Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is there not a legal contradiction in the Bill? A trade union has a duty under the Data Protection Act to keep in its records, but not to divulge, personal and private details relating to each member. If the Bill is passed, it will give the certification officer, the certification officer’s staff and the new assurers access to that information. That is a huge contradiction and I believe that it contravenes European law. Should we not consider that at the first possible opportunity?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is right that there are contradictions with the Data Protection Act and an inconsistency with articles 8 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. Those matters will come up when we discuss clause 37 and the cluster of amendments to it. Those inconsistencies highlight the way in which part 3 has been completely rushed through, without any proper consultation or dialogue with the people who are involved. There is also no identifiable problem that will be resolved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) has just informed me that, as of 1.35 pm this afternoon, the Vote Office still did not have an impact assessment or a response to the consultation. [Interruption.] The Minister might say that that is not correct, but that information must be available to Members. If it is available, I wonder whether the Minister’s office could photocopy two dozen copies and pass them around.

[Ian Lavery]

It is extremely important with Bills of this nature that there is consultation with all parties that could be affected. Part 3 was introduced in July without any prior notification. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, there have been only eight working days since then. There has been a lack of consultation and there might not have been any. We have received legal advice that, because this is being done without prior consultation, it could violate the rights to privacy and freedom of association that are enshrined in the European convention on human rights. What is my hon. Friend’s view of that?

[Ian Murray]

There is a very strong view that part 3 contravenes the European convention on human rights. The Committee will discuss that in some detail when it considers clause 37. That just shows how part 3 is being rushed through.

I say to the Minister that I am happy to pass around a hat so that Opposition Members who want to see the impact assessment can pay for the photocopying and so that her office does not have to waste paper. Perhaps she could come to the Dispatch Box and tell us whether it is available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I answered that specifically in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have to say that one does wonder why we are missing this opportunity for reform; I am not sure. Perhaps it is because the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is packed with Liberal Democrat Ministers. Who knows? Perhaps it is the Government’s more general reluctance to look at legislation governing unions and industrial relations. In any event, the toothless nature of the certification officer remains, despite so much having changed since 1984. For example, on the membership register, in the mid-1980s membership records were for the most part probably kept on paper. Official management and database IT systems were not very developed. E-mail did not exist for everyday use and communications with members and voting had to be in person or by post. Of course, postal voting at that time was seen as a novel idea to be used against the intimidation of members at the time of union votes—union intimidation being rife at the time.

There is another key difference between then and now. Unions are, in general, becoming fewer in number, but far larger and more general than in the 1980s.

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman mentions union intimidation. Does he want to provide some examples of his experience of union intimidation?

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. I do not think we need to get into these wider areas. I repeat that this is a narrow amendment and that the clause itself is very narrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

That is not an issue I have investigated. As I said, complaints emanate from members of unions, not from people outside unions, and I think that that is the wrong way to be going about such an issue.

Let us step back and look at the clause in the round. There is a fundamental question which, to be fair, was picked up by the Opposition on Second Reading and the hon. Member for Edinburgh South today, and it is implied by amendment 103: we need better clarification from the Government on the intention of these clauses. In the 1983 Government Green Paper, it was specifically claimed that decisions made by unions could be contrary to the wishes of their members and that union leaders often appeared not to be responsible to their members. The then Government made the case that legislation could limit malpractice, such as ballot rigging and forgery.

What, therefore, are we trying to do with improved membership registers? Are we concerned about the validity of strike ballots where key public services, such as London trains, are disrupted by a simple majority of an overall minority of members voting? Is there concern that ballot rigging is still going on because of poor membership records? Let us remember that the certification officer has very limited powers in such situations, and that the few powers he does have can be triggered only by existing union members, not by the public who are unable to get to work.

[Ian Lavery]

The Chair said that we were perhaps veering off the subject, but I have to come back to the serious allegations the hon. Gentleman is making. If someone makes serious allegations in the House, they should be big enough to present evidence. Where has there been evidence of ballot rigging in the trade union movement? The trade union movement is an extremely transparent and democratic organisation.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly not listening to what I have been saying. I have not been saying that there has been ballot rigging. In fact, in some ways I think I am helping his case by saying that we need to look more carefully at the purpose behind the clause. This would be a good opportunity for the Government to give at least a sense of direction on part 3 about their intentions on strike balloting. Perhaps that purpose is related to party funding, given that the previous part of the Bill relates to election funding. If that is so, why are we not giving the certification officer the power to check that the political opt-out is clearly stated on the union membership application form—that has clearly not always been the case—let alone going the further step, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition no less, of reversing the position to an opt-in?

