Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Boles
Conservative Members are very clear that it should not be possible to call a strike on the basis of an out-of-date mandate, and we are legislating to stop that. We are clear and our candidate to be Mayor of London is clear on that, but Labour wants to oppose this measure and support tube strikes that will prevent people who are paid a lot less than tube drivers from getting to work over the weekend.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
T8. Will Ministers confirm what recent meetings they have had with devolved Administrations, local authorities and other public bodies on their proposed anti-Trade Union Bill? Can they confirm that the proposals, particularly those on facility time and check-off, have no support across the public sector? Is it not time to dump those proposals?
Nick Boles
No. I am simply sorry to see yet another party of opposition standing up for illegitimate strikes that cause huge disruption for people who are trying to work hard, trying to get their kids to school and trying to get to work on time. I am glad to say that the Conservatives will be standing up for working people, not trade union bosses.
Student Maintenance Grants
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It says it all about the Government policy that we are debating that so few of their Back Benchers have turned up to read the poor script they have been given by the Whips, and it says everything about how they conduct themselves that instead of having a proper debate on the Floor of the House, with a full vote involving all Members, they sought to have a debate down the corridor and up the stairs, hoping that nobody would notice, in a Committee that nobody has ever heard of.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman made a similar point during his Adjournment debate a few weeks ago on student nurses and bursaries. Is he as concerned as me, first, that the Government are increasingly using this device to sneak through their most controversial legislative proposals without debate and, secondly, that it is contrary to the comments by the Leader of the House on 10 December 2015, on this very issue, when he indicated we would have a debate on the Floor of the House?
Wes Streeting
I agree wholeheartedly. In their cowardice the Government are treating with disdain the House and the students we are all sent here to represent. In spite of what the Minister says, there is absolutely no mention in the manifesto of cutting student grants. In fact, we would find Lord Lucan before we found any reference to cutting student grants, so they cannot hide behind a democratic mandate. As a student union president and president of the National Union of Students, I used to have arguments with previous Labour Governments—
Trade Union Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we sought additional time. This is a highly controversial Bill, with much media interest, and there were 50 Divisions —on all the clauses—in the Public Bill Committee. Every clause was up for debate, and the timetable for today does not allow the whole House to give every clause the same scrutiny. Ideally, we would want more protected time to discuss all such Bills, and to be able to debate all the clauses in this Bill.
Trade Union Bill
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 15, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas or responsibility.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 17, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 18, clause 5, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 19, in clause 6, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 20, in clause 7, page 4, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 21, in clause 8, page 4, line 29, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 7, in clause 12, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(13) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”
The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to the publication requirements in relation to facility time would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
Amendment 22, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(13) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 8, in clause 13, page 11, line 4, at end insert—
“(14) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”
The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to reserve powers in relation to facility time would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
Amendment 14, page 11, line 4, at end insert—
“(14) The provisions in this section and the Schedules it inserts shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 9, in clause 14, page 12, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”
The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to the prohibition on deduction of union subscriptions from wages in public sector would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
Amendment 34, page 12, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 31, in clause 15, page 12, line 19, at end insert—
“(4) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 32, in clause 16, page 13, line 33, at end insert—
“(5) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 33, in clause 17, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(5) The provisions of this section and the Schedules it inserts shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
New clause 2—Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means—
“(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);
(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).
(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2)—
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(5) In this section—
(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and
(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) votes cast are secret; and
(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
New clause 5—Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots for industrial action—
“(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote by electronic means for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.
(2) In this section “electronic means” means such electronic means, including means of secure voting electronically in the workplace, as is, or are determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(3) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (2), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
(4) For the purpose of subsections (2) and (3), a means of electronic voting satisfies “the required standard” for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) votes cast are secret; and
(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(5) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1)—
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf.
(6) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (5)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (5)(b).
(7) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
The new Clause would permit electronic voting in ballots for industrial action.
New clause 6—Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots—
“(1) The provisions in New Clause5 [Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots for industrial action] apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.
(2) The electronic means adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) must also be capable of allowing union members to vote in ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”
The new Clause would permit electronic voting in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action.
New clause 7—Secure workplace ballots for industrial action—
“(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote in person at their place of work by means of a secure workplace ballot for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.
(2) In this section “secure workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. These may, but are not required to, include electronic means and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union to ensure that the required standard is satisfied, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), a workplace ballot satisfies “the required standard” if, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) those entitled to vote can do so in privacy;
(c) votes cast are secret; and
(d) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(4) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1)—
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
(5) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (4)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (4)(b).
(6) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
The new Clause would permit secure workplace ballots for industrial action. These can involve electronic or non-electronic means.
New clause 8—Secure workplace balloting and voting for trade union elections and other matters—
“(1) The provisions in New Clause 7 [Secure workplace ballots for industrial action] shall apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.
(2) The arrangements adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) shall allow union members to vote in workplace ballots for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”
The new Clause would permit secure workplace ballots in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action.
New clause 9—Methods of voting in ballots for industrial action, trade union elections and other matters—
“(1) Voting in a ballot or election carried out to meet the requirements of the 1992 Act as amended can be carried out by postal ballot, electronic means, secure workplace ballot or a combination of these methods.
(2) The combination of methods is to be determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot.”
New clause 10—Application of provisions to public sector employees across the UK—
The extent and provisions of this Bill shall only apply to the public sector in the UK,
(a) By consent of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, Mayor of London and other public bodies and local authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.
(b) Where consent has been granted, this consent can be withdrawn at any time.”
Chris Stephens
I rise to speak to amendments 15 to 22, 14, 34 and 31 to 33 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, as well as to new clause 10, with which I will begin my remarks.
Before I do so, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who led for the Labour party in the Public Bill Committee with great diligence. I welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to his place. I also pay tribute to the Conservative members of the Committee, who tried to defend the indefensible. I pay tribute to Labour members of the Committee, the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). However, the star of the show—she made the soundbite of the Public Bill Committee—was my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron): she commented that the Minister had presented the Bill with great moderation but was entirely disingenuous.
New clause 10 is a catch-all amendment that limits the extent and provisions of the Bill from applying to the public sector across the UK without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Mayor of London and other public bodies and local authorities in England. We took the view that, to protect our approach of working in partnership with unions, Scotland should be excluded from the entire Bill. However, having heard representations from other political parties, and indeed many from across the trade union and labour movement, we now want to restrict the extent of the Bill from applying without the consent of each devolved institution or authority which will be impacted by the changes.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I think it is arrogant of the Government to impose the changes on local authorities. We have had three negotiations on the check-off system.
Chris Stephens
Like many others in this place, the hon. Gentleman is a former council or local authority leader. He will know that he would have negotiated with the trade unions on issues such as facility time to make sure agreements were made in time and grievances were heard in time to avoid such issues going to a tribunal. I agree with him that it is arrogant and out of order for the UK Government to make decisions—for example, in respect of facility time and check-off—that are opposed by many local authorities across the UK.
The proposals in the Bill have the potential to undermine the effective engagement of trade unions across Scottish workplaces, and indeed across the UK, particularly in the public sector. The Scottish Government response to the “Working Together Review” and the fair work convention have shown a commitment to building a stronger, more collaborative approach to the relationship between trade unions, employees and employers. The combination of the provisions in the Bill will affect employees’ right to strike, will change the relationship between unions and organisations negatively and will lead to greater confusion among employees. That will undoubtedly hit Scottish business, especially across the public services in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.
As with many Bills in this House, the devil is reserved in the detail, and with a lot of the detail to be set out in regulations, we are unaware of what else may be coming down the line. Moreover, there will be no formal opportunity for the Scottish Government, or indeed any other authority, to influence such regulations, even though they will have a direct impact on them.
According to the evidence of witnesses, there is concern that the Bill could lead to a constitutional crisis if the devolved Administrations refuse to implement the content of the Bill. The Bill potentially cuts across devolved areas and could lead to confusion and a conflict of interests in its application to existing and new contracts, owing to the ongoing local government reforms in other areas. During the evidence sessions, Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison, commented that the new combined authorities in England will have a lot of extensions of powers, except the power to determine check-off and facility time arrangements.
The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, stated in the “Programme for Government 2015/16”:
“my government will vigorously oppose the UK government’s proposed trade union legislation, which seeks to undermine the rights of unions to fairly and reasonably represent their members.”
Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, echoed those concerns when he wrote to the Prime Minister expressing concerns about the Bill in September 2015, stating that it should be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
The Scottish Government maintain positive and stable industrial relations in Scotland. Those relations are underpinned by the long-standing strategic partnership between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which was recently reaffirmed in the memorandum of understanding signed in May 2015. The memorandum pledged the Scottish Government to work with the STUC in opposing Tory austerity and in demanding further powers for Scotland. The Scottish Government view trade unions as key social partners, playing an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, particularly in the workplace, and the existence of good employment practices is a key contributor to economic competitiveness and social justice.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has described the Scottish Government’s relationship with the unions. In Committee, did the Government provide evidence of any public body having expressed a view that was different from that of the Scottish Government?
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that no evidence was presented in Committee from a public body in support of the Bill. We heard from the Tory Taliban, the TaxPayers Alliance, which was supportive of some of the measures, but no public body was.
The restriction of the extent of the Bill would ensure that none of its provisions applied without the consent of the relevant authorities. We have tabled amendments to restrict the application of some of the provisions.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain to constituents of mine in Hertsmere, many of them hard-working commuters who will welcome the protection against unjustified strikes, why London should have a veto over these measures when they would not have a say under his proposals?
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman refers to unjustified strikes. I am not aware of any unjustified strike. The notion seems to be presented by the Conservative party that low turnouts are due to lack of support. I do not think that that is the case. The case that the Government have advanced suggests that after the ballot result, trade union officials and stewards in the workplace develop mystical powers of persuasion—almost Jedi-like powers of persuasion—and with one wave of the hand can say, “This is the strike you are looking for.” That is nonsense. What was interesting in Committee, which the hon. Gentleman might want to take note of, is that passenger transport groups were very concerned about aspects of the Bill such as the provision on untrained agency workers in the transport sector.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Conservative party was interested in having more people voting in strike ballots, it would allow electronic voting, as it did for the election of its candidate for Mayor of London, and secure workplace balloting?
Chris Stephens
I will come on to that point. I found it curious in Committee that we were advised that e-balloting was unsafe and unsecure.
Amendment 15 would restrict the application of the provisions in clause 2 that introduce a 50% turnout requirement for industrial action ballots in addition to the current requirement for a majority vote in favour of action. The Government’s proposals will undermine constructive employment relations throughout the United Kingdom. Effective negotiations between unions and employers rely on equal bargaining power. The ability of unions to organise lawful industrial action ensures that employers take the views of the workforce seriously and engage in genuine negotiations.
The statutory thresholds will make it difficult for unions to organise industrial action, especially in larger workplaces and those with more dispersed workforces. As a result, the legislation is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on the ability of trade union members to take industrial action in defence of their jobs, working conditions and livelihoods.
It is in the employers’ and employees’ interests for disputes to be resolved quickly and amicably. The Government’s proposals mean that disputes are more likely to become protracted. The introduction of ballot thresholds will mean that unions will take more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure that there is the necessary turnout. That will inevitably divert time and effort from finding an amicable settlement.
Mr Jim Cunningham
This is one of those Bills that the Tories always bring forward when they are in trouble. More importantly, a lot of it has been brought forward because the Mayor of London has not been able to handle the industrial situation. As a result, the Tories are bringing in the Bill to undermine good industrial relations in this country.
Chris Stephens
I am very sympathetic to that point of view. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Mayor of London seems to have a different attitude from other public sector bodies across the UK.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Did not the evidence that was given to the Committee say that the Bill would not solve London’s problem because in most of the disputes that have taken place in recent years, particularly in rail, the action would have gone ahead in any case?
Chris Stephens
The reason it would have gone ahead in any case is that the thresholds the Government are trying to introduce would have been met.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the Conservative Mayor of London has not met the unions in the transport sector in London at all during his tenure? Would not a better method be to have proper industrial relations with negotiations and dialogue rather than sabre-rattling?
Chris Stephens
I agree. There will be an opportunity for the electorate in London to pass judgment on that at the appropriate time next year.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking successive interventions. I was not a member of the Bill Committee. He is talking about the application of higher thresholds for industrial action. What consideration was given in Committee to the potential for wildcat union action as a consequence of the higher thresholds, because trade union leaders might be unwilling to take a vote for fear of not meeting the threshold?
Chris Stephens
No evidence was presented that that would be the case. What was raised was the impact that the thresholds would have on women workers in progressing disputes about issues that impact on them more than on male workers, such as the introduction of shift changes. The Bill Committee did not touch on the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.
According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of days lost to industrial action per year has fallen dramatically over the past 30 years. Since 2010, an average of 647,000 days have been lost to industrial action each year, compared with 7,213,000 days per year in the 1980s. In 2014, there were only 155 stoppages as a result of industrial action, with 55% taking place in the private sector and 45% in the public sector. Most industrial action is short-lived: in 2014, 64% of all stoppages lasted for only one or two days, with 93% of the workers taking part in the industrial action.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I would like the answer to a question. If the amendments that would allow the Scottish Government to give their consent were accepted, would you drop your—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. In those circumstances, would the SNP drop the other amendments as it would have a say in its own Parliament?
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Collective bargaining!
Chris Stephens
Collective bargaining, indeed.
It is important that public bodies across the United Kingdom have a say and give their consent as to whether provisions in the Bill should be passed. I also believe that if a public body gives its consent, it should be possible for that consent to be taken away on a future occasion. The Mayor of London, to use an example that was given earlier, is perhaps the best example of that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It was good that my hon. Friend noted the difference in strike rates in lost days over the past 30 years. Does he agree that industrial relations have improved over the past 30 years and that unions are much more effective and co-operative, but that the Tories over there are stuck in an ideological argument of 30 years ago? They should move forward instead of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Chris Stephens
I agree with that. Seasoned veterans of the House will know what I mean when I say that this is Keith Joseph, phase 3. This is an ideological attack on the largest group in civic society that stands up against exploitation.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee and the hon. Gentleman was a wily performer. He talks about Keith Joseph and says that we are not in the real world. I remind him that we heard evidence right at the beginning of our consideration from the chief executive of Arriva buses, who said that on a vote of 17% of the staff of his firm, 50% of all buses in London were stopped. Think of the disruption that that caused for real people out there in the real world.
Chris Stephens
The key issue was not the number of people who were balloted, but the number of fellow workers who then came out to support them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was other evidence of employee intimidation and blacklisting, and the Government need to answer that point later in our debate.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Does evidence from the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing not contrast spectacularly with that of a Government witness from Health 2020 who admitted when giving evidence that she did not even know what facility time was?
Chris Stephens
That is correct. I had never heard of Health 2020, and under the skilful questioning of the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) it was revealed that the witness was a former Conservative candidate. When she mentioned her concerns about patient care, I said that a trade union is obliged to provide life and limb cover, but the witness had not heard of that either; and as the hon. Lady mentioned, she did not know what facility time was.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am trying to develop a theme with my questions about the Committee. I asked about thresholds and what consideration the Government gave to wildcat action. Will the hon. Gentleman speak about the restrictions on facility time and what the Government say about the potential for wildcat action if there is less time for trade unions to deal with workplace disputes?
Chris Stephens
Wildcat action was not discussed in Committee. We discussed the social media provisions that could lead—as the hon. Member for Gateshead pointed out—to wildcat tweeting, but there was no discussion about wildcat action in that sense.
Mr Anderson
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. He mentioned the work of the Royal College of Nursing. Its employer, University College Hospital, said that:
“elements of the Bill that would confine trade unions’ ability to engage with us are widely viewed by NHS employers as potentially undermining of the Government’s health policy”.
The Government want to introduce measures that will undermine health policy. To go back to Keith Joseph, he always argued that we should let managers manage. Managers want to manage in conjunction with trade unions, and the Government should butt out.
Chris Stephens
That is absolutely true. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was president of a trade union.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that trade unionists are real people, and that it is not only trade unionists who object to the Bill? The Government have significantly failed to secure any substantial employer support for these proposals, and many public and private sector employees object vociferously to the Bill and see it as completely unnecessary.
Chris Stephens
The last time I looked in the mirror, yes, I am a real person, like many other trade unionists in this country.
I am pleased that Labour amendments seek to restrict the application of provisions relating to facility time and check-off, and they will get our support. Once again, alongside the principled and substantive arguments that will no doubt be presented, it will come out that there is no mandate across the public sector for the Bill.
Mr MacNeil
Is it not strange that a Tory party that always talks to us about regulation and red tape is today introducing more regulation and more red tape, and “choking the arteries of commerce”, as was once said in a famous TV programme in Scotland? We are looking at Tory dinosaur behaviour that goes back to the 1970s.
Chris Stephens
I think it is perhaps worse than that because such behaviour comes from a political party which has a laissez-faire attitude to the economy until it comes to the trade union movement. It goes from laissez-faire to Stalinism with no intervening periods whatsoever.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is not a prime example of the unnecessary bureaucracy and complication of the Bill the arbitrary powers that are given to the certification officer for monitoring picketing? That is guaranteed to find failings and create fines.
Chris Stephens
It is even worse and goes even wider than that. Trade unions will be expected to make a contribution to the certification officer, but they will not be allowed to contribute to check-off, because that is to be banned across the board in the public sector.
New clause 2 would ensure that employers have a duty to ensure that union members can vote without fear of interference or constraint. That same duty is imposed on unions, and it is about what happens when an employer fails to comply with those duties by intercepting voting papers or emails relating to the ballot.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my feelings of irony that the Government have stated that trade union members will not be allowed to vote in an electronic ballot, yet they considered that to be perfectly legitimate for the London mayoral selection?
Chris Stephens
I agree with the hon. Lady, and that point was raised in Committee. We were told by Conservative Members that e-balloting is unsafe and insecure—I do not know what that means for the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. It came out that a trade union could email an employer and the police about picketing. Presumably that is safe and secure.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Will the hon. Gentleman say something about stewards having to register with the police and wear armbands just as they did in the 1930s in the occupied territories in Europe?
Chris Stephens
We will discuss that at a later stage. The hon. Gentleman’s point is about the increased capacity for blacklisting that is contained in the Bill, and I agree with him.
Chris Stephens
May I move on and make some progress? I apologise, and I will take further interventions later.
New clause 2 would modernise the law promoting democracy and inclusion—the word “modernisation” keeps getting used by the Conservatives in support of the Bill. Currently, all ballots and elections must be conducted on a fully postal basis. Unlike major companies and other membership organisations—including political parties—trade union members are not allowed to vote online. The Government have consistently described the Bill as an attempt to “modernise” trade unions, but to date they have not allowed trade unions to modernise into the 21st century by using electronic and workplace balloting.
The Government argue that the introduction of thresholds for strike action balloting would boost democracy, but that only stifles the possibility of workers’ voices being heard. If the Government were committed to boosting workplace democracy, they would allow secure workplace balloting and balloting by electronic means, as our amendment suggests.
Online balloting is more accessible and inclusive. Today, most people use electronic devices every day to make transactions and to communicate. We in the SNP use online ballots, and as we have heard, so did the Conservatives in the election of their mayoral candidate. Ballot papers are usually sent to members’ home addresses, which can lead to lower turnouts, especially when junk mail is flying through people’s doors on a regular basis and things can easily get dumped in the bin. Modern methods of voting are more efficient and help negotiations to move faster. Using only postal ballots could prolong the length of a dispute because they simply take longer.
According to the latest Ofcom figures, 83% of people now have access to broadband and 66% of households own a smartphone. Those figures are likely to be higher among those of working age, and they are set to rise rapidly. The 2014 Electoral Commission survey involved 1,205 adults aged over 18, and found that 42% of respondents felt that online voting would increase their confidence by “a lot” or “a little” in the way that elections are run.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the run-up to Christmas, people will be engaging electronically by purchasing goods and materials across the piece? I do not hear Conservative Members saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with that process, or saying, “We’re not going to have you doing that.” Is this not ridiculous? It is just a ruse to say, “We don’t want people to engage with trade unions.” That is what it is about.
Chris Stephens
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is because Conservative Members fear the inevitable visit of three ghosts on Christmas eve.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Electoral Reform Services, which has run more than 2,000 ballots, that there has not been a single security breach in all those ballots and that, therefore, it is a very secure mechanism?
Chris Stephens
I agree, and that evidence came out in Committee.
Workplace balloting is an available secure option that increases democracy in the workplace. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons, usually Electoral Reform Services. The individuals and balloting agencies permitted to act in statutory recognition ballots are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots.
An analysis of Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout tends to be significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace. Average turnout was 88%, and in combination ballots average turnout was 86.9%. The average turnout in postal-only ballots was 71.6 %. According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way when ballots take place in the workplace. Of the complaints that the CAC was asked to decide on, five were made by unions and one by an employer. None of the complaints was upheld.
We are told that electronic voting is not safe. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 annually, and its report concludes that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. It says:
“There are risks associated with electronic voting but these are essentially similar to the risks associated with any secure electronic process. Many of the risks are also of the same nature as the risks related to postal voting”.
Chris Stephens
I do, and one of the increasing problems with postal balloting is the number of post boxes, which has fallen by 17% in Scotland in the last year.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill risks throwing away much of the positive industrial relations that have been established by trade unions, work that they do day in and day out? One problem is that the media like conflict, but the bread and butter tasks of the trade unions include spotting and defusing issues before they become problems. Merseyside Fire Brigades Union told me that its employers described its union reps as their best but lowest paid managers, such is their contribution to positive industrial relations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we risk losing all that?
