Trade Union Bill (Eighth sitting)

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Nick Boles]

I certainly accept that there can be different, legitimate views on this question. As I said in response to the previous debate, given that our system seems to be moving towards regular five-year cycles of political decision making, we felt that it was, if nothing else, neat to have a five-year cycle of decision making about contributions towards political funds.

A five-year renewal date balances the need for unions to have certainty about how much income they have for political activities against the need to ensure that a member’s decision to contribute remains current and relevant. We are also taking steps to remove the burden of different renewal dates on unions, and ensuring that future renewal dates are kept the same for all members of any union. We are therefore allowing for a five-year renewal notice to take place any time in the three months before the renewal date. The Bill also provides that where members who opt in during the six-month period before the five-year renewal, they should not have to renew their opt-in again at the renewal date. That prevents, for example, new members who have made a recent decision to contribute to a fund from having to renew their opt-in again very soon after.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Were we to move to a system of contracting-in to the political levy with five-year renewals, what is the case for retaining the political fund ballot every 10 years? Will the Minister do away with that?

[Nick Boles]

We have no plans to change that. If the hon. Lady wants to table proposals at the next stage in the House, I will be happy to engage with that question. Since she has not done so, I am not in a position to engage with it directly now—I am not sure it would be entirely in order to do so, although it is a perfectly legitimate question for her to raise.

To conclude, renewing the opt-in decision every five years will ensure that members’ decisions remain current.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I will try to reassure Opposition Members on a few points. They seem to be suggesting that this is somehow an egregious singling out of trade unions to require a level of transparency that does not apply to anyone else.

First, let me assure the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that employers associations will be covered by the provisions in clause 11. Even more importantly, companies are already required to declare the details of spending on political activity above £2,000 per annum and have been for a long time. To require the same of trade unions therefore does not seem unfair or unreasonable.

There is currently inconsistency in the level of detail provided in union returns on political expenditure. Some unions are transparent and provide detailed information in their annual returns to the certification officer. We want the example of those unions that provide clear information to be followed by all. That is why we propose that where political expenditure is more than £2,000 per annum, expenditure should be broken down to detail the different items of spending. An equivalent provision applies to companies.

[Jo Stevens]

It seems implicit from what the Minister has just said that the Government believe that some trade unions are not being transparent in their declarations. Is there any evidence to back up that assertion?

[Nick Boles]

We want to ensure that all unions are declaring everything above £2,000, which is what the provision states, and currently not all unions do so. Amendments 44 and 45 would undermine the transparency that the clause seeks to achieve.

Let me turn to amendment 98. We propose that the Secretary of State may make regulations to increase the amount from £2,000. That will ensure the legislation is future-proofed. The regulations will not allow the amount to be decreased, which would make the provisions more onerous; it can only be increased. I am a little puzzled by the shadow Minister’s concerns, because all that would do is change the level of granularity required in trade unions’ declarations to reflect either inflation or changing circumstances in society. I therefore him urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I believe that business, the public sector and society are mutually dependent—I am sure my hon. Friends agree with that—and that all succeed when individual workers succeed and feel supported, and vice versa. The MacLeod report, which was commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and endorsed by the Prime Minister, suggested that managers should listen to concerns expressed by employees and their representatives, and concluded that addressing those concerns would increase levels of employee engagement, thereby helping to deliver sustainable economic growth—and, I am sure, efficiencies in the public sector.

Similarly, research by ACAS found that trade union representatives play an important role in improving workforce engagement and morale, by helping ensure that employees’ concerns about their working conditions are listened to and addressed. In turn, that can improve productivity, service quality and ultimately—a crucial point for the Government—the financial performance of organisations. All of those mutual benefits and many more could be at risk if the Government’s proposals on facility time are implemented in their current form.

I am pleased that other Governments across the UK have a different view from that of the Westminster Government. As we heard, the Welsh Government realise the value of such benefits. Their relations with trade unions are based much more on a partnership approach—the Scottish Government take a similar approach—rather than being provocateurs, which seems to be the position that some of the Minister’s colleagues have comfortably slipped into.

The proposed restrictions on facility time could damage constructive employment relations and undermine effective joint working between employers and unions in public services. The proposals also risk damaging the devolution settlement—we had a lengthy debate on that the other day—and could be subject to serious legal challenge. They are not a model for modern industrial relations, which is why we will oppose the clause.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the SNP, and if they are pressed to a Division they will certainly get our support. The amendments represent a more useful and effective way of looking at facility time, and we agree with many of the concerns the SNP has raised.

Amendment 46 would mean that public sector employers would be required to publish only the number of union officials employed and the total amount invested in facility time, rather than more detailed breakdowns of those figures. Amendment 74 would require public sector employers to provide the cost savings of facility time. If the Government proceed with further punitive measures, it is important that public sector employers should explain the cost savings that are driven by facility time so that we have full transparency.

Amendment 50 concerns the process by which any regulations are agreed. We need to ensure maximum scrutiny of any regulations on this matter. We have already seen the Government attempt to sneak in all sorts of things through the back door with the Bill: they have not published regulations or brought out the responses to consultations, which should have happened before we were in Committee. Amendment 50 would ensure that future regulations requiring public sector employers to publish information on facility time would have to be debated in both Houses. The Government currently plan to use the negative procedure for such regulations, so there would be no debate unless the regulations were prayed against. Given the rushed nature of the consultation, and of parts of the current scrutiny process, I am sure many people outside this place would agree that any future regulations deserve much more adequate scrutiny so that we can get to the bottom of what the Government are trying to do.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on the clause and on the amendments we have tabled.

