European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I wish to speak in favour of amendment 73, which was spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). The amendment asks that workers’ rights be agreed by the Joint Ministerial Committee and seeks to clarify the role of the committee in this regard. There are three reasons why that should be done. First, there is divergence. Employment law is totally devolved to Northern Ireland; it is partially devolved to Wales, where the Welsh Assembly took the decision—rightly, my view—to amend the worst aspects of the anti-Trade Union Act; but, for reasons beyond my understanding, employment law is not yet devolved to Scotland. Secondly, there is a real concern about the impact on women workers, who would be very vulnerable to roll-back given the history of delivery on these measures, especially as most have been informed by EU directives and law. Thirdly, of course, there is a trust issue. Who would trust a Conservative Government on their commitments to workers’ rights?

The amendment is designed to explore the extent of the Government’s respect for the Joint Ministerial Committee’s role, and the extent to which they intend to use their powers. Either they respect joint working and consultation to achieve the best solutions in a post-Brexit world—in that case, the amendment should pose no challenges—or there is an agenda of bypassing the devolved Administrations at every turn, and shifting power and decision making back to Westminster.

The Henry VIII powers are a constitutional affront, given the secretive nature of their use. Ministers could use them to bypass Parliament, the judiciary and the devolved Administrations, or quietly to reshape the law without scrutiny. When it comes to employment law, I contend that the Government might wish discreetly to reverse particular Supreme Court decisions on, for example, the civil service compensation scheme, workplace consultations and industrial tribunal fees. In the Unison case, the Supreme Court held that the fees order was unlawful as a matter of not only domestic law, but EU law. Given all the cases in which the Government of the day have suffered a reversal of a decision to which they held so strongly that they were prepared to go to the Supreme Court, and in which EU law formed part of the judgment against them, it is not fanciful to think that they might want revisit the issues, especially when it comes to employment law and workers’ rights.

When Brexit fails to deliver the promised economic bonanza, it is logical to assume that a free market, anti-worker party will look to erode workers’ rights to boost profits. I commend to the Committee the TUC paper “Women workers’ rights and the risks of Brexit”. It outlines clearly and in detail the specific threat that Brexit poses to women workers. Legislation and protections have evolved under the protection of EU law, so we are right to be concerned that removing that umbrella will mean that there are stormy days ahead for women workers.

It is not so much that the rights concerning equal pay, maternity and sex discrimination will disappear overnight, but I share the concerns that hard-fought rights will be eroded, particularly if that can be done under the cover of statutory instrument and ministerial diktat. We saw that with the anti-Trade Union Act 2016—not just in the attitudes of Conservative Members in the Chamber, but in the approach to delegated legislation.

[Stephen Doughty]

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is absolutely right. Is it not also the case that the Government have tried to undermine the Welsh Government’s efforts to protect trade unions by trying to strike down parts of that Act?

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point for me. He is absolutely correct that that is what the Government are trying to do. Statements have been made in the House of Lords, including by the former chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the European Parliament, who has previously called for the scrapping of

“the working time directive, the agency workers’ directive, the pregnant workers’ directive and all the other barriers to actually employing people.”

That was said by Lord Callanan, now a Minister of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union—and the Conservatives ask us to trust them on workers’ rights! I would not trust them enough to send them out for the rolls in the morning. The Tories cannot be trusted on workers’ rights; if they were truly interested in workers’ rights, they would accept the amendment.

Draft Trade Union Act 2016 (Political Funds) (Transition Period) Regulations 2017

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 25th January 2017 General Committees

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to read my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and he will then have that information. All hon. Members of this House can see by looking at my entry what that interest means and how much it is worth.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why we are all pleased to declare our membership of a trade union is that we are proud of it and proud of our association with the trade union movement? We are entirely transparent regarding donations and other matters. If the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham wants to go down that route, I am sure we would be interested to hear about all the donations and declarations of interest of Government Members, including him.

[Chris Stephens]

It comes as no surprise to me when we are discussing a piece of legislation that has an impact on trade unions that Members declare their membership of a trade union, and that they are all proud to do that. I notice that not one Government Member has yet declared that they are a member of a trade union, which I think is quite interesting.

I have a sense of déjà vu as I stand in this room, as I served on the Trade Union Bill Committee with Conservative Members including the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire, who I see in his usual place, and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. The then Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who I hope is recovering well, said that the purpose of this part of the Bill was not to punish trade unions in terms of costs, nor was it designed to trip people up. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the proposal before us is designed to do. The Government appear to be ignoring the quite reasonable submissions by trade unions regarding the practical difficulties, some of which have been mentioned. I am aware that Unison traditionally has its annual conference by June. It is not really good enough to say that trade unions should be preparing when they submitted to a Government period on how to implement the measures. The answer on that point is not good enough.