Chris Stephens
I agree with the hon. Lady. Without question, the Bill is ideological. Under a veneer of moderation, it is an ideological attack on a large section of society that stands up against exploitation.
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the Bill is ideological. Is it ideological for people who send their children to schools in my constituency who cannot get childcare during an unjustified strike with a very low turnout in a ballot? Is it ideological for hard-pressed commuters in my constituency who cannot get to work because of strikes called on ballots with low turnouts?
Chris Stephens
The problem with that analysis is that it is based on ignorance. The simple fact is that if a ballot has a low turnout, a trade union has to make a calculation. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who is a former Unison president, can confirm that trade unions have, on occasion, not proceeded to industrial action if they do not have support for it. The biggest gamble that a trade union takes when it decides to take industrial action is how many people participate. If people do not participate, the industrial action falls and dies.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The contribution from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) highlights the lack of understanding of the role of trade unions and of people who are working just to pay their bills. That lack of understanding shows why this Bill is so wrong.
Chris Stephens
It also shows complete ignorance of the principle of solidarity. Many of the people who are affected by industrial action, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) described, will be fellow trade union members.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the average time lost to strike action last year was less than a third of a second per member of the workforce?
Chris Stephens
Yes, and that evidence also came out in Committee. What is the great industrial chaos in this country that means that the Government need to intervene? There is none—
Chris Stephens
For entertainment purposes, I will take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Oliver Dowden
I shall try to entertain the hon. Gentleman. If he believes that turnout is so high for all these industrial actions, why is he so concerned about having a threshold that requires four out of 10 trade unionists to turn out and vote? If turnouts are high, where is the problem?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. No shouting out. If Members want to intervene, they should stand up and do so.
Chris Stephens
I will give the hon. Member for Hertsmere the benefit of my trade union experience. In localised disputes about local issues, turnouts go through the roof, in my experience. Lower turnouts usually happen in national, UK-wide disputes. Those issues can lead to low turnouts, but the key test is how well the trade union is organised. Turnout will be a lot higher in some areas than in others in such disputes.
Joan Ryan
The point about commuters was made earlier, although the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) may not have been listening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) said, the transport strikes that are often prayed in aid of the Bill would have all crossed the threshold and were all legitimate strikes.
Julie Elliott
If the genuine motivation behind the Bill was to get turnout as high as possible, would not the Government put forward every possible means to allow members of trade unions to vote in ballots, including workplace balloting and e-balloting? In fact, they are doing the opposite.
Chris Stephens
I agree, and that is why we have tabled the new clause. If the Government were so concerned about participation, they would allow e-balloting and secure workplace balloting. If secure workplace balloting is good enough for recognition agreements, surely it is good enough for many of the other issues that trade union members have to decide on.
We were told in Committee that we cannot have online voting until 2020. Ministers have claimed that the Speaker’s Commission on digital democracy concluded that online voting could not be achieved before 2020, but it was concerned only with online voting in general or local elections, not trade union or any other ballots. The Commission reported on evidence from the Open Rights Group, which argues that online balloting in the context of a general election is far less transparent than ballot box voting. These arguments do not apply to trade union ballots, which are counted by the scrutineer in private.
Paula Sherriff
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that trade unions prevent a significant amount of sickness absence in the workplace? I was a shop steward in a hospital for a number of years. By fostering good relationships between trade union members and management, I am confident we reduced significantly that burden on the workplace.
Chris Stephens
Yes, with my trade union experience I do agree with that. I would happily say that the best education I had was from the trade union movement, particularly, for example, when someone had a condition that came under the scope of the Equality Acts. I agree with every word that has been said.
Alan Brown
As has been said, my hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. He will agree that very important points have been made about the double whammy on thresholds and not allowing online or secure workplace voting. Without being flippant, does he think the Government have assessed the risk of secure workplace balloting when it comes to English votes for English laws? There might actually be a risk of SNP Members voting on English laws after all, because the balloting might not be secure enough.
Chris Stephens
Indeed. I look forward to that test when the experiment, as I think Mr Speaker described it, takes place.
The Open Rights Group is also concerned that online voting in general elections does not justify the extra expense of developing new systems while the technology is in its infancy, as turnout is already comparatively high. This argument does not apply to trade union ballots, where postal balloting is more expensive and deters turnout. Unlike general election voting, the technology already exists and has been well used for over a decade by private companies, political parties and membership associations.
John Howell
The hon. Gentleman and I have shared many an anecdote about this, both in Committee and elsewhere. He will recall that in Committee I raised a number of concerns from the Open Rights Group which called for prudence in the use of internet voting. Has he looked at that in greater detail?
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is right. I found it curious that when I googled my name I got a link to his website and it was the exchange that we had in Committee. In fairness, the same thing happens with the hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). The Open Rights Group is saying that trade union ballots do not apply in these cases, because there is the additional safety of a scrutineer and so on.
We are told that trade union ballots should be subject to tighter regulation than elections for officeholders in private businesses or non-governmental organisations. If the Government were genuinely concerned about levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate for all bodies to be required to use postal-only ballots. They should also rerun the election for the Mayor of London using a postal-only ballot.
Labour’s amendments on balloting are in a similar vein. They can be broadly supported, as their intentions mirror that of our amendment. We are asking Members to vote for our catch-all amendments to make this draconian, Dickensian Bill a little bit better.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clauses 5, 6, 7 and 9. In overall terms and despite the heat coming out of the Bill, I think we can all agree that we have moved a very long way in industrial relations and strike laws towards consensus and away from the polarisation we saw in the early 1980s.
The Trade Union Act 1984 requirement for compulsory industrial action ballots to be put in place for there to be statutory immunity was a very significant step, although it did cement the rather odd situation whereby there is, technically, no right to strike. Rather, we give unions in certain circumstances statutory immunity for the tort—civil wrong—of inducing a breach of the employment contract. That being as it may, I think we can all agree that voting before a strike is vital, and that the vote itself should be carried out in a free and fair manner that reduces, so far as possible, any chance of coercion, threat or intimidation to the voter. It is certainly the case that the Bill addresses ballots insofar as voter turnout requirements and how the questions are put, but it does not address the question of how the ballot itself is physically conducted. This is now being put to the test by the Opposition in their amendments. New clause 7 argues for secure workplace ballots and new clause 5 suggests implementing electronic voting in ballots for strike action.
My first observation is that those two concepts do not necessarily sit very well together. Namely, if the Opposition believe that e-voting is the future and the way to go, why are they proposing returning votes to the place of work? The problem is actually more profound, of course. The security of a postal vote sent to a person’s home does remove a large area of risk in terms of intimidation that could attach to returning votes to the workplace. The benefits of the 1984 ballots and the use of post were hard won. They have been of great benefit to working people; not perhaps to the union organiser or the militant activist, but to the everyday working man and woman who has benefited from being able to reflect calmly on the merits of a strike ballot in the safety of their own home.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is clearly one of the Government’s motivations behind these amendments.
Workplace ballots should be permitted for statutory union elections and ballots. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots. Workplace ballots of this nature are secure and are overseen by the qualified independent persons, who are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots. Well over 200 ballots for statutory recognition have been held, a quarter of which involve a combination ballot, including both workplace ballots and postal ballots for those absent from work when the ballot is taking place. An analysis of a Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout was significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace, with an 88% average turnout, compared with 71% in postal ballots. There is no evidence that workers felt pressurised by this. In fact, people were less likely to vote for union recognition in workplace ballots than in postal ballots. As was pointed out, the Central Arbitration Committee has received only a handful of complaints, most of which were made by the unions, rather than individuals.
New clause 9 would allow trade unions to decide what balloting to use—balloting by electronic means, workplace ballots, postal ballots or any combination of those. Given the severe time constraints, which we have already discussed, it is not possible for us to divide this afternoon on all our new clauses on e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, but I want to place clearly on record our view that the Government’s failure to accept our very reasonable modernisation proposals, which would enhance trade union democracy, invites detailed further scrutiny of these issues in the other place. E-balloting and secure workplace ballots are distinct issues in their own right, but we recognise that, owing to the Government’s timetabling, we are unable to vote on all our new clauses and amendments separately on Report without curtailing debate on other important issues in the Bill.
Our amendment 7 should be read in tandem with amendments 8 and 9, all of which relate to this Bill’s undermining of the devolution settlement and conflict with the Government’s own professed localism agenda. Our amendments are designed to ensure that the provisions do not apply to services that are either wholly or partly devolved to the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, English local authorities and the Mayor of London.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) managed to ascertain from the UK Government that a UK Government Minister would decide the facility time for health workers in Scotland and Wales. Does the shadow Minister think that is fair?
Kevin Brennan
I am coming on in a few moments to talk about the so-called respect agenda, and I hope that I will then answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our amendments would ensure that devolved Administrations could decide how best to engage with their staff and trade unions when delivering devolved public services, rather than being subject to a highly partisan central diktat—I believe this what the hon. Gentleman was referring to—from a Government in possession of no mandate in many parts of the UK.
I can recall the Prime Minister travelling to Wales when he was first elected, and declaring that when it came to Wales and the other devolved Administrations, he would govern on the basis of respect. He called that his “respect agenda”. With that promise in mind, the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, wrote to the Prime Minister expressing his concerns about the Trade Union Bill and its complete lack of respect for the role of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. He pointed out that the Supreme Court, in its judgment on the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, ruled that depending on a UK Government Bill’s impact on devolved services, it could be subject to a legislative consent motion, even if it could also be classified as relating to matters that were otherwise reserved. Our Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, wrote today to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, calling for a legislative consent motion; she has also called for Scottish local authorities, regardless of political persuasion, to refuse to implement changes when there is no consent.
I want to make it clear that our commitment to solidarity for all workers means that Labour opposes the Bill on behalf of workers and trade unions throughout the United Kingdom. We believe that simply devolving employment and industrial relations—for example, to Scotland—would play into the Conservative Government’s hands, and would result in a race to the bottom on workplace rights and privatisation, which could only have a detrimental impact on workers throughout the UK.
Chris Stephens
Surely the biggest impact on individual contracts will be where it is written into employees’ contracts that they can have their trade union subscription deducted from their salary. The cost of that to other public sector employers will be considerable, as they will have to issue new contracts.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman is right. As I have said, he has put his finger on the matter in his amendment, which we will discuss later. His intervention now has drawn to my attention the point that the state should not be interfering in this kind of voluntary transaction, which is entered into freely by all the parties concerned and which is neither illegal nor immoral. What is wrong with an employer in the private or public sectors voluntarily agreeing to help to collect trade union subscriptions, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with its employees, in exchange for an administrative payment? In what other field would a Conservative Government legislate to ban a simple, mutually beneficial transaction of this kind? The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on spotting that flaw, and the basic illiberalism, at the heart of this measure in the Bill.
Chris Stephens
I, too, disagree slightly with the shadow Minister: I do not think this is a tragedy; I think it is sinister. In a collective bargaining unit that had a staff association alongside a trade union, it would be permissible for the staff association subs, but not the trade union subs, to be collected from people’s salaries. Is that not biased?
Kevin Brennan
I am not going to escalate our dispute as to whether this is a farce, a tragedy or simply sinister, but the hon. Gentleman is right.
Lucy Frazer
I will not give way, as I want to continue.
Although it may be possible to increase methods of voting, we need to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place. New clause 5 suggests that electronic means should be provided as is determined by the unions. In an area potentially rife with practical concerns, we need to be sure that there will be no issue with the amendments before they are allowed. If the unions have the power to bring major industries to a standstill, they need to exercise that power responsibly and democratically. It is essential that any ballot is seen to be conducted fairly and transparently. If there is any risk, or perceived flaw in the ballot, the legitimacy of the ballot may be in question. The vote that is taken by the union members—
Lucy Frazer
I am about to finish.
The vote taken by the union will not garner public support and public trust that the representation of the unions demands, and it is for that reason that we should pass clauses 2 and 3 without amendment at this stage.
Nick Boles
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those people have alternative services, and where they do have alternatives we are not proposing to introduce the higher mandate. We are producing the higher mandate when a service is effectively a monopoly in the life of consumers, and they have no other possibility they can arrange at short notice.
On the certification officer, it is entirely reasonable for a union regulator to mirror the geographical extent of unions themselves. It would be very disruptive to have a single union subject to different regulatory arrangements in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain—or, worse, for a union to be subject to no regulation at all in Scotland or Wales, but subject in parts of England. It is worth noting that the 1992 Act already provides, under section 254, that the certification officer may appoint an assistant certification officer for Scotland, and may delegate to that assistant certification officer such functions as he thinks appropriate in relation to unions based in Scotland.
Chris Stephens
The Minister talks about unions being organised on a geographical basis. Does that mean that the Educational Institute of Scotland will be exempt from the Bill?
Nick Boles
The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had very lively and enjoyable debates in Committee, knows that the provisions in the Bill apply under the devolution settlement throughout Great Britain and to all institutions, including those active only within Scotland.
In conclusion on these amendments, Parliament has put in place proper procedures for considering what should be reserved to Westminster and what should be devolved to other Administrations. Debates took place in this Chamber only yesterday on what should be devolved and what should be reserved to Westminster. Employment and industrial relations law is reserved.
Turning to other balloting methods proposed in amendments tabled by Opposition parties, it is vital that union members, employers and the public have the utmost confidence in ballot processes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) argued so clearly. Without that, the integrity of the whole system would be called into question; members would not use it, unions would not rely on it, and employers and the public would not trust it. That is not in anyone’s interests.
As I said in Committee, and as the Prime Minister has said, we have no objections in principle to the introduction of e-balloting. I expect that in some time—maybe in five or 10 years—the practical objections I am about to outline will have been overcome. It is simply a matter of time and human ingenuity. However, there are practical objections, and the Opposition cannot just dismiss them. The onus is on them, in proposing new forms of voting, to show that the objections can be overcome.
The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy received evidence from the Open Rights Group, and I quoted that evidence on Second Reading. This February, Jim Killock, its executive director, gave an interview to The Guardian, in which he said of online balloting:
“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it. Accountability in most software systems means a clear audit trail of who did what, which of course would violate the basic question of secrecy…You have the complexity of making sure that internet systems are secure, that the voting equipment can be trusted despite being attached to the internet, and that every voter’s machine is not being tampered with. Given the vast numbers of machines that are infected by criminally controlled malware and the temptation for someone to interfere in an election, internet voting is a bad idea.”
I am not aware that the gentleman quoted is a Conservative or that he supports the Government. [Interruption.] Instead of shouting at me, Opposition Members should reflect on the objections raised and work with us to try to overcome them. We are absolutely open to discussing these practical objections, and to working with the Opposition parties and anyone else in society to overcome them.
Nick Boles
I want to say to trade union leaders that when they can overcome the objections listed not by me, but by experts from groups such as the Open Rights Group, the Government will be happy to work with them to implement new forms of balloting. Until then, however, we remain to be persuaded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon is right that there is no requirement for primary legislation to introduce new forms of balloting. It can be done under powers in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the amendments.
Chris Stephens
I thank Members who have contributed to this debate. I have been struck by three things. I say gently to the Minister and the Conservatives—
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am going to stop you in a second, so you need to say whether you want to withdraw the amendment.
Chris Stephens
Okay, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means
‘(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);
(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).
(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2)—
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(5) In this section—
(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and
(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) votes cast are secret; and
(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”—(Chris Stephens.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kevin Brennan
Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to that point when we discuss some of the later amendments. For the moment, I shall talk about the picketing provisions.
The BIS consultation document also acknowledged that most pickets conform to the guidance set out in the code of practice. The Regulatory Performance Committee’s review of the Government’s impact assessment also found that
“there is little evidence presented that there will be any significant benefits arising from the proposal”.
Liberty’s briefing for today’s debate states:
“In the absence of any evidence that these changes are needed, these bureaucratic proposals can only be construed as an attempt to create a situation whereby individuals and unions are set up to make mistakes, subjecting them to legal action and making strike action even more expensive and risky than it already is.”
Chris Stephens
Does the shadow Minister share my concern, which was also mentioned in evidence to the Bill Committee, that the proposed new picketing arrangements could result in the increased blacklisting of trade union activists?
Kevin Brennan
There is every likelihood of that happening, as was clearly revealed in the evidence given to the Committee.
The current UK law provides sufficient safeguards, including provisions for the police to crack down on illegality and breaches of the peace, but all the while protecting the rights of trade union members to engage in peaceful picketing at the entrance to their workplace. These measures are not only unnecessary; they are an affront to democracy, which is why our amendment would remove them from the Bill altogether by deleting clause 9.
I said earlier that the Government had introduced some minor changes as a result of the consultation. Their amendments in this group are the result of significant scrutiny and pressure from my hon. Friends in Committee. The Government have now decided to reverse their position on the plans to introduce even tighter restrictions on union pickets and protests that they proposed in their consultation over the summer. They have also granted minor concessions in amendments 2, 3 and 4 that loosen the requirements relating to letters and picket supervisors.
Trade unions will not now be required to publish picket and protest plans 14 days in advance, detailing where, when and how they plan to protest and whether they propose to use Twitter and Facebook accounts as part of their campaign. It is extraordinary that that was ever proposed; it is a ludicrous proposal. Also, the Government will not now introduce new criminal offences on picket lines or direct local authorities to use antisocial behaviour provisions against union members participating in pickets and protests. Those minor concessions do not go nearly far enough, however. The Bill still contains many draconian measures that will violate the civil liberties of trade unions and their members. Clause 9 will still impose significant new restrictions on the ability of trade unions and their members to picket and protest peacefully, thereby undermining their civil liberties.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I must declare an interest as a member of Unite the union and a proud union representative for 14 years.
Our proposals in new clauses 1, 3 and 4 and amendments 27, 28, 37, 25, 26, 24, 23, 11, 12, 13, 36 and 35 cover a variety of areas in the Bill that pose particular difficulties for public sector workers, focusing on agency workers and political funds. New clause 1 attempts to retain within primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Legislation banning the use of agency workers to break strikes has been in place in the UK since 1973. That position is in line with the majority of other European countries, which also prohibit or severely restrict the use of agency workers during industrial disputes. Removing that ban would be regressive and it would have significant implications for all workers.
Public opinion polls also indicate that such changes are not supported by the majority of the general public. The SNP therefore supports new clause 1, which aims to retain in primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Although the Bill does not specifically include provisions for that measure to be repealed, the Government have been consulting on draft legislation that would allow that to happen. Adopting our proposal would therefore be a failsafe against that occurring in future.
Chris Stephens
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the difficulty is that the current penalty for an employer who hires agency workers to break strikes is very weak indeed? We need primary legislation to stop that practice.
Dr Cameron
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is also extremely important with regard to safety, including that of the public, which I will come on to discuss.
Repealing the existing prohibition on hiring agency staff to replace workers participating in industrial action fundamentally undermines the right to strike. It reduces the impact of strike action and upsets the power balance between workers and employers. It has also been argued that it is relatively ineffective with regard to dispute resolution, as it serves only to prolong the dispute, delay resolution and embitter industrial relations.
At a time when we are trying to encourage the living wage, the measure is also likely to drag down pay and working conditions for workers right across the country. It could have adverse implications for the agency workers themselves, as it would place them in a stressful environment.
Introducing inexperienced workers to take on the role of the permanent workforce in a workplace with which they are not familiar also has significant implications for health and safety and for the quality of services. That will impact both on those workers and on the public at large, who may utilise those services.
Those matters appear to be of particular concern to the public. A recent YouGov poll found that 65% of those surveyed were against bringing in temporary agency workers to break public sector strikes, and more than half said they thought it would worsen services and have a negative impact on safety. Only 8% indicated that they believe that hiring agency workers during strikes would improve services.
Unlike the UK Government, the SNP believes in a modern and progressive approach to industrial relations and to trade unionism, which is at the very heart of being able to achieve fair work. We recognise that no one wants strikes, but the way to avoid them is not to promote confrontation by legislating them out of existence. The right way is to pursue a relationship, in partnership with both workers and employers, based on respect and co-operation.
Chris Stephens
Today we have heard, once again, divisive rhetoric against this country’s trade union movement. We have heard from some Government Back Benchers that trade unionists who are on strike get paid by their employer. That will be news to the millions of trade union members in this country. The real difficulty with and objection to some of the rhetoric we hear is the suggestion that trade union members are somehow different from taxpayers and the public. Trade union members are taxpayers and they are members of the general public.
The Bill infringes human rights and civil liberties, and if unaltered, it can only lead to more work for the courts and, sadly, more blacklisting for trade union members in this country. The Bill attacks the ability of trade unions to organise, as we have seen with the proposals on facility time and check-off. This is not just about party political funding; it is an attack on the trade union movement’s ability to fund general campaigns, such as anti-racist campaigns and campaigns in favour of public services.
It is quite astonishing that the Government believe that aspects of the Bill do not require a legislative consent motion, either from the Scottish Parliament or from the Welsh Assembly, on public services across the board. I predict that that will come back to bite them.
The Minister for Skills was very kind in his words to me, so I will reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron): he gives the appearance of moderation, but his rhetoric is entirely disingenuous.
Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
The purpose of our amendment is to require consent from public bodies, but I wish to make some remarks about the role of check-off and the principles behind it. Our first concern is the impact on collective bargaining arrangements. An employee can pay bills through salary deductions, including council tax and rent. They can also make charitable donations—for example, in Glasgow employees can make trade union charitable donations to organisations such as Action For Southern Africa or Community HEART. Staff association subscriptions, too, can be taken off as a salary deduction. Under these proposals, however, in a collective bargaining arena where there is a staff association and a trade union or unions, the staff association would be allowed check-off, but the trade unions would not. That shows an extraordinary bias towards staff associations. I asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office about this in the evidence sessions and was advised that a staff association is internal and a trade union is not. What remarkable ignorance of how a workplace operates. Surely both organisations are internal, and employees have made a choice about who is to bargain on their behalf?
