Higher Education and Research Bill

Jo Stevens Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman makes a further point about the need for universities to be part of their broader communities. It is probably worth my setting out how much I welcome the fact that the further and higher education briefs are now part of a broader Department for Education brief, which makes us well placed to look across the piece at how the institutions that help to develop our young people’s talent and potential can work effectively together, as well as with broader communities.

Thanks to the reforms we introduced in the last Parliament, the entry rate for young students from disadvantaged backgrounds is at a record level. In the final year of the last Labour Government it was around 14%, and today it stands at almost 19%. But we need to go further. As the Prime Minister said last week, this Government

“will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”

This legislation supports the key principle that higher education should be open to all who have the potential to benefit from it, but this has to be about more than just accessing opportunity. Although application rates for students from disadvantaged backgrounds are at record levels, we want to ensure that those students are supported across their whole time at university. Too many disadvantaged students do not complete their courses, for various reasons, and universities can and must do more to help them to get across the finishing line. That will allow them not only to gain the degree that they set out to get, but to reap the career rewards of doing so.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on her new position. What does she think is an acceptable level of debt for a graduate?

[Justine Greening]

We need to look at the level of tuition fees that has been introduced, the rate of applications from disadvantaged students, and the number of disadvantaged students who are going to university. Those young people are taking a decision to invest in themselves, and they believe that it will offer value for money. The Bill will enable us to strengthen that decision by underwriting the teaching in universities with a teaching excellence framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jo Stevens]

rose—

[Justine Greening]

I have taken an awful lot of interventions, but I must now make some progress and allow the debate to continue.

Our universities are world class and our researchers are world beating. That is because over the years, over the decades and over the centuries, they have evolved and adapted to face the challenges and changes of the world around them—the world that they do much to study, understand and explain. We have to make the bold moves that are needed to secure their success for many more years to come. These changes are about further unlocking and unleashing the talents of our people and our best brains. I want the young people of today and tomorrow to be given every opportunity to succeed. That is why I am proud to put the Bill before the House. I pay tribute to the Minister for Universities and Science, who has done so much work to get the Bill to this stage.

The Higher Education and Research Bill will put more information and more choice in the hands of students. It will promote social mobility so that every person in this country has the opportunity to make the most of themselves. It will boost productivity in the economy as we realise our future outside the European Union. It will enhance and cement our position in the world as leaders in groundbreaking research, and ensure that students and taxpayers receive value for money from their investment in education. It is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do.

The Prime Minister told us last week that

“together we will build a better Britain”.

I am clear that education has to be at the forefront of that. Our universities deserve the best, our students deserve the best and our researchers and innovators deserve the best, so that they can play their role in building that better Britain. The Bill will provide them with nothing less than the best, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

My right hon. Friend is so right; in his previous position at this Dispatch Box, he championed that position and continues to champion it excellently today.

We and many others, including the Royal Society, have major concerns about the merger of the science councils and the consequent tensions between the new UK model, English models and the devolved Administrations. It is an issue that seems to unite many people across the piece, whether it be the former President of the Royal Society, Sir Martin Rees, who has said that the plans were “needlessly drastic”; the Academy of Social Sciences, which fears that it will lose autonomy and weaken communication with academics over future research planning; or Paul Nightingale of the Science Policy Research Unit, who said that it was doubtful whether having an “extra layer of bureaucracy” would help.

We share the concerns of Cambridge University and others that there need to be stronger safeguards for dual funding and protecting the integrity of the QR. To deliver this dual support, there will need to be smooth interaction with the devolved Administrations, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish Funding Council and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. However, the Royal Society and others, and indeed the director of the University of Scotland, Alasdair Smith, are very concerned about how this will operate. These changes prompted the Lords Science and Technology Committee to write to the Minister to express its concerns. It has stated that it had serious concerns about the integration of Innovation UK into UK Research and Innovation. It is concerned that Innovation UK should retain its business-facing focus, and the recently distinguished Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, now the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), also asked for clarification on this point.

The proposed changes to the departmental landscape since last week split responsibility for research and teaching across UKRI and the office for students respectively. Two separate frameworks, the research excellence framework and the teaching excellence framework, both lack links to funding.

Now, of course, there are major concerns post-Brexit about how universities are going to fund that research. At present, UK universities receive 10%—just over £1 billion a year—of their research funding from the EU. The Times Higher Education says that 18 UK institutions face losing more than half of their research funding as a result of the decision to leave the European Union. This affects some of our newer universities as well as long-established universities in the Russell Group. That is why Professor Paul Nurse in his research review for the Government warned that leaving the EU jeopardised the world-class science for which the UK is known.

[Jo Stevens]

I have three universities in my constituency—two new ones and one Russell Group university—and they are very concerned about what is going to happen as a result of Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have had no reassurance from the Government about the replacement of the funds that currently go to our world-class universities?

[Mr Marsden]

I am afraid that I would agree. This problem has been amplified by people such as Chris Husbands, the Vice-Chancellor at Sheffield Hallam University, who said that four out of 12 of his research projects are now in jeopardy. These are issues that affect the bread and butter of the whole workforce. We did not think that this Bill was really fit for purpose before 23 June, but the difficulties have been amplified in the wake of the funding uncertainty and instability after the Brexit vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Let me begin by welcoming the new Secretary of State to her post. It is a great pleasure to see her on the Front Bench, and I think that she has a wonderful job. When she was describing her experience of being the first member of her family to go to university, I was reminded of the fact that the same was true of me. I remember heading down from Northumberland to Nottingham, thinking that I was going fairly far south until I met students who were arriving in Nottingham, but had travelled north. I was quite intrigued by that.

I enjoyed my time at university, as did the Secretary of State. As she said, getting to university really does matter, and for those who do, it is a fabulous experience. The point of our debate today is really to ensure that more people can do it, and more can be successful.

I also welcome the creation of a large “super-Department for Education”. It always struck me as absolutely barmy that the last Government but one, Gordon Brown’s Government, severed the Department and created a wasteland for post-16s. We never quite knew who was doing what, how it was being done, or who was funding it—quite apart from the fact that the link between schools, colleges and universities was effectively broken. The creation of this new Department is, I think, a fabulous step in the right direction. I remember discussing these issues with my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and I think he would concur with what I have just said. As a former Secretary of State for Education, he is well placed to do that.

So here we are, with the right kind of Department. As Chair of the Education Committee, I am also pleased to note that I have even more to do, because the sector that we are discussing today is so very important. There is nothing more important than ensuring that the higher education sector thrives and prospers. I will give several reasons for that, but the obvious one is connected with social mobility and social justice. The brutal fact is that it is an abhorrent waste that there are people who could go to university in other circumstances but who cannot do so. That is completely unacceptable. We must have a society in which people who can, should and do want to go somewhere can go there. That is our job. It is not acceptable for groups of people, or individuals among groups of people, to be trapped.

[Jo Stevens]

On that basis, how does the hon. Gentleman justify the removal of national health service bursaries?

[Mr Carmichael]

I do think it important to attract people to the NHS. I think that today we should be concentrating on the Bill as it stands, but our Committee will certainly consider that issue in due course.

Let me return to my point about social justice and the need to extend it to all, because that is critical. In particular, we need to extend it throughout the country, to regions, areas and localities that have, in effect, been surrounded by a wall: a wall against hope, a wall against opportunity, a wall against achievement.

That leads me to my second key point. The Bill is also about productivity, because that is a critical issue as well. A society in which people can feel included, feel able to express themselves, and feel able to get the jobs and opportunities that they want must be a society that is also based on an economic, productive model. Productivity equals more opportunity, because it means people having more skills, being able to command a higher salary, and being able to do things that they could not otherwise do—so the productivity argument is at the core of why we have to improve our university sector in the way this Bill seeks.

Trade Union Bill

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I never comment on articles in the Socialist Worker. He will also understand that we have regular conversations with Ministers in the devolved Administrations, but all of the matters addressed in this Bill are reserved matters. It is a matter not of dictating, but of this Government fulfilling their duty to legislate on the matters for which we have exclusive responsibility.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Specifically on the point about devolved powers, is it not the case that in that letter the Minister received legal advice saying that there is a very weak case for enforcing those powers on the Welsh Government?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady, who made an admirable and, for me, rather challenging contribution to our deliberations in Committee, knows that we do not comment on legal advice.