Despite the Opposition’s position being muddied following the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at this week’s TUC conference, why are the Opposition not taking this opportunity to amend the Bill to that effect? This is a pressing issue, not least because the majority of union members do not even vote for the Labour party. Even if such reform needs more time to be formulated, why cannot the Government indicate their intentions for party funding as a result of improved membership records?

The clause deals specifically with auditing membership numbers, but what about overseeing matters in the context of the return as a whole, let alone dealing with issues of client care or quality of service? The provisions do not even tighten up the definition of what membership means, which would be helpful, if that is what is to be audited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful intervention. I grew up in Liverpool in the 1980s and I remember a great deal of industrial action. I survived. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said that the purpose of the Bill is to take things back to the 1980s so that that exists as the status quo now. I am not particularly interested in the ideological arguments going back and forth across the Committee. I genuinely believe that the purpose of clause 36 is to help people who feel that they want to make a complaint but cannot. I heard the shadow Minister talk earlier from the Dispatch Box about the possibility of a charge of £1 or £2 being exercised in respect of clause 36. I imagine that most trade unions would hate that because it would probably cost more to administer the charge than it would to send off the certificate.

The basic purpose of clause 36 boils down to transparency; it innocently says that trade unions need to know where their members are. There is a massive reality gap here. We all know from the electoral register, which we deal with every single year in all our walks of life, that the number of people moving in and out of constituencies when they move home is huge.

[Ian Lavery]

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the points he is raising are already covered by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992? Everything that he is talking about is already covered.

[Stephen McPartland]

I am delighted that hon. Members believe that everything I have said is already covered by various Acts. I am even more pleased that they are not objecting to what I have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Doran]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the discussions we had in 1997, the aim was to take industrial relations out of the law courts, yet this Bill is going to put them back in again.

In addition to all the logistical problems, many employers, not just those in the North sea industry—I think this also applies to virtually every shipping company based in Britain—now offshore their workers so that employers national insurance contributions do not have to be paid. The Chancellor has decided that that situation should change, but I am not sure whether he has yet introduced the necessary regulations or legislation. When the employers are not paying national insurance and the workers are moving from system to system, it is very difficult for the trade union to make contact, and that is a major problem.

There are four major unions for workers on the North sea: the GMB, Unite, BALPA—the British Air Line Pilots Association—and the RMT. Those workers come from all parts of the country. Every one of them is registered with their trade union at their home address, but their workplace is the North sea. It is very difficult for the unions when they have major problems trying to contact their members on the North sea—even when they know they are there, which is not always the case. I saw many problems along those lines when I was involved in trade union ballots, because one of my jobs was to make sure that the unions had up-to-date and adequate records.

This issue has been under discussion in trade union and Government circles for a number of years. It is a great disappointment to me that the Labour Government did not recognise the problem, because it was easy to resolve. If the Minister is seriously worried about it, he could easily implement an obligation on employers to give information to trade unions about their current work force which would be virtually cost-free. It would not place a huge responsibility on employers to ask them to provide that information so that everybody can be sure that there is accuracy, particularly as regards any industrial ballots that may take place. There would be much more good will if the Government went down that route instead of imposing extra bureaucracy on the unions in the way they propose.

The issue of human rights gives rise to valid concerns. One of the trade union legal firms has given legal advice pointing out how intrusive the proposed powers are in relation to the possession of sensitive personal information, including the home addresses and personal contact details, and probably bank details, of unlimited numbers of union members. It says:

“The Bill gives the Certification Officer, his staff, inspectors and newly-created ‘Assurers’ sweeping powers to take and copy individual membership records and correspondence on the basis of having an undefined ‘good reason’. As the TUC has pointed out, it is not the business of the State to know who is or who is not a trade union member and where they live.”

There are serious worries about that. Others have mentioned the problems of blacklisting and so on, which should be taken much more seriously.

Finally, the much delayed impact assessment makes clear that the policy objective is to give greater assurance that unions comply with the existing duty to maintain a register of members’ names and addresses. I repeat the point that others have made: there is no evidence—or at least none that is clear to those of us who are regularly involved with trade unions—that this Bill is necessary. It is clear to the Opposition that it is politically motivated. The Liberal party has a very good record on trade unions and it is very difficult to understand why it is involved in this process.

[Ian Lavery]

There have been some fantastic contributions to this very important debate on part 3 of the Bill. The most important thing about the Bill has been addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) in his conclusion and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who both said that it could be in contravention of the European convention on human rights. That is a huge issue.

The Bill was published eight working days ago, which has given no opportunity for any clear consultation. Indeed, there has been a complete lack of consultation. Usually, those who are affected by a Bill are at least asked to participate in some form of consultation, but that simply has not been the case. The TUC, which is hardly a beacon of militancy, should at least have been given the opportunity to express the views of its 7.2 million members. Others should have been given a similar opportunity.