In our view, new clause 11 is designed to interfere with and unsettle those collective bargaining arrangements. I ask the Minister what is to stop a trade union reclassifying itself to become a staff association. Is that how they will be able to get round the Bill? We are asked to believe that these proposals are modernisation. In reality, they are a 19th century solution in a 21st-century world. If allowing other deductions is modernisation, then why is check-off to trade unions not modernisation? It is a fanciful and quaint notion.
We are also concerned about the legal risks that public sector employers will face in relation to these arrangements. In a recent court case, Mr Justice Supperstone said:
“I am not impressed by the argument that check off is only or primarily for the benefit of the union as such, rather than for its members in their capacity as employees. It seems to me that there is a real benefit to employees in the administrative convenience of not having to make their own arrangements for payments each month, or having to set up a direct debit or standing order and then change it or replace it from time to time as may be necessary”.
Tom Blenkinsop
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Obviously, it depends on the workplace. If someone is a private sector construction worker or employed in an industry working shift patterns which are not annualised, pay will fluctuate depending upon production targets and what the market is doing. Inevitably, as a result their union subs will change, because most unions have a redistributive model for their subscriptions.
Chris Stephens
That is an excellent point. Trade unions will be denied money on that basis, as in the very example given by the hon. Gentleman. Another concern is that what we are seeing here is a situation where a voluntary agreement between a public sector body and a trade union is effectively to be banned by the state.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the consequences—unintended, I am sure—of removing check-off will be that if there is, for instance, an industrial action ballot of a public sector workforce of many tens of thousands, with people working all over the place, it will be even more difficult for people to agree on what the bargaining unit is in that case. If people pay by direct debit—as many trade union members already do—then when they change their place of work, if they are still working for the same employer, their place of work will not necessarily notify their trade union.
Chris Stephens
That is right, and it is an excellent point. There is also the other example of someone who works for a large employer who may have two different jobs for that employer—perhaps part time in two departments. Again, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point.
If the state is banning voluntary collective agreements, I must ask the Minister at what the point the Conservative party went from being laissez-faire to Stalinist. This goes against what I consider to be the principles the Conservative Party was founded on. The arguments advanced are also irrelevant because, if income tax can be deducted at source, then why not trade union subscriptions?
The measure will also leave the public sector at risk of legal challenge. The International Labour Organisation is looking at other countries that have tried the same thing, such as Congo. In 2010 the ILO committee of experts reported
“since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee once again notes with regret that the Government has still not specified whether the abandonment of the check-off system in 1991 had the effect of barring trade unions from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee once again reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and their transfer to the unions is not a matter that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining”.
The ILO committee of experts is now making observations on Croatia as well. It noted that
“in general, a legal provision which allows one party to modify unilaterally the content of signed collective agreements is contrary to the principles of collective bargaining”.
Its continues:
“The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the aforementioned Act and underlines the importance of ensuring that any future Act on the Realization of the State Budget does not enable the Government to modify the substance of collective agreements in force in the public service for financial reasons.”
Those are very serious matters. The Government are leaving themselves open to risk on that basis.
Once again, the principles of consent are relevant. Some public bodies, as the shadow Minister has said, receive income from trade unions to administer check-off, and the general secretary of Unison, Dave Prentis, made it clear in his evidence that Unison pays for the facility when it is asked to. The public sector does not support the principle of banning check-off. The consent of the devolved Administrations, local authorities and other public bodies should be required, but we believe that the real intention is to make derecognition easier in the workplace. The new clause strikes at the heart of trade union organisation and is insidious.
I do not think that the Minister has yet demonstrated that he understands the principles of consent or devolution. He has made the extraordinary claim that the Government are complying with the Smith agreement, but I think that the only people who think so are the Government; no independent analysis shows that. I think that it is the right of all public bodies to institute their own arrangements for industrial relations, check-off and facility time. We appeal to the Minister once again to try to understand the principles behind those things, and I hope he will accept the amendment.
Jo Stevens
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the final Committee sitting, Sir Edward.
In tabling the new clause on check-off, the Government seem extremely concerned to bring trade unions into the 21st century. For the second time in Committee I am forced to admit that I agree with the Minister—not on the content of the new clause, but on the aim of modernisation. The Government seem to believe that paying union subscriptions online, via a bank account, is an acceptable facet of 21st-century trade unionism, but that secure online balloting is not. We must ask ourselves why.
I had an inkling of that while looking back through a 2011 Conservative Home column—I have very exciting evenings—which, thanks to a quotation from the then Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, specifically tied the issue of check-off to the collection of a political levy. That makes me wonder whether the motive for the new clause has more to do with that issue. About 3.8 million public sector workers could be affected by the proposed changes, yet there is no groundswell of demand for the changes from anyone other than the Conservative party.
I want to set out a few inconsistencies to highlight how the new clause does not make sense. I have mentioned the Government’s hypocrisy in opposing online balloting, so I begin with the fact that the use of check-off is voluntary. No employer has to offer it. As with facility time, the right should be with the employer to decide whether the practice benefits their workforce or not. In the case of local government and the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland, the Westminster Government are imposing top-down solutions to problems that do not exist on the ground.
Secondly, this is not about taxpayers’ money. In many instances, as we have heard, trade unions pay for the very small cost of administering check-off. As the Minister has pointed out, this is the 21st century: payroll is automated. As Unison noted it its written evidence to this committee, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the coalition Government wrote to stop attempts to end check-off, saying that,
“Departments should be aware that there is no fiscal case for doing this, as the Unions have offered to pay any costs associated with check-off, which are in any case minimal”.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned, Unison general secretary Dave Prentis gave us evidence on 15 October about check-off arrangements and gave numerous examples of arrangements that Unison has in place where it either pays for the check-off system, or the employer that the union works with makes money out of it. He named Fife Council, East Lancashire hospitals, Bradford City Council, and Derbyshire County Council, to name a few. If cost really were the issue here, surely the appropriate response is to ensure that the costs are met, rather than to entirely abolish the system.
That brings me to how check-off is used by other organisations. From animal welfare to cancer charities, from helping the homeless to children’s organisations, payroll giving is commonplace. Workplace Giving UK says that it is the most efficient way to give to charity—it works with huge charities such as the Stroke Association and Macmillan. The Payroll Giving Centre claims that over 8,000 employers use the system, with over 1 million people donating from their salaries. It is efficient and easily understood, yet while this system of giving seems set to continue and indeed expand for charities, it is being removed for trade union members.
Finally, on transparency and accountability, check-off ensures that members do not continue to pay their subscription after they have left employment. It is a very clear and easy way for a member to pay subscriptions when in employment but not to continue doing so when they leave their job. Taken with other sections of this Bill, this new clause contributes to a new, sprawling and costly bureaucracy that is being put in place with the sole aim of impeding the ability of trade unions to organise politically and industrially. This is all that this is.
We oppose the new clause and the Bill, but if the Minister really wishes to demonstrate that he is serious about modernisation, I urge him to withdraw the new clause and instead bring forward measures to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not spent on check-off, if that really is his concern, and to specify that trade unions pay for the facility themselves, as many already do.
Nick Boles
I have no doubt that the hon. Lady quotes surveys, samples and everything else in her contributions to various debates, so she will be aware that it is possible to draw conclusions about the behaviour of organisations without necessarily interviewing every single one of them. Indeed, I believe her own party took a great deal of encouragement from various opinion polls before the election that seemed to offer predictions about voter behaviour.
The TaxPayers Alliance report in 2013 revealed that 972 public sector organisations that it had contacted and from which it received responses deducted membership subscriptions to trade unions in the check-off arrangement. Of those, 213, or 22%, charged the union for the service. Charging arrangements ranged from a proportion of the costs of subscription—between 0.5% and 6%—to a flat charge per employee or a monthly fee charged to the union. I make no claim that every single public sector employer was interviewed, but it is a reasonably large sample, and it would be surprising if the average for the whole were very different.
Chris Stephens
Since the Minister published the new clause, how many public sector employers have written to him supporting the removal of check-off? I am curious about it. If some have decided to provide it freely, there does not seem to be a lot of support in the public sector for banning it completely.
Nick Boles
Funnily enough, the hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the heart of the difference between the Conservative party and the Scottish National party. We believe that the public sector employers are the taxpayers—the people of Great Britain who work and pay taxes in order to pay for us and for everybody else in the public sector, and for everything that the public sector does. They are the employers, not the board of this NHS trust, that police force or this local authority, which are charged by the taxpayer to discharge their responsibilities and handle taxpayers’ money cautiously and carefully. It is entirely reasonable for us as representatives of the ultimate employers of the public sector—the taxpayers—to represent their interests and insist that they get value for their money, which they are currently not getting through check-off. I will now move to the amendment, unless—
Chris Stephens
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I refer to remarks I made when we were discussing the proposed schedule to the Bill that interference in political funds in this way is a democratic and constitutional outrage. Trying to suggest, or even thinking, that political advantage is to be gained by changing political funds in this way is wrong. As we have already heard, the approach being taken on this Bill breaches the Churchill convention.
The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that Government will try and seek agreement with all political parties. This is important because it is not just the Labour party that has benefited from trade union funds. Plaid Cymru candidates have received money from trade unions, as have SNP candidates, Green party candidates and candidates from various socialist parties in all their guises. We simply propose a mechanism for dealing with political fund arrangements and to take a gold standard approach to these matters.
Stephen Doughty
I support the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and to indicate our formal support, we have added our names to it. During the course of the debate on political fund opt-ins and so on, we also made it very clear that if the Bill receives Royal Assent in its current form, it will mark the abrupt end of the long-standing consensus in British politics that the Government should not introduce partisan legislation that would unfairly disadvantage other political parties. We also made reference to what is known as the Churchill convention, as raised by Professor Ewing in oral evidence to the Committee.
We support the new clause that would provide that before the Government introduce the Bill, which would affect trade union political funds, they should make a clear statement about whether it is being introduced with or without the agreement of all political parties represented in the House of Commons and that statement should be published. Certainly, I believe that that is the clear aim and that we should encourage the Government to seek political consensus with other political parties before introducing legislation that interferes with unions’ ability in this respect. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned examples. This is a point of principle. We have not seen this attempted before. The Government can, of course, impose their will—they have the maths—on the Opposition if they wish to do so. We all know that that is the case. The question is whether it is right to do that. We have discussed these issues at length, but this clause will seek to make it clear that the Government will have to be very clear about their intentions in future.
Nick Boles
Very far from it, and long may he not be.
Our manifesto stated very clearly that a future Conservative Government would ensure that
“trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions”.
We were elected on that basis after a prolonged debate in the country of all the policies in all the different parties’ manifestos. That is exactly what we are doing.
The right and proper place to consider the provisions relating to that manifesto promise is in Committee and on the Floor of the House. In that way, the debate is transparent and democratic, and the electorate can see what is agreed and whether it is indeed what they were promised in the manifesto. Those debates should not happen behind closed doors and be presented to the public as a fait accompli.
We heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and other hon. Members during the Committee’s deliberations about excellent campaigns such as HOPE not hate that receive support from trade unions through their political funds. I think we can all agree that those are very worthy causes that would command the support of all of us. I see no reason why they should not command the support of union members in exercising their opt-in to the political funds. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.
Chris Stephens
I am not going to press the new clause to a Division, because I think the case should be heard before the whole House, with all political parties present, so I will bring it back on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion,
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
The Certification Officer
In section 254 of the 1992 Act (The Certification Officer) for subsections (2), (3) and (4) substitute—
“(2) The Certification Officer shall be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, and the person appointed shall have expertise in trade union law.”—(Stephen Doughty.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to appear again under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The new clause pertains to agency workers. We have heard quite extensively from many public sector bodies about their concerns in this regard. They have very clear concerns relating, for example, to patient safety, which has been highlighted again and again.
Repealing the existing prohibition on hiring agency staff to replace workers participating in industrial action fundamentally undermines the right to strike. It reduces the impact of strike action and upsets the power balance between workers and employers. Deploying a replacement workforce during a strike serves only to prolong the dispute, delay resolution and embitter industrial relations.
A change of this nature has implications for all workers. If rogue employers can draft in low-paid temporary workers to break strikes, that is likely to drag down pay and working conditions for workers right across the economy, as fewer people will be willing to stand up for themselves when facing injustice at work because they will know that they can simply be replaced. The change could also have an adverse implication for the agency workers themselves. It places them in an extremely difficult situation. They may risk not getting further work if they refuse such placements and they would have no statutory protection. Furthermore, introducing inexperienced workers to take on the role of the permanent workforce in a workplace that they are not familiar with has implications for health and safety and the quality of the services, as we have heard. That would impact both on the workers and on the public, who may want or require to use the services.
A recent YouGov poll found that of those surveyed, 65% were against bringing in temporary agency workers to break public sector strikes, with more than half saying that they thought that that would worsen services and have a negative impact on safety. Only 8% of the public who were surveyed believed that hiring agency workers during strikes would improve services.
Chris Stephens
In the evidence sessions, we heard from passenger transport groups, which made it plain that if train or bus drivers, for example, were replaced during a strike by people who were not trained, that would have real effects on public safety. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Dr Cameron
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We have heard it time and again not just from the workers to whom he refers, but from healthcare and other workers.
The drawbacks of allowing agency staff to be used in this way are recognised by other European countries. By repealing the current legislation, the UK Government would become an outlier in this regard, as the majority of other European countries prohibit or severely restrict the use of agency workers during industrial disputes. In effect, this would be taking us back in time to the 1970s—a time when workers were pitted against one another. Often, that led to greater discord and disharmony for all, but particularly for the ordinary working person, who had difficulty sustaining their livelihood.
Again, this is partisan legislation and it is just not right. Our new clause is designed to ensure that agency workers would not be brought in. It states that a business
“shall not introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer to perform…the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action…or…the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker”.
The new clause is designed to give the everyday worker in public services the same rights as others. It would give them the ability to engage in right and proper action as a last resort when they have to but not have their causes undermined. As we have heard, the public do not want that and it would also potentially undermine safety. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response.
Nick Boles
The hon. Gentleman does not just want to anticipate the publication of the response to the consultation and the Government’s decision whether to proceed with removing the ban; he wants to anticipate the contents of the response to the consultation by asking what the responses were. I am afraid that he will have to wait until we publish the response. There were numerous responses to the consultation, which closed in September, from a wide range of respondents, including businesses, schools, local authorities, emergency services and trade unions and their members, and we are analysing those responses. We will consider all representations made, and will publish a Government response in due course.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is right that we are trying to pre-empt it. Does he not recognise the concern that some of us have? In some places, agency workers have been used during industrial action. The current law is weak in trying to stop that, and we are trying to improve the situation. Does he recognise that?
The Chair
It is my pleasure to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Sir Alan and myself. We both found the Committee most enjoyable. Obviously feelings run high, but you have all conducted yourself brilliantly: the Minister, the Opposition spokesman, the Opposition Whip, even the Government Whip—[Interruption.] I love teasing him. I love him really; he is a great man. Perhaps he is one of these sinister forces we hear so much about. Seriously though, it has been a good Bill. The fact that we have finished only an hour early shows, as the Minister said, that we have given it a good going over. We have done our job and held the Government to account. All Committee members should be proud of their efforts.
Does anyone want to say anything more?
Chris Stephens
This was my first Bill Committee and it has been a most interesting experience. In any event, I have come to the conclusion that it is no way to run a country. In future, consideration should be given to having more evidence sessions, because some of them were crammed in. I am just putting that out there in general terms as the views of a new Member on proceedings.
I thank you, Sir Edward, and Sir Alan. You have both been very encouraging and explained the processes as they arose. I thank the Clerks, who have been very helpful and talked us through tabling amendments. I agree that we have tried to maintain good humour; I tried myself with cultural references to “Star Wars”, “Game of Thrones” and, I think, “Rainbow” in one instance. I thank all Committee members. The Labour Members have done themselves proud in providing opposition to the Bill, while the Conservative Members have tried to justify it as best they can. I look forward to continuing the debate on Report.
The Chair
On these happy occasions I always feel like I am at a count—I feel like I should thank the returning officer and the policemen. Thank you for all being so fraternal in the best traditions of our trade union movement.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Trade Union Bill (Ninth sitting)
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I ask everybody to ensure that all electronic devices are switched off or in silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Sir Alan. I apologise to the shadow Minister for intervening at this stage. The Standing Orders of the House were changed on Thursday in terms of what is referred to as English votes for English laws. Can you advise, Sir Alan, if those Standing Orders apply to any clauses of the Bill or any amendments to it?
The Chair
I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that the changes are not in being yet. It is a proposal that is not as yet completed, so it therefore does not apply in this case and certainly not to this legislation.
Clause 13
Reserve powers
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 13, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
‘(c) Save that no such regulation shall have the effect of altering, in respect of any of the matters to which the reserve powers may be directed, any provision of a contract of employment or a collective agreement or of limiting an employer’s discretion as to the contents of contracts of employment or collective agreements to which the employer is a party”.
It is good to be back under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, for what I hope is the last day of our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I am sure, given the number of inconsistencies and problems that have been exposed during the course of our debates, that we are all looking forward to coming back to the Bill on Report to raise those concerns again.
Clause 13 proposes further regulation of facility time by the extension of a very wide-ranging reserve power of Ministers of the Crown. I do not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily by repeating the fundamental arguments for why facility time is so important; I simply draw the Committee’s attention to my previous remarks. I believe there is a serious problem with the nature of the power proposed in clause 13 and how it cuts across the devolution settlement, as was touched on in the point of order from the hon. Member for Glasgow South West.
Under current legislation, trade union workplace representatives have a right to reasonable paid time off to perform certain duties. As we have previously discussed, that has huge benefits for employees and employers alike. The clause could allow the Government to cap the percentage of the employer’s pay bill that is invested in facility time. It will give the Government the power to impose an arbitrary limit on the amount of time that public sector union officials can spend on facility work during working hours. That might be time spent on negotiating improved pay and conditions; training, as outlined in section 168 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; promoting learning opportunities as union learning reps under section 168A of the 1992 Act, which the Minister said he was very supportive of; accompanying individuals in grievance and disciplinary hearings, under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which is a very important function that I have been involved in; or on health and safety duties and training, under the regulations made under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
The potential consequences of this are deeply concerning. The Government have not set out exactly which of those duties they seek to cap or which particular sectors the clause will apply to. They are leaving themselves a very wide-ranging power for intervening. They say, as they have so often told us, “Trust us, we’re the Ministers,” but that is simply not good enough when it comes to such important matters.
The clause is particularly troubling to Opposition Members because it establishes a clear democratic deficit in three main areas. First, the provisions will mean that Government Ministers can use as yet unseen secondary legislation to push through restrictions or repeal trade union rights contained in primary legislation. While hon. Members on both sides of the Committee recognise the important role that secondary legislation plays, many would also accept that it gives Parliament less opportunity to debate and amend such regulations than would otherwise be the case.
Secondly, the provisions could prevent public sector employers, including in Scotland and Wales who have responsibility for a number of wholly devolved areas of public service provision and who have their own democratic mandate, from deciding how to manage employment relations in their workplace and how to engage with their staff.
Thirdly, the provisions mean that the Government can be selective as to which public and local authorities may be forced to impose a cap, introducing an element of significant discrimination on quite wide-ranging powers to behave in a very partisan and nakedly political way over these matters.
There are significant questions about the legality of such a change. We heard during the oral evidence stage from Professor Ewing, the Welsh and Scottish Governments and others, about the potential contraventions that the Bill provides. There is a risk that the proposal for a cap could conflict with EU law which protects the rights of health and safety representatives to paid time for their duties and training; the rights of trade union representatives to paid time off and office facilities during consultations on collective redundancies and outsourcing under their TUPE rights; and even under general information and consultation arrangements covered by the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations.
The measures also represent a significant attack on rights that are protected by the European convention on human rights and ILO conventions. We have many questions about the clause. I hope that the Minister can explain what legal advice he has taken on the question of whether the proposal for a cap conflicts with EU law, with TUPE rights and with the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004. I would like him to be very specific on those three points.
We had a partial debate about the clause in our discussion of clause 12, and I was intrigued by some of the Minister’s comments. He promised that he would write to the Committee and he has done so. He reiterated the point he made in line-by-line consideration and said:
“I promised to write to the Committee before we debate Clause 13 to indicate who will exercise the powers in Clause 12 to require the publication of information about facility time and who may exercise the reserve powers in Clause 13 having regard to that information…It is right that Ministers have the flexibility to propose and, as a last resort, set caps on paid facility time…This will allow the relevant Minister to make regulations tailored to that. So, for example, the Secretary of State for Health will make regulations imposing publication requirements on NHS and other health employers and may exercise the reserve powers in relation to them if he considers appropriate to do so taking account of the information relating to facility time that they are required to publish.”
I am extremely concerned that this cuts across the devolution settlement. It cuts across the powers of Welsh and Scottish Ministers to make arrangements in their own sectors. The Welsh First Minister, on hearing the Minister’s comments in our sitting on Thursday and learning of the contents of the letter, has made it clear publicly that he believes it would require the consent of the Welsh Government.
Will the Minister to clarify the position because it seems to be matter of considerable debate? There are clearly conflicting legal opinions—I know which side I am on—and this is a serious matter, given the wider constitutional debates that we are having at the moment. It appears that the Secretary of State for Health or the Secretary of State for Education would use the powers in the clause to intervene in the day-to-day running of the Scottish or Welsh health services.