If publication, and the proper monitoring and recording that it necessitates, do not achieve the aim of bringing excessive spending on facility time back down to a reasonable level, it will be necessary to consider the imposition of a cap. A reserve power is very much a power of last resort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

Let me begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my membership of the GMB and Unison.

I want to make just one brief point, which relates to my earlier intervention about the Welsh Government. The Minister is placing the UK Government on a collision course with the Welsh Government in respect of facility time. The case will end up in the Supreme Court at great cost to the public purse, and the UK Government will—according to their own legal advice—lose. So I ask the Minister please to reconsider his approach to this part of the Bill.

Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2 be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree, and if we are honest, too often trade unions have to speak up for people who would otherwise not have a voice. Often, because of the failures of this place and different Governments over the years, trade unions have had to exercise pressure on behalf of their members, and exercise that muscle to ensure that Governments act to protect those who have been done a terrible injustice.

[Jo Stevens]

I speak as a former trade union lawyer who dealt with the legal cases that my hon. Friend referred to, and as an employer who benefited from having a unionised workplace to resolve issues and disagreements, and to get changes through companies. Without union representation in the workplace, that would have been much more difficult. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can see things from both sides?

[Wes Streeting]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have sat on the employer side of the table when working with trade unions more than I have sat on the side of employees, even though I have been a member of a trade union for as long as I have been in full-time work. Employers often value that relationship with trade unions. It is not an adversarial relationship—well, sometimes it can be, and the breakdown of industrial relations, particularly when strike action occurs, is a sign of failure. When people choose to strike they lose their pay, so they do not do it lightly. Many families struggle to balance their budgets at the end of the month, with too much month and not enough money left, so losing a couple of days’ pay is often a real hardship. They do not take such action lightly, and that is not understood enough when we speak in glib terms in this place about trade union industrial action.

I listened to what the Minister said about concessions that have been made, and how no changes will be made to facility time for a few years until we have done all the counting and assessment, but how long will that take, and how much money and civil service time will it cost? Bizarrely, the Government will waste time counting trade union facility time for employers up and down the country, but they will not count the number of children in poverty. That tells us all we need to know about this Government’s wrong-headed priorities, and about the timewasting involved in introducing this Bill in the first place. I congratulate Members of the House of Lords—where the Government do not have a majority—on the way that they have torn this Bill apart and exposed it to forensic scrutiny, and we heard expertise from across the political spectrum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I would like to put on record the fact that I am a member of the GMB union. It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), whom I commend for his long-standing commitment to this issue and for his work on the Bill.

Trade unions are a vital part of a free and democratic society, with a proud history of working hard on behalf of their members to achieve fair and just outcomes. Their roots lie in the industrial revolution, but their aims and aspirations are just as important to the 21st century context of an increasingly digital workforce, the European marketplace, globalisation, the challenges presented by an ageing population and the need for highly skilled workers to deliver the higher-skilled, higher-waged workforce that we need and aspire to in the UK.

My constituency is rich in small and medium-sized enterprises, and I want to see a vibrant local economy, providing high-quality services, well-paid jobs, excellent apprenticeship schemes and clear routes for progression in the workplace for those who want to develop their career. Trade unions have as much a role to play now as they did when they were first created in a very different employment and economic environment.

I want to share some examples of the positive differences unions have made and continue to make in my constituency. As a councillor, I was proud to vote for Southwark Council to adopt Unison’s ethical care charter—a commitment to dignity and respect for those who work so hard on behalf of vulnerable residents. The ethical care charter delivers better terms and conditions for care workers, but just as importantly, it delivers better standards of care for vulnerable residents by providing minimum visit times, paid time for travel and a commitment to training. Paying the London living wage for home care workers has resulted in higher-quality applicants working in this vital service, as well as a better quality of life for carers and their families.

BECTU—the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union—has fought a hard campaign for its members working at Picturehouse cinemas in my constituency. The campaign started at the Ritzy in Brixton and has extended to the new East Dulwich Picturehouse and the West Norwood Picturehouse, which will open next year. It is an excellent example of a modern trade union campaign, generating huge support among local residents and customers via social media. This campaign has achieved significant progress in driving up rates of pay for Picturehouse staff by 26% over three years, but there is more to do to achieve the goal of ensuring that all staff receive the London living wage—work that is hampered in part by the approach of Picturehouse and its parent company Cineworld in refusing to recognise BECTU in some branches in favour of internal staff forums, which is a practice that should not be allowed.

Last week, I attended the launch of an important new campaign by Unison, “Making waves for a Living Wage”, calling for the water industry in the UK to become the first sector to be fully living wage accredited. This campaign has already succeeded in persuading several water companies to progress towards living wage accreditation—and in some cases to achieve it. It is an achievable, practical campaign, which the water companies can afford to implement and which will have huge benefits for low-paid staff working in this sector. It is a great example of the positive difference unions can and do make.

[Jo Stevens]

The Unison campaign on the living wage provides a perfect example. We would not have had a living wage campaign without the trade unions setting up the wider campaign in the first place.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Only yesterday, I was encouraged to see so many local NHS staff who are members of trade unions, including the GMB, Unite and Unison, coming out during their lunchbreak to show their support for the BMA and the junior doctors’ strike. They know that it is only by working together as one team—doctors, nurses, therapists, technicians, receptionists and cleaners—that our wonderful NHS delivers the world-class healthcare that it was set up to do.

Union members across the country know that industrial relations work best when there is a professional and respectful relationship between employers and employees. Change is often needed in response to changes in the economy, policy or legislation, or when particular injustices arise, and it is often best achieved by different parties—unions, employers and consumer groups—coming around the table to negotiate, work together and resolve differences or develop new practices. The situations we never hear about, but which are much more common, are those where there was no strike action and a settlement was reached through effective joint working. Such effective working relies on an even balance of power between different parties. This divisive and mean-spirited Bill seeks to shift the balance of power in a way that can have only negative consequences. It is right that negotiation and positive joint working take place in every possible circumstance, but in the rare instances where all other avenues have been exhausted—for example, when a Secretary of State for Health rejects out of hand every compromise offer he is asked to consider—the right to withdraw labour by taking strike action is an essential right, and its existence can often be the very thing that focuses minds on all sides on achieving effective negotiations.

The Government’s change of heart on opting in to unions’ political funds and check-off is welcome, but it reveals the extent to which the Bill is politically motivated. It is completely unacceptable that the Government are applying double standards to the turnout required for a strike ballot by expecting a much higher turnout of union members than they would accept as providing legitimacy for their own Members of Parliament or indeed for the election of councillors, whom they accept as having democratic legitimacy. MPs are not, by rule, required to be elected by more than half of the eligible residents living in their constituency, and this is even less likely to be the case for councillors. In an age where the Government are rightly encouraging the greater use of digital services and technologies, it must be right that there should be the ability to vote electronically, with the oversight of the Electoral Commission. What is considered good and fair for the Conservatives in selecting their candidate for London’s Mayor must be considered good and fair for union members in casting their votes on critical issues. It is very disappointing that the Government have not accepted Lords amendments on this matter. They are applying a mixture of different standards to trade unions, refusing to implement e-balloting to maintain consistency with public elections but requiring an even higher turnout threshold than that required for public elections. The Government therefore appear to be picking and choosing standards to suit their own political ends. They appear now to be trying to unravel some of the mess, but it would be better simply to scrap this Bill.

National Living Wage

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joan Ryan]

Indeed. Compare that double whammy—loss now and loss of deferred income, which is pension income—with what happens to the companies: they gain from cutting pay, and from the reduction in corporation tax, which should offset the pay increase, not allow them to cut pay. Although B&Q says that it has rectified the sort of situation I have described, I defy B&Q senior management to place themselves in the shoes of Mr Jones and Ms Smith and honestly say that they feel optimistic about their future.

Let us turn our attention to other employers that we know are doing similar things. Bradgate Bakery is part of the group that owns famous brands that we all enjoy, such as Ginsters pies and Soreen loaf, but the pay that it is offering staff is a lot less tasty than its food. Bradgate has written to all its Leicestershire staff, detailing changes to their wages. Most shop-floor employees at Bradgate were earning just over £6.70 an hour before 1 April, so the introduction of the national living wage should have made quite a difference for them, but Bradgate, like B&Q, has found an opportunity to save money. That is because of the universal truth that companies will usually pay their workers a lot less than they can afford, if they can get away with it.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that employers see the national living wage or minimum wage as a ceiling for payments, rather than a floor, and will always try to pay the least that they can get away with?

