Trade Union Bill

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

The reason it would have gone ahead in any case is that the thresholds the Government are trying to introduce would have been met.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the Conservative Mayor of London has not met the unions in the transport sector in London at all during his tenure? Would not a better method be to have proper industrial relations with negotiations and dialogue rather than sabre-rattling?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree. There will be an opportunity for the electorate in London to pass judgment on that at the appropriate time next year.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me turn to the detail of the various amendments on ballot thresholds, information, mandates, and consent by devolved authorities. Commuters and families all over Great Britain suffer disruption when the workers in a local transport provider or school go on strike. By increasing the democratic mandate, the Bill will not stop strikes—it may not even lead to many fewer strikes—but it will reassure members of the public that strikes are happening on the basis of strong democratic mandates, and that their lives are not being disrupted for no purpose.

[Christian Matheson]

Several private bus companies in Chester have recently withdrawn rural services, which is inconveniencing commuters in Chester. Why are the Government not legislating to stop them doing that?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those people have alternative services, and where they do have alternatives we are not proposing to introduce the higher mandate. We are producing the higher mandate when a service is effectively a monopoly in the life of consumers, and they have no other possibility they can arrange at short notice.

On the certification officer, it is entirely reasonable for a union regulator to mirror the geographical extent of unions themselves. It would be very disruptive to have a single union subject to different regulatory arrangements in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain—or, worse, for a union to be subject to no regulation at all in Scotland or Wales, but subject in parts of England. It is worth noting that the 1992 Act already provides, under section 254, that the certification officer may appoint an assistant certification officer for Scotland, and may delegate to that assistant certification officer such functions as he thinks appropriate in relation to unions based in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

They can make matters far worse. When we look at this proposal alongside clause 7, it becomes clear that the introduction of an extended notice period is there to give the employer additional time to organise agency workers to undermine the industrial action, as well as to be able to prepare for legal challenges. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: this is bad for safety and bad for service users, and bad because it could serve to prolong industrial action unnecessarily. It will also be bad for the general public. Conservative Members ought to care about the fact that it will also be bad for social cohesion in this country. Presumably, as a next step the Government will be getting the Department for Work and Pensions to sanction the unemployed for refusing to act as strike breakers.

[Christian Matheson]

Has my hon. Friend also considered that in the long term the resentment that will be caused in the business affected will also mean that those actions will be bad for business?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He knows well, and Conservative Members ought to know, that the festering resentment that would arise as a result of this kind of approach to industrial relations would last for many years, and in some communities would never be forgotten.

The TUC is firmly opposed to this proposal, which in its opinion will breach international law. The International Labour Organisation’s freedom of association committee has confirmed that

“the hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term...constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association”.

New clause 1 would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes, and we will therefore support it if it is pushed to a vote tonight. I also want to press amendment 6 to a Division—the lead amendment in this group, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.

Let me say a few brief words about amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It would allow check-off if employers and unions agreed that they wanted it, provided that the unions paid for the service. I understand why the hon. Gentleman would table such an amendment, as it seems to reflect some of the basic values that I thought were supposed to be in the DNA of his political party. When one party is willing by agreement to provide a service to another party in exchange for payment, the state should not interfere unless the service forms some kind of criminal or immoral activity.

Check-off is a voluntary agreement by an employer to collect through its pay roll the union subscription of trade union members who are its employees. Despite what the Government seem to think, that is not a criminal or an immoral activity. Why on earth would a Conservative Government think it is right for the state to proscribe a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee where a payment for that service is involved? I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled his amendment.

What is wrong with an employer, in whatever sector, voluntarily agreeing, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with employees, to help collect the trade union subscription in exchange for an administrative payment? How on earth is it the responsibility of Government, particularly a Conservative Government, to introduce a provision of this kind?