That lack of consultation and the fact that the Bill is undoubtedly an invasion of privacy and freedom of association mean that there is a huge question mark over whether it is legal. I am convinced that there will be a legal challenge.

[Katy Clark]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has said so far. Is he aware that Unison commissioned Michael Ford QC of Old Square chambers to provide it with legal advice? It has been shared with the Government and says that

“the Bill probably infringes both Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with regards to the right to a private life and Article 11…with regards to the freedom of association.”

Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on the Minister to address those issues fully in her response?

[Ian Lavery]

I am fully aware of all the legal advice—it has been received not just by Unison but by other organisations—which clearly highlights the concerns about the Bill. The legal issue is very important and can be argued to and fro, as is always the case. However, if the legal profession have as many doubts about the Bill as it appears to have, surely it should have been put on the back burner in order to allow for consultation, legal advice and discussions with Members of all parties. Surely that is how we should operate in a democratic society. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) mentioned, the Bill is not about tidying anything up, but about hammering trade unions. It is about trade union baiting, which the press, the media and the Conservative Government are happy to do on an almost daily basis. That is atrocious, but we see it day after day.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Is it a surprise that this debate happens to coincide with the week of the TUC conference?

[Ian Lavery]

Unfortunately, I have been unable to attend the TUC conference for a number of reasons. Of course it is not a coincidence. It is part of the strategy of the coalition Government to attack trade unionists while they are at the trade union conference. Only a few Government Members have been here for this debate. There are only two present at the moment. That shows how much interest they have in the Bill. It is outrageous. This Bill is part of the Government’s clear-cut strategy to attack trade unions in any way that they can.

The real question is, what is the Bill about? I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response. She is a staunch Liberal Democrat. Some might say that she has sold her principles and her party down the river on many issues. Perhaps others would disagree. I am not sure, but my view is irrelevant.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He is right to point out that clause 36 is neither liberal nor democratic if one is a trade unionist. There has been no explanation or critique of the problem that the Government are seeking to solve. Is that not what we need to hear from the Minister?

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We have been in this debate for a number of hours and, despite many interventions from both sides of the Chamber, we have had no suggestion of what part 3 seeks to resolve. That can only mean that it does not seek to resolve anything. It is just bolted on to parts 1 and 2. It does not seek to do anything other than put a huge burden on the local trade unionists who are expected to compile the registers of the work force, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said.

Those same lay members who do their work on a daily basis have been hammered by the coalition Government in terms of their facility time. That is not a coincidence because up to 90% of public sector workers, particularly those in local authorities, have been hammered in that way. And yet those are the individuals who give up their time to ensure that their trade unions adhere to the legislation, including the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The attack on the trade unions by taking away facility time will make it extremely difficult for those people.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. I agree with everything that he has said. Does he agree that it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether she has met the TUC to discuss the concerns that he raises? I know that the TUC is keen to talk to the Government about those matters.

[Ian Lavery]

It would be helpful if the Minister explained who has been consulted in this process—a lot of people would be interested to hear that. My view is that it would not take long to explain how many people have been consulted, because it is only one or two. The trade unions individually and the TUC collectively have not been consulted.

Getting back to the Bill—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should already be on the Bill.

[Ian Lavery]

I accept that I have again been led astray, Sir Edward. Perhaps I should have said that I am getting back to the meat of the Bill.

In the past two years—it has been blatantly obvious in the past week or so—we have seen that the Liberal Democrats are dead. They have been absolutely blown out of the water. Congratulations to them—they have suicide notes and everything. Last night, they voted against the big society, charities that strive to do their best, and campaign groups like the National Union of Students, which will campaign against the Liberal Democrats in a big way. I hope that, because of how they voted last night, the campaign against them will become increasingly strong. Let us hope they get their just deserts.

Part 3 deals with trade union administration. As Opposition Members have said, British trade union legislation is the most restrictive in western Europe—it is anti-trade union legislation. The question is this: what does part 3 seek to resolve? We have received copies of the impact assessment study, but it was not available earlier and, unfortunately, hon. Members have not had the opportunity to read it. A consultation document on the measure is absent from the discussion.

Clause 36 creates a new duty on trade unions to send a membership audit certificate to the certification officer when they see each annual return. If the union has more than 10,000 members, the membership audit certificate must be provided by an independent assurer. Given the current legislation, why is that measure being introduced? The existing system is working. Under the 1992 Act, a trade union has a duty to maintain a register of the names and addresses of its members and a duty

“so far as is reasonably practicable”

to ensure that

“entries in the register are accurate and…kept up-to-date.”