[Jo Stevens]

The proposals on facility time illustrate the lack of understanding we have seen from the Government about how trade unions operate and the benefits they deliver, not just for their members but for employers. There has been precious little evidence given for the attack on facility time in the Bill, as we saw when unevidenced assertions were presented by the witness from the TaxPayers Alliance last week.

I will talk about two aspects relating to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. My first point is a general one about facility time, in the health service in particular. In 2007, the then Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform looked at the issue as a precursor to revising the ACAS code of practice on facility time for union reps. If the Minister had compiled a report such as that one before the Bill was drafted, he would have found that union reps make a significant contribution to increasing productivity, making their workplaces safer, reducing the costs of recruitment and helping business to become more responsive to change, by helping staff acquire new skills in addition to updating those they already have. That report showed tens of millions of pounds of savings to employers and the Exchequer by reducing the number of employment tribunal cases, although I will admit that the Government have done a pretty good job on that by introducing tribunal fees and pricing people out of access to justice. The report also showed the benefits to society worth hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of reducing working days lost due to workplace injury and work-related illness. Follow-up research by the TUC pointed to overall productivity gains worth between £4 billion and £12 billion to the UK economy.

More recent research carried out for the Royal College of Nursing by the University of Warwick and Cass Business School backed up the 2007 report. The analysis found that work carried out by trade union representatives in NHS organisations was estimated to save the health service at least £100 million a year. In times of such constrained public finances, facility time is estimated to save large teaching hospitals £1 million a year. The RCN is unequivocal that, aside from the financial cost of high staff turnover when the NHS is already struggling to recruit and retain enough staff, removing effective union representation could have,

“a significant impact on patient safety.”

Janet Davies of the RCN, who we heard from last week, went on to say:

“The health service can ill-afford further damage to staff morale, or to squander even more money on recruitment costs. The trade union bill is bad for staff, employers and most importantly it is bad for patients.”

The RCN is on the front line of service delivery and understands the practical impact the Bill would have. The Labour party is inclined to listen to it.

I want to briefly mention the health and safety representatives and the impact of the Bill on their valuable work. There is, of course, a legal duty on employers to give health and safety representatives as much paid time off as they need to undertake their duties. That is laid down in regulations and it is absolute. The regulations do not say that an employer can decide to restrict that time. If a representative needs it, they need it, and that will vary from week to week, but the Bill says that any public sector employer who has at least one health and safety representative will have to record and publish all the time taken and the facilities provided. That is bureaucratic and pointless, and will just mean that employers and union representatives will have to spend a significant amount of time on paperwork.

Even more dangerous is the proposal to allow Ministers to restrict the rights to time off given to union health and safety representatives by amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. All they have to do is introduce new regulations. The proposal is extremely vindictive and underhand, sneaking in the right to do this, by statutory instrument, into a much wider Bill. At no time have the Government given any justification for that proposal.

Union health and safety reps save hundreds of lives and prevent tens of thousands of injuries and illnesses to working people. Workplaces with union health and safety reps and joint health and safety committees have half the serious injury rates of those without. Any reasonable employer welcomes the presence of health and safety representatives, including almost all those in the public sector. That is why this proposal will not save money or remove bureaucracy—nor, more importantly, will it improve safety in workplaces. It has the potential to do the opposite.

Before coming to this House, I represented many people who had suffered the death of a family member in workplaces without health and safety reps, I ask the Minister, please, to seriously consider the proposal.

[Chris Stephens]

I wish to speak in favour of my party’s amendments. First, information gathering has to be consistent, and information has to be presented in a consistent fashion. Our real fear about the clause is that it is deliberately designed to ensure that the information presented puts the trade union movement in a bad light. It is the percentage in each of the subsections that should apply, because that is the most relevant and consistent measure. The statistics need to be clear so that people really understand what the cost to employers is in percentage terms.

As the hon. Member for Cardiff Central indicated, part of the debate has been shaped by the TaxPayers Alliance, using freedom of information legislation. Part of the problem with that is that the answer often depends on what questions are asked and how they are asked. It is ironic that that organisation has flourished at a cost to the taxpayer through its use of FOIs.

--- Later in debate ---

I now move on to amendment 109. Facility time covers a wide variety of trade union duties and activities, from employer-facing duties, such as collective bargaining or representing a member in a grievance hearing, to union-facing activities, such as voting in a union election or attending a union conference. It is unlikely that taxpayers would be surprised to learn that trade unions sometimes pay for their representatives to undertake trade union work, some of which, such as attending a union conference or voting in a union election, does not benefit the employer or, indeed, the taxpayer. In the civil service, such activities have, by default, been unpaid since our 2011 reforms.

[Jo Stevens]

The Minister mentioned facility time to attend union conferences. I do not think that is correct, and I seek clarification from the Minister.

[Nick Boles]

If I have information to give the hon. Lady now, I will do so before I reach the end of this speech, but if I do not, I will write to the Committee before our next meeting so that the matter can be raised if there are further questions.

Including information that the trade union would need to calculate whether it pays for its own representatives does not improve transparency about what is happening with taxpayers’ money, because taxpayers are not funding the union’s contribution. If the trade unions want to supplement an employer’s publication by providing information of their own, we would welcome that move towards transparency. Our purpose is to ensure that taxpayers receive value for their money, and placing such a requirement on the trade unions would not meet that aim.