This is not just a Labour party issue. It is about political funds, which have funded some great campaigning work on equal pay, health and safety, anti-racism and anti-austerity, as the hon. Member for City of Chester pointed out.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is listing the important types of campaign that have been funded. We were talking earlier about the campaign by USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—against violence against shop workers, which I have been proud to promote in shops in my constituency. Does he agree that such campaigns are vital?

[Chris Stephens]

They are vital. The political funds help trade unions to raise public awareness, and stopping violence against shop workers is an important issue. That does not just affect trade unions; there is a wider society awareness role for that sort of campaign, which is welcome.

Another practical question is: why are we discussing this now, when the check-off arrangement statutory instrument has still to come before us? The two are related. Trade union branches will have to discuss with employers how to facilitate the changes to subscription rates that this legislation will require. It seems to me rather foolish of the Government to introduce the SI before us today but not the associated check-off arrangements SI. It seems to me that the date of 1 March 2018 has been set deliberately either to trip up the trade unions, or to burden them with additional costs.

The Government are all for deregulation in every other part of the economy, but not in relation to the trade union and labour movement. Mr Stringer, I too will seek to divide the Committee. I urge all hon. Members to vote against the statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I joked with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that this has been almost like getting the band back together, to quote “The Blues Brothers”. We have been joined, thankfully, by hon. Friends who have made excellent contributions, including of course the shadow Minister, who has clearly set out the unreasonableness of the statutory instrument and some of the wider issues around it. Unfortunately, as has been said, it reflects the pattern of the Government’s shabby behaviour to not only trade unions but civil society and alternative voices more generally. We saw what the Government attempted to do during the progress of the gagging Act, and their attempt to shut down the arguments of charities and lobbying organisations. We have seen attempts to reduce judicial reviews and many attempts to diminish the reasonable work of trade unions, which act as a voice for many millions of working people up and down the country.

This is not just about unions that have a close relationship with the Labour party. This is about the TUC expressing serious concerns about this statutory instrument and about the Trade Union Act more generally, yet those very reasonable concerns have been ignored, as have the voices of devolved Administrations. I am pleased that the Welsh Labour Government have introduced the Trade Union (Wales) Bill to repeal the parts of the Trade Union Act that they believe go far too far and cross into the devolution settlement and their rights as a devolved Administration. I am proud that we have a Government in Wales who are standing up for trade unions and working people.

As I have said, there is a pattern of behaviour here. Yesterday, we saw an attempt by Conservative Members to restrict the rights of workers massively. The attempt was defeated, but the measure was supported by many Government Members, including some who have in the past burnished their alleged working-class credentials. I am very pleased that the measure was defeated.

We can talk about the politics, and the ideological games that the Government are playing—that would underline the intent behind this statutory instrument and other legislation that they have introduced—but in the end, this comes down to reasonableness. The question is whether it is reasonable for trade unions to comply with a law that has been passed, whether I agree with that law or not—and it is very clear that I do not. We were told all the way through the passage of the Trade Union Bill and in many other discussions around it that it was all about listening and improving democracy and transparency, yet the Government have made attempts to ignore the democratic structures in trade unions and frustrate their operation.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman was on the Trade Union Bill Committee and would have heard the then Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, saying that the measures were not about passing on additional costs to trade unions. Does he think that claim is fulfilled in this statutory instrument?

[Stephen Doughty]

No, I do not. Indeed, I fear that costs are a consequence of many other parts of the legislation. Fines can be introduced for non-compliance, and there are many other restrictions. Many of the unions we have talked about, particularly USDAW, have been clear that they are trying to comply with the legislation within a reasonable time, yet the Government are not listening to their very reasonable concerns. The unions are suggesting that this be delayed not by years or decades, but by months, given their pre-existing and very reasonable democratic structures and processes.

I go back to the TUC’s key concerns about this statutory instrument. It has been clear that it believes that the proposed 12-month transition period is inadequate and fails to take into account the complexity involved. As I have said, a financial penalty of up to £20,000 can be imposed by a certification officer.

On revising the rulebooks, the changes need to be agreed through union democratic structures—a lengthy process that differs greatly from union to union. They need to consult branches, as has been mentioned several times, and there are rule-making conferences where union democracy can be conducted, with full transparency for the public and members. Why would we want to undermine that by suggesting that unions could go through a secondary process and have a little meeting of the executive committee under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992?

Co-operatives

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 14th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree. The challenges, the additional pressures and the disproportionate impact that legislative and other changes can have on the self-employed are often not highlighted enough in this House; they can have a much bigger impact than they would have on a larger company, for example. We need to do all we can about that, and the co-operative movement is clearly playing an innovative and key role in trying to address those changes. The interests of self-employed workers are not well represented in our policy making, with the result that they face unnecessary regulatory burdens and barriers. I am proud that the co-operative movement is championing our self-employed, who make such an invaluable contribution to our economy and represent such a growing proportion of our labour market.