[Joan Ryan]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point, which is that we have a very dishonest settlement whereby the Government are saying, “You’re going to get more money in your pocket,” but again and again we are seeing employers use unscrupulous methods to take that money back. We want the Government to come up with a much more clear and transparent way of dealing with this, so that employers end up paying what the Government have decreed is the minimum that people can live on.

[Jo Stevens]

Specifically on the point about small businesses, we know that if the lowest-paid workers, who often work for small businesses, have a pay increase, they tend to spend it locally, so the local economy grows. In addition, the Government have given tax cuts to businesses, so small businesses are not being deprived of any benefit.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have heard examples today involving large national chains. We can all use our spending power to go elsewhere and support local businesses, which are the lifeblood of our communities.

We should not be surprised by the way this policy is panning out, because this is the way in which some employers have always operated—they see every issue that affects their business as an excuse to whittle away at the terms and conditions of their staff.

The Minister for Skills said in a written parliamentary answer, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) referred to earlier, that any changes to terms and conditions should be discussed and agreed with workers in advance. I am sure that that advice will come as a surprise to the Secretary of State for Health, given his approach to the junior doctors dispute. I am afraid that the idea that employers will wait for an agreement on these issues is fanciful and bears no relation to the reality on the ground.

Those who are represented by a trade union at least have a fighting chance, but the reality is that employers can and do change terms and conditions fairly frequently. When they do so, it is almost always to the detriment of the people they employ. Once an employer gives a notice of change, the employee has very little redress. If legal redress is an option, the introduction of employment tribunal fees has made that a most unlikely route, given the 80% drop in employment tribunal claims since fees were introduced.

My constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston is one of the top five living wage blackspots for women working part time across the north-west, according to the TUC, with 66% earning less than the living wage. Any increase in basic pay has to be a step in the right direction for that group of workers, as long as it does not come at the expense of other elements of the pay package.

It would be a mistake to claim that simply increasing basic pay means that there is now a fair workplace settlement. We know that many ruses and mechanisms are used to stop effective workplace protection, such as bogus self-employment and zero-hours contracts. This policy could even see the development of other scams. Some unscrupulous employers might sack people just before their 25th birthday just so that they can get someone on a cheaper rate. More apprenticeships that are apprenticeships in name only might pop up because they offer the chance for an employer to pay someone a lower rate for the same job. What will be done to tackle that?

Nearly half of all minimum wage jobs are in hospitality and retail—sectors that are both major employers in my constituency. I have conducted my own research into the practices of many of the national restaurant and fast food chains, which has revealed widespread abuse that the Government do not appear to be interested in tackling. The research, which was conducted at the end of last year, showed that 90% of the 9,000 outlets surveyed did not pay the real living wage. It also highlighted the widespread practice of what is known colloquially as “shift shafting”, whereby staff are sent home at the start or in the middle of a shift if the outlet is not busy, without any pay or compensation. More than 80% of respondents to the survey admitted that they would do that. It means that people can end up out of pocket simply by going to work, through being made to wait around without pay and then being sent home without even having their travel costs reimbursed. I hear a lot about the Government wanting to get everyone into work who is able to work, but I hear no condemnation from them of the blatant exploitation of people who are trying to do the right thing, and find themselves out of pocket through the very act of going to work.

Let us make every job reward people with a wage that they can actually live on, but at the same time let us put in place a proper system of workplace protection so that a Government policy is not allowed to be undermined by unscrupulous employment practices that take away other benefits so that people end up no better off, and in some cases actually end up worse off. To achieve that, we need a fundamental change in the Government’s approach, starting with the recognition that trade unions and collective bargaining have a significant role to play in the future prosperity of our nation. We need a fundamental change not only in the Government’s attitude but in the attitude of many employers, with a move away from the bean-counting philosophy that views the worker as a disposable item ready to be replaced by a machine that does not question, expect to be paid or belong to a union. For many people, being in work means vulnerability and uncertainty about their future. How can we tolerate a situation in which people in work can routinely not know whether they will have earned enough to put food on their family’s table at the end of the day?

We should not be fooled into thinking that this policy is a panacea. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that even with the new minimum wage, people with children will be £700 a year worse off thanks to other changes introduced by the Government. The reality is that we are having this debate because the law and culture in this country place far too little emphasis on employment rights. Until this place resolves to do something about that, the kind of injustices that we have heard about today will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for standing in for her and opening the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden makes a speedy recovery.

I shall focus my remarks on a specific group of workers—seafarers. These are the only group of workers who are excluded from the full protection of the national minimum wage legislation and equal pay legislation. Ships working in UK waters between UK ports and between UK and continental ports are crewed by staff on pay rates that are well below the national minimum wage. Increasingly, companies are recruiting outside the UK to crew their ships with non-UK seafarers, particularly ratings, in order to profit from sub-national minimum wage pay rates.

Allied to the rise of the flag of convenience vessels, these exploitative pay and employment practices are driving a decline in the number of UK seafarers. In the early 1980s, there were 28,000 officers and 30,000 ratings in the UK merchant navy, but by June last year, the total number of UK seafarers had dropped to 23,380—a fall of nearly 60%. The position for UK ratings, particularly deck and engine, has become exceptionally precarious, with 8,830 working at sea last year—a fall of over 25% since 2011 and over 70% in the last 30 years. Pay exploitation in the UK shipping sector is happening because non-EU seafarers are excluded from the full protection against nationality-based pay discrimination in the Equality Act 2010.

Following years of campaigning by maritime unions, the last Labour Government commissioned an independent assessment of the impact of nationality-based pay differentials in the shipping industry, which was known as the Carter review. It concluded at the end of the parliamentary term in May 2010 that there would be no adverse impact on the shipping industry or jobs and recommended the outlawing of all nationality-based seafarer pay differentials.

The last coalition Government, however, rejected the Carter recommendation, but the Government were forced, under threat of infraction by the European Union, to protect European Economic Area seafarers from nationality-based pay discrimination. In recent months, maritime trade unions have contributed, with the Government and industry, to a working group on the effect of the existing protections in the Equality Act 2010, and it will report in the summer.

At present, passengers and businesses are travelling on vessels crewed by seafarers who are earning as little as £2.40 an hour. This legalised exploitation has systematically undermined maritime jobs in the UK, damaging the skills base and driving up unemployment rates in seafarer communities across the UK.

The RMT trade union estimates that prior to the introduction of the increase in the national minimum wage, over 8,300 seafarer ratings working on UK-flagged or other vessels qualifying for the tonnage tax are likely to be earning hourly rates of pay below the national minimum wage. It stands to reason, therefore, that the introduction of a higher statutory minimum wage will put more seafarers below that threshold and more employers in breach of the national minimum wage legislation.

In its March 2016 report to the Government, the Low Pay Commission recommended that a stronger third-party complaints system be introduced for employers breaching the national minimum wage. That would be through the creation of a public protocol to govern HMRC’s investigation of third-party complaints. This would provide feedback to the complainant and could be a useful source of additional evidence on the rates of pay and contractual terms and conditions of employment for seafarers. The Low Pay Commission said:

“We recommend that the Government establishes a formal public protocol for HMRC to handle third party whistleblowing on breaches of the NMW, which should include arrangements for giving all possible feedback to relevant third parties and appropriate continuing involvement in any resulting casework.”

I urge Ministers to accept that recommendation. A strengthened third-party complaints procedure represents the most effective way to tackle pay rates in the shipping industry that fall below the national minimum wage because of the understandable reluctance of the affected seafarers to complain directly to the UK Government.

Student Maintenance Grants

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I am privileged to represent a university constituency. Cardiff Central has one of the highest proportions, although not quite the highest proportion, of students of any constituency in the UK. Tens of thousands of students live and study in Cardiff Central. Many of them are from Wales, but many are from England. They, unlike their Welsh peers, will be badly affected by the proposal to scrap student maintenance grants.

