person of less than £5 a year, or around 9p a week. That fund may be used for a variety of political campaigns; for example, against violence or discrimination or to promote safety in the workplace. That fund may also be used to make contributions to or affiliate to a political party. The main political party that currently has affiliated membership of this kind is the Labour Party.

In our debate last week I provided evidence that the Government’s impact assessment was inadequate, including the bizarre claim on page 74 that:

“Our main estimate is that there will be no change in the number of members contributing to the political fund. We do not have reliable data to estimate any changes in the proportions contributing”.

So although the Government admit that there is no evidence, they still draw unsubstantiated conclusions from that lack of evidence on the impact. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to that point again today.

Fortunately, the Select Committee was more thorough and took evidence from a number of sources. It concluded that the proposed change from an opt-out of the political levy to an opt-in could have,

“a sizeable negative effect on the number of union members participating in political funds”.

When the Select Committee said that, it is was without the obstacles in Clause 10 that make that opt-in more difficult; namely, that it had to be done in three months, in writing on paper, and then renewed every five years. The Select Committee was optimistic that the Government would negotiate on these terms—and as my noble friend Lady Drake referred to, the Government should negotiate on these terms. My noble friend also said that not only did the Government give businesses two years to deal with bringing in the plastic bag levy, but in today’s Budget the Chancellor announced a sugar tax on the drinks industry and gave it two years to prepare for that to be brought in. The trade unions, however, are being given just three months. It is almost as if the Government’s plans are designed to make opt-in as difficult as possible.

The Government claim that they want the process to be “transparent”, but these measures are likely to make it invisible and, therefore, virtually impossible to put into practice, let alone work. Just to make it even harder, the Government want to make it retrospective—that is, as well as applying to new joiners of a trade union, all existing members have to go through the same process, in writing and within three months. That is some bureaucratic exercise: to contact more than 5 million people and get them to respond, and all for just 9p a week.

In terms of the costs involved in switching to the new system, the Government’s impact assessment is again terribly deficient. It assumes, unbelievably, that trade unions will have a 100% success rate in contacting members by letter and getting responses. Then, when 100% of members have replied in writing, it will apparently take just 30 seconds to process each new application—it takes me longer than 30 seconds to open an envelope. Ask any charity or organisation in this country, however worthy and important its communication, what the mailing success rate is. Is it 10%? Is it 5%? Some will tell you that it is even less. Many companies, including insurance companies, where renewal is crucial and often a legal requirement, write more than once and make follow-up phone calls. We have all had those calls, multiple times, reminding and reminding and reminding us to respond to a letter. So that £4 million-plus that the Government estimate it will cost takes us into a world of fantasy and fiction. To do it properly will take much more than a couple of letters, and the overall cost in time, resources and money is likely to be far higher.

I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, quote the evidence from USDAW. That struck me also when I was reading through the evidence, and it was particularly compelling on this point. USDAW said:

“In that three-month transitional period we would have to communicate with 440,000 members. It would be a huge task to get them to fill in forms to respond … We have a turnover of between 70,000 and 75,000 members each year; about 20% of the union leave and join”.

After that, as one by one all those hurdles have been negotiated and members have opted in or out, unions will have to go through it all again just five years later. Can anything have been so deliberately designed to make it as complicated as possible?

We have had some welcome indications that Ministers are in listening mode. The Minister and Minister Nick Boles have both assured Parliament and the Select Committee of this. That indicates that the Government now accept that the plans are disproportionate and that Ministers are willing to consider changes. I certainly hope that that is the case.

As I admitted during last week’s debate on the committee report, and if I am honest with your Lordships House, this amendment does not provide for all the changes that the Labour Benches would want to see. Even the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, as I am sure the committee will recognise, will cause difficulties for both the trade unions and the Labour Party in the medium and longer term. It is certainly not pain free.

I remain strongly of the belief that this part of the Bill is fundamentally flawed and that without broader measures on party-political funding, as recognised by the Select Committee, it will have a disproportionate and unnecessary negative impact on trade union political funds. The measures proposed by the Government to bring in the opt-in go far beyond any transparency requirements and are highly unreasonable. In turn, that will, as now evidenced by the committee report, have a major impact on Labour Party funding. Therefore, we believe that this matter should be addressed in the context of party-political funding as previous reports, including that by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have recommended.