Chris Stephens
My reading of the letter indicates that there would also be interference in local government. There will be an impact, given the devolved Administrations’ funding arrangements and agreements with local government.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, and the Minister skirted round this issue when we discussed it briefly. Will this power on facility time and, more broadly, the powers in the Bill apply retrospectively and therefore affect existing employment contracts up and down the land, whether in local government or devolved public authorities or in other agreements? The measure could lead to the extensive unwinding of contracts that have been entered into in good faith by individuals, employers and public sector authorities.
Furthermore, when we look at public sector contracts going forward, should Welsh and Scottish Government Ministers and local authority cabinet members engaged in discussions with their employers about the nature of the contracts and the balance of responsibilities and rights expect those contracts to be undermined at any time at the whim of a Minister of the Crown, who could strike out clauses or imply that they are not valid because of some arbitrary decision taken about facility time? I fear that this poses an extraordinarily dangerous precedent, where Ministers will be able to act in a partisan and political way to attack, for example, a local authority or a devolved Government of different political persuasion, to intervene in their powers and democratic mandate to run public services in the way they see fit.
Amendment 101 is intended specifically to prevent a breach of article 11 of the European convention, which precludes a state from negating the provisions of a collective agreement. It would prevent the Government from using regulations and powers under the clause to rewrite existing collective agreements and contracts, which is that retrospective point I made. Those contracts of employment had been voluntarily agreed by public sector employers, employees and unions, and provided union reps with time off to represent their members.
The provision would also mean that public sector employers could agree new collective agreements and contracts of employment providing union reps with time off for union duties, effectively setting aside any arbitrary cap imposed by the Government. I draw the Minister’s attention to the case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey in 2008 in which the ECHR affirmed the fundamental right of workers to engage in collective bargaining and take collective action to achieve that end.
The power in the clause falls foul not only of legal precedents but of decisions, conventions and standards that we are party to. It would fundamentally cut across the country’s constitutional arrangements and the devolution settlements. It is extraordinarily unwise for the Government to do that, given precedents. I hope the Minister can give a fuller explanation, given the nature of those concerns.
Chris Stephens
I reiterate the comments I made on clause 9. This is a bad Bill and this is a bad clause. As the shadow Minister has outlined, we now know the wider implications.
I wish to confine my observations to the comments made by the Minister on Thursday, which he has followed up in writing. First, it appeals to my dry sense of humour that, having rejected amendments on publishing percentages, the Minister writes to us with percentages, in the letter on spending. I am encouraged by that and I hope the Minister will go back and consider publishing percentages on facility time.
The Committee owes a debt of gratitude to the shadow Minister for skilfully wheedling out of the Minister the prospect of the Secretary of State for Health dictating to devolved Administrations on the level of facility time. Presumably the same applies to local government. I am willing to wager that the Minister has not thought through the implications for local governments that have agreements with devolved Administrations on funding and powers through agreements or concordats. It leaves the public with the impression of a Government who conduct first-rate bullying, only days after they declared some Members second class, by a third-rate Administration whose casual approach to legislation does not even provide them with the foresight to realise the constitutional crisis they are sprinting towards.
In no other case do the UK Government have such powers to interfere or dictate to a devolved Administration how to conduct their affairs. The fact that the Government do not consider a legislative consent motion to be appropriate in these circumstances is either remarkable ignorance, gross incompetence or simply the act of a bully. This is dangerous terrain for the Government. I hope the Minister declares what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations surrounding the reserve powers in the clause, and how they will be enacted.
These proposals are being made in the context of the Scotland and Wales Bills, which have still to conclude their parliamentary journey. It seems extraordinary that the Government can reveal their intentions at the last stages of this process. As the shadow Minister said on Thursday, creating reserve powers signals the intent to use them. The Minister must tell us what, if any, discussions he has had in that regard.
I signal our support for amendment 101. There are clear contractual obligations, and there will be clear costs to public sector employers, which will have to issue new statements of particulars or new contracts to public sector employees.
The proportion of spending on facility time is extremely low, as the Minister confirmed in his letter. Will the Government consider democratic mandates? The Conservative share of the vote at the general election in Scotland was the lowest since universal suffrage. The Conservatives have no mandate in that regard. I was considering whether to press amendment 85 to a Division but, because of the correspondence that we have received, I now feel obliged to do so.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. In the context of clauses 12 and 13, I have been remiss in not declaring a non-financial interest in as much as I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, which is the umbrella body for local authorities in England and Wales.
Clause 13 includes a Henry VIII power whereby Ministers will be able to use secondary legislation to push through restrictions on or to repeal the right to paid time off for trade union duties in the public sector contained in primary legislation, and Parliament will have very limited opportunity to debate or amend such regulations. It is worrying that Ministers are taking such powers unto themselves and, in essence, sidelining Parliament from effective overview and scrutiny of their actions.
The clause demonstrates the Government’s total lack of understanding of the practice of good industrial relations. First, the clause is, in effect, a blank cheque for the Government: if passed, it would give Ministers the power to limit facilities for trade union officials. It contains no explanation of how or why that power would be exercised, and it certainly provides no logic or justification.
Secondly, the provision applies only to the public sector, just like the provision to record time off for facility time, and we need to ask ourselves why that is. First and foremost, like bad employers, this Government feel it is appropriate to threaten and intimidate their own workforce. Of course, the other people who will be affected by the measure are not directly the Government’s workforce but people who work for other public bodies such as local authorities, local government and the emergency services—public servants. The main reason why the provision does not apply to the private sector is because private sector employers do not really want it.
Good employers know and understand the value of working together with their workers and with trade unions. Good employers know and understand that their greatest assets are the good people who work for them. Good employers invest in their workers—they pay them well, train them and reward them; they do all they can to encourage loyalty and dedication. They try to retain their workforce because it costs a lot of money to train staff in a range of different skills and professions. That is why the best employers work in partnership with their workers, and it is why they encourage independent trade unions.
Trade union officials are an integral part of the best companies, working tirelessly to improve relations, productivity and profits. Trade unions know and understand that workers prosper only in growing, profitable firms.
Nick Boles
We keep going around this merry-go-round. The Government receive a great deal of legal advice from their own officers and sometimes they seek other advice. We do not publish that advice; we are satisfied with the compatibility of all our proposals with all the laws and treaties to which we are signed up. Any cap on facility time will only apply prospectively. It is, on the other hand, possible in theory—though, as I have said, unlikely in practice—that a cap may apply to ongoing, legally-binding relationships; either legally enforceable terms in a collective agreement, or in the contractual rights of individual employees. This is what is flagged in the European convention on human rights memorandum to the Bill. The Government acknowledge, however, that even the potential impacts upon pre-existing contractual arrangements should be fully debated. That is why we considered the affirmative procedure to be necessary to provide the correct level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Before asking hon. Members to withdraw their amendment I want to respond to a question, which is not specific to this amendment, about the devolution settlement. The devolution settlement does not define which individual Ministers in the Government can do things. It defines which areas of policy are devolved and which are not. We have established, and there is general consent—although it might well be wished otherwise—that employment law is not a devolved policy but a reserved policy, and therefore Ministers in the UK Government are entitled to exercise those reserved powers in relation to their responsibilities. That does not imply that, say, the Secretary of State for Health, would be breaching the devolution of health to the Scottish and Welsh Governments by exercising the reserve powers under employment law in the way that we have outlined.
Chris Stephens
First, can the Minister confirm that the Scotland Bill has still to reach the end of its parliamentary journey and so the issue of devolving employment law has still to be settled? The Secretary of State for Scotland is considering that matter, as I moved the devolving of employment law in Committee.
Secondly, can he confirm which Government Ministers will have the reserve power to dictate facility time for local government and health in Scotland?
Nick Boles
It is very clear. First, we are following the Smith commission recommendations. It may be the case that a particular Bill has not yet received Royal Assent and anything is possible, as we are in the process of discovering in our vibrant parliamentary democracy. No doubt, if there is an unexpected result, future legislation will be adjusted to reflect it. The Government’s intention to follow the Smith commission recommendations that employment law remains a reserved policy is very clear. It would be odd if we brought forward a Bill that conflicted with another Bill that we were trying to take through Parliament at the same time by presuming that that Bill was going to fail. We are presuming that the Bill will succeed, because we are following the Smith commission.
I have been clear that Ministers of the Crown can exercise the reserve powers that are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. There is no detailing that this Minister can do this and that Minister can do that. We are all Ministers of the Crown and the reserve powers of the UK Government are clearly set out in the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I did not expect the Minister to do anything other than stick to his guns, but I find it extraordinary. There are very serious questions, not only about how the measure cuts across existing conventions and legal treaties and provisions that we are party to. I hope the Government’s legal advice is very good because I suspect there may be a number of significant challenges to the Bill.
I remain astonished at the admission that the executive powers that have been devolved since 1999 to the Welsh and Scottish Governments are being exposed as limited by the Bill. On top of the debates on the Scotland Bill and the draft Wales Bill, that is extremely revealing. Has the Minister had consultations with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales about this?
Chris Stephens
Does the shadow Minister take the same view as I do, given the Minister’s answer, that there has been no discussion with devolved Administrations as to how this would be enacted? It should require a legislative consent motion—a point that the Minister omitted from his remarks.
Stephen Doughty
It is certainly the view of the Welsh and Scottish Governments that they may well require a legislative consent motion to be passed in order for the legislation to go forward. The level of consultation at a whole series of stages of the Bill, before and during the process, has been very weak. I think that is reflected in the potential undermining of the clause in many respects by existing provisions to which we are party.
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I think that we will see more of that during this Parliament.
What was the inspiration for the changes? The Government propose to give the certification officer a whole armoury of weapons. They will be able to investigate, demand documents, demand explanations and start proceedings, which they themselves will hear, acting as prosecutor and judge, before giving a verdict and delivering a sentence. They will be able to impose a fine and, as we heard in evidence, a quasi-criminal sanction. This is an extraordinary attack on the rule of law.
Certification officers’ powers will be extended into areas that have historically been way outside the remit of the role. The CO’s role is to regulate the internal workings of unions and their relationship with their members. That is clear from the existing jurisdictions and procedures involving complaints by union members. The certification officer’s website states that his role is to
“maintain a list of trade unions…ensure compliance with statutory requirements for annual returns…determine complaints concerning trade union elections…rules”
and trade union mergers,
“oversee the political funds”
and
“certify the independence of trade unions”.
That work involves seven staff, and the net cost of the certification officer’s office, according to his most recent annual report of July this year, was £560,232. That represents a 3.7% decrease. Hon. Members might think that that is good value for money, yet the Government want to increase massively bureaucracy, cost and intrusion.
I also note from the annual report that in March 2015, the certification officer’s premises were found to be structurally unsafe. I fear that the proposals in the Bill are equally structurally unsafe. No longer will the CO’s role be confined to legitimate complaints that are not ruled out as scandalous, vexatious, hopeless or misconceived. The real purpose of the proposals was revealed in the questions from the hon. Member for Banbury to Professor Ewing in Committee on the afternoon of 15 October. The hon. Lady envisaged the certification officer being required to take action at the behest of
“someone with a legitimate cause for complaint—someone who is affected by strike action…The certification officer himself might be able to take a view that it was appropriate to investigate non-compliance.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 131, Q352-354.]
Professor Ewing was understandably perplexed by that question, as even the certification officer’s expanded role would not encompass non-compliance with industrial action requirements, yet it is clear that Government Members believe that it should, and that the certification officer should act as a state enforcer who steps in at the behest of any individual to interfere in the workings of trade unions. One can imagine that the Conservative party’s friends in the TaxPayers Alliance will be keen to waste more public money and resources by pestering the certification officer on all manner of issues and seeking enforcement orders on unions, especially in the light of the oppressive reporting requirements on industrial action and political funds.
The situation shows that the Government and Conservative Members are proceeding on the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and of the role of a certification officer. They are creating a bloated and distorted role that undermines the independence of the office and offends universally accepted legal principles. As a final insult, they will require trade unions to pay for the privilege. Under the Conservatives, we are used to attacks on trade unions, but now we will have an open-ended tax on trade unions—a blank cheque—on which unions will have no say and no control. It is taxation without representation at its most extreme, enabling ideologically motivated complaints to target union resources. It is another direct, politically driven attack on the finances of unions and their capacity to represent their members.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Is it not ironic that trade unions are being asked to contribute to the costs of a certification officer, but will be prohibited from contributing to employers administering check-off?
Jo Stevens
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that shows the inconsistencies throughout the Bill.
I hope that the Government will rethink their proposals on the certification officer. I believe that they should be withdrawn, as they are pernicious, and that the current role of the certification officer, which is widely respected, should be retained. To do otherwise betrays a disdain for independence, impartiality, fairness and, most importantly, the rule of law.
Ian Mearns
I rise to support the amendments. The clause will increase substantially the investigation powers of the certification officer, giving him or her powers to investigate the activities of a union even when a complaint has not been received from a member of that union, or from any trade union member at all. Surely the provision completely misses the point of a trade union certification officer’s role. Trade unions are independent organisations whose function is to represent the interests of their members. Whether or not this Government approve of trade unions, the fact remains that they perform a legitimate—some would say essential—role within a free society.
The certification officer performs a vital role, but that role does not and should not involve attacking the rights of trade unions and their members who, after all—apologies to my colleagues from north of the border—are citizens of the United Kingdom. The role of the certification officer is to protect the rights of trade union members by ensuring that unions operate openly, democratically and at all times in the interests of their members. The guidance on the Bill describes the provision as giving the certification officer new enforcement powers so that action can be taken without the need for an application or complaint from a member to be received first. The certification officer will therefore be able to investigate and take enforcement action in a number of areas where that is currently not possible or appropriate. In particular, the guidance states:
“For example the Certification Officer could act upon information or concerns he had received from a third party or on his own initiative.”
That provision is totally unacceptable in a free society.
There are more than 6 million trade union members in the UK. They are all intelligent and fully capable of raising a complaint or concern with the certification officer if they have a problem with their trade union. Why does the certification officer need powers to act when not one single trade union member raises a concern? On whose complaint or on whose authority will the certification officer act? We all know on exactly whose authority that will be. Every scare story and sensationalist headline in the “Daily Wail” or the “Daily Hexpress” will be followed up. Six million members may be completely content and satisfied, but the editor of the “Daily Wail” screaming about Len McCluskey, Sir Paul Kenny or Dave Prentis having the bare-faced audacity to stand up for their members will in future be the subject of a full investigation. That is a total waste of time, and the costs of such investigations will be passed on to the trade unions, which will have no alternative but to pay.
Chris Stephens
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provision could lead to more malicious complaints being sent to the certification officer? It could lead to fascist organisations making complaints about the funding of anti-racist groups.
Ian Mearns
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Once enacted, the provision will give the certification officer the right, or possibly even the duty, to act on any complaint, no matter its source. That is a matter of grave concern. The provision is concerning and an expensive waste of time for trade unions.
As a means of restricting the rights of trade unions and their members, the provision is nothing short of disgraceful, and that has been borne out by the evidence from a whole range of international organisations and lawyers representing many interests. The provision will turn the certification officer’s role from one of protecting trade union members into one that is highly political. They may be forced to react to politicians and newspaper editors, instead of members. Where the certification officer becomes the investigating power, they will become judge and jury over trade unions, their members and officials. Trade union members—the ones we are all concerned about with the Bill—will have to foot the bill while having no easy mechanism to hold the certification officer to account for their actions.
Nick Boles
That is exactly right. I apologise to the Committee if I created a slightly false impression.
Chris Stephens
Just so I am clear, is the Minister indicating that he is amenable to amendment 55, which would provide that the complainant must be a trade union member? He said earlier that he was going away to consider some aspects of picketing, in relation to what could be defined as outside interference.
Nick Boles
No, I am not indicating that, but we believe that the Bill already makes it clear who has the power to complain and who has the power to enforce. Moving on, I have explained that the appointment of investigators is not new; it happens under existing powers regarding the investigation of financial matters, and the Bill simply extends it to other potential breaches. The new investigatory powers contain specific provisions to impose a duty of confidentiality on any inspector that the certification officer appoints to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of personal information about union members. I therefore ask Opposition Members to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen Doughty
I am somewhat bemused by the Minister’s comment that the certification officer is not a judicial officer. He has explained the wide powers that the certification officer has, so I am very interested to know what positions the Government consider to be comparable. Most people would consider the certification officer to have a quasi-judicial role, at the very least, and therefore we need some very strict controls about how it is regulated. The crucial point is that we are moving well beyond the original role set out for the certification officer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central said, this is not to comment on the suitability or the work that has been done by the current certification officer, who, from all my experience and that of the stakeholders I have engaged with, has done a very good job, but this is a complete change in the role and its powers. That change requires a fresh look at how the certification officer is appointed.
Our new clause would provide that the certification officer in Great Britain would be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission. Currently, as we have heard, the role is appointed by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in consultation with ACAS. The Minister went through the process of shortlisting and so on, and obviously, it is great that a number of stakeholders are involved. However, of course the final decision rests with the Secretary of State and that, again, gives wide latitude to a Secretary of State to veto or to appoint someone partisan or political. Given the nature of the rest of the Bill, many of us might strongly suspect that that would happen.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills of course regularly consults many different stakeholders, but as we saw in debates about the steel industry he seems willing to ignore all the advice and carry on regardless. I have no faith as to whether things would continue in that vein, when I consider the intent and purpose of the Bill.
We all agree that the certification officer should be independent of Government and required to have expertise in trade union law rather than just knowledge of it. Demonstrable knowledge could be an ability to list by rote the clauses of the Bill. Someone who takes such a wide range of powers needs a detailed understanding of the provisions. The 1992 Act does not specify the qualifications required, but the Bill gives the certification officer extensive new powers and remits, and it is only reasonable to expect the person appointed to have expertise in that regard, particularly given the various aspects of the role.
If the Minister intends to reject the new clause, will he explain what consultation, as a minimum, he would expect for the new role? Will things just carry on as they do under the old system, with the limited involvement of the TUC, CBI and so on at the shortlisting stage, or does he envisage a wider range of people being involved? Will he give wider assurances about the type of qualifications and other requirements? Given the nature of the proposed role, we believe that the certification officer should be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission—that is only right—and that there should be a clear requirement for expertise in trade union law.
New clause 7 is essentially similar to our new clause in its purpose; I understand why the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and his hon. Friends have tabled it, in relation to Scotland. As I have said before in similar debates, we want the fairest settlement in the Bill for workers and trade union members across the UK, and I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that that is what we intend with our new clause. It would deal with the whole of Great Britain, not just Scotland.
Chris Stephens
As the shadow Minister said, the new clauses really deal with who should be the certification officer. If the powers are being enhanced, the new role needs to be reconsidered, because—the shadow Minister is correct—it is at the very least quasi-judicial. The aim of new clause 7 is to ensure that the holder of the post has adequate qualifications and expertise.
The Minister has said he expects the person appointed to have expertise in trade union law, but his successors may not. An adequate provision would make it clear, as the new clause does, that the certification officer should have expertise in trade union law. It cannot be someone we met down the pub, who may be able to recite all the clauses of the Bill. It needs to be someone of a very high standard, with expertise in trade union law, who knows the intricacies of that law. More importantly, the person should be independent of Government, and that is why it is appropriate in the circumstances to involve the Judicial Appointments Commission.
The new clause has another purpose. As the Minister pointed out, there is currently an assistant for Scotland. The enhanced role will have an impact on elections where they are now devolved to the Scottish Parliament, in terms of Scottish parliamentary and local government elections. If there are questions about election funding, that will be a Scottish issue and we believe it would require a certification officer in Scotland to consider it.
Also, there are differences between the legal jurisdictions. There is different civil and criminal law in Scotland, and we believe the new provisions about the certification officer can only impinge on the consideration of civil and criminal law in relation to complaints and so on. The effect of the certification officer provisions will be that Scotland will need not an assistant but a certification officer of equal status to the certification officer for Great Britain.
We have no issue with new clause 10 and we will support it in a vote, but we are seeking a Scottish provision of equal status due to the impacts that the new role of a certification officer will have.
Trade Union Bill (Seventh sitting)
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Mearns
I could not agree more; I was just coming on to that very point. There is already legislation in place that those on picket lines must, and do, comply with. That “peaceful pickets” legislation is outlined in section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and unions must also follow the relevant code of practice. If that legislation were breached on a regular basis, I could see why the Government would feel the need to push through this Bill, in order to safeguard workers and the public, but unions do comply with existing legislation. Even the Government’s own BIS consultation document supports that statement, finding that most pickets do conform with guidance in the code of practice. In that case, why do the Government believe the legislation is so necessary? Are they not using a legislative sledgehammer to crack a very small nut?
Furthermore, as the Regulatory Policy Committee’s recent review of the Government’s impact assessment of the measures on picketing found,
“there is little evidence presented that there will be any significant benefits arising from the proposal”.
Given that such organisations have failed to find any need for the proposal or any significant benefits arising from it, why is the legislation being rushed through the House at such a pace? As we heard, we have not had much time to go through the Bill line by line, despite its importance.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share the concern held by many, including me, that if unaltered, the clause will lead to more blacklisting within the community?
Stephen Doughty
We will discuss some of the other issues on this subject in detail when we consider the following groups of amendments. I appreciate the Minister’s clarification on the specific question that amendment 26 seeks to address.
There is a fundamental problem here, and I hope the Minister will elaborate on it in his further comments. What evidence base is he using when he talks about these examples of intimidation? No Opposition Member condones intimidation or other such activities—indeed, people carrying out such activities should be prosecuted under existing laws—but what percentage of overall picketing activity in the past year or five years does he believe has resulted in such activity? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central made a good point, and we have also heard a good point on the dispute between the London fire brigade and the FBU. The commissioner could not give us facts on whether FBU members had been arrested or prosecuted, but I understand that an agency worker was in fact arrested for potentially violent actions towards an FBU member. There is a big problem with the way in which this issue has been characterised.