The Labour Government in Wales believe in aspiration and in protecting students from crippling levels of debt, and they put their money where their mouth is. Today in my constituency, Welsh students are sitting next to English students in the same lecture on the same course at the same university and living in the same accommodation, but thanks to Conservative Members, and to the Liberal Democrats—oh, sorry, they are not there anymore—a Welsh student is paying a third of the annual tuition fees paid by an English student.

It is not just with tuition fees that the Labour Government in Wales have supported students. The coalition Government abolished the education maintenance allowance, and the Welsh Labour Government kept it. The Labour Government in Wales are not abolishing student maintenance grants either, or NHS bursaries for nurses and midwives studying in Wales. Unlike the Conservative party, we believe in investing in future generations.

The Government claim that scrapping grants will not prevent access to university for the most disadvantaged students, but how do they know? They have not even asked them. There has been no consultation with students, parents or higher education. What have Conservative Members got against young people? They have trebled tuition fees and abolished the EMA. They will not allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, and they are happy lecturing everyone on balancing the books and reducing debt, while at the same time their policies inflict crippling levels of debt on students. We can add to that the Chancellor’s plans to end housing benefit for anyone under 21.

Last week I heard speeches in Committee, and again today, about how various Conservative MPs have worked their way through university, and if they managed it, why should today’s students not do that? However, they already do, and now the Government will not even let them earn the increased national minimum wage, because they have excluded anyone under 25 from that. The impact of this policy will prevent young people from going to university, from learning, from gaining independence, and from equipping themselves with the knowledge and skills needed to be successful in the job market.

[Rebecca Harris]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jo Stevens]

No, I will not. Those young people will be prevented from fulling their true potential. I will conclude by mentioning Kate Delaney, vice-president of Welfare at Cardiff University. She had her EMA abolished. It paid for her bus fare to get to sixth-form college. She qualified for a maintenance grant, and she would not have been able to go to university without it. She told me that that maintenance grant gave her a voice, and also the ability to represent 30,000 students at Cardiff University, and Conservative Members are taking that away.

Trade Union Bill

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

The amendments address restrictions on facility time. Facility time is a good thing. The Royal College of Nursing—not known as the most militant trade union—believes that the Bill could lead to £100 million being lost to the NHS because of workplace issues that go to tribunal and so on. Public bodies should have the right to test the argument presented in Committee that taxpayers should be protected, because trade union members are taxpayers, and they are also voters.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Does evidence from the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing not contrast spectacularly with that of a Government witness from Health 2020 who admitted when giving evidence that she did not even know what facility time was?

[Chris Stephens]

That is correct. I had never heard of Health 2020, and under the skilful questioning of the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) it was revealed that the witness was a former Conservative candidate. When she mentioned her concerns about patient care, I said that a trade union is obliged to provide life and limb cover, but the witness had not heard of that either; and as the hon. Lady mentioned, she did not know what facility time was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

The hon. Gentleman refers to intimidation when people cast their ballot. Does he have any real examples of intimidation in ballots?

[Mr Djanogly]

I am not here to accuse anyone. If the hon. Lady thinks that the 1984 legislation was introduced because there were no instances of intimidation at that time, we need to go back to the history books. I do not intend to do that today. I am not saying that postal ballots will always be free from intimidation, particularly if several members of the same family work in the same place. I appreciate that new clause 7 requires that votes at the workplace are private and free from unfairness, but the question is how far does that go? Does it cover only the voting room or the factory premises? What about beyond the factory gates and the pickets? I am concerned that this could be a retrograde step.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Other Members have also drawn attention to the degree to which the Bill discriminates against women in the workplace.

[Jo Stevens]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

Is my hon. Friend aware of any other cases in which the Government have retrospectively interfered in private agreements between consenting parties in order to undo them?

[Kevin Brennan]

My research may have been inadequate, but I have not come across any such examples. However, the Minister must have dozens. Surely he would not single out one particular group in society for this draconian treatment unless he were meting out such treatment to other organisations as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

On Second Reading, I asked a question to which I have had no answer to date. Quite simply, what problem is this proposed legislation designed to solve? What calamity do we have in our land in the field of industrial relations that means that the Government of the day must prioritise this legislation? I cannot find any. The average worker in the United Kingdom goes on strike for one day every 15 years. It is therefore ridiculous that this matter should be the priority of the Government.

I believe that the only reason the Bill is before us, with so few Government Members listening to the debate, is purely ideological. I do not say that all Members or all strands of the Conservative party are against trade unions, but there most definitely is a strand that is very unempathetic to trade unions and that sees the ability of people to combine together in the workforce to prosecute their interests as an impediment on the rights of employers to make their profits and run their enterprises as they see fit. There is a hostile attitude to trade unions. That, unfortunately for the working people of this country, is the strand within the Tory party that is in the ascendency and in the driving seat in respect of this legislation.

It is a great irony, is it not, that to introduce this legislation, the Conservative party will have to have an unprecedented degree of state interference in the affairs of private enterprise? There will have to be state regulation of trade unions that is more akin to a totalitarian than a democratic regime.

I support the SNP amendments that would require consent from the local and devolved authorities in the United Kingdom for the provisions of the Bill to be implemented. In parallel with this discussion, we have been having a debate on the Scotland Bill about the competences and authorities that should go to the Scottish Parliament. In fact, we argued that this entire area should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament simply because it would mean that proposals such as this Bill would never see the light of day. However, we know that there is not a majority in this House for devolving these powers and I want it to be clear that we are not arguing for that today.

What we are arguing for goes to the heart of the debate in this country about who runs public services. It has been the will of this Parliament that many of our public services should be devolved to local and devolved administrations. It is therefore not right for this Parliament to hinder the ability of the managers of those services to deliver them by interfering and setting requirements on the most important resource that is available to them: the workforce. Just because the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has a problem managing relations on the London underground, the rest of country should not have to suffer.

A series of amendments seek consent on each of the major provisions in the Bill. I will speak about some of those measures, but I will try not to repeat what has already been said by my hon. Friends, much of which I completely agree with. A number of mechanisms in the Bill are designed to make it harder for a trade union to win a ballot to go on strike—let us be clear about that objective. However, Conservative Members are mistaken if they think that that will make a problem go away.

It seems that among the authors of this Bill there is great ignorance about the process of managing industry. Often, if a concern or dispute arises among the workforce, and members go to their trade union and the union decides to do something, that can be a way of resolving a dispute or problem to the benefit of the industry or service concerned. The additional measures in the Bill will make it harder for unions to go on strike, but that will let problems fester and dysfunction continue, which will not benefit the trade, industry or service in which the dispute is taking place. When a union eventually passes those hurdles and gets a mandate for a strike, that strike will be bigger, longer and more vicious than it ought to have been had the matter been attended to at an earlier stage. I contend that measures that the Government think are about making it harder for unions to take strike action will have a deleterious effect on industrial relations and make it harder for the management of public or private services to deliver and get the consent of their workforce.

Given the way that the issue is being discussed, it seems that Conservative Members conceive of facility time as some sort of stipend whereby union officials spend all day organising strike action and trying to bring industry to its knees. It is nothing of the kind, and if those Members had worked in a public service for one day, they would understand that often, union stewards and officials play an extremely constructive role at local level in the delivery of that industry or service. In many ways, their role can be described as that of a welfare officer, and officials often help out individual employees who may have problems with management or at work, but who may also just have personal problems that are affecting their work.

[Jo Stevens]

When giving evidence to the Bill Committee, the general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, John Hannett, said that trade unions are problem solvers rather than problem causers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree wholeheartedly and my experience all my working life, as both employer and employee, indicates that that is exactly the case. Facility time can be a good thing for management and industry, and for getting things done.

If a local authority, health board or whatever has a check-off facility that has been voluntarily agreed with its workers to deduct a payroll subscription for a union, how can it be okay for that to be outlawed and criminalised, when the same facility can be used by the National Trust or any charity or insurance scheme that wishes? That is frankly ridiculous and punitive in the extreme, and it belies the fact that the Bill, despite its title, is an anti-trade union Bill. Hopefully we will get an explanation for that when the Minister winds up the debate. If this is about money and the cost to the public sector, I am sure that unions will be happy to negotiate paying. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) remarked earlier, local authorities and others may be able to make money out of providing a service for payroll check-off.