The 1992 Act provides that a trade union should “allow any member”, on request, with

“reasonable notice, to ascertain from the register, free of charge…whether there is an entry on it relating to him”

or her. A failure to comply with the requirements of section 24 can be subject to an application either to the CO or the court.

The certification office annual report 2012-13 states that 166 trade unions submitted returns but not membership lists, recording a total of nearly 7.2 million members, compared with 7,261,000 members the previous year—the largest reduction in membership was in the construction sector. The annual return is to include a copy of the auditor’s report on the accounts, which allows the CO to compare revenue from dues with the numbers reported.

In 2012-13, the returns showed that income from members increased by 1.3% to £873 million. The returns also showed that 90.5% of the total number of members were contributing members, compared with a figure of 89.4% in the previous year.

There is nothing to fix here. Even if we accept the Bill, nothing will be fixed. The saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Trade unions are duty bound to maintain a register of members’ names and addresses—this is important—so far as is reasonably practicable, as per the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. I would have thought that anyone wishing to contribute to the debate had read section 24 of the 1992 Act.

[Katy Clark]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. He will be aware that a former leader of the Labour party called Britain’s trade union legislation the most restrictive in Europe. Is he surprised that Government Members are not jumping up to complain about red tape?

[Ian Lavery]

It is amazing. The Government are looking to cut red tape on industrial relations, health and safety and trade union law, but at the same time the only organisation for which they are looking to increase bureaucracy is the trade union movement. That is a fair point, which highlights what is really behind the Bill: another vicious attack on the trade union movement. In the main, it will be the ordinary person at grass-roots level who will have to make sure that the proposed legislation is applied.

Anyone wishing to take part in the debate should at least have read section 24 of the 1992 Act, as that is what the Bill is about. What on earth are we after? Section 24 states:

“Duty to maintain register of members’ names and addresses

(1) A trade union shall compile and maintain a register of the names and addresses of its members, and shall secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the entries in the register are accurate and are kept up-to-date.

(2) The register may be kept by means of a computer.”

[Julie Elliott]

Is it not true that the certification officer oversees compliance with the 1992 Act to ensure that membership records are kept correctly? Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that there is no need for further regulation or changes to the law to add to this bureaucratic burden?

[Ian Lavery]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is the point I hope I have established and I will continue to make it.

Section 24(3) states:

“A trade union shall—

“(a) allow any member, upon reasonable notice, to ascertain from the register, free of charge and at any reasonable time, whether there is an entry on it relating to him; and .

(b) if requested to do so by any member, supply him as soon as reasonably practicable, either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable fee, with a copy of any entry on the register relating to him.”

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to Back Benchers. His point is crucial to the decisions we will take today. Is he aware of any suggestion made to the Government by trade unions that they are not able to meet the requirements set out in the 1992 Act and therefore require new legislation?

[Ian Lavery]

Although the trade unions were not very receptive to the legislation initially, they accepted the change in the law. They accepted that the TULR regulations had to be adhered to, and they have done so—reluctantly, although now it is not too much of a problem. In fact, in many ways it helps trade unions to keep people pressed to ensure that they have up-to-date names and addresses for all members. The trade unions were not receptive at the time; they are happy now. Indeed, I have not spoken to any union or union representative, or even any union member or non-union member—not one person—who has told me that we need more legislation on union names and addresses in the register. Although the unions were not happy about the 1992 Act initially, it has been acted upon and delivered. There are not many complaints, as we have heard, to the certification officer because of problems with the names and addresses in the register or the legislation, so everything seems to be in order. Everything seems to be going ahead, yet the Government have put these proposals before us.

[Mr Anderson]

Is my hon. Friend award that the TUC briefing says that it has made freedom of information requests to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, ACAS and the certification officer asking whether anyone has been raising this issue, and that no one has?

[Ian Lavery]

That is an important point. I have been in front of the certification officer on numerous occasions in my previous employment, on lots of different issues—some not very pleasant, by the way—but there are very few people complaining to the certification officer about this issue. We heard the facts and the figures from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South(Ian Murray), which show that there is no one complaining. The only person complaining is the certification officer, who is saying, “What on earth do you want me to do here? I’m only doing what I’m expected to do. What’s happening?”

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

On the onerous duty placed on the certification officer by clause 36 as currently drafted, proposed new section 24ZA(7) of the 1992 Act says:

“The Certification Officer must at all reasonable hours”—

not “times”, but “hours”—

“keep available for public inspection…copies of all membership audit certificates sent to the Officer under this section.”

Can the hon. Gentleman throw any light on the definition of “all reasonable hours”, rather than reasonable times?