The Royal College of Midwives was clear on the implications of this clause and the associated provisions:
“We believe the intention is to frighten and confuse midwives from exercising their right to protest for fear that they will make a simple mistake and be prosecuted.”
I am glad for the Minister’s clarifications, but we need to consider the overall impact of this clause and the related provisions.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Stephens
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 9, page 5, leave out lines 1 to 13 and insert—
‘(3) A picket supervisor is required to show a constable a letter of authorisation only if
(a) the constable provides documentary evidence that he or she is a constable;
(b) the constable provides his or her name, and the name of the police station to which he or she is attached; and
(c) the constable explains the reasons for the request to see the letter of authorisation.
(4) If a picket supervisor complies with a constable’s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was complied with.
(5) If a picket supervisor fails to comply with a constable’s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was not complied with.
(6) Information about the identity of a picket supervisor and any information relating to the production of a letter of authorisation shall be retained by the police only for the purposes of giving evidence in legal proceedings directly related to the picketing to which it is connected.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt neither a member of the public nor an employer shall be entitled to request a picket supervisor to produce a letter of authorisation.”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 5, line 5, leave out “police” and insert “Chief Constable”.
The amendment would ensure there is a single, senior contact within the police force for communicating information about picketing.
Amendment 29, in clause 9, page 5, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).
Chris Stephens
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
This is a bad Bill, and clause 9 is a bad clause. Some of the difficulty that many hon. Members have had with the Bill has been over whether to oppose it totally or try to amend it. The fact that Amnesty, Liberty and the Blacklist Support Group have major concerns about infringements of civil liberties, and their consequences, has already been mentioned. Amendment 104 is intended to make things a little clearer to the police and the trade unions.
First, we want to remove the words “any other person” from the clause, and we believe that there will be serious consequences if that is not done. It is not clear who that other person is. It could be anyone; but who would it be? It would not be a friend of the trade union movement, that is for sure. It would not be a nice, cheerful person who supported the trade union movement. It would not be George and Zippy from “Rainbow”, Rod, Jane and Freddy or even—perhaps more appropriately—Bungle. It would probably be someone with the personality of the Lannister family in “Game of Thrones”—anyone who watches that programme will understand where they would come from politically—or perhaps Biff Tannen from “Back to the Future”, which was mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday.
I am using humour; but things could be somewhat more sinister. The other person wanting to know the information might, for example, be a member of a fascist organisation—of one of the organisations that we know share the names of trade unionists and other people on websites. A friend of mine, Iain Titherington, who is a constituent of the shadow Minister, has appeared on a website, Redwatch, for his trade union activity and for being a secretary of Searchlight Cymru. The provision is designed to target people.
We believe that giving employers details of picketing would lead to more blacklisting. We know from recent court cases that employers are still being taken to court over such serious issues. We heard from Dave Smith of the Blacklist Support Group about the possible consequences for an individual who is put on a blacklist.
Professor Keith Ewing’s written submission to the Committee contained important remarks on the principles of liberty in relation to the clause:
“It is a fundamental principle of law in this country that people are free to go about their business without being stopped by the police, unless they are suspected of having committed an offence, in which case they may be arrested. Indeed so important is this principle that it was regarded as a ‘constitutional’ principle by a Scottish court. At common law, the police have no right to stop, detain or search individuals, though there are a number of statutes that provide clear exceptions to this.”
The evidence went on:
“It is important fully to comprehend what is being proposed by the Trade Union Bill (clause 9), quite apart from the legitimate concern about armbands, badges and the like: A picket supervisor engaged in lawful activity (indeed in Convention protected activity) may be required by a police constable (whether or not in uniform) to produce a written document (the letter of authorisation); It will be necessary for this purpose for the police officer to stop and detain the individual, for as long as it takes for an exchange to take place…The demand may be made by the police officer even though the individual in question has not committed a criminal offence, and is not suspected of having committed an offence.
Failure to provide the letter of authorisation is not an offence, but there is no right on the part of the supervisor to ignore the constable’s demand, meet it with a testy reprove, and move on. This is because failure to provide the letter of authorisation will have legal consequences, in the sense that the picketing may thus be rendered unlawful and actionable at the suit of the employer.”
Professor Ewing continued:
“Moreover, it is striking that there are no formalities or safeguards to be complied with when the demand is made to see a letter of authorisation. This contrasts with the stop and search powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Terrorism Act 2000. In these cases the police officer may be required to provide…documentary evidence that he or she is a constable, if the latter is not in uniform; his or her name and the name of the police station to which he or she is attached; the object of the proposed search; the reasons for using the power; and a record of the search after it has taken place. An individual stopped while engaged in lawful and Convention protected activities might reasonably expect to have at least the same level of procedural courtesy as someone stopped while suspected of criminal or terrorist-related activities.”
Nick Boles
That is a very good question. I imagine that the picket supervisor could communicate with the police in whatever form they wanted. I promise to check that point.
Amendment 104 further removes from the clause the requirement for the union to issue the picket supervisor with a letter of authorisation. It also removes the requirement to show that to a constable or any other person who reasonably asks for it. As I have already mentioned, the letter of authorisation relates to the picket so that it is clear that the picket is lawful. The removal of the letter of authorisation would create uncertainty about whether the picket has been authorised by the union. It would also make it more difficult for the union to show that it has complied with the requirement to appoint a supervisor.
The other substance of the amendment proposes to insert new requirements for the constable in relation to any entitlement to see the letter of authorisation. It sets out that the constable would need to provide their personal details, to which police station they are attached, the reasons to see the letter of authorisation and a written record whether the request had been complied with.
Our intention in clause 9 is that this letter authorises the picket, not the picket supervisor. Therefore, it does not need to contain the name and personal details of the picket supervisor. I would like to reflect again on whether that is articulated as clearly as it could be in the Bill.
The police will already have been informed of the name and contact of the picket supervisor so that they are able to respond quickly should a problem occur. All uniformed police officers carry a warrant card as proof of identification and authority. Those generally include a photograph of the holder as well as the holder’s name, rank, warrant number and a holographic emblem to mark authenticity. A requirement for a written record would appear an additional and unnecessary burden when considering this in relation to a letter of authorisation for a picket.
I am aware that the entitlement to see the letter of authorisation by any person who reasonably requests it has caused some concern. I am grateful for the insights provided by hon. Members and will reflect on those further. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Glasgow South West to withdraw the amendment.
Chris Stephens
I agree with the shadow Minister that winter is coming. The Minister has not addressed issues relating to blacklisting and, like the hon. Member for Cardiff Central, I am very concerned about the approach that occurs in guidance and, whether we agree or not that it is interlocked, it will have other consequences for legal proceedings. I do not believe the Minister has addressed the concerns and consequences of that and feel obliged to press for a Division.
Question put, that the amendment be made.
Stephen Doughty
That is indeed revealing. I hope that sets a precedent for discussions we might have in due course. [Interruption.] Let us see where we go. Perhaps we can persuade the Minister. We will need more clever questions.
Chris Stephens
I assume the Minister believes that emails in relation to picketing will be safe and secure.
Stephen Doughty
Perhaps the Minister would like to confirm that in his remarks. Before we discuss the amendments, I want to reiterate the point at the heart of the debate. As the Minister says, we already have the picketing code, which many people comply with, and we have been clear that many of the potential offences that the Minister seeks to avoid are already covered in law. My fear is—I genuinely ask the Minister to reflect on this—that whatever the Government’s intentions are, the reality is that others will seek to exploit parts of the Bill as drafted to make the rights of others illusory.
We heard from Liberty in the oral evidence sessions that many aspects could be used by others to try to bring injunctions and proceedings. Ultimately—this goes back to our debate on the gagging law—many are frightened about potential non-compliance with the law. The RCM made that clear:
“We believe the intention is to frighten and confuse midwives from exercising their right to protest for fear that they will make a simple mistake and be prosecuted.”
That is the fear of many people who are not experts in trade union law and the existing legal provisions. Let us remember that the overwhelming majority of those who engage in such activities would never contemplate the intimidation or other unsavoury activities that the Minister outlined.
Amendment 27 would remove the requirement that the picketing supervisor must be a person familiar with the provisions of the code of practice on picketing. It is not that I hope that people are not reading and understanding it, but I believe that that requirement is excessive and creates a risk that unions could again be exposed to legal challenges because a picket supervisor could not answer a random question about the code of practice even though the picket activities they were supervising were peaceful and otherwise lawful. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister about the intention behind this measure, because it could be misused by those who would seek to make rights illusory.
Amendment 30 is on the letter of authorisation. It would remove the requirement on picket supervisors to show their letter of authorisation to constables who ask to see it. We have discussed that already, but I have concerns that the interaction between a police officer—a “constable” as defined in the Bill—and an individual could form the basis of a future legal challenge by the employer and that that could again put the police in an invidious position. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West covered the circumstances in which others could demand to see the letter. Fascist organisations or others could seek to use potential loopholes in the Bill to cause frustration to those going about exercising their rights reasonably.
Amendments 31 and 32 are important. Proposed new section 220A(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 will place a duty on picket supervisors to be either constantly present at a picket or able to attend at short notice. The Opposition believe that that would place an onerous responsibility on picket organisers, especially when pickets are scheduled to take place overnight as well as during the day, so the amendments would remove that requirement. Here again there is potential for a really unreasonable requirement to be placed on those who otherwise seek very much to comply with the spirit and intent of the existing code of practice and this law if it is to be enacted. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on those points.
Stephen Doughty
We are starting to make some progress through some meaty issues. Clause 10 deals with the Government’s extensive proposals around political funding and how unions operate. We discussed such matters at length on Second Reading. We heard significant evidence from the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation and from several unions that contribute to and maintain political funds. Although there was some japery from Government Members during that evidence session, it is important to understand the historical significance of the Government’s proposals, which go well beyond what even previous Conservative Administrations have considered and well beyond the bounds of cross-party consensus on political funding. The existing legislation governing trade unions that want to contribute to political parties or engage in certain political activities is clear, rigid and tough, and rightly so. The Opposition would not want it any other way and neither would the trade unions or the trade union members with whom I have spoken or who have given evidence.
As defined by section 72 of the 1992 Act, a trade union wishing to undertake such activities must establish a political fund. Before doing so, trade unions are legally required to ballot their members to ask, through a political fund resolution, whether they agree to the union maintaining a political fund. Trade unions are also required to ballot their members every 10 years to determine whether the trade union should retain the political fund. Union members currently have the right to opt out from their subscriptions being used for political fund purposes. Let us be clear that that relates not only to union subscriptions or affiliations to the Labour party, but to all the activities covered by political funds. Members can opt out at any time. It is important that the Committee understands that, because the idea that unions are somehow giving this money away with members having no democratic role is simply not the case.
The Government’s proposals in clause 10, however, replace that arrangement with a new requirement on union members to opt in every five years if they agree to their subscriptions being partly used to fund political parties or, as could be encompassed by the Bill, party political campaigns. Union members will retain the right to opt out from paying into the political fund at any point.
The Minister said earlier that I was potentially pre-empting comments that he was going to make, and I might do so again now. He might try to dress up the clause as an attempt to bring things into line with the situation in Northern Ireland, but it is important for the Committee to understand that it goes beyond the current practice there, which requires union members to agree to paying into the political fund only once. They are not required to renew their opt-in.
The Minister might also try to argue that the clause is about levelling the playing field with the duties that apply to companies that make political donations, but, again, it goes well beyond that. Part 14 of the Companies Act 2006 requires companies to get the authorisation of a shareholder resolution before making political donations of £5,000 or more. However, shareholders do not have a right to opt out of company political expenditure, and nor is there an opting-in arrangement.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I ask again: what is the Government’s real intention? Committee members should be left in no doubt that the purpose of requiring trade union members to opt in to political funds as required by the clause is simply a nakedly partisan attack aimed at damaging the finances of the Labour party. Such a move is designed to ensure the inevitable by gifting the Conservative party an ever greater financial advantage than is already the case.
Chris Stephens
I would argue that it is more sinister than that. Does the shadow Minister agree that the clause is also about a trade union’s capacity to use its political fund for general campaigning?
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, I believe that to be the case. I have heard some clear evidence from unions that maintain political funds and, although affiliated to the Labour party, undertake other activities, as well as from those that are not affiliated to the Labour party but maintain political funds. The Government have already taken forward extensive regulation relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the gagging Act and so on. A lot of unions believe that activities will fall under those provisions and are worried about how they will comply.
Trade Union Bill (Eighth sitting)
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I indicated to Sir Alan that I wanted to speak on this group of amendments, to give a general overview of clause 10.
Our view is that the provisions in clause 10 are a democratic and constitutional outrage, for two reasons. Before I was elected, I was secretary of the Scottish National party trade union group, which has a total of 16,000 members from all trade unions. Some of them have decided not to contribute to the political fund of whatever trade union they are in, while others do. It is important that they have that choice. The trade union movement is having a discussion about whether it should be funding one political party or individual candidates who support its aims and objectives. The important point is that it is up to trade unions and their members to have that debate. I am concerned that clause 10 will not only interfere with donations to political parties, but ignore the Churchill convention, with clear constitutional implications.
First, it is important for our society that trade unions make a contribution to the political life of the country, and our society has been better for it. We should be looking at political funding arrangements across the board and in consultation with all parties, not just slipping in these measures as part of the Bill, which is why the SNP has tabled a new clause, which we will come to later.
Secondly, to return to the points made by the hon. Member for Gateshead about political funds being used for general campaigning, as it stands, clause 10 is clearly a way of preventing the trade union movement from engaging in such campaigning. It is important to mention some of the other organisations and campaigns that have received trade union funding. There have been health and safety campaigns, which are very important. HOPE not hate and other anti-fascist and anti-racist organisations have received the majority of their funding from trade unions. As the general secretary of the PCS trade union indicated, funding has gone to campaigns on public service provision and keeping public services in public hands.
Our position is simple: we oppose clause 10 and will join anyone to ensure that it is defeated.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
You were not with us this morning, Sir Edward, but the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth gave a broad introduction to the provisions on the political fund, as well as addressing the amendments. I do not want to take long because we are trying to save time. The arguments made by the shadow Minister and other Members betray a strange lack of confidence in their appeal to union members. It seems to me odd to suggest that the only way they can secure the donations of union members is by somehow relying on the inertia that prevents a union member from exercising their opt-out.
The hon. Gentleman talked about pension contributions and auto-enrolment. One of the main reasons for introducing automatic enrolment into a pension is that it is pretty hard to persuade individual savers, particularly young people on relatively low wages with lots of other immediate demands on their cash, of the benefits of a pension that they are not going to receive until 40 or 50 years in the future. Yet we all know that, both in their direct personal interest and in the public interest, it is important that they save for a pension. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the appeal of the Labour party and its policies is so distant or vague that it is not possible to persuade individual union members that they have an immediate, direct and personal interest in ticking a box and opting in.
Although I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, the Opposition betray their own defensiveness rather than making a strong argument.
Chris Stephens
I would gently point out to the Minister that many trade unions currently have a system whereby members have to tick a box for the political fund. Indeed, my own trade union, Unison, gives the choice of ticking a box next to either the affiliated section, from which funds go to the Labour party; the general political fund section, which I happen to tick; or for no political fund arrangements at all. Some trade unions already offer the option through ticking a box, so why is the change necessary?
Nick Boles
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I think has made my argument for me. All that we are requiring is that every trade union member be asked to tick a box to contribute to a political fund, rather than being given an option to tick a box to get out of it. Since he is happy to do that and happy for others to do the same, it does not seem particularly onerous.
Amendments 34 and 35 deal with the opt-in renewal notices for political funds. It must be right that a member decides whether to contribute to a political fund and has an opportunity to renew their choice; the question is over what period. In this country, it seems that renewing political choices every five years is becoming a normal pattern, which is why we suggest five years in the Bill. We have provided that members can renew their opt-in at any time in the three months before a renewal date, reducing the burden on unions of different renewal dates for different members. The Bill also provides that members who have recently decided to contribute will not have to renew their opt-in again shortly afterwards. If a member opts in six months before a renewal date, they do not have to renew again at the next renewal point. Amendment 35 would undermine that provision, which is meant to help unions to manage the opt-in process.
Clause 10 creates a workable system of opt-in and renewal for trade unions with political funds. The amendments would work against their effectiveness for unions and their members, so I urge that amendment 34 be withdrawn.
Nick Boles
Amendment 91 is a minor amendment to clause 10 that fixes the first renewal of an opt-in to a political fund so that it is three months and five years after the date of the political resolution. The language is more precise than the current drafting, which refers to the date that a political fund is established or the date of a ballot. The revised wording also reflects the language used in the provisions of the 1992 Act dealing with amalgamations. To be clear, this is a technical point and there is no change in policy. It should make it easier for unions to understand and apply the law in this area.
Amendment 96 deals with how the new opt-in provisions apply to the amalgamation of the unions. It fixes the first renewal date where two or more unions join together. We have ensured that renewal dates will be fixed by reference to the date of a political resolution. This means that where two unions amalgamate, the first opt-in renewal date for the amalgamated union will be the earliest of the renewal dates of the different amalgamating unions. That will ensure that all union members will be subject to the same renewal dates, which will be administratively easier for the unions concerned.
I now turn to Opposition amendments 36, 37 and 38, which would replace the opt-in renewal date from five to 10 years. Our aim is to promote greater transparency for union members. We want members to make an active choice based on a recent and up-to-date decision. We do not believe it is right that a union member makes the decision to opt in to a political fund and is not asked to do so again for as long as 10 years. That could not be judged a recent active choice.
Chris Stephens
During consultations on the Bill, did anyone object to having a trade union ballot in 10 years and want one every five years? What is the purpose of that? I would have thought that 10 years, which is two electoral cycles, would be sufficient.
Nick Boles
I certainly accept that there can be different, legitimate views on this question. As I said in response to the previous debate, given that our system seems to be moving towards regular five-year cycles of political decision making, we felt that it was, if nothing else, neat to have a five-year cycle of decision making about contributions towards political funds.
A five-year renewal date balances the need for unions to have certainty about how much income they have for political activities against the need to ensure that a member’s decision to contribute remains current and relevant. We are also taking steps to remove the burden of different renewal dates on unions, and ensuring that future renewal dates are kept the same for all members of any union. We are therefore allowing for a five-year renewal notice to take place any time in the three months before the renewal date. The Bill also provides that where members who opt in during the six-month period before the five-year renewal, they should not have to renew their opt-in again at the renewal date. That prevents, for example, new members who have made a recent decision to contribute to a fund from having to renew their opt-in again very soon after.
Stephen Doughty
I do not have a lot to say about Government amendments 91 and 96, because we fundamentally oppose the principle of the clause and all associated measures, and intend to vote against it when we come to that point.
As the Minister has pointed out, Opposition amendments 36, 37 and 38 go with the status quo, sticking with the 10 years and three months provision as it is. That is obviously a matter for debate, although I am not sure that the Minister is making a strong argument. He certainly did not adequately respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West about who has requested the change.
When combined with the other measures, this appears like another attempt to prevent this money from reaching political causes and parties.
Chris Stephens
Is the shadow Minister aware of anyone who wants to change from 10 to five years?
Stephen Doughty
No, I am not aware of that. The point that has been made consistently to me by the unions and others who would be affected is that, of course, people can opt out at any point. The idea that people make political choices only at a fixed point every so many years is wrong. People can change their political affiliations and views about political campaigns their union might be engaged in or running—whether they were well run or had a good purpose—and that might cause them to decide at some point to decide to opt out of the fund. Obviously, I hope they do not but that is a choice they can make. They can do that, unlike shareholders in corporations, who cannot opt out once their company is making donations to the Conservative party, for example—let alone the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, which horrified me. I am a fan of Soreen malt loaf and had no idea that I was unwittingly contributing to the Conservative party through that. The Government are fond of declaratory statements on ballots; perhaps there should be one on every malt loaf, saying, “Be aware that you are giving to the Tories.”
The whole debate exposes the inconsistencies that the Bill creates.
John Howell
I am grateful to the Minister. Part of it comes from my role as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on design and innovation—it did a lot of work in this area before the election—at the time that the Speaker’s Commission was working, and part of it comes from an article in The Guardian. The Minister will appreciate that, as a lively reader of The Guardian, I pick up these things wherever I can. I can probably give him the exact date on which the article was published, if he wants to know that.
Chris Stephens
We are not talking about an election, though, but a ballot, which will be a binary choice. It will either be yes or no. What specifically would concern the hon. Gentleman about introducing electronic balloting in a case of industrial action or to confirm or otherwise the political fund arrangements of a trade union?
John Howell
I think there is a great deal of similarity between using electronic means for an election and for this sort of statutory balloting. The thing that most concerns me is that, as in the words of the Open Rights Group that I just quoted:
“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it.”
The question is how we deal with the problems of security and particularly of accountability.
Dr Cameron
Hear, hear. I agree with that well-made point. We are in a modern age and have to keep up with the times. That includes looking at all the options. All the evidence—not opinion—appears to show that the safety of online voting has not been undermined. It should be considered seriously.
Workplace ballots should be permitted for statutory union elections and ballots. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons. The procedure exists to give people choice. Fundamentally, that is what we need to do in this age. The public and society expect to have a choice of postal, workplace or electronic voting. They expect us to consider that seriously and rationally when we discuss these important issues.
According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way, particularly when ballots take place in the workplace. There has been a total of seven complaints about unfair practices by employers or unions during statutory recognition ballots since 2004, when new protections were introduced. Five of those complaints were made by unions and one by an employer, but none of the complaints was upheld. The Government indicate that electronic voting is not safe or that there should be caution. However, thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 secure online ballots annually.