Time is short and I know that other Members want to speak. I say simply that if the amendment is voted down and we do not agree to the consent of the London Mayor, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, or whoever is delivering the service being required for this provision to be implemented, and that the Government will force services to do whatever they want, even if that does not make sense locally, will we not be entering into uncharted territory? The Government will effectively be declaring that they are prepared to go to war with the devolved Administrations and local authorities in this country, which they have said should be responsible for the delivery of those services.

As I have said so many times, this is one of the things in the Conservatives’ manifesto that I do not think they ever expected they would have to implement. They do not have a mandate for this, and I ask them, even at this eleventh hour, to pull back.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches will be encouraged by their Whips to hold their noses and support clause 9, in the party interest, against some of their better instincts, but I have to say this to them: in terms of freedom and liberty, you can hold your nose all you like, but it still stinks.

[Jo Stevens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill in effect creates two tiers of civil liberties and human rights in this country? One tier has much higher restrictions for trade union members and the other tier is for the rest of the population.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Why is it only trade unions that are being singled out in this way? I think we explored some of the reasons earlier in this afternoon’s debate.

New clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and his colleagues, is similar to the new clause 12 we tabled in Committee. It would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during industrial action. As we know, the Government are planning to remove the ban on agencies knowingly supplying agency workers to replace striking workers. Kate Shoesmith, the head of policy at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, which has nearly 3,500 corporate members, has said:

“We are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients.”

The CIPD, the professional body for HR, which has about 140,000 members, warned that the Government’s plans to reform trade union laws are “an outdated response”, given the challenges employers face today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I would like, with your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to finish my point and come on to armbands later.

Article 11 allows for proportionate restrictions on the exercise of—[Interruption.] I am referring to article 11(2), which states:

“No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly acknowledged, as recently as last year, that it is legitimate under article 11 for the Government to legislate to impose conditions on the right to strike where there is evidence that that is justified.

The Court has also acknowledged that the Government have a wide margin of appreciation in deciding how to legislate. Clause 9, as we have heard, introduces a set of requirements on the supervision of picketing, following some sensible concessions that were made by the Minister following the consultation period. The picket supervisor will have to wear a badge, armband or other item to ensure that they are easy to identify. This is hardly onerous.

[Jo Stevens]

The hon. Lady referred to article 11(2), which sets out the circumstances in which the right of freedom of association can be interfered with, including the protection of national security and the prevention of serious crime. All we have heard Conservative Members talk about is the “temporary inconvenience” that strikes cause. I am afraid that that is not listed in article 11(2).

[Victoria Prentis]

I do not believe that the wearing of a badge or armband, or some other means of identification, is onerous in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. In fact, it is something that unions widely do already as part of the code on picketing, which actually says that everybody should wear an armband.

I must admit that in Committee I was somewhat bemused by this part of the argument and the briefs provided by Amnesty International and Liberty in the evidence that was given. Both are excellent human rights organisations that undertake extremely important work around the world dealing with executions and torture, yet the wearing of an armband by one person so that they are identifiable during a strike presents them with a big issue. I do not agree. We are not asking everybody taking part in a strike to wear an armband, but simply asking the organiser of a particular event to do so in order to identify themselves.

Trade Union Bill (Ninth sitting)

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to be starting what I hope will be the final day under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Sometimes during this debate it strikes me that the two sides of the Committee are discussing completely different pieces of legislation. Both Opposition parties portray the Bill as one of the most egregious attacks on fundamental human rights since King John, whereas I would describe it as, to borrow a phrase from the previous speaker, a NALGO Bill, in that there is not a lot going on.

What the Government are proposing here is nothing more than a set of provisions that seek to change behaviour within the public sector. After all, the public sector is funded by taxpayers: they go out to work to earn money and they pay taxes, so they have a right to see that money spent responsibly. We hope that, in the light of public scrutiny of the information relating to facility time that public sector employers will be required to publish under clause 12, public sector employers will voluntarily renegotiate their existing facility time arrangements with trade unions and bring their spending on taxpayer-funded facility time under control.

We could, of course, have legislated now for a cap, so the idea that the clause, to cite another famous monarch, is a Henry VIII measure, an egregious attack, is false. We have heard a lot about the constitution in recent hours. We could have legislated for a cap now and no doubt the Opposition would have attacked that. We have taken the more modest route of suggesting reserve powers, which—the clue is in the name—will be kept in reserve and used only as the last resort. Only if transparency shows unacceptable inefficiencies in relevant employer spending on facility time and poor value for money for taxpayers from existing facility time arrangements with trade unions will Ministers set a cap on the time and money spent on facility time.

Amendment 101 would prevent the reserve powers being exercised so as to effect changes to a contract of employment or collective agreement, or limit the relevant employer’s discretion as to the contents of the contract or agreement concerned. The amendment would, in effect, neuter any consequential provision that regulations could make amending or otherwise modifying contracts of employment or collective agreements. As I have said, it is by no means certain that the reserve powers will ever be exercised and, should they be exercised, it is also by no means certain that this would interfere with, or override, existing contractual rights and rights under collective agreements. Most union representatives do not have contractual rights to facility time over and above their statutory rights, which we are not seeking to change.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

What legal advice has the Minister received as to whether this proposal for a cap conflicts with EU law, with TUPE law or with the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations?

[Nick Boles]

We keep going around this merry-go-round. The Government receive a great deal of legal advice from their own officers and sometimes they seek other advice. We do not publish that advice; we are satisfied with the compatibility of all our proposals with all the laws and treaties to which we are signed up. Any cap on facility time will only apply prospectively. It is, on the other hand, possible in theory—though, as I have said, unlikely in practice—that a cap may apply to ongoing, legally-binding relationships; either legally enforceable terms in a collective agreement, or in the contractual rights of individual employees. This is what is flagged in the European convention on human rights memorandum to the Bill. The Government acknowledge, however, that even the potential impacts upon pre-existing contractual arrangements should be fully debated. That is why we considered the affirmative procedure to be necessary to provide the correct level of parliamentary scrutiny.

Before asking hon. Members to withdraw their amendment I want to respond to a question, which is not specific to this amendment, about the devolution settlement. The devolution settlement does not define which individual Ministers in the Government can do things. It defines which areas of policy are devolved and which are not. We have established, and there is general consent—although it might well be wished otherwise—that employment law is not a devolved policy but a reserved policy, and therefore Ministers in the UK Government are entitled to exercise those reserved powers in relation to their responsibilities. That does not imply that, say, the Secretary of State for Health, would be breaching the devolution of health to the Scottish and Welsh Governments by exercising the reserve powers under employment law in the way that we have outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

After a lively start to the Committee, we now come to the provisions of the Bill that deal with the certification officer. Although the position of certification officer is familiar to many members of the Committee, it does not normally get a lot of attention, although it will in this debate because of the huge extension and change to its remit proposed by the Government.

When we debated clause 6, we discussed how the certification officer will be given powers to gather information on industrial action taken by trade union members, and how trade unions will be required to publish details of all industrial action and ballots in their annual return to the certification officer. When read in isolation, clause 6 poses a risk to the neutrality of the certification officer in the regulation of trade unions. When read alongside other clauses in the Bill, however, and particularly clause 14, it amounts to a vast extension to the role, remit and powers of that position. The clause will insert into the 1992 Act new schedule A3, which is schedule 1 to this Bill, and give effect to schedule 2, which also amends the 1992 Act. As a result of those changes, trade unions will face significant new obligations and further blue tape, as we have discussed, because they will have to report to the certification officer annually on when industrial action takes place and on political fund expenditure.

The provisions will give the certification officer new, wide-ranging investigatory powers on matters such as the register of members, elections, the political fund and union mergers. For example, if the certification officer thinks that there is good reason to do so, they will have the power to demand the production of any documents relevant to their investigation. Furthermore, if they believe that a union has failed to comply with its duty, they may appoint inspectors who can require the production of documents, as well as the attendance and assistance of any persons believed to have information relevant to the investigation. Failure to comply may lead to the certification officer imposing an enforcement order, which carries punitive sanctions.

The TUC believes that those new powers represent a major new intrusion by the state into union affairs and union members’ rights to privacy. The certification officer will—I find this quite extraordinary—be able to initiate an investigation against a trade union even though they have not received a complaint from a member of that union. That power applies to rules governing elections, political funds and union mergers. The TUC is concerned that the certification officer will be expected to act on complaints and intelligence provided by third parties, including employers. We need to discuss that in detail because it provides wide grounds for fishing expeditions, sabotage actions and engagement by people who are not involved in a dispute, but simply want to cause problems, and to provoke legal proceedings and investigation or action by the certification officer.