[Ian Lavery]

I personally cannot do that—if I had drafted these wretched regulations, I might be in a position to do so—but the hon. Lady highlights an important point. Perhaps that is something the Opposition could suggest: that there is a difference between this legislation and the certification officer legislation in the TULR regulations.

Section 25 of the 1992 Act addresses a number of problems—Members have referred to this—by setting out how failures can be remedied and how people can apply to the certification officer if they believe there is a failure under the legislation. Section 25(1) says:

“A member of a trade union who claims that the union has failed to comply with any of the requirements of section 24…may apply to the Certification Officer for a declaration to that effect.”

Section 25(2) says:

“On an application being made to him, the Certification Officer shall…make such enquiries as he thinks fit”.

That is reasonable. It means that if someone has a problem under section 24 of the 1992 Act, which deals with the names and addresses of individuals, and if the certification officer believes there is a problem, he may, under section 25(2)(a), make inquiries as he thinks fit, give the applicant and the trade union an opportunity to be heard, under section 25(2)(b), and then

“make or refuse the declaration asked for.”

That means that, under section 25, if any individual member of a trade union has a problem, the certification officer will, on receiving an application, investigate it. He will investigate it together with the applicant, and the trade union will be there to give its side of the story. We must remember that the existing legislation includes the words “reasonably practicable”. There could be a lot of reasons for a name or address being slightly different. There is a whole raft of legislation already in place relating to the matters covered in this Bill.

[John Cryer]

My hon. Friend will know that over the years, under Governments of both political complexions, there have been all sorts of reports on what are generally referred to as the burdens on business. In line with the suggestion from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), does not my hon. Friend think it would be a good idea to have an assessment of the burdens on trade unions? I would not recommend someone such as Adrian Beecroft to conduct the review, but it would be a good idea to have some sort of report on those burdens, just so that we can set out the argument in objective terms, in contrast to this very subjective piece of legislation that is being rammed through Parliament.

[Ian Lavery]

Of course that should be the case, but I am not sure that the Opposition should ask the coalition Government even to try to be sympathetic to the trade union movement. I would be afraid of their response. I know that it would not be positive. Perhaps instead of taking away 90% of trade unionists’ facility time, they would take 95%. That is an example of the ways in which the trade unions have been attacked by the coalition Government.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for why this dreadful legislation should not make it to the statute book. Given his vast experience of trade unions, can he think of any scenario in which it would be in a union’s interest not to keep an updated membership list?

[Ian Lavery]

Speaking from vast experience, it is always in a trade union’s interest to maintain the best possible record of its members, for a whole raft of reasons. A good trade union does not stand on its hind legs every week screaming, “Strike, strike, strike!” A good trade union needs the correct names and addresses of its members, so that it can address all the problems that society currently faces. This is not just about strike action, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). That is always a last resort. But I will tell you something, Mr Sheridan. I was on strike for a full year during the miners’ strike, and what a brilliant year it was! I was fighting not for myself but for the wider society, for jobs and for communities up and down the country. It gives people a lot of pleasure if they are taking action and suffering greatly for those reasons. My father and my four brothers were all on strike—my mother had a hell of a job—but we enjoyed it because we were fighting for others. That is what the trade union movement is about, and that is why I get terribly upset by the constant union-baiting from the Liberal Democrats and of course the Tories.

It is in everyone’s interest to keep accurate records. Under the measures that were introduced in 1992, trade unions have to have that information for balloting reasons, among others. They normally have to send a full membership list with the annual return form, the AR21, to the certification officer anyway. The problem was that whenever we tried to take any type of democratic industrial action, the employer would say to me as the local representative, “You’d better have the right names and addresses. If you haven’t, we’ll get an injunction. Then, under the law, the union will be liable for any loss to the company resulting from strike action.” At the same time, the employer obviously had a list of everybody’s names and addresses. A responsible employer has everyone’s name and address in order to pay them—some trade unionists might prefer to keep their identity private—so surely it should be incumbent on the employer to allow any change in name and address to be passed on to the relevant trade union so that the union can act in accordance with the law. Is that too much to ask? It is feasible, but it is a trap.

I was a representative at different levels of the union, and we would sometimes appear in front of the certification officer and often the High Court. If industrial action occurs, it might be said that somebody’s name has been spelt incorrectly or that somebody has died without people being aware of it in order to try to get that whole democratic process abolished. That is the problem with this legislation.

Many colleagues on both sides of the Committee might agree that bureaucracy is not always a dirty word. Since the Prime Minister got the keys to Downing street, the Government have promised to cut red tape. What have we seen? We have seen the Government making it easier for people to be hired and fired for no particular reason. They have gone to work with some zeal in attacking workers’ rights at every opportunity, and they have relaxed health and safety legislation. The unions have rightly opposed all those things, which they won in the first place.