Chris Stephens
Surely that is the point. These e-ballots are independently scrutinised. The trade union is not running the ballot; it is appointing an independent scrutineer to carry out the ballot on its behalf. I hope that will persuade others on this issue.
Dr Cameron
That is another well-made point. The report by Electoral Reform Services indicates that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting and that there are risks associated with both. Essentially, there will be a level of risk in any balloting process.
In conclusion, we are in a modern age and we want to engage people from all aspects of society. We must give people choice that is in line with their everyday lives. Yes, there has to be an element of caution, but that has to be evidence-based, not based on opinion. We have good evidence that electronic voting is already working in many spheres of our lives. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Chris Stephens
Sir Edward, you said you are not a reader of The Guardian. This summer, I wrote a piece for the Morning Star—a newspaper I commend to all Members.
Chris Stephens
The article was about my thoughts on the first 10 weeks of Parliament. The headline was “Bizarre, Surreal, Orwellian”, which I think sums up quite nicely some of the arguments we hear from the supporters of the Bill, who talk about modernisation but will deny trade union members the right to use e-balloting.
I hope the Minister will explain why, in response to every written question I have asked him, a written answer comes back with a link to a website. If it is okay for him to do that to me, it is acceptable for a trade union to email its members with a link to a ballot paper. It is independently scrutinised. Companies such as Electoral Reform Services and MyVoice have been able to do that, and there have been no concerns about those ballots.
Nick Boles
Before getting into the meat of this, I start by emphasising how important line-by-line deliberation on the Bill is. We have been, and still are, very keen that every Opposition Member—it is particularly important for Opposition Members—can exploit that opportunity. We also, however, have a timetable agreed by the usual channels, and I am keen that all parts of the Bill, all amendments to it and all new clauses receive the same level of scrutiny, so that nobody can claim the Government somehow prevented the Bill from receiving that scrutiny. As a result, I will not deliver the more detailed response that had been prepared. My response will relate to the amendment and all the new clauses in this group, so that we can make some progress.
Where we started from in drafting the Bill was, in a very sense, very simple. We started by suggesting that all the new decisions we were asking union members to take should be communicated according to the existing methods provided in the legislation. It may have been naive of us to think that position would be unchallenged, but it was for no more sinister—the word used by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth—reasons than that. We were simply reflecting existing provisions in the Bill.
Since the Bill was published, there has been a great deal of debate in public, in evidence sessions and now in Committee about the question of alternative methods of voting—in particular, e-balloting. From the very first time that was raised, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that we have no objection in principle to online voting or e-balloting, as it is sometimes called. Indeed, I would go further: it would be extraordinary if, in 20 years’ time, most elections in most countries in the world on most questions of importance were not decided through electronic means of communication. Just as we have been willing to accept freely and openly the principle that that is a desirable state to move towards, it is important for Opposition Members not to be quite so dismissive of the practical objections that were so well highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley.
It is incredibly important to acknowledge that the Open Rights Group, which gave evidence to the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy that only reported in January this year, is not some Tory front organisation. These people are genuinely concerned about a genuine question at hand—the legitimacy, safety and security of voting. It is important that the Opposition do not dismiss those objections out of hand by plucking out examples of very different decisions and transactions. Specifically, the particular matter when it comes to voting is the need to ensure that the system that captures the data does not allow the person casting the vote to be identified. That does not apply to banking transactions. Once someone is inside the secure system, it is fine for any part of that system to know their identity; indeed, it is critical that the system should know their identity, so that the money is transferred out of and into the right account.
With voting, the system needs to be anonymous, to preserve the individual’s privacy and secrecy; but it must also be able to guarantee the identity of the individual—that they are indeed the voter claiming that vote. It must be accountable, to guard against malpractice and fraud.
Stephen Doughty
I appreciate the Minister’s clarification, but I do not believe it stacks up. As we have made clear, there is a lot of support for our amendment from the trade unions that the Bill will affect, because they are entirely satisfied that the secure methods we have set out, including the security provisions—particularly given that they are used already—would enable them to conduct ballots safely and securely.
Stephen Doughty
I will give way, but I do not want to take too many interventions.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. Can he confirm that those organisations are doing that because they believe the turnout will be a lot higher if alternative methods of voting are used?
Stephen Doughty
I believe that is the case, because those organisations have the evidence for it. It was submitted in written evidence by a number of unions and in evidence to the consultations run by BIS. They made clear their experience of using those types of balloting methods and said that they feel secure with them. They also said that there is a very low incidence of claims of fraud or problems. As I said, none of the claims that were made—I think there have been only seven—was upheld.
Jo Stevens
The proposals on facility time illustrate the lack of understanding we have seen from the Government about how trade unions operate and the benefits they deliver, not just for their members but for employers. There has been precious little evidence given for the attack on facility time in the Bill, as we saw when unevidenced assertions were presented by the witness from the TaxPayers Alliance last week.
I will talk about two aspects relating to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. My first point is a general one about facility time, in the health service in particular. In 2007, the then Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform looked at the issue as a precursor to revising the ACAS code of practice on facility time for union reps. If the Minister had compiled a report such as that one before the Bill was drafted, he would have found that union reps make a significant contribution to increasing productivity, making their workplaces safer, reducing the costs of recruitment and helping business to become more responsive to change, by helping staff acquire new skills in addition to updating those they already have. That report showed tens of millions of pounds of savings to employers and the Exchequer by reducing the number of employment tribunal cases, although I will admit that the Government have done a pretty good job on that by introducing tribunal fees and pricing people out of access to justice. The report also showed the benefits to society worth hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of reducing working days lost due to workplace injury and work-related illness. Follow-up research by the TUC pointed to overall productivity gains worth between £4 billion and £12 billion to the UK economy.
More recent research carried out for the Royal College of Nursing by the University of Warwick and Cass Business School backed up the 2007 report. The analysis found that work carried out by trade union representatives in NHS organisations was estimated to save the health service at least £100 million a year. In times of such constrained public finances, facility time is estimated to save large teaching hospitals £1 million a year. The RCN is unequivocal that, aside from the financial cost of high staff turnover when the NHS is already struggling to recruit and retain enough staff, removing effective union representation could have,
“a significant impact on patient safety.”
Janet Davies of the RCN, who we heard from last week, went on to say:
“The health service can ill-afford further damage to staff morale, or to squander even more money on recruitment costs. The trade union bill is bad for staff, employers and most importantly it is bad for patients.”
The RCN is on the front line of service delivery and understands the practical impact the Bill would have. The Labour party is inclined to listen to it.
I want to briefly mention the health and safety representatives and the impact of the Bill on their valuable work. There is, of course, a legal duty on employers to give health and safety representatives as much paid time off as they need to undertake their duties. That is laid down in regulations and it is absolute. The regulations do not say that an employer can decide to restrict that time. If a representative needs it, they need it, and that will vary from week to week, but the Bill says that any public sector employer who has at least one health and safety representative will have to record and publish all the time taken and the facilities provided. That is bureaucratic and pointless, and will just mean that employers and union representatives will have to spend a significant amount of time on paperwork.
Even more dangerous is the proposal to allow Ministers to restrict the rights to time off given to union health and safety representatives by amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. All they have to do is introduce new regulations. The proposal is extremely vindictive and underhand, sneaking in the right to do this, by statutory instrument, into a much wider Bill. At no time have the Government given any justification for that proposal.
Union health and safety reps save hundreds of lives and prevent tens of thousands of injuries and illnesses to working people. Workplaces with union health and safety reps and joint health and safety committees have half the serious injury rates of those without. Any reasonable employer welcomes the presence of health and safety representatives, including almost all those in the public sector. That is why this proposal will not save money or remove bureaucracy—nor, more importantly, will it improve safety in workplaces. It has the potential to do the opposite.
Before coming to this House, I represented many people who had suffered the death of a family member in workplaces without health and safety reps, I ask the Minister, please, to seriously consider the proposal.
Chris Stephens
I wish to speak in favour of my party’s amendments. First, information gathering has to be consistent, and information has to be presented in a consistent fashion. Our real fear about the clause is that it is deliberately designed to ensure that the information presented puts the trade union movement in a bad light. It is the percentage in each of the subsections that should apply, because that is the most relevant and consistent measure. The statistics need to be clear so that people really understand what the cost to employers is in percentage terms.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff Central indicated, part of the debate has been shaped by the TaxPayers Alliance, using freedom of information legislation. Part of the problem with that is that the answer often depends on what questions are asked and how they are asked. It is ironic that that organisation has flourished at a cost to the taxpayer through its use of FOIs.
Nick Boles
Thank you, Sir Edward. We are all relative newcomers in this place, so it is good to learn.
There is less difference between the Government and the Opposition than Opposition Members have tried to make out. They have made an eloquent defence of union learning representatives, health and safety representatives and other union officials who perform union duties in the workplace. No one on the Government Benches disagrees with the value that such people add to their workplaces or the extent to which they can help ensure that workplaces are safe, while also offering opportunities for people to advance and progress.
If you listened only to the speeches of Opposition Members, Sir Edward, you would have concluded that somehow we were banning facility time. All we are seeking to ensure, however, is that there is transparency about facility time. Conservative Members, previously in coalition and now as a Government on our own, passionately believe in the power of transparency to lead to good decisions. Transparency gives the public who pay our salaries and those of everyone in the public sector—the public should truly be referred to as the employers in the public sector—an ability to make a reasonable judgment about whether public sector bodies are managing their money well. The public are absolutely capable of understanding the arguments about the value of health and safety and learning representatives in the workplace.
Chris Stephens
The Minister indicated that he is not minded to ban facility time, or that that is not his intention. Is he therefore indicating that he will withdraw clause 13 of the Bill?
Nick Boles
No, I am not, because clause 13 does not ban facility time. It would take a reserve power—one that we would not like to use and would only use reluctantly—to cap the amount that can be spent on facility time, which is a very different thing from banning it altogether.
Nick Boles
I understand that the hon. Gentleman will always think the worst of us and that I am probably not going to be able to persuade him otherwise. If we wanted to do that, however, why are we not introducing a cap now? We have a figure based on the civil service—we introduced transparency on facility time, which produced a substantial drop in the amount of public money spent on facility time—and we could perfectly well introduce a cap now. We even probably have the votes for it, but we are not doing so, and the reason why we are not doing so is that we do not want to go there. We do not want to have to resort to that. We want transparency to do the work that Conservative Members have consistently always believed that transparency does.
It is getting late, so I shall turn to the detail of the amendments. The Government want to promote transparency and public scrutiny of facility time, and encourage public sector employers to moderate the amount of taxpayers’ money they spend on such time in the light of that scrutiny. At a time of fiscal consolidation, it is unacceptable for taxpayers’ money to be spent on facility time without proper monitoring and controls.
Amendment 46 seeks to limit the range of publishable information to two figures: the total number of union representatives and the total cost of facility time. The Government resist those limitations. We have already seen the success of the reforms to facility time in the civil service. The percentage of the civil service pay bill spent on facility time has fallen by three quarters, representing a saving for taxpayers to date of more than £52 million. I have not heard reports of a lack of access to learning representatives or health and safety representatives in civil service workplaces. All employers whose spending on facility time is funded by taxpayers should be held to the same scrutiny. Taxpayers deserve that.
Nick Boles
I will make some progress, because we have had a good debate. I want to ensure that we make progress and get everybody home.
It is particularly important to monitor the amount of time spent on trade union activities, for which there is no legal right to paid time off work. I repeat: trade union activities are different from trade union duties. We all accept the not only legitimate but socially important and economically valuable role of trade union duties, but that is different from trade union activities. Public sector employers and the taxpayers who pay them must be able to distinguish between such activities and business or employee-facing trade union duties, for which there is a legal right to paid time off work.
We also consider that the percentage of public sector employers’ pay bill that is for facility time should not be omitted. Simply providing a total cost would not allow benchmarking against other public sector employers or the private sector, and would be almost meaningless on its own. The publication of the cost of union representatives’ use of their employers’ facilities should not be left out either. It can include the provision of telephones, photocopiers and dedicated office space. All public sector employers need to ensure that such use, to which there is no general legal right, is appropriate and represents value for taxpayers’ money.
Amendment 74 seeks to expand the range of information that relevant public sector employers are required to publish. They would have to estimate and publish the cost savings made from their existing facility time arrangements. They would also have to agree with relevant unions and publish a statement of the value of those arrangements. We recognise that union representatives play important roles in the workplace, which include dealing with disputes locally and effectively, helping to keep workplaces safe and meeting employees’ learning needs. We also recognise that many union representatives give their own time in addition to facility time to support their colleagues both individually and collectively, but where facility time is publicly funded, employers and unions must ensure it is spent as efficiently as possible.
The Government are confident that our proposals will deliver efficiency savings. A reduction in spending on facility time across the wider public sector to levels similar to the civil service currently would deliver estimated savings of around £150 million annually—£150 million that could be spent on employing more nurses, on schools and on better serving the people who elect us to this place.
Nick Boles
I said this right at the start and will repeat it: I work incredibly closely with Unionlearn. Last night, after the House rose, I was at an event with the person who runs Unionlearn. It is a terrific organisation. It is absolutely integral to our plans to increase the number of people with access to apprenticeships. I do not need anyone to tell me how valuable that work is, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a good use of public sector organisations’ time to be producing reports estimating that value. Just make the argument; they are making the argument very well. As I say, the restrictions on facility time in the civil service have not produced great reports of a lack of availability of health and safety or union learning advice in the civil service. They have just brought a welcome reduction in the amount of money spent on the less justifiable union activities that are not protected by the law and do not produce the kind of value that the hon. Gentleman argues we should appreciate.
Chris Stephens
The Minister mentioned two figures: first a £52 million saving and then a £150 million target saving, which I think alarmed many of us on the Opposition Benches. Will he break down those figures for the Committee and explain how they were arrived at?
Nick Boles
I would be very happy to ask the Cabinet Office to circulate that information. The £150 million is an estimate of what saving might be achieved if the wider public sector made the same sort of journey that the civil service has made since the introduction of transparency on facility time.
On amendment 50, the Government consider that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate and would provide the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The regulations in question will impose publication requirements on different categories of relevant public sector employer. For example, the Secretary of State for Health will make regulations imposing publication requirements on NHS employers.
The negative resolution process is also appropriate for the power to add a body that is not a public authority but is to be treated as such for the purposes of the publication requirements. The power will not be used to bring into scope private or voluntary sector providers of contracted-out public services. Nor is it our intention to apply the publication requirements to private individuals, companies, partnerships or the like.
Subsection (9) of clause 12 will enable the power to be used only where the body has functions of a public nature and is funded wholly or partly from public funds. Both of those conditions have to be true. Specifying such a level of detail in the Bill enables the scrutiny that is now taking place.
Nick Boles
If I have information to give the hon. Lady now, I will do so before I reach the end of this speech, but if I do not, I will write to the Committee before our next meeting so that the matter can be raised if there are further questions.
Including information that the trade union would need to calculate whether it pays for its own representatives does not improve transparency about what is happening with taxpayers’ money, because taxpayers are not funding the union’s contribution. If the trade unions want to supplement an employer’s publication by providing information of their own, we would welcome that move towards transparency. Our purpose is to ensure that taxpayers receive value for their money, and placing such a requirement on the trade unions would not meet that aim.
Chris Stephens
Surely it would benefit the taxpayer if public sector employers could demonstrate that trade unions made a contribution, whether to the office, to utilities or even, as I indicated, to the salaries of trade union reps who hold senior office in the trade union.
Nick Boles
I was very clear that we strongly encourage unions to make that information available where it is true. As the requirements on transparency for the taxpayer’s contribution to funding union duties and activities come through, I am sure unions will also want to present their contribution to those valuable roles, and they have every right to do so. However, it would not be right to place on taxpayers the requirement to prepare and publish that information. Ultimately, taxpayers do not pay that money to do the trade unions’ job of publication for them.
Finally—I hope this answers the question that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central asked about whether facility time has ever covered conference attendance—civil service transparency in the past few years showed that conference attendance by union officials was paid for by Departments in some cases. I will send the Committee the details of those cases, and I will circulate them to Members. There were cases of it in the past.
Chris Stephens
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 12, page 8, line 37, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 8, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).
The amendment would remove safety representatives from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the publication requirements in relation to facility time.
Amendment 100, in clause 12, page 8, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 48, in clause 12, page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
The amendment would remove safety representatives from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the publication requirements in relation to facility time.
Amendment 102, in clause 13, page 9, line 45, leave out paragraph (b).
Chris Stephens
Amendment 110 would remove learning representatives and health and safety representatives from the information requirement. We return to the debate about what the problem is. Is it a pressing issue that people are concerned about use of public money, or is it just pandering to the agenda of the Taxpayers’ Alliance? Again, we have outlined the benefits of learning representatives to other employees, not just trade union members, and of safety representatives to ensuring safety at work. That is a serious issue on which we have advanced by leaps and bounds. Our amendment is clear: learning reps and health and safety reps should be taken out of the requirement to publish information.
Stephen Doughty
I will speak to amendments 47, 100, 48 and 102. It is important to consider who is covered by clause 12 so that we understand the sorts of roles that are affected. We have already had a lengthy debate on this subject, but it is important that the Committee knows that, for example, the Fire Brigades Union trains highly qualified serious accident investigators, who work with fire authorities to investigate incidents in which, tragically, firefighters have been killed on duty, in order to identify and implement service improvements that can prevent future fatalities. I am sure both sides of the Committee would agree that that is an important function. The FBU is concerned that limits on facility time arising from clauses 12 and 13 could restrict, or even prevent, FBU representatives from ensuring that firefighters operate in a safe working environment—these clauses could endanger firefighters in the future and could mean that any safety-critical problems identified will be left unresolved.
We have just heard from the SNP about amendment 110, which would remove trade union learning and safety representatives from the definition to which facility time publication requirements will apply. Our amendments 47 and 48, in a similar vein, would remove health and safety representatives from the reporting requirements in relation to facility time.
As we have heard, trade union workplaces are safer workplaces, which is largely due to tens of thousands of union health and safety reps being trained to internationally recognised standards each year. Trade unions regularly raise safety concerns through health and safety committees and collective bargaining arrangements, which, fundamentally, leads to far fewer workplace accidents not only in professions such as the fire service, where obviously there is significant risk, but in many other workplaces too.
According to research commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry—the forefather, or foremother, of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—in 2007, by reducing time lost to occupational injuries and work-related illnesses, union safety reps save taxpayers between £181 million and £578 million every year at 2004 prices. We have just had an argument on transparency, and the Minister said that we cannot estimate some of these things, but this is a clear example of where his own Department has estimated such things, following serious research, to be worth a significant amount of money. I am sure the sum is even higher today.
Amendment 100 would remove trade union representatives in disciplinary and grievance procedures from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the requirements in relation to facility time, which would mean that public sector employers are not required to report on the amount of time that union officials spend accompanying members in grievance and disciplinary hearings each year. Fundamentally, the amendment aims to highlight the vital role played by union workplace representatives in representing members in formal procedures in the workplace.
We have already heard a number of relevant examples. ACAS research in 2008 found that managers see union representatives undertaking such work as having a crucial and positive role in the informal process of dispute resolution. The research found that union representatives often provide an early warning of potential problems and are a channel of communication between managers and employees. They are also seen as helping to monitor members involved in disciplinary or grievance issues. Within formal hearings, most managers found that union representatives help to ensure that issues are explored in a consultative fashion and that fair decisions are reached. I have experience of such issues in the workplace, as I am sure other members of the Committee do, too. The ACAS research also found—this is crucial—that union representatives are able to manage the expectations of trade union members, which is useful in avoiding unnecessary confrontation, and that union representatives are generally perceived to be well trained and knowledgeable in legal and procedural issues.
I have already talked about amendments 47 and 48. Amendment 102, much like amendment 100, would remove trade union representatives in disciplinary and grievance procedures from the definition of union officials for the purposes of the requirements in relation to facility time, for the reasons that I have previously given. Those are important issues, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about them.
Nick Boles
Amendments 110, 47 and 48 are designed to limit the information published under our transparency regulations by excluding certain categories of trade union representative. I have already explained that the Government greatly value the work of learning representatives and health and safety representatives from trade unions. An employer must allow them as much paid time off work as is necessary or reasonable to perform their statutory functions, and we absolutely do not propose to change that rule. We simply want to ensure that the time that trade union representatives collectively spend on union duties and activities during working hours at taxpayers’ expense is justifiable and accountable, and that it represents value for money.
Clause 12 will enable Ministers to make regulations requiring public sector employers with one or more union representatives to publish information relating to facility time for those representatives. The information that employers could be required to publish includes the number of such representatives, such as learning and safety representatives, and how many of them spend a specified percentage of their time on their union role.
Reporting on facility time for learning and safety representatives is not new. The civil service has reported on paid time off for learning and safety representatives, together with general representatives, since 2013. The information on facility time that local authorities in England are required to publish includes the total number of staff who are union representatives, whether general, learning or safety representatives.
Amendments 47 and 48 are both designed to remove the requirement to exclude safety representatives from the information that is required to be published about facility time. Where an employer efficiently uses facility time for safety representatives, it is not unreasonable to expect the employer to know who those representatives are and how much of their time they spend on their union role. Where taxpayers fund the facility time of those representatives, they have the right to know how their money is being spent. We consider that all public sector employers should have to publish information about facility time for all types of union representatives, including safety representatives. They should not be required, as is proposed in amendments 47 and 48, to give taxpayers a less than full picture of their spending on facility time; they should be transparent about all of it.