We have heard from many people who are concerned about the provisions, and such concerns were reaffirmed in oral evidence by legal experts including Thompsons Solicitors. The United Kingdom’s judicial system is lauded by many around the world, and the Minister should note how its founding principles stand in complete contrast to how the certification officer will be able to act. It is important for the Committee to understand that the certification officer will have the power to bring a complaint against a trade union, to investigate the issue, to decide which witnesses will be called, to cross-examine them, to make a decision on the matter, and then to impose a fine on the union that they have investigated and on which they have adjudicated. I cannot overemphasise the point, which was also made by many of our witnesses, that this is simply not consistent with the principles of natural justice or the founding principles of our legal system, which include many checks and balances, not least the separation of powers.

It is quite extraordinary that this is taking place in an era when we have finally done away with some of the anachronisms of our constitutional arrangements. As the Minister mentioned, we have been having many discussions about this—I am sure that we could have a lengthy one about the other House if we wished to—and the fact is that in recent years we have moved forward. We have separated out the roles, and we no longer have the head of the judiciary sitting as the Chair of proceedings in the other place, as a member of the Executive and of the Cabinet, while that Chamber also acted as the highest court of appeal in this land. That was separated out, and we now have the Supreme Court, the independent Judicial Appointments Commission, a Lord Chancellor who is a member of the Cabinet but not of the other place, and so on and so forth. We have taken that step, and rightfully so, to separate the Executive from the judiciary and to remove the blurring of powers, yet the Government are now effectively merging all those powers together in the role of someone who, I am pretty sure, would not want those powers in the first place, and has had a very limited role until this point.

This seems to be an attempt to politicise a position so that it can be used in a very wide-ranging way, and to interfere fundamentally with the rights of trade union members up and down this country. When the provisions are considered alongside other clauses in the Bill, they do look very sinister. I am sure that the Minister will say, “Oh don’t worry, it will be fine. The certification officer will only engage once in a while if something really terrible happens,” and so on and so forth, yet he is proposing to grant huge, wide-ranging powers which, given the previous clauses we have debated, are deeply sinister. We believe that this clause and the relevant schedules are excessive, so we shall oppose them.

I turn briefly to our amendments. Amendment 53 would prevent the insertion into the 1992 Act of schedule 1, which provides for the certification officer’s new investigatory powers. Amendment 69 would provide that any person investigating a breach of an obligation by a union must allow that union to make representations before any decision is taken, which would be absolutely consistent with the principles of natural justice. I find it extraordinary that it is the certification officer who will decide which witnesses to call and to whom they will speak before making a decision. If we are talking about powers that affect the rights of trade unions, it is crucial that, at the very least, those involved should be allowed to make representations that are relevant to the matter at hand.

Amendment 70 would require any person carrying out an investigation to send the union a copy of the interim report at the same time that it is sent to the certification officer. Again, that is only fair. If such decisions are being made, at the very least the parties to the dispute should receive a copy of the report. Amendment 71 would require that the final report relating to an investigation would also be sent to a relevant union.

I hope that the Minister can explain both the intent behind these wide-ranging changes—we will come on to other parts of the role shortly—and how the process sits with the principles of natural justice in this country. I hope that he will also set out whether there will be any safeguards to prevent the officer from interfering unwillingly, or from being forced to interfere in the affairs of unions without just cause.

[Jo Stevens]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

The Bill would, if enacted, fundamentally change the role of the certification officer from a neutral arbiter of disputes to a state snooper and enforcer. We have heard the concerns of legal experts, Liberty and others about the implications of these changes for civil liberties, and about the likelihood that they infringe article 6 of the European convention on human rights, on the right to a free trial, and well-established principles in common law on natural justice. No one should sit as a judge in their own cause.

I repeat those concerns today, for the record, in the light of the Government’s changes to the ministerial code, which were quietly sneaked out last Thursday via a ministerial statement in the other place. Until the code was changed last week, it used to refer in its opening paragraphs to an

“overarching duty on ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public life”.

That duty to comply with international law and treaty obligations, and to uphold the administration of justice, has just been deleted from the ministerial code. It may be a complete coincidence that, at the very point when this Bill is coming under a barrage of expert criticism for its breaches of international law and treaty obligations, the Government have decided to do away with the requirement for Ministers to uphold those laws. Will the Minister explain what possible justification there is for such a change to the standards against which Ministers are held accountable? Why was not Parliament consulted on the change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

I was interested to see a TV interview this morning in which the former editor of Conservative Home suggested that the provisions with which the Government are having problems in the House of Lords were in their manifesto, but that as they did not expect to win the election, they did not expect to have to enact many things that were in that manifesto. That theory is very interesting, as it is possible that the Government did not expect to have to enact the Bill.

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I think that we will see more of that during this Parliament.

What was the inspiration for the changes? The Government propose to give the certification officer a whole armoury of weapons. They will be able to investigate, demand documents, demand explanations and start proceedings, which they themselves will hear, acting as prosecutor and judge, before giving a verdict and delivering a sentence. They will be able to impose a fine and, as we heard in evidence, a quasi-criminal sanction. This is an extraordinary attack on the rule of law.

Certification officers’ powers will be extended into areas that have historically been way outside the remit of the role. The CO’s role is to regulate the internal workings of unions and their relationship with their members. That is clear from the existing jurisdictions and procedures involving complaints by union members. The certification officer’s website states that his role is to

“maintain a list of trade unions…ensure compliance with statutory requirements for annual returns…determine complaints concerning trade union elections…rules”

and trade union mergers,

“oversee the political funds”

and

“certify the independence of trade unions”.

That work involves seven staff, and the net cost of the certification officer’s office, according to his most recent annual report of July this year, was £560,232. That represents a 3.7% decrease. Hon. Members might think that that is good value for money, yet the Government want to increase massively bureaucracy, cost and intrusion.

I also note from the annual report that in March 2015, the certification officer’s premises were found to be structurally unsafe. I fear that the proposals in the Bill are equally structurally unsafe. No longer will the CO’s role be confined to legitimate complaints that are not ruled out as scandalous, vexatious, hopeless or misconceived. The real purpose of the proposals was revealed in the questions from the hon. Member for Banbury to Professor Ewing in Committee on the afternoon of 15 October. The hon. Lady envisaged the certification officer being required to take action at the behest of

“someone with a legitimate cause for complaint—someone who is affected by strike action…The certification officer himself might be able to take a view that it was appropriate to investigate non-compliance.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 131, Q352-354.]

Professor Ewing was understandably perplexed by that question, as even the certification officer’s expanded role would not encompass non-compliance with industrial action requirements, yet it is clear that Government Members believe that it should, and that the certification officer should act as a state enforcer who steps in at the behest of any individual to interfere in the workings of trade unions. One can imagine that the Conservative party’s friends in the TaxPayers Alliance will be keen to waste more public money and resources by pestering the certification officer on all manner of issues and seeking enforcement orders on unions, especially in the light of the oppressive reporting requirements on industrial action and political funds.

The situation shows that the Government and Conservative Members are proceeding on the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and of the role of a certification officer. They are creating a bloated and distorted role that undermines the independence of the office and offends universally accepted legal principles. As a final insult, they will require trade unions to pay for the privilege. Under the Conservatives, we are used to attacks on trade unions, but now we will have an open-ended tax on trade unions—a blank cheque—on which unions will have no say and no control. It is taxation without representation at its most extreme, enabling ideologically motivated complaints to target union resources. It is another direct, politically driven attack on the finances of unions and their capacity to represent their members.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Is it not ironic that trade unions are being asked to contribute to the costs of a certification officer, but will be prohibited from contributing to employers administering check-off?

[Jo Stevens]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that shows the inconsistencies throughout the Bill.

I hope that the Government will rethink their proposals on the certification officer. I believe that they should be withdrawn, as they are pernicious, and that the current role of the certification officer, which is widely respected, should be retained. To do otherwise betrays a disdain for independence, impartiality, fairness and, most importantly, the rule of law.