As a Welsh Labour and Co-operative MP, I want to highlight some of the work that is going on in Wales and the contribution that co-ops make to the Welsh economy. In 2015, the Wales Co-operative Centre launched its report on social businesses in Wales. That report outlined the scope and scale of the sector, its performance and the many opportunities for further development. The term “social businesses” includes social enterprises, co-operatives, mutuals and other employee-owned businesses. We have seen the statistics for co-operatives’ contribution to the UK economy as a whole; the report found that the total value of the social business sector in Wales is £1.7 billion and that it employs over 38,000 people. Social businesses tend to be more active in deprived areas than other small and medium-sized enterprises and to employ and procure locally, which suggests that they make an important economic contribution—perhaps a disproportionate contribution—in some of the poorest areas of the country.

Social businesses are a robust and dynamic sector, confident about the future. Indeed, 69% of social businesses in Wales expect turnover to increase in the next two to three years. Women are also keenly represented in leadership positions, with 35% of social businesses reporting a majority of women in leadership roles, compared with 19% of SMEs. Women’s leadership in business and the corporate sector is often discussed in this House, but here again we see the co-operative sector leading the way in putting principles into practice and ensuring that women are occupying a majority of roles. Some of the larger corporates and businesses in this country would do well to learn from that example of the benefits that come from ensuring that the equality that exists in the country is reflected in the boardroom, in decision making and in economic practice locally. It highlights how the co-operative movement is at the forefront of addressing some of the key problems that exist in our labour market as a whole and shows innovative practice in moving forward.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman support the work of the Wales TUC and the Wales Co-operative Centre, which is dealing with some of the challenges he describes in the labour market, including middle-aged unemployment, school drop-out rates and increasing youth employment?

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. As the hon. Gentleman rightly mentions, there is a strong link between the Wales Co-operative Centre and the Wales TUC, and indeed with other trade unions in Wales. It is that type of partnership and co-operation between those who share common aims and values that is driving forward some of these agendas that do not get a lot of attention but should. I know my colleagues in the National Assembly are driving this issue forward in the areas where Wales enjoys devolved responsibility. We often work closely together as Co-operative MPs and Assembly Members to address those issues and to ensure that we are doing what we can, both here in Westminster and in Wales. I am sure that is also the case elsewhere with our many councillors throughout the country.

I know other Members wish to make contributions—I am looking forward to hearing them. I believe that co-operatives are a great and important example of how people can come together to help each other. They are also a great example of self-reliance, which we should continue to support and celebrate. Co-operatives have brought about trust and a sense of values and ethics that we sometimes do not see in other parts of economy but, crucially, this is not about some slightly odd, unusual or marginal part of the economy. Co-operatives are a growing, vibrant and dynamic sector, creating jobs, delivering growth and providing opportunities in areas and sectors of the economy that are simply not being provided by other forms of business model. I hope the co-operative sector continues to grow and to have the support it needs from all levels of government in the UK to go forward in the years ahead.

Asylum Support Contracts

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

I find that absolutely extraordinary; my hon. Friend gives a shocking example. As a gay MP myself, I would find it horrendous to be placed in accommodation with somebody who potentially had persecuted me or potentially would persecute me. However, that is the reality of many people’s experience—they find themselves in unsuitable accommodation. Yesterday in the Home Affairs Committee, we heard one example of 11 people being crowded into a room, and I have heard examples of individuals being placed with people who allegedly may have persecuted them in the past. Some very serious concerns are being raised.

The asylum dispersal and integration process appears to have stopped, and the principle behind it appears to have been abandoned, not only at the limited number of dispersal locations but at the localities within them. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that and on whether we are getting things right. Simply put, the system as it stands is not good for those seeking sanctuary, not good for the communities that those people are being placed in and not good for wider integration, and I also question whether it is good value for the Government.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and I thank him for securing this debate. Does he agree that services to asylum seekers have basically been reduced since March 2012, when the Government took the decision effectively to privatise those services? In Glasgow, for example, it was the local authority that was providing the services for asylum seekers.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not aware of the specific history in Glasgow that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but there are serious questions to be asked about whether these private companies are operating in the most effective way, not only for their users but in terms of their value for money to the taxpayer.

Before I express some detailed concerns about the COMPASS contracts and Clearsprings specifically, let us finally remind ourselves of a few crucial facts. The Refugee Council states that asylum seekers make up just 10% of those people arriving in Britain and that in any case many of those asylum seekers are not granted refugee status. Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Italy, France and Austria all receive significantly more asylum applications than the UK, and very few asylum seekers make it to this country.

