Queen’s Speech

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, my contribution to this debate will concentrate on employment relations and on why I believe that the Government have missed the point about them. Of course our economic success depends on improving our dire productivity record and rebalancing our economy so that we are not so reliant on the service sector, as well as on staying in a reformed Europe, making the most of our talent through training and improving pay inequalities, particularly for women. Therefore, it is with a feeling of near despair that I see in the Queen’s Speech proposals to take away workers’ rights in some areas and to have another go at trade unions. There are 31 million people at work and only 6 million in trade unions. Why does the Minister think that existing employment law, already the tightest in Europe, is in any way inhibiting job creation? Some of our most successful enterprises are strongly unionised, with a record of consultation, co-operation and flexibility. Why do the Minister’s Government seem to think it is possible to separate workers from trade unions? Whenever the words “worker” or “working people” are mentioned, Ministers go misty-eyed and husky of voice, with moistened lips; mention the phrase “trade unions”, and they take on attack mode.

We live in a country where workers can earn 80 times less than their boss. It is unequal and unfair. The contrast in Germany could not be greater: Angela Merkel speaks at the congress of trade unions and spends at least half a day listening to debates. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, came to the TUC last September and thanked workers—trade unionists all—for their sacrifices and answered questions from delegates afterwards. What is wrong with this co-operative model? You would expect a former chair of ACAS to say these things, and I want to ask the Minister what consideration will be given to ACAS funding. A lot of extra work was passed on to ACAS by the previous Government, most of it welcome. ACAS is good value, and has the trust and confidence of participants and the country, but it needs to be funded adequately. I can do no more than quote the noble Lord, Lord Marland, when he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at BIS:

“We all agree that ACAS is a terrific institution … That is why we intend to put much more in the way of resources into it … We know it acts fairly and properly, it has a good track record, and we are keen to support it”.—[Official Report, 5/12/12; col. GC 197.]


If extra work is to be given to the certification office, which is part of the ACAS family, I hope also that adequate funding will come with it.

Turning to the issue of political funds, I realise that this will press all the buttons about the party of the rich and the party in hock to the trade unions, so reason goes out of the door. Without state funding, which is unlikely to happen, we are faced with the unfortunate situation where the Conservatives receive £19 million from 27 of the 59 wealthiest asset managers included in the Sunday Times rich list and the Labour Party receives a substantial part of its income from trade unionists. Lady Thatcher introduced a requirement that trade unions should ballot their members every 10 years to see if members wished to retain or create a political fund. It takes a huge amount of time and money to set up the ballot, and not one has ever failed, but this is not enough for some Conservatives. They want to keep picking and picking at what they see as a running sore on the body politic, while blithely accepting cash from the least regulated financial area in the country.

For the record, the majority of trade unions with a political fund are not affiliated to the Labour Party. They are required to have a political fund if they wish to campaign on behalf of their members. What are the Government’s intentions regarding the non-affiliated unions? Will they be hit for six, so that it does not look too obvious that this is an attack on the Labour Party, or will they be exempt from the new requirements? The majority of trade unionists do not pay into a Labour Party-affiliated fund. Civil Service unions and teaching unions do not affiliate.

I was active in NALGO for 33 years, when it was not affiliated to the Labour Party. We were required, by a court of law, to set up a political fund because of the new legislation and we did that. I was chair of the general political fund at one time, and when it was agreed to merge with COHSE and NUPE, which were both affiliated to the Labour Party, the new union, UNISON, had to devise a solution to recognise the different cultures of the former partner unions. We came up with an elegant solution, which I have described before. Members could opt for the Labour Party-affiliated fund, the general political fund, both funds or neither fund—four choices. When the legislation is before us, I shall be very interested to see how non-affiliated unions will be treated and whether an opting-in process will make the 10-year ballot requirement redundant. This subject area may seem esoteric and faintly embarrassing to some noble Lords, but any proposed changes could have an important impact on trade union resources and income for the Labour Party.

The issue of strikes and public services was raised recently in a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham. The new Secretary of State for BIS was elected on less than 50% of his potential vote, and police commissioners and Members of the European Parliament as well as local councillors will never reach the required threshold of 50%—so why apply it to trade union ballots? It is clear that the Conservative Government intend to ban strikes in public services without appearing to breach any international codes on the right to strike. I caution the Government on this; it will not stop strikes, but it will prevent trade unions keeping some control over events. If you give people no achievable outlet, they will find other ways in which to protest.

Finally, the Queen’s Speech talks about the security of a job but not about job security. It talks about reforming trade unions, but not about improving management skills. There is no hint of trying to improve employment relations—not even a crumb of comfort for the HR community. As a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, I would say that it presents a rather barren picture of the world of work.