[Ian Mearns]

I rise to support the amendments. The clause will increase substantially the investigation powers of the certification officer, giving him or her powers to investigate the activities of a union even when a complaint has not been received from a member of that union, or from any trade union member at all. Surely the provision completely misses the point of a trade union certification officer’s role. Trade unions are independent organisations whose function is to represent the interests of their members. Whether or not this Government approve of trade unions, the fact remains that they perform a legitimate—some would say essential—role within a free society.

The certification officer performs a vital role, but that role does not and should not involve attacking the rights of trade unions and their members who, after all—apologies to my colleagues from north of the border—are citizens of the United Kingdom. The role of the certification officer is to protect the rights of trade union members by ensuring that unions operate openly, democratically and at all times in the interests of their members. The guidance on the Bill describes the provision as giving the certification officer new enforcement powers so that action can be taken without the need for an application or complaint from a member to be received first. The certification officer will therefore be able to investigate and take enforcement action in a number of areas where that is currently not possible or appropriate. In particular, the guidance states:

“For example the Certification Officer could act upon information or concerns he had received from a third party or on his own initiative.”

That provision is totally unacceptable in a free society.

There are more than 6 million trade union members in the UK. They are all intelligent and fully capable of raising a complaint or concern with the certification officer if they have a problem with their trade union. Why does the certification officer need powers to act when not one single trade union member raises a concern? On whose complaint or on whose authority will the certification officer act? We all know on exactly whose authority that will be. Every scare story and sensationalist headline in the “Daily Wail” or the “Daily Hexpress” will be followed up. Six million members may be completely content and satisfied, but the editor of the “Daily Wail” screaming about Len McCluskey, Sir Paul Kenny or Dave Prentis having the bare-faced audacity to stand up for their members will in future be the subject of a full investigation. That is a total waste of time, and the costs of such investigations will be passed on to the trade unions, which will have no alternative but to pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I am certainly trying my best to ensure that the regulation of trade unions is more effective than the regulation of the financial services industry preceding the 2008 crash. I do not think that the risks are as great, and I have been the first to point out that it is unlikely that the trade unions, which mostly do an excellent job, will crash the economy in the way that the under-regulated financial services industry did under the previous Labour Government. Sir Alan, I think you are going to say that I am moving away from the point, so I will return to it.

The clause enables regulations to be made so that the certification officer can charge a levy on trade unions and employer associations.

[Jo Stevens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I am going to make some progress.

It is important to understand that employer associations are also subject to the levy. The Bill does not prescribe the amount of the levy because the certification officer is independent. It is for the certification officer to decide each year how much they need to charge to cover the costs of performing their functions. We have taken the approach of providing a regulation-making power, rather than setting out in the Bill exactly how the certification officer is to determine the amount of the levy, because the Bill expands the certification officer’s role. It is only once this new expanded role is established that it will be possible to determine precisely how the regime should work. Having said that, we also recognise that Parliament and those directly affected rightly expect to see how the regime will work when Parliament is being asked to agree the detail of the legislation. That is why the Bill sets out specific parameters for the content of the regulations. It is also why the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The clause also requires consultation before any regulations are made.

To meet our objective of cost recovery, the levy must be enough to cover the cost of the certification officer’s functions, but it cannot be any more than the certification officer needs. The certification officer cannot make a profit from their activities, nor undertake spurious activities to generate funds. That is only right as the certification officer is an independent public appointment and not a commercial enterprise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to speculate on any figure he likes, but we are going to leave it to the independent certification officer to assess the additional requirement and to set an appropriate levy.

We recognise that trade unions can vary greatly in size and that employers associations are often small, meaning that the size of the regulatory functions provided by the certification officer to such organisations may vary greatly. Smaller unions and employer associations may require less of the certification officer’s time and resources.

[Jo Stevens]

I am pleased to hear that clarification about employers organisations. Will the Minister tell us whether federated employers organisations, such as the CBI, will be covered by the measure?

[Nick Boles]

My understanding is that federated employers associations will not be covered, but all other employers associations will be.

We want to be able to consider whether organisations that use more of the certification officer’s time should bear more of the cost. We will need to consult before determining whether that is the right way to proceed and will only take that approach if we find during consultation that it costs more for the certification officer to regulate larger organisations that it does for smaller ones.

Let me conclude by summarising the safeguards in the Bill on the way the levy is to operate: the amount of the levy will be limited to covering the cost of the certification officer functions; ACAS, unions and employer associations will be consulted before regulations are made; the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing a full debate in Parliament before they are brought into force; and the certification officer will be required to report annually on the amount levied and how that was determined, which will be published and laid before both Houses, ensuring transparency.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I want to clarify a point that was made just before we adjourned this morning. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central asked whether federated employer associations such as the CBI will be covered by the levy, and I said no. Indeed, it was narrowly correct to say that because the CBI will not be caught by the levy, but it may help the Committee if I provide a little more context to my answer.

Federated employer associations would be covered by the levy, provided that they meet the statutory definition in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The certification officer keeps a list of employer associations that have asked to be listed, as well as a schedule of those that have not applied to be listed but that the certification officer considers meet the statutory definition. The CBI is not listed, so as it stands the levy will not cover an organisation of that type. It will continue to be left to the certification officer to decide who meets the definition in the future. I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady if she would like further clarification on the statutory definitions in the 1992 Act and how they apply in practice.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister. If he could write to me, that would be good.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

That is right, and it is an excellent point. There is also the other example of someone who works for a large employer who may have two different jobs for that employer—perhaps part time in two departments. Again, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point.

If the state is banning voluntary collective agreements, I must ask the Minister at what the point the Conservative party went from being laissez-faire to Stalinist. This goes against what I consider to be the principles the Conservative Party was founded on. The arguments advanced are also irrelevant because, if income tax can be deducted at source, then why not trade union subscriptions?

The measure will also leave the public sector at risk of legal challenge. The International Labour Organisation is looking at other countries that have tried the same thing, such as Congo. In 2010 the ILO committee of experts reported

“since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee once again notes with regret that the Government has still not specified whether the abandonment of the check-off system in 1991 had the effect of barring trade unions from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee once again reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and their transfer to the unions is not a matter that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining”.

The ILO committee of experts is now making observations on Croatia as well. It noted that

“in general, a legal provision which allows one party to modify unilaterally the content of signed collective agreements is contrary to the principles of collective bargaining”.

Its continues:

“The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the aforementioned Act and underlines the importance of ensuring that any future Act on the Realization of the State Budget does not enable the Government to modify the substance of collective agreements in force in the public service for financial reasons.”

Those are very serious matters. The Government are leaving themselves open to risk on that basis.

Once again, the principles of consent are relevant. Some public bodies, as the shadow Minister has said, receive income from trade unions to administer check-off, and the general secretary of Unison, Dave Prentis, made it clear in his evidence that Unison pays for the facility when it is asked to. The public sector does not support the principle of banning check-off. The consent of the devolved Administrations, local authorities and other public bodies should be required, but we believe that the real intention is to make derecognition easier in the workplace. The new clause strikes at the heart of trade union organisation and is insidious.

I do not think that the Minister has yet demonstrated that he understands the principles of consent or devolution. He has made the extraordinary claim that the Government are complying with the Smith agreement, but I think that the only people who think so are the Government; no independent analysis shows that. I think that it is the right of all public bodies to institute their own arrangements for industrial relations, check-off and facility time. We appeal to the Minister once again to try to understand the principles behind those things, and I hope he will accept the amendment.

[Jo Stevens]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the final Committee sitting, Sir Edward.

In tabling the new clause on check-off, the Government seem extremely concerned to bring trade unions into the 21st century. For the second time in Committee I am forced to admit that I agree with the Minister—not on the content of the new clause, but on the aim of modernisation. The Government seem to believe that paying union subscriptions online, via a bank account, is an acceptable facet of 21st-century trade unionism, but that secure online balloting is not. We must ask ourselves why.

I had an inkling of that while looking back through a 2011 Conservative Home column—I have very exciting evenings—which, thanks to a quotation from the then Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, specifically tied the issue of check-off to the collection of a political levy. That makes me wonder whether the motive for the new clause has more to do with that issue. About 3.8 million public sector workers could be affected by the proposed changes, yet there is no groundswell of demand for the changes from anyone other than the Conservative party.