Moving on to amendment 110, in the public sector paid facility time for a learning representative is in no way less of a cost to the taxpayer than paid facility time for a general representative or a safety representative. Not to include some costs of facility time based on the specialism of a particular representative would be misleading, and it would not deliver our intentions of giving taxpayers transparency about the facility time that they fund. Removing the requirement to publish information for specialist representatives, who are in a minority, would have a detrimental effect on the validity of the publication and be unlikely to save the employer significant time, if any.
Workers have a statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union official to a disciplinary or grievance hearing. That is a significant amount of trade union facility time, which is why we believe that it should be included in the publication requirements. Because we believe that that statutory right is right, and we have no intention of changing it, we want to understand the cost of the time that is involved in fulfilling it. Paid time off for a trade union official to attend such hearings is no less of a cost to taxpayers than any other category of paid time off for facility time, so there is no reason why it should be excluded from the publication requirements. Indeed, to exclude that cost would be misleading, because it would prevent taxpayers from ascertaining the true total cost of facility time in the public sector. Local authorities in England, and the civil service, have already agreed that that information should be published without exclusions for time spent attending such hearings. It would not be helpful transparency for some parts of the public sector to include some areas in their costs while others exclude them, because that would not allow taxpayers to make comparisons. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.
Chris Stephens
We keep hitting a brick wall in terms of the Government’s attitude to this. They keep using the words “not justifiable”, but I believe that anyone undertaking duties as a safety rep or a learning rep is justifiable. What would be the issue on that basis?
Nick Boles
I have been trying to make progress, but I am stung by that remark. I have never claimed that the work of learning representatives and health and safety representatives is not justifiable—in fact, I have argued absolutely the opposite. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is absolutely justifiable, why on earth does he oppose simply publishing the cost of it?
Chris Stephens
The Minister keeps using the words “not justifiable”, so we will press amendment 110 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting)
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
That is a very important point. As I made clear when introducing our amendments, the Labour party believes in exempting all parts of the United Kingdom from the Bill and its provisions. It would be hugely problematic for there to be areas of complete disagreement and an imbalance among the different parts of the UK. That prompts a series of questions, and I hope the Minister can explain how the measure will work in practice, given that the devolved Governments and local authorities are already indicating that they do not wish to implement it.
Amendment 51 would ensure that the new requirements to report on facility time would not apply to employees of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive or public sector employers working for or providing services that are partially or wholly devolved to those bodies. It would ensure that the Bill does not interfere with the ability of those Governments to manage those services and decide how they engage with their staff and determine their relationships with trade unions.
In the same vein, amendment 73 would ensure that the new reporting requirements did not apply to the facility time of employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England. Again, that is consistent with the Government’s localism agenda.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May I remind the shadow Minister of Dave Prentis’s evidence last week? I thought it was peculiar—perhaps the shadow Minister can enlighten us—that he said that, when it comes to check-off, it is not just about the devolved nations, but the new combined authorities. They will be allowed to do everything, but not talk to staff and trade unions about having check-off or not.
Stephen Doughty
That is a very important point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to what the general secretary of Unison had to say on that matter. Unison represents a significant number of employees in local government across the UK and has exposed a very serious problem.
I want to ask the Minister some specific questions that I hope he will answer in his response to this part of the debate. I pressed him in the oral evidence session about the legal assessments that had been made in developing the Bill. Clearly, I do not expect him to share the detail of Government legal advice, but I would like to know, given the apparent paucity of consultation with devolved Governments across the UK and, it appears, with local government, what conversations took place. I am not asking the Minister to share the contents of the conversations, but can he tell us what conversations took place, given the huge implications of the Bill and the legal precedent for cases such as this ending up in the Supreme Court? What conversations took place? Did any take place? I sincerely hope that they did. Anything the Minister can share with the Committee would be very helpful.
I pushed the Minister on my second point in the oral evidence session. As we have heard from a vast number of legal experts, there is a serious risk of legal challenge to the Bill. One legal opinion can be challenged by another, but the reality is that that might be exactly where the Bill ends up: in the courts. Have the Government set aside funds to deal with legal proceedings that might result—it is inevitable, I believe—from the Bill’s proceeding in its present form?
Thirdly, I would like to know the Minister’s response to the apparent concerns of the Welsh and Scottish Governments, local government across England and local government in Wales and Scotland, and his response should they choose not to implement the Bill, because they believe that it breaches their settlement. Will he take legal proceedings against them to enforce the Bill? How much does he think that that will cost the taxpayer? Or will he just let them carry on? I am sure that he wants to enforce his Bill, but there will be a cost if there is resistance to it from the public bodies to which he is trying to apply it. Keith Ewing said very clearly that he thought that we were walking blindfold into a major constitutional crisis. I have great sympathy with that position.
Fourthly, given the nature of existing contractual arrangements in a whole series of public bodies that receive public funding, which refer to check-off, facility time, and to many other matters that are pertinent to the Bill, does the Minister propose that the measure will apply retrospectively, and that we would therefore have to unwind hundreds of thousands of contractual arrangements, particularly in the public sector across the UK? Will the Bill apply retrospectively? How does the Minister think that will impact? What estimate has he made of the cost, should any individual challenge that through the courts? I imagine that quite a significant number of individuals would want to challenge that if they believed that they had signed a contract in good faith with a public body that gave them certain rights. What estimate have the Minister and the Department made of the cost of that? How does he see the Bill being implemented?
Will he have a hit squad, which the Minister for the Cabinet Office talked about, going round local authorities and devolved Governments to check the texts of the contractual arrangements that they enter into? Will he go through every piece of paper signed by every public sector employee or by anyone who could vaguely be determined to have enjoyed some sort of public sector funding in their role? Will he interfere with every single one of those contracts? This is an extraordinarily heavy-handed approach from a Government who claim that they want to avoid regulation and interference—and that they are the Government of devolution and localism.
I have a final question for the Minister. We heard from the Scottish and Welsh Governments that they are reserving their position on whether a legislative consent motion is required for the Bill. Perhaps not all members of the Committee are familiar with legislative consent motions—LCMs—but they can be seen regularly on the Table in the House when the UK Government seek to legislate for matters that are partially or fully devolved for some practical reason. If the legislation makes sense, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive can give permission to the UK Government to do that. There are many circumstances in which that is appropriate. However, on this occasion they clearly do not believe there is a clear case for that. I would like to know what the Minister would do, should the Welsh and Scottish Governments withhold legislative consent. What discussion has the Minister had with UK Government Law Officers about the Government’s approach and, again, what would be the costs to the public purse? I suggest that the Minister makes ready a tidy little pot of money to deal with all the legal proceedings that will emanate from the Bill if it goes ahead in its current form. That will really put paid to the suggestion that the Bill will benefit the taxpayer. It will cost the taxpayer a lot of money.
Nick Boles
Yes. In a sense, the answer is the same. Everybody is entitled to say exactly what they think. I encourage it, I welcome it and we will always listen to any representations. We disagree. We believe that those people are overstating the case and that, when the Bill becomes law and the provisions are implemented—in Scotland and Wales as well as in England—it will not interrupt those very positive industrial relations, it will not interrupt those partnerships, and it certainly will not interrupt their ability to run their public services as they see fit.
Chris Stephens
There is a difference between employment law and industrial relations and how they impact on public services. I am curious about the Minister’s comment about the provision of public services, because political parties say how they will deal with industrial relations in public services as part of their manifesto commitments, whether for Scottish, Welsh or any other elections. Surely, those mandates have to be respected.
Nick Boles
We respect mandates, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will respect ours. I draw his attention to another example. The national minimum wage affects every single person who works anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is a reserved matter. It is something that this Parliament sets. I have not heard objections from the Scottish Minister—the very same Scottish Minister—saying that this is an egregious intrusion into Scottish matters and that somehow it is appalling that there is a national minimum wage. It is simply the case that we live in a system where some matters are reserved to the national—the United Kingdom—Parliament and other matters are devolved. The content of employment law and industrial relations is a reserved matter.
Nick Boles
On the effect of the provisions on existing contracts, we have asked whether they are acceptable by international obligations and we are absolutely assured that they are. Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national minimum wage. Its introduction had an impact on existing contracts, some of which therefore had to be revised to reflect it. This legislation will have no greater impact—in fact, rather less so—on existing contracts. We are confident that any effect it will have is entirely consistent with all the relevant legal framework.
Nick Boles
This is seriously the last time, because the hon. Gentleman has many that new clauses he wants to get to and I am just trying to help.
Chris Stephens
The Minister has been most kind, so I will ask just this question. The cost to public bodies of reissuing new statements of particulars and contracts could be considerable. Will the Government provide finances to the public bodies in that position?
Nick Boles
Sir Alan, you know as well as I do that if I were even to dare tiptoe on to the question of the financial settlement with devolved Administrations, there is literally a device implanted in my brain that would explode and decapitate me. I am not going to go there, however much pleasure it might give Opposition Members. [Interruption.] However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to the Chancellor—or to me and I can pass on the request—I will, of course, reply to his question.
If there are no further requests for interventions, I will conclude. The amendments in this group seek to use the Bill as a mechanism to carve out different arrangements in employment law and industrial relations for Scotland, Wales, London and English local authorities. Parliament has already determined that these matters are reserved. The amendments are an attempt to extend devolution by the back door and that is why we cannot accept them. I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I am sorry to reduce the agricultural wages case to the level of Dr Seuss, but do you agree, Sir Alan, that within the agricultural wages case it was found, in principle, that although agriculture is a devolved matter—that matter was won by the Government—the wages aspect is not? It was because it was a mixed Bill that there was the result that there was. This is quite different. This is a Bill about industrial relations and trade unions. It is quite simple and obvious that this a reserved matter.
Chris Stephens
This has been an interesting debate about the group of amendments on the impacts on the devolved Administrations and other public bodies. It is interesting that some know better than others the effects that this will have on those bodies. I shall respond first to the shadow Minister’s gentle rebuke on the SNP’s amendments only applying to Scotland. He indicated that he respects our mandate on that and I agree with his point that the group of amendments seeks to enforce what has been referred to as the respect agenda. We hear from the UK Government that they respect the devolved Administrations and other public bodies, but with these amendments we want to ensure that that takes place.
Like the shadow Minister, the SNP opposes all of the Bill and will be voting for many of the amendments and against the clauses. We agree on his point about solidarity; we may have different approaches, but I assure him that we are in solidarity with all workers in the UK regarding the Bill, although there may be some differences in how we want to achieve that. I would go as far as to say that if the Bill were introduced in another nation state, we would oppose it and would be raising it in this Parliament, as we do with any abuses of workers’ rights across the world. There is no contradiction in supporting the consent amendments in this group and those that want to take workers out of it.
I turn to the hon. Member for Gateshead’s contribution about English workers having fewer rights. The general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, commented about that in his evidence, saying that that was one of the dangers that the Bill would introduce. The Minister seems to indicate that it is settled that employment law is reserved, but that is not the case. A new clause is being introduced to the Scotland Bill. I do not want to touch on the Scotland Bill too much, but a new clause is being inserted for debate, it will be put to the parliamentary test and the parliamentary verdict on that is yet to be given.
Nor have the Government taken into account the fact that Scotland has a different civil and criminal law and a different legal jurisdiction. That was also mentioned in the evidence from Thompsons Solicitors. Given that the Bill touches on criminalising certain behaviour, more consultation with the devolved Administrations is required. I certainly take the view that a legislative consent motion is needed, as is consent across the board in the public services.
The Minister asked me to write to him in relation to the costs to the public sector in terms of individual contracts. I wrote to his colleague in the Cabinet Office on this, and I am still waiting for a response. My concern is that some of the Bill relates to the agenda of the TaxPayers Alliance, which I believe is based on ignorance of the issues. It does not even take into consideration the fact that public services actually gain income from facility time and, indeed, from check-off. That is being ignored. It is very dangerous indeed to interfere with the collective bargaining units that exist across the UK, which is what the Bill seems to do.
Our view of the Bill is that it is ideologically driven. The Government seem to want to implement their ideology in all parts of the UK, even those where they have no mandate, and on that basis we intend to press amendment 90 to a Division. We will also want to press amendments 84 and 85 when we reach the relevant clauses.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Doughty
Although the Minister gave his explanation in funny terms, I find it unbelievable, quite frankly. It is a very convoluted reasoning. The reality is that the ILO defines essential services in a very restrictive way because the international legal consensus, and indeed the international human rights consensus, is that the right to strike and to freedom of association should be restricted only in very narrow cases. That is why it is a tight definition. It is intriguing that the Government have chosen to move away from that. They clearly want to expand the restrictions much more widely. I have already given the example of Germany, where such provisions would be unconstitutional.
I must take issue with the Minister’s unwillingness to give us a commitment on the publication of the regulations. He said that there was a consultation. Like all consultations on the Bill, it took only eight weeks rather than the usual 12. All the consultations were done over the summer to frustrate the input from sectors such as teaching, as many of the profession’s union members are away from school at that time. It is an odd situation, and a serious one for Parliament, that we are discussing severe restrictions on the exercise of people’s democratic rights, yet the Minister is saying, “Trust me. We’ll publish them. They’ll be all right. It’ll be fine.” The regulations should have been published alongside the Bill so that we could see what the Government intend. Is the Minister going to publish them 20 minutes before the Bill gets Royal Assent, if we ever get that far? That is simply not good enough, and I would like the Minister to consider publishing the draft regulations. We need to get some clearer intent before the Bill leaves the Commons, and certainly before it gets into the other place. For that reason I am keen to test the will of the Committee on amendment 5.
Chris Stephens
Is the hon. Gentleman as confused as I am? The hon. Member for Cardiff Central made a similar point about some of the services being covered under existing legislation, such as life and limb cover. I am beginning to wonder whether it is not just the Government witnesses who do not know about life and limb cover but the Government too.
In addition, does the hon. Gentleman not think that the 40% threshold is dangerous? The last time a Government introduced such a threshold they had a small majority and ended up out of power for 18 years. That might happen again.
Stephen Doughty
That is an intriguing historical example. The hon. Gentleman’s point is a good one. Large parts of the legislation have not been thought through and appear to have been drafted by people who simply do not understand how trade unions operate in the modern workforce. The witnesses the Government called forward certainly did not know that. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff Central and for Sunderland Central have made clear, there are serious practical implications. I would therefore like to press amendment 5 to a vote, with the clear message that we believe the Government should stick to their manifesto and to their own Queen’s Speech, and stick to the definition of essential services laid out by the ILO.
In the case of amendment 4, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 5, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
“the provision of essential public services.”—(Stephen Doughty.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nick Boles
I am pleased that the hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to set out in more detail what sort of information we expect unions to include on the voting paper. I fear this may take a little time, but I want to address all the amendments tabled and why we will resist them.
I will start with first principles. We want unions to be absolutely clear with their members about what they are being asked to vote for, in order to ensure full transparency in any industrial action ballot. It is clearly in the interests of union members, as well as employers and the wider public who are affected by strike action, that those being asked to vote for such action can make a fully informed decision about whether to back it.
I remain concerned that merely requiring a trade union to state the trade dispute without requiring any further detail, as suggested in amendment 14, would not meet the objective of enabling members to make a fully informed decision. It would only require a very broad statement. In reality, it will in most cases mean that members have no more information about the dispute than they have from wider communications. It does not provide enough clarity for union members to determine whether they choose to support industrial action. That cannot be right or democratic.
Nick Boles
I will continue for a second and then give way to the hon. Gentleman; I owe him one, because I did not see him trying to intervene earlier.
I have a couple of actual strike ballot papers in front of me. They are quite hard to get hold of, so I have not got a huge number. On one, the only statement on the paper was “impact of redundancies”, which did not clarify in which workplace, which group of employees was affected or when the strike was proposed. That ballot paper provided a very vague, short description. Another ballot paper provided a vague but incredibly broad statement about
“adverse changes to pensions, workload, conditions of service, including pay and pay progression, and job loss.”
Neither statement is particularly helpful to those voting on the ballot because not enough information is given about when that dispute would be resolved, so that is not obvious to the person voting. Being told the location of the site of the affected workers would not necessarily help members to know what matters are at issue, and neither would knowing that the dispute is about pay, for instance.
Let us not lose sight of the potential wider benefits of the proposed change. As now, the employer will receive a copy of the voting paper, so including better information about why the industrial action is proposed should have the added effect of helping to eliminate any misunderstanding, which can creep in in such circumstances, between unions and employers about exactly what issues remain in dispute. In turn, that should facilitate employer discussions with the trade union about how the dispute might be resolved, where possible without recourse to industrial action.
Turning to amendment 15—
Nick Boles
Of course. I was ploughing on and I did not mean to forget the hon. Gentleman. It is only because he is outside my peripheral vision—
Chris Stephens
If the Minister wants to access other ballot papers, he should join a trade union. In my experience, when a ballot paper is issued, the trade unions are allowed to insert a sheet of paper that sets out fully the issues in the trade dispute, so why is the clause necessary?
Nick Boles
I would simply say that if they all do that, and I agree that that practice is welcome, it should hardly be difficult just to provide a few more details on the ballot paper so that when somebody’s vote is decided, it is clear what they have voted for or against. I promise Opposition Members that from now on there are no blinkers on this Minister, as I am sure that they will be happy to admit.
Let me explain why we have used the words “reasonably detailed”, because the hon. Member for Sunderland Central in particular thought that was a mistake. That specific form of words is used in clause 4 to take into account the particular circumstances of each trade dispute. If there is any more detail that a union could reasonably give on the ballot paper, the requirement is not satisfied. For example, if the issue is identified simply as “pay”, it may well be right to say that there are further details that the union could have included. Those details might include which year’s pay offer is in dispute, and which employees are covered by the offer. Again, that links back to our overall objective to ensure that unions provide clarity to their members about what they are being asked to vote for so that there is full transparency in any industrial action ballot.
We think it is much more helpful to union members if a trade dispute that affects them in different ways is articulated in sufficient detail so that everyone knows the point on which they are being asked to make a decision on industrial action and how each individual is affected by the trade dispute. However, we do not want to put unnecessary burdens on unions by asking them to include a long and detailed account of the trade dispute. That would be onerous and would dilute the very clarity that we are seeking to provide. That is why the clause does not require a “reasonably detailed” description of the trade dispute. It is about balance, and the Bill as currently drafted best achieves that.
Amendment 16 would not assist members to understand what type of action they are voting for. That is particularly important because there is no definition of action short of a strike. If we do not require a trade union to state on the voting paper what specific type or types of action it is proposing, a member will not know what action he or she is being asked to back. Even stating that the proposed action is action short of a strike does not help members to make a sufficiently informed decision, because there are various types of action that amount to action short of strike. Just using that phrase will not help members to understand what they are voting for. For example, a member may support industrial action that amounts to an overtime ban, but not a period of work to rule. If the voting paper does not specifically state which of these actions the union proposes its members take, how will they know how to vote?
Having said that, I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman made about there being a degree of uncertainty at the stage when the union is drawing up the voting paper about how the negotiations will continue to play out and therefore what action the union might subsequently take. Nevertheless, if the union has reached the stage at which it is asking its members to support a ballot for industrial action, it must surely have in mind a plan for such action. All we are asking in new section 229(2C) is that the plan should be disclosed to the union members. I do not believe that is unreasonable.
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree. It is important to recognise something that Government Members seem to have lost in this debate: the vast majority of trade union members and workers, whether in public services or the private sector, will seek to resolve disputes through very reasonable mechanisms, such as talking to line managers, colleagues and others in the management of a firm or public service, before they reach the stage of even contemplating industrial action or disputes. Most people act in a human way and want to resolve things as easily as they can. It is only when frustrations build up and concerns are not listened to—for example, on health and safety or fundamental disputes with the Government about restrictions on pay or pensions—that things reach the point where industrial action is considered. I say gently that the Government do not appear to understand how things operate in practice.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me ask the Minister about an insertion that goes out with the ballot paper. Can he think of an example of any trade union that would not include with the ballot paper an insertion fully stating the trade dispute?
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, I can barely think of any possible examples in which a trade union would not explain the progress of negotiations and what might be going on and feed back to its members what is happening in a workplace.
Chris Stephens
I am still debating in my head whether the clause is insidious or whether, again, it relates to the Government’s view on Jedi-like powers. This morning we discussed trade union officials having Jedi powers to convince trade union members who did not participate in the ballot to participate in the action. Does it take 14 days for those Jedi-like powers to dissipate? I do not know, but I have concerns about the clause that relate to the ever-increasing number of statutory redundancy notices being issued. The limit has been changed to 45 days, which makes it difficult for the trade union to organise and complete its ballot process within the timeframe that the Government are setting out, and that will lead to more balloting. When a trade union gets notices from an employer that there is to be redundancy, the first thing the union will have to do is trigger the mechanisms for balloting before it has even had a discussion with the employer.
The proposal also treats the public with contempt. There seems to be a suggestion that the public are somehow not aware that a trade union has served notice of industrial action to an employer, but the trade union will notify the media of that to get the discussion going with its members. Indeed, some parts of the media that are not friendly towards trade unions and are perhaps more friendly towards the Government will use that publicity too.
The population out there is not made up of hermits. I think the real purpose of changing the notice period from seven days to 14 days is to ensure that momentum is lost in support of an industrial action. In reality, the notice period starts when the employer is notified that the trade union intends to ballot for industrial action. Under existing law, employers are more than adequately able to prepare with the seven-day notices, so I am opposed to the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
That is a risk. Undoubtedly, when the Minister gets to his feet he will talk about ballot mandates from a long time ago legitimatising action years down the line. There is a genuine sympathy with that concern, which is why I tabled amendment 24, which would extend the period before a union would be required to reballot its members from four months to 12 months. The amendment would be likely to assist the resolution of disputes and significantly reduce the administrative cost burden for trade unions involved in protracted disputes, while avoiding the problem that the Minister will undoubtedly refer to as motivation for the clause.