I have said before that it is funny that the only area where the Government have sought to increase bureaucracy is in the administration of trade unions. This will not be for the last time either. Unfortunately, this coalition, with Liberal Democrat support, will continue to oppose and attack not just trade union members, but many of the most vulnerable people in society. That is what they are about. As I have said, I believe that at the ballot box they will reap what they have sown. That, by the way, is democracy.

This Bill is undoubtedly about ideology. It is a thinly veiled attack on a movement that the parties on the Government Benches despise. We could move on to deal with the duty to appoint an assurer, but at this point I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South and of course the shadow BIS Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who has highlighted another issue relating to another problem with these lists: they will allow organisations to increase blacklisting, which is already the scourge of the working class. Because of information being passed willy-nilly from employer to different secret organisations, some people are on blacklists. At the end of the day, these people and their families can suffer greatly for the rest of their lives.

That is a problem with the data. The new rules will mean that three new groups will have access to individual membership details—three new opportunities for data to escape into the public domain. Several organisations have raised a concern—I have already mentioned it—about the legality of that. The trade union movement and its individual organisations have a duty under the Data Protection Act to ensure that the information they hold on individual members is kept secure, but this new legislation when passed—not “if”, because it will be passed—will prevent that from happening. There will be a legal contradiction about who is right and it will be up for legal challenge.

I think that in any other country, action such as this on the part of a democratically elected Government would be condemned as an attack on free trade unionism, and I think that that is exactly what is happening in this case. It is about time that the coalition Government sat back and paused, as they have in the past. It is time that they consulted others, got the legal position right, and then returned with reforms that actually meant something and changed something. I look forward very much indeed to the Minister’s response, which should take all of one minute.

[Mr Anderson]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sheridan.

I intend to focus on clause 36 stand part. Let me begin by putting it on the record—in case anyone thinks that I am trying to hide it—that I am very much part of the trade union movement. I am a former national president of Unison, and a honorary life member of that union; I am a member of the Communication Workers Union, and a former proud member of the National Union of Mineworkers; and I was a member of the General Council of the TUC for six years. So I think that I may just have a little bit of an idea of what we are talking about, whereas other Members who are in the Chamber may not.

I was actively involved in the trade union movement for 40 years, and during that time I challenged very drastically some of the legislation that has been referred to today, including the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which the trade unions described at the time as a scabs’ charter. That was exactly what it was there for. It was there to help people to take on and undermine their own trade unions. It was a deliberate attempt by the Conservative party to undermine trade union legislation and trade union activity, and exactly the same thing is happening today. This Bill is part and parcel of that legislation. [Interruption.] It looks as though the Minister wants to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

That is a good comparison to make, because I would bet that every one of the 166 trade unions registered with the certification officer in this country has far better membership records than any electoral register held by an electoral office. That is not a criticism of the valuation joint boards or local councils; it is simply because people are transient and move in and out all the time, so it is impossible to keep a 100% accurate record. I would guess that the trade union membership lists are far more accurate than such electoral registers.

Finally, I wish to deal with the rather unusual terminology used in clause 37. The word “satisfactory” appears in the proposed new section 24ZD(3) whereas the term “not satisfactory” appears in the proposed subsection (4). The use of that incredibly strange terminology could result in a lack of consistency and direction for assurers. It only fuels the fire in terms of us thinking that that this proposed piece of legislation is designed either to create additional casework or additional case law as some of these issues are taken through the courts, or to keep trade unions busy in the courts trying to justify what is “satisfactory” and what is “not satisfactory”.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines satisfactory as either

“satisfying demands, expectations, or requirements; adequate”

or “atoning” for one’s sins. I hope that the Liberal Democrat Minister will satisfactorily atone for her sins before the next general election—[Interruption.] I would be more than satisfied if she atones for her sins by accepting our amendments on this part of the Bill or, indeed, deletes the clause altogether.

Just how badly this Bill is drafted is shown by the fact that it contains such wide definitions of a term that relates to its fundamental objective in terms of the production of a membership audit certificate. Will the Minister, or indeed the Secretary of State, be determining by guidance what “satisfactory” and what “not satisfactory” means in this context? Will the definitions of and guidance on those two terms have them as exact polar opposites? It is important that that is made clear.

I would term this entire clause 37 as not satisfactory, in sympathy with what is not a very satisfactory Bill. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the Data Protection Act, the significant and real concerns about blacklisting, and the responses from lawyers from Liberty and various other organisations about the inadequacies of this clause in respect of the European convention on human rights. I ask hon. Members to support our amendments.