Asylum seekers made up just 4.1% of immigrants to the UK in 2014, and the UK is home to less than 1% of the world’s refugees; those figures are from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 2014. The fact is that the vast majority of the world’s refugees live, often in camps, in the poorest developing countries in Africa, Asia, and the middle east. Between them, those regions host more than three quarters of the world’s refugees. Turning specifically to Wales, an answer from the Immigration Minister on 28 January stated that just 1,086 asylum seekers were accommodated in Cardiff by Clearsprings in 2015, and just 2,384 were accommodated in Wales overall.

I know that other Members will want to get into the detail of their concerns in their areas, but as I have stated publicly before, no one is asking for special treatment for those seeking sanctuary in Cardiff, Wales or anywhere else in the UK. We are simply asking for them to be treated with the dignity and compassion that we would all expect from our fellow human beings. It is easy to pick up a few examples of alleged luxury accommodation or temporary accommodation in mainstream hotels, for example after arrival at an airport, but the reality in Cardiff for many of those seeking sanctuary who I have met and heard from appears to be very different.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), outlined to the Minister the direct comments of those in Cardiff who have experienced discrimination as a result of being forced to wear the red bands, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central will want to tell us more about that. Over the past few months, I have been approached by a number of constituents whose treatment by Clearsprings is seriously concerning. I have written to the Home Office on a number of occasions to raise specific cases. Numerous concerns and allegations have been raised by my constituents on the substandard nature of accommodation offered. Those reports have come directly from users and others working with asylum seekers in Cardiff.

Allegations I have received include short-notice evictions, intimidating and abusive behaviour, and people having their bedrooms entered without their consent, which, incidentally, the Home Office has confirmed to me in a letter is entirely consistent with the principles and guidance of the COMPASS contract. That raises some serious questions, especially when we are talking about vulnerable women and children fleeing sexual violence. To have their room entered without consent by a man—even in itself that is a serious concern.

One constituent, who I will refer to as Mrs A, fled rape and sexual violence. That horrific circumstance is faced by many female asylum seekers. With her children, she was settling into her new community in my constituency in Cardiff. She was receiving medical support and had a supportive network for her family via the school and local community. After spending time integrating, establishing that network, getting her life back on track and providing a safe space and sanctuary for herself and her children, Mrs A was suddenly informed at short notice that she had to leave and move more than an hour away to Swansea. Clearsprings provided her with no official letter or communication; there was just an anonymous note posted to her room telling her at very short notice that she should pack up and be prepared to leave.

I was approached by another woman in a very anxious and depressed state who had a young child. She had been made to share a room with a woman with mental health issues who allegedly spat on their possessions and crockery and would leave her child’s potty with the pots and pans in the kitchen. The woman was too scared to complain for fear of jeopardising her situation. That is a crucial point. The chief executive of Clearsprings appeared to suggest yesterday that he was not aware of a lot of the complaints or was not made aware of them by staff or others. The reality is that the vulnerable people living in such accommodation have come from countries where complaining to the authorities will lead to them being incarcerated or, worse still, tortured or killed, so they are naturally nervous about raising concerns with authorities.

Another vulnerable young constituent approached my office earlier this month. She had been encouraged hurriedly to sign a tenancy agreement by Clearsprings, but was not told in advance that she would have to share a room. She was bullied and victimised by other tenants and was distressed as her landlord had complained about and then stopped her brother visiting her. He was her only relative in Cardiff and lived in separate accommodation. The young woman complained that her landlord repeatedly let himself into her room unannounced, including while she was in bed or undressed. She was then told she would be moving with very short notice of two days.

Those are just a few of the stories I have had about Clearsprings, on top of the well-publicised information about the standards at Lynx House. The chief executive of Clearsprings admitted yesterday that 11 people had had to share a room there at one point. We see further revelations in The Guardian this morning about a local authority report into the conditions and the serious concerns about the facility. Indeed, in answer to a recent parliamentary question that I tabled, the Minister confirmed that between 2010 and 2015, the Department received 60 complaints in total regarding services provided by Clearsprings. Staggeringly, 59 of those complaints have been made in just the past six months.

Yesterday the chief executive appeared woefully unaware of those concerns. He appeared bemused about the furore over the red bands and only apologised to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee under repeated questioning. Highly revealing, however, was his claim that despite repeated visits from Home Office inspectors, no one had raised concerns about the use of the red bands. Given that the Minister rightly admitted yesterday that they were wrong, can he explain why it took the revelations in the media for action to be taken? It is one thing for the chief executive of Clearsprings to dismiss the concerns, but if the property was being inspected by the Home Office, as many of these properties are, why were they not picked up on previously?

Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Trade Union Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Trade Union Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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.”.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Trade Union Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Chris Stephens and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.’

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.