It is a question of reasonableness in all these matters. Most unions want to ensure that there is a strong mandate for action if it is required, which is fair, but four months is such a short period. Given the costs involved, it reveals a different intent behind the Bill and will discourage good industrial relations.
Chris Stephens
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Bill is potentially a rogue employers’ charter? Such employers will use tactics to continue to delay the negotiations. On that basis, if the four-month limit is coming up, they will not deal with the trade unions.
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, and, combined with the other measures by which a vexatious employer might wish to frustrate the balloting, the wording and everything else that we have already discussed, that creates a very difficult set of circumstances that will fundamentally render illusory the right to strike, to freedom of association and to withdraw labour in furtherance of a dispute. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Nick Boles
Let us not forget that people’s perceptions of a dispute can change over time. It is only right that unions check whether industrial action still has the support of their members. Leaving it for a year before a union checks that it still has a mandate is simply too long. In fact, any of the circumstances about strike action are likely to have moved on after four months.
I think we are all agreed that constructive dialogue is important. Negotiation is key to resolving disputes satisfactorily. A four-month time limit on the ballot mandate should not impact on the parties’ ability to negotiate a settlement. Indeed, negotiations may well be more focused when an employer has greater clarity about the trade issues in dispute and where a union has a strong and recent mandate for industrial action.
Chris Stephens
During the course of a dispute, trade unions will be contacting their members and having workplace meetings on every part of the process. I do not get why four months is necessary. The Minister seems to suggest that trade unions do not contact their members during that four-month period.
Nick Boles
Obviously we disagree on this, but the fact is that this is not only about union members—some of whom may have moved on or changed their mind—although they are incredibly important to the process. It is not only about employers, although they are also incredibly important to the process because they can lose a great deal of money and perhaps even customers as a result of strike action. This is also about members of the public who rely on services and need to know that there might be a bus strike if a ballot in support of strike action took place three months ago. No one will remember the strike ballot and its result if the period was 12 months.
Let us not forget that, crucially, the period of four months is not the only period during which negotiations will take place. Indeed, such negotiations should have started long before a union seeks a ballot mandate. Let me also be clear about what the clause does not do. It does not prevent strikes. If a union has legitimately secured a clear, decisive, democratic ballot mandate for industrial action from its members, and the dispute cannot be resolved by negotiation, that union’s members can strike. It also does not prevent unions from seeking a further ballot mandate if the dispute is ongoing when the ballot mandate expires. New subsection (1A)(a) specifically provides for that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth to withdraw the amendment.
Trade Union Bill (Fifth sitting)
Chris Stephens Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
I believe that the Bill has many sinister intents. There are many provisions that can be used to tip the balance between employers and employees well beyond what would be reasonably expected in a democratic society. We heard during the evidence sessions that the Bill and these provisions put us at the bottom of the league when it comes to international labour standards and the rights of workers and trade unions.
Amendments 21 and 22 are to clause 5 and are consequential to other amendments for consistency.
Before I conclude on this group, it is worth referring to some of the comments. Many comments were made about this set of proposals in the written and oral evidence and it is important to bring the Committee’s attention to a number of them.
The Royal College of Nursing said that:
“The changes that are proposed…will do nothing for the improvement of industrial relations. The emphasis on ‘strikes’ and seeing all industrial action through the prism of strikes is misleading. This is at a time when the number of disputes is low compared to the past. The effect of the proposals to set thresholds”—
and a whole series of other measures—
“is not a ‘neutral’ step, rather it further strengthens the power already held by employers in workplace disputes now.”
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent speech. One of the other consequences of the thresholds that came out in the evidence was organisations concerned about a real impact on gender equality issues and on women workers trying to pursue industrial action. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as I am, that that could lead to a situation in which the gender pay gap widens as a result of this legislation?
Julie Elliott
I could not agree more. None of us ever wants to reach the point where an industrial action ballot has to take place, but if we do, the time spent on the accuracy of the lists, under the new conditions, will be an enormous task. If it is a national public sector dispute, there will be at least hundreds of thousands of people to deal with. It is not just 50 or 60 people, or a handful in either direction. We are talking about huge numbers, and if it is a national dispute, they will be working all over the country and in displaced workplaces.
Chris Stephens
Does the hon. Lady believe, as I do, that part of the point of an implementing threshold is to stop national, or UK-wide, industrial action, by design, for many of the reasons she has mentioned?
Julie Elliott
That might well be the motivation behind some of it. As I said in my opening remarks, the measure makes it almost impossible for certain types of dispute to take place.
If the trade union side has to spend so much extra time not only on getting the lists correct, but on making the turnout so high, that is time the officials are not spending on talking to the employer and trying to avert strike action, which has to be the motive of everyone involved in an industrial dispute. The only way to resolve a dispute, whether an industrial dispute or any other disagreement in life, is by talking to people. If there is no time to sit down and talk constructively, the problem escalates. That is common sense.
So much time will be spent on the accuracy of the lists, with all the problems that the later clauses of the Bill throw up, and then on getting the enormous turnout. The 50% threshold is a difficult one in itself, but adding on the 40% threshold is incredible, if not completely unrealistic, except in a specific workplace with everyone working for one employer, as the rail disputes in recent history have shown. In the broader public sector there is genuine doubt as to whether the 40% threshold is achievable. The evidence from Stephen Cavalier, from Thompsons Solicitors, is that it will probably lead to more industrial action. Professor Ewing says in paragraph 10 of his written evidence:
“The ILO Committee of Experts pointed out that ‘account should only be taken of the votes cast’, while any ‘required quorum and majority should be fixed at a reasonable level’.”
I defy anybody to say that some of the measures in the Bill around thresholds are reasonable.
Where will the Bill take us if it comes into law as it is written today? My view is that it will make positive industrial relations much more difficult. Because of that, it will inevitably lead to more strikes, which I do not believe is what any Member, on either side of the House, wants. It will most likely lead to the Government ending up in court, with a massive cost to the taxpayer. Nobody wants us to end up in that situation, so I urge the Government to look again at the two thresholds.
Julie Elliott
I totally agree, and these are issues we will explore later when we talk about practical implications of facility time. In conclusion, I urge the Government to look again at the thresholds and what I believe will be their impact—probably unforeseen by the Government—namely more industrial action and more disharmony in the workplace, and the potential legal consequences, with the Government having to spend a lot of taxpayers’ money defending challenges in the courts.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I declare my membership of Glasgow City Unison and the fact that I was a Unison activist for 20 years prior to my election. Indeed, when I submitted my new application to join the branch again, it had created a House of Commons sub-branch, so that is a good tale to have.
I oppose the threshold for three main reasons. The first is the impact on equality issues, particularly gender equality. The Government have not addressed the difficulties of women workers being able to prosecute and to try to get an industrial dispute on such issues as shift changes, where they would be impacted far more than male workers. Amnesty, Liberty and other organisations made clear their concerns on those issues during the evidence sessions. The second reason is the issue of people not voting. I find it incredible that the deceased will be described as being people who are against industrial action. There are many reasons for people not voting, and that principle is wrong.
The third reason concerns the practicalities of what happens during a ballot process and afterwards leading to a dispute. The key test of whether there is a mandate for industrial action is how many trade union members participate in the industrial dispute. The trade union has arguments and has to make a calculation after a ballot result about whether that is support for industrial action. Where there has been a low turnout, some trade unions have not gone forward to industrial action because they did not believe that they had that support. That is the true test of whether there is support, and on that basis trade unions make a gamble as to whether they should go forward.
With low turnouts, the notion has been presented that trade union activists and officials, after the ballot result has been announced and they have been unable to persuade members to take industrial action, develop mystical powers to persuade trade union members to participate in industrial action. It is almost as if trade union officials adopt Jedi-like powers, where all they have to do is make one wave of a Jedi hand and say, “This is the industrial action you’re looking for.” Frankly, that is a fanciful notion, and on that basis we are opposed to the principles of thresholds.
Nick Boles
At the opening of the debate and of the evidence sessions, every Opposition Member rightly and properly declared an interest as being a member of a trade union. In many cases, they have also declared an interest as being a former official of a trade union. They are proud of that, and they are right to be proud.
I do not have that privilege, but I have another privilege, which is to be a member of the general public. As members of the public, we rely on hospitals being open, because we do not get to go to another hospital under the NHS. We have to go to the one that has offered us the appointment. As members of the public, we rely on a particular school to take our children and educate them for the day, because we do not have the option to buy our way into another school within the public services. We have to send our children to the same school every day. As members of the public, we rely on particular forms of transport that are monopolies in people’s lives. We do not have the choice to choose other forms of transport very easily when a form of transport is closed due to a strike.
I can tell the Committee that all Government Members take our responsibilities as Members and representatives of the general public seriously indeed. All we are trying to do through the Bill is to think of their interests when strike action happens and to adjust slightly the balance of power between union members and members of the general public. Opposition Members are absolutely right to represent the unions that they have all either worked for or been members of for many, many years, but we on this side of the House are absolutely right to defend the interests of the members of the public who put us here and elected us to this House.
Nick Boles
I am happy to accept that the one in 10 members of the public who are also members of trade unions must be represented properly in the House, and Opposition Members are doing an admirable job of representing them. I contend that the other nine out of 10 members of the public who are not members of unions and who are affected by strikes when they shut schools and hospitals and close down transport networks also deserve representation, and that is what we are providing.
Nick Boles
I will make a little progress, if I may, and I am sure that we will have an opportunity to hear from the hon. Gentleman soon.
The shadow Minister noted that there are many other things that cause more days to be lost than strike action. He mentioned, I believe, sickness, bad weather and breakdowns in machinery. I would bring forward tomorrow Bills in this House if I could abolish sickness, bad weather and breakdowns in machinery, but unfortunately we have to deal with the real world, and we are focusing on a minor adjustment to the balance—a slight rebalancing—on something that we can affect, which is the number of services shut by strikes.
Nick Boles
I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to take an intervention. All we are saying is that we want strike action to take place on the basis of a clear democratic mandate and not just because a very small minority of union members want it. Opposition Members have made great play of how strikes are always the last resort and no one ever wants strike action based on a tiny turnout. Indeed, we heard in last week’s evidence sessions from some very distinguished and eloquent leaders of major unions who made many of the same points.
I simply draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that in 2015—in this very year—London bus drivers, in a ballot organised by Unite, whose general secretary we heard from last week and who wrote in a letter to the Prime Minister that no one wants to see strike action on the basis of a very low turnout, nevertheless called a strike on the basis of 21% of the members of the union who were eligible to vote actually casting a vote and 18% to 19%, therefore, actually supporting the strike action. We also heard from Sir Paul Kenny of the GMB. In 2014, in a case involving local government workers, 23% turned out to support strike action over pay. We heard also from the general secretary of Unison. In 2014, there was a strike over the pay of NHS workers, and 16% of the members of Unison entitled to vote in the ballot had turned out. The idea that we are somehow tackling a problem that does not exist is shown to be entirely spurious by those figures.
Chris Stephens
There are a couple of tests in terms of the Minister’s arguments. First, did any of those employers take the union to court? That is a genuine question. And surely if the trade union was not confident that its members would participate in the industrial action, it would not have called it, because trade unions cannot discipline a trade union member who does not participate in industrial action.
Nick Boles
The unions may have been confident, but their confidence was surely misplaced, given that in these cases the figures ranged from 16% to 21% for the people who actually bothered to vote, and that includes the people who voted against the proposed action. This is a problem and it affects members of the public.
Nick Boles
One of the problems that we have in this discussion—I am sure it is a failure on my part—is that Opposition Members do not seem to understand that we are not trying to stop strikes. We are trying to stop strikes that have very low levels of support. If unions are, as a result of this legislation, enabled to ensure that every single strike ballot sails over the new thresholds, the Bill will have been successful, not least because the British public will have the confidence that the issue at stake is so important that it justifies that action.
Chris Stephens
I have a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Gateshead. The Minister mentioned that a 22% ballot closed all those schools. If it was able to close all those schools, it would suggest that the support for the industrial action was more than 22%. Surely this is about participation and helping trade union members participate in a ballot? Will the Minister look seriously at those issues?
Nick Boles
We are looking quite seriously at those issues, which is why we have introduced the legislation. Given the hon. Gentleman’s express desire to tackle those issues, I hope I can persuade him to support at least some of our measures.
On the detail of amendments 2, 7, 20 and 21, I appreciate the desire to have clarity and certainty about who is entitled to vote, but that is already well established as a result of the operation of existing provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and of case law, which provide a balance in the system by protecting trade unions against challenge over insignificant breaches of the balloting rules. For example, many of the provisions in the legislation on balloting are already subject to a reasonableness requirement. Section 227 of the aforementioned Act confers the entitlement to vote to
“all the members of the trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced”
to strike.
Sections 226A and 234A require that the lists and figures supplied in the ballot and strike notices
“must be as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union at the time when it complies.”
In addition, section 232B provides that a union still complies with the requirements on balloting even if it has made an error in the process, so long as the failure or failures are
“accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot”.
That was tested recently in court—the margin of error was considered in the case of RMT v. Serco Ltd. As a result, the obligations to give accurate notices and to ballot accurately are already governed by what is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union. The obligations are not intended to be unduly onerous for the unions to comply with. There is no obligation on the union to prepare or update records specifically for industrial action ballots. Plus, as I have explained, unions are already well used to assessing what is reasonably practicable, given that that is an established concept in the 1992 Act. Of course, we are introducing reforms to ensure that unions have up-to-date records of their membership anyway, which I will come to shortly.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for his comments. The points that have been made are important, because with any legislation it is not beyond the ken of those who would wish to frustrate the exercise of democratic rights to attempt to use the law in a way that would at least bog down disputes in lengthy litigation. I appreciate the Minister’s reading his comments into the record, and I certainly hope that they will be considered if the Bill proceeds in its current form. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Stephens
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
‘(2G) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’
The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.
Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
‘(2H) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services provided by the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’
The amendment would ensure that the provisions of the Bill requiring 40% support for industrial action in certain public services would not apply to services devolved to the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
Amendment 77, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert—
‘(4) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’
Amendment 78, in clause 4, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’
Amendment 79, in clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’
Amendment 80, in clause 6, page 3, line 44, at end insert—
‘(3) This section does not apply in relation to industrial action in Scotland.’
Amendment 81, in clause 7, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’
Amendment 82, in clause 8, page 4, line 24, at end insert—
‘(3) This section shall not apply to disputes in Scotland.’
Amendment 42, in clause 10, page 7, line 10, at end insert—
‘(5) None of the provisions of sections 84 and 85 shall apply to public sector employees in sectors or providing services which are wholly or partially devolved to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’
The amendment would ensure that the provisions on contributions to political funds would not apply to employees in public services providing services which are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive.
Amendment 72, in clause 10, page 7, line 10, at end insert—
‘(6) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’
The amendment would ensure that the provisions on contributions to political funds would not apply to employees in public services providing services which are devolved to the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
Amendment 51, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
‘(13) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to facility time of the employees of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive, or to public sector employers working for or providing services that are wholly or partially devolved to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’
The amendment would ensure that the provisions on facility time would not apply to employees working for or providing public services which are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive.
Amendment 73, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
‘(14) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to facility time of the employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’
The amendment would ensure that the provisions on facility time would not apply to employees working for or providing public services which are devolved to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
Amendment 84, in clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
‘(13) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.’
Amendment 85, in clause 13, page 10, line 44, at end insert—
‘(14) For the avoidance of doubt, the powers in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.’
Amendment 86, in clause 14, page 11, line 11, at end insert—
‘(4) This section and the Schedules it inserts shall not apply in Scotland.’
Amendment 87, in clause 15, page 12, line 23, at end insert—
‘(4) This section shall not apply in Scotland.’
Amendment 88, in clause 16, page 13, line 26, at end insert—
‘(5) This section and the Schedule it inserts shall not apply in Scotland.’
Amendment 89, in clause 17, page 14, line 43, at end insert—
‘(11) Trade union members resident in Scotland shall not be required through their union to contribute to a levy imposed by this section.’
Chris Stephens
This group of amendments could be called the devolved group. It goes to the heart of principles regarding mandates—not just the mandates that trade unions derive with regard to taking industrial action, but whether there is a mandate across the nations of the UK for the Bill and for specific clauses within it. That is natural, when we have four nations in the UK with a different leading party in each.
The amendments also raise issues of consent. The devolved Administrations and local authorities are being dictated to by the Bill regarding how they conduct their industrial relations. There are issues regarding the effect on the spirit of friendship and solidarity across the UK, and regarding our mandate, which is to seek the devolution of employment law in the Scotland Bill. It is important to point out that Parliament has yet to put to the test whether employment law should be devolved to Scotland.
The constitutional issues that arise from the Bill could have serious consequences. We were told by Ministers in the evidence sessions that industrial relations are reserved, but in reality they are not. The reality is that devolved Administrations in the past have kept the two-tier workforce agreements, which the coalition Government removed for workers in the public sector in England.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, though, as the Scottish Cabinet Secretary Ms Cunningham did, that industrial relations are currently reserved?
Chris Stephens
Ms Cunningham then went on to make the position clear about the impact that would have. The hon. Gentleman is correct that industrial relations are reserved at this point, but an electoral mandate was given to 56 MPs who were elected in May—I could argue that there are 58 MPs in Scotland who are opposed to the Bill. The Bill is a real concern, because it ignores, for example, the work of the Scottish Government in setting up the Scottish fair work convention. They are working in partnership with trade unions rather than seeing them as the enemy of the public and using the kind of rhetoric we have heard while discussing the Bill.
The Bill brings into question the impact of the industrial relations capacity. We have heard from the local authorities in Scotland. Conservative councillor Billy Hendry said in a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities statement that COSLA is opposed to the Bill. The Bill seeks to dictate to the devolved Administrations on issues of facility time and check-off. There seems little support in Scotland and Wales or in aspects of the public sector in England for the removal of check-off. Check-off is a voluntary arrangement, and for the UK Government to dictate to parts of the public sector who have an electoral mandate to conduct industrial relations is wrong. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he has responded to the Scottish or Welsh Governments on the principles of consent.
More importantly, the deputy General Secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress at our political conference in Aberdeen at the weekend, at a fringe meeting, described the principles around facility time and check-off to be the most pernicious parts of the Bill, simply because it strikes at the heart of trade union organisation. Employers benefit from employees having good facility time. They know who they are; they are people who can deal with people and sort issues out; it leads to fewer tribunal claims, less litigation, better health and safety and, indeed it can lead to lifelong learning for employees as well. Those are the very real benefits of facility time.
There was no consultation with the public sector, this provision interferes with electoral and political mandates, and I believe that there is a lack of consent for the Bill across many parts of the UK.
Dr Cameron
Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland and the Scottish Government have had harmonious working relationships with management and unions, in terms of partnership, and that there is great concern, from constituents and from the Scottish Government, the councils and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, about the Bill’s potential to undermine this?
Chris Stephens
Absolutely. The current figures show that there is less industrial action in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. That suggests that partnership working is successful and leads to less industrial action and better working relationships across the board. We know that many public bodies oppose the Bill. Some public bodies have gone even further and said that they will defy the Bill. This can only lead to conflict with other public bodies, conflict across the public sector, and it could lead, as Professor Keith Ewing suggested, to a constitutional crisis across the UK. It is rather ironic that this is coming from the UK Government, when they usually point the finger at other people for causing constitutional crises across the UK.
The trade union movement is the largest group in civil society and we should be working in partnership. I look forward to the debate and will indicate in my summing-up whether we wish to push any amendments to a vote.
Stephen Doughty
It is a pleasure to move on to one of the most significant parts of the Bill in relation to its potential legality, let alone its potential for implementation.
I wish to speak to our amendments 11, 12, 42, 72, 51 and 73, but I shall respond first to the speech by the hon. the Member for Glasgow South West, many aspects of which I have a great degree of sympathy with. I entirely understand his concerns about the impact of the Bill on Scotland, particularly in areas that are clearly devolved. Let me be clear at the outset that, in line with the principles of togetherness and solidarity that underpin the trade union movement, we intend to oppose and to attempt to defeat every substantive clause of the Bill in order to stand up for workers in every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Our amendments also highlight specific areas that we believe most clearly breach the existing devolution settlement, in line with the evidence provided to us by the Welsh and Scottish Governments and other concerned stakeholders.
Stephen Doughty
I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only does that apply to such relationships going forward, but we need to look at the impact of the Bill retrospectively. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on that. Obviously, local and devolved government across the UK already has extensive contractual arrangements on matters such as check-off, facility time and so on. That is particularly true in the public sector, but also in relation to bodies that receive public funding. Those things are woven into the fabric of employment contracts up and down the land. The Bill simply drives a coach and horses through that and could result in a serious number of legal challenges.
Chris Stephens
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, if an elected mayor, a local authority political party, or even a devolved Administration political party puts in its manifesto that it wants to deal with workers by having good facility time and check-off, surely that mandate should stand and should not be interfered with.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Who should have the power in that situation to determine the type of partnerships and arrangements that exist? Should it be for the UK Government, who claim they are pro-devolution, to interfere in those relationships and negotiations?
The implications are clear. I refer to the position that many Scottish local authorities and Scottish Labour party have taken regarding the Bill, which is essentially a position of non-compliance, particularly with the measures abolishing check-off and curbing facility time. To date, every single Labour-led administration in Scotland has passed motions to that effect. They are giving a clear signal of intent regarding the potential constitutional clash we are heading towards.