However, we on these Benches also consider that the Select Committee approach brings great credit to your Lordships House. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues have brought a logical, almost scientific approach to this issue. I am sure that we can all find parts of the report or recommendations with which we agree or disagree, but that in no way detracts from what is a thoughtful, intelligent and very practical approach. More than just being analytical and critical, the Select Committee has proposed a route map that removes much of the unreasonableness and unfairness, while still fulfilling the Government’s manifesto commitment of transparency and providing that trade union members should have to opt in rather than opt out. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made the point that that also includes progressing talks on party funding as the other part of the manifesto commitment. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and others offers all sides in this debate a compromise and a sensible way forward.

I have already quoted from the Government’s election manifesto, but there is another quote on the same page about the role of the House of Lords, which is highlighted. It says:

“We will ensure that the House of Lords fulfils its valuable role as a chamber of legislative scrutiny and revision”.

And—dare I agree with the Government?—that is our role today. It says much about your Lordships’ House that through our Select Committee and the related debates we have examined this issue in such detail and have this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and colleagues before us today. We all know that in the other place there were not such detailed debates, at this or any other stage of the Bill, on this specific issue. I have reflected with other noble Lords on why this would be the case. I wonder whether it is because we in this House—a point made, I think, by the noble Lord—are not constituted as a wholly political Chamber. Therefore, we are not so party political or, indeed, partisan. We have examined this issue in a completely different way: we have put facts first and then judgment. It is because of our respect for that process, and the exemplary and thoughtful work of the committee, that we are prepared, in that spirit of compromise, to support the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in the whole of his amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to match that commitment today.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I was very pleased that, in introducing the Bill, the Minister reminded us that one of its main purposes was to create jobs and enterprise. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who hoped that the Bill would stimulate the economy. My noble friend Lord Fowler told us quite rightly that it was important that restrictions and regulations that were brought in some time ago to meet the circumstances of the time should be looked at again, as the world has changed. That brings me neatly to the one point that I want to make today, which is about Sunday trading.

It is now 20 years since the Sunday Trading Act became law and, of course, the world has changed considerably since then. Sundays are now a huge family day, with great sporting events—people go to football in a way that never happened on such a scale previously—concerts and cultural activities. It is a fantastic opportunity for families to get together. The Government recognised this two years ago during the Olympics. They recognised that, in the new world, the current restrictions were not appropriate, so they relaxed the Sunday trading laws for eight consecutive weekends. They knew that people and their families wanted to shop at a time of their choosing and not at a time laid down by officialdom and red tape.

Sunday trading was mentioned in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who is not in his place. I say to him that there has been one other major development in today’s world, which is the number of people who work right through the week on different days and at strange hours. They do so because they want to meet the needs of their customers. In particular, there are those in the public sector, the public servants on whom we all rely, who have to provide 24/7 service to their customers, patients and so on. Should not those public servants be on the receiving end of similar flexibility on a Sunday as well?

There has been another change since the Act came in 20 years ago, which is 24-hour online shopping. I think that younger people find the idea very quaint that people should not be allowed to shop between certain hours on a Sunday.

Under the current law, shops of more than 3,000 square feet can open only for restricted hours on a Sunday. Smaller shops do not have restricted hours. As a result, the big supermarket chains have been opening their own small stores of less than 3,000 square feet and then charging in them significantly more than in their larger supermarkets. Surveys show that, in some of these supermarket “mini” or “local” stores, prices are on average 10% higher. Customers rightly see that as something of a rip-off.

[Lord Rooker]

The noble Lord gives an excellent example. About six months ago, I did a shopping survey in the town where I live, Ludlow. I bought identical products in One Stop, which does not label itself as Tesco but is wholly owned by it, and in the Tesco supermarket in the town. All the products went to the food bank afterwards. The noble Lord is absolutely right: there is a 10% difference in price. A small store can open from 6 am to 11 pm because it is not governed by the Sunday trading laws, but there is definitely a premium to be paid in those small stores owned by the supermarkets.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comment, which is reinforced by surveys that show exactly the same thing: prices are on average 10% higher. That is a rip-off in my view.

An anomaly in the current law is the way in which garden centres have been caught up in these restrictions—I do not think that that was ever the intention—because their products are spread over a larger area than 3,000 square feet. Garden centres are a big part of family outings.

I am not asking the Minister for much. This is a very large Bill, with more than 200 pages, so I am sure that it would not be impossible for him to add perhaps one extra page.