[Ian Lavery]

Like most people in the Chamber, I am unaware of why we need assurers. The certification officer, under the trade union and labour relations—TULR—regulations, clearly states that when a trade union submits its annual accounts, its AR21, it must also submit a copy of the names and addresses of the membership. I am puzzled—discombobulated, perhaps—by the fact that the Government are suggesting that we need somebody in the middle to ensure that that happens, because if a union does not submit its membership with its AR21, it is in big trouble with the certification officer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin]

Is my hon. Friend as perplexed as I am that this is the second clause to contain a solution looking for a problem?

[Ian Lavery]

Of course it is. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

What qualifications will the assurers—classed as independent under these provisions—need? What will make them qualified? Will it be that they are thoroughly decent people who dislike certain things or like other things? We should remember that it will be incumbent on the trade union to do this under its rulebook.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend is asking about the requirements of the job specification and person specification for an assurer. It seems to me that they must include the spite and vindictiveness reflected in the Government’s attitude to trade unions as seen in the Bill.

[Ian Lavery]

Although I fully agree with my hon. Friend, there are probably better ways of doing it. I fear that again I am repeating myself, but everything the assurer is supposed to do is carried out under the TULR regulations.

[Julie Elliott]

In my trade union, the rulebook can be changed only by a change of rule motion to congress, and a rule change congress is held every two years. Has my hon. Friend any idea how my trade union—the GMB, one of the biggest trade unions—could comply by making the change to the rulebook under the restrictions the Bill will place on it for the 12 months prior to a general election?

[Ian Lavery]

It is up to a trade union and its membership to decide what they want in that union’s rules. It should not be for Government diktat to insist what an independent trade union should and should not have in its rulebook—surely that is undemocratic. Under the democratic process, what should and should not be in a union’s rulebook is decided at conferences following discussions among delegates from the regions, not by the coalition Government. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point because if the Bill is passed, must the 166 trade unions on the certification officer’s website immediately call conferences so that they can adhere to the new legislation? What will happen if they do not?

[Ian Murray]

As always, my hon. Friend is making a fantastic contribution, but if he reads several of the qualifications in the impact assessment, he will see that the strange thing is that the vast majority of the unions— 120 or more—will self-certify their membership audit certificates because they are so small.

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, but it makes us ask why on earth the clauses are being proposed in the first place.

Why are we having assurers and who are they likely to be? With their position layered between the trade union movement and the certification officer, will they be legally qualified? Will they be lawyers or, as is likely, accountants, or will they just be thoroughly decent people? Will they simply be independent people? Could they be people in this House? We need to examine this extra layer of bureaucracy. There is no need for it whatsoever, but if we must have these assurers, who on earth will they be?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is right that we need more clarity from the Minister about the role of the assurer and who the Government expect will take that on. Is that not why Labour Front Benchers were right to table amendment 109, which proposes conditions under which an assurer may not be reappointed, thus allowing a union to terminate any contract with them? That could address the situation of an assurer who worked for a law firm that was advising an employer with which the union was in dispute, because that person would clearly have a conflict of interest between their union role and that of advising the employer.

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and although we have only started to scratch the surface, the proposal is getting worse by the minute.

[Paul Flynn]

I am following my hon. Friend’s speech with interest. I share his puzzlement, but there might be a plausible explanation of why the role is being created. We know that great hordes of Tory and Lib Dem Members will be unemployed after the 2015 election, so this might well be a job creation programme to allow them to become assurers.

[Ian Lavery]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, although he puts it somewhat differently than I would.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to how the appointment of a duly appointed assurer could be terminated. Amendment 119 is simple. Under proposed new section 24ZC(3) an assurer’s appointment can be terminated if

“(a) a resolution has been passed at a general meeting of the trade union appointing somebody else instead or providing expressly that the person is not to be re-appointed”—

whatever that means—or



“(b) the person has given notice to the union in writing of the person’s unwillingness to be re-appointed”

or

“(c) the person is not qualified for the appointment in accordance with section 24ZB”.

If he is not qualified, how can he be sacked? He should not have the job in the first place. This is an outrage. It just needs some common sense to row back from these provisions.

[Steve McCabe]

On page 4 of the Government’s publication, “Reducing Regulation Made Simple”, the Government promise to free civil society groups from “unnecessarily burdensome regulation” so that they can “innovate, diversify and grow”. Shall we get the Minister a copy before we make any further progress on the Bill?

[Ian Lavery]

That would be helpful; it could be part of the consultation process, which has been sadly lacking for this Bill.

The fourth way of getting rid of a duly appointed assurer is if

“(d) the person has ceased to act as an assurer by reason of incapacity.”

That is fair enough. However, Opposition amendment 109 sets out additional conditions under which an assurer may not be re-appointed, to allow a union to terminate the appointment of an assurer if

“(e) The person has breached the confidentiality of the Trade Union, or

(f) The person is in breach of his statutory duty or the terms of his appointment, by reason of incapacity or for any other reason which in the reasonable opinion of the union justifies his removal, or

(g) There are any other reasonable circumstances where the continuation of the assurer would be deemed inappropriate.”

That is fair. If a trade union has complied with the legislation and appointed an assurer, it should be up to the trade union to get rid of the assurer in those circumstances.

I could speak all day on the amendments—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”]—but others wish to speak. The Bill is totally flawed. I have no confidence in the clause, but it could have been worse if the assurer were appointed by someone else. If the assurer had been imposed on trade unions, that would have presented a bigger difficulty. Perhaps someone can tell me what would happen if the trade unions change their rulebooks, which in my view they should not need to do. They should not be dictated to by Government legislation.

The rulebook governs the trade union. It is the Bible of that trade union. What happens if, once the Bill is passed, Lenny McCluskey rings me up and says, “Mr Lavery, would you be an assurer for Unite?”? Would I be within my rights to say, “Of course I would”? Am I independent? Could I say, “Lenny, how much will you pay us?”? That is how daft the clause is. Where is the independence? Is anyone who was elected democratically by the rulebook of a union subject to challenge by the Secretary of State if they become an assurer? Do they have to be accepted by someone in Government to validate their independence, or can the unions pick who they want, pay them what they want, get what they want and submit what they would normally send in for the AR21?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the impact of blacklisting on ordinary working people. It is something that we should all be concerned about. Is that not also why it was right for Opposition Front Benchers to table amendment 117, which would make it clear that a union should not have to provide information when doing so would compromise its obligations to protect members’ personal data under the Data Protection Act? That is absolutely crucial, and it is the least that the Government should concede today.

[Ian Lavery]

That is a very important point, and it was discussed earlier. There is a legal contradiction in relation to a trade union’s obligations under the TULR regulations to adhere to the Data Protection Act, which protects members’ private and personal details from being released. The new legislation gives powers to the likes of the assurer. Who knows who these assurers will be and what they could do with that information? It is therefore very important that we look at this. These assurers could be anybody. It would be very difficult to know whether they are part of an organisation that assists in blacklisting. The confidentiality of people in the workplace is a live issue. Why add another layer of bureaucracy by having these assurers? It is absolute poppycock. It is nonsense. Whoever dreamt it up should be fired. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are affected by blacklisting and the situation could get an awful lot worse if the Opposition amendments are not accepted. Like many others here, I am sure, I have spoken to people who were not even aware that they were on a blacklist but subsequently found out that, for years, the reason they had been unemployed, their kids had not had the best uniforms at school and they had been on benefits was that they had been on a blacklist. That seriously concerns me.

There is a huge problem with confidentiality and with conflict resulting from the legal interpretation of the Data Protection Act and the 1992 Act. We have to support the amendments and try to kick out this absolutely hopeless Bill.

[Julie Elliott]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), with whom I have worked in the trade union movement in my region for far too many years.

Clause 37 is all about the implications of appointing an assurer. As other Members have said, we have to draw to the Government’s attention the irony of the enormous added burden that the clause will impose on trade unions, given that we work in the most regulated part of the voluntary sector. The provision is absolutely unnecessary and is politically motivated. I had to say that before I turn to the two amendments I am most concerned about.

Why do people join trade unions? Sometimes it is because their friends join, and sometimes in their workplace it is just the done thing to join. Some people join to have an insurance policy in case they get into trouble or are picked on. Many join when they are first employed and want to maintain their membership as they get promoted up the ladder.

In workplaces where the majority are in a trade union, there are no secrets. Everybody knows who is in the union and it is common for both the lowest paid and most senior members of staff to be in the trade union. When I was a lay rep, I negotiated on behalf of my members and the senior manager I was negotiating with was a member of my branch of my trade union. That is common when a workplace has a high density of union membership.

However, in other workplaces, people who rise up the ladder and become senior managers may not want their managerial colleagues or the work force to know that they are in a trade union. Do not think that it is just those at the bottom end who do not want people to know that they are in a trade union.

People are also at their most vulnerable when there is no recognition in a workplace. Sometimes their jobs are under threat. People get victimised out of the door because the management have found out that they are union members; I have seen that on numerous occasions as a union official. As we discuss the clause, we have to look at the real world and how things work in practice, rather than at what is, frankly, an academic diatribe.