I want to set out a few inconsistencies to highlight how the new clause does not make sense. I have mentioned the Government’s hypocrisy in opposing online balloting, so I begin with the fact that the use of check-off is voluntary. No employer has to offer it. As with facility time, the right should be with the employer to decide whether the practice benefits their workforce or not. In the case of local government and the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland, the Westminster Government are imposing top-down solutions to problems that do not exist on the ground.

Secondly, this is not about taxpayers’ money. In many instances, as we have heard, trade unions pay for the very small cost of administering check-off. As the Minister has pointed out, this is the 21st century: payroll is automated. As Unison noted it its written evidence to this committee, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the coalition Government wrote to stop attempts to end check-off, saying that,

“Departments should be aware that there is no fiscal case for doing this, as the Unions have offered to pay any costs associated with check-off, which are in any case minimal”.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned, Unison general secretary Dave Prentis gave us evidence on 15 October about check-off arrangements and gave numerous examples of arrangements that Unison has in place where it either pays for the check-off system, or the employer that the union works with makes money out of it. He named Fife Council, East Lancashire hospitals, Bradford City Council, and Derbyshire County Council, to name a few. If cost really were the issue here, surely the appropriate response is to ensure that the costs are met, rather than to entirely abolish the system.

That brings me to how check-off is used by other organisations. From animal welfare to cancer charities, from helping the homeless to children’s organisations, payroll giving is commonplace. Workplace Giving UK says that it is the most efficient way to give to charity—it works with huge charities such as the Stroke Association and Macmillan. The Payroll Giving Centre claims that over 8,000 employers use the system, with over 1 million people donating from their salaries. It is efficient and easily understood, yet while this system of giving seems set to continue and indeed expand for charities, it is being removed for trade union members.

Finally, on transparency and accountability, check-off ensures that members do not continue to pay their subscription after they have left employment. It is a very clear and easy way for a member to pay subscriptions when in employment but not to continue doing so when they leave their job. Taken with other sections of this Bill, this new clause contributes to a new, sprawling and costly bureaucracy that is being put in place with the sole aim of impeding the ability of trade unions to organise politically and industrially. This is all that this is.

We oppose the new clause and the Bill, but if the Minister really wishes to demonstrate that he is serious about modernisation, I urge him to withdraw the new clause and instead bring forward measures to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not spent on check-off, if that really is his concern, and to specify that trade unions pay for the facility themselves, as many already do.

[Nick Boles]

I will start by answering some of the questions raised by Opposition Members. There was a question about the transition period and how long trade unions with check-off arrangements would be given to move people over to direct debits. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has suggested that a transition period of six months from commencement of the provisions on check-off would be appropriate.

Trade Union Bill (Seventh sitting)

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Mearns]

I am not surprised because the vast majority of our adult population goes to work for a living. Whether they are members of trade unions or not would not stop them in extreme circumstances trying to exercise their right to withdraw their labour if they felt their employer was being unreasonable. The legislation is not necessary but it is highly offensive. Workers and trade unionists are the backbone of this country, the so-called hard-working people that the Tory party pretends to bother about and represent.

The measure of a civil society is how it respects the rights of its citizens, and how those without power and wealth are able to challenge those with power and wealth. With this legislation—particularly this clause—the Government have demonstrated precisely where they stand on the issue of human rights and freedom. Their fundamental position is to oppress and restrict the weakest, the most vulnerable and those without, in order to protect at all costs privilege, wealth and inequality.

The restrictions in the Bill on picketing are a disgrace and threaten to increase tensions on picket lines by singling out workers who are merely exercising their democratic right to withdraw their labour. It is, therefore, no surprise to learn that the human rights organisations we heard from last week—Liberty and Amnesty International—have said the provisions in the Bill represent a major attack on civil liberties in the United Kingdom.

It is not only human rights organisations that are uneasy about the proposed arrangements on picketing. Substantial concerns have been raised on the practicalities of the arrangements, some of which have been communicated first hand to this Committee. I draw on evidence provided to us last week by Deputy Chief Constable Hall of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who said:

“In the majority of cases, there is no real need for the police to be involved with industrial disputes and picketing. Indeed, our stance is that we would wish to avoid it if we can. Many pickets and industrial disputes run without any contact or involvement with policing.”

He went on to say:

“There are provisions in the Bill for police to be notified of picket lines, and my reading of that is that, in pretty much every instance, we would be notified of industrial disputes and picketing. My position is that I do not see that as absolutely necessary, simply because we would expect those picket lines to be self-policing as far as possible. Involvement of police beyond that should be the exception, rather than the rule.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 93, Q242.]

That gives us a clear insight into his opposition to the proposals on those grounds.

Deputy Chief Constable Hall is not alone in that. The Police Federation added similar concerns that the already overstretched police force would not be able to cope with increased levels of supervision of pickets and continue to do its job effectively, as it is already struggling due to limited resources at present. Its statement articulately expresses that sentiment:

“As we have seen in recent weeks, some forces may not even be able to investigate burglaries in future...This proposal for officers to more intrusively supervise strikes indicates more clearly than ever that what we need is a wide-ranging debate to inform both the future direction of the police service and the public’s expectations as to what we are able and simply unable to do. Police officers join the job to keep the public safe and lock up criminals but doing that job effectively is getting close to impossible for many officers around the country.”

It is not just the police force that has concerns about the lack of resources. The general public—the very people who those on the Government Benches claim to be putting first by implementing the Bill—agree. We have heard about the YouGov survey and the TUC figure that three quarters of the public believe it is a bad use of police time for workers taking industrial action to have to give the police 14 days’ notice if they intend to carry a loudspeaker or banner on the picket line; I happen to agree.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

The Government’s own Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultation document acknowledges that most unions are already conforming to the guidance set out in the code of practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that this whole raft of new restrictions is therefore entirely unnecessary?

[Ian Mearns]

I could not agree more; I was just coming on to that very point. There is already legislation in place that those on picket lines must, and do, comply with. That “peaceful pickets” legislation is outlined in section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and unions must also follow the relevant code of practice. If that legislation were breached on a regular basis, I could see why the Government would feel the need to push through this Bill, in order to safeguard workers and the public, but unions do comply with existing legislation. Even the Government’s own BIS consultation document supports that statement, finding that most pickets do conform with guidance in the code of practice. In that case, why do the Government believe the legislation is so necessary? Are they not using a legislative sledgehammer to crack a very small nut?

Furthermore, as the Regulatory Policy Committee’s recent review of the Government’s impact assessment of the measures on picketing found,

“there is little evidence presented that there will be any significant benefits arising from the proposal”.

Given that such organisations have failed to find any need for the proposal or any significant benefits arising from it, why is the legislation being rushed through the House at such a pace? As we heard, we have not had much time to go through the Bill line by line, despite its importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

That is a concern, because the use of blacklists by some employers—I will not tar all employers with the same brush—has had a devastating impact on hard-working families.

The results of the public consultation have not yet been published. I refer to my earlier comments about the overstretched police force. Do Government Members believe that policing peaceful picket lines, monitoring wildcat tweeting and using wider controls on social media are the best use of police time? As I see it, the proposal merely serves to stack the already skewed balance of power in the workplace further away from employees by adding unnecessary caveats to their right to withdraw their labour if they are upset by the actions of their employer.

[Jo Stevens]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Government Members seemed perturbed by our opposition to their proposals on picketing during the evidence sessions last week. They did not seem to understand how a picket line could be assembled because of an incredibly serious issue and yet be done with good humour and within the law. I am sure many of our colleagues across the trade union movement would be happy to visit a picket line with them, to show them what happens there. As with much of the coverage of trade unions in the papers, the headlines do not match the reality.

As we have heard, there are already strict rules for picketing and adherence to the code of practice, which even the CBI, the Government’s own witness, admitted last week generally “works well”. In the minority of cases in which there is an issue, the police already have sufficient powers to deal with any sort of suggested intimidation or abuse, because such actions are illegal. Picketing is not illegal—so far. It is therefore completely unnecessary to bring forward increases in regulation and bureaucracy that will waste police time. That is why so few witnesses supported the Government’s proposals in the evidence sessions or could say why such clauses are needed given the current laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Before I address the detail of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, let me state clearly that the Government recognise peaceful picketing as an entirely lawful activity. People must be able to exercise their rights to assemble and to freedom of expression. The Bill does not change any of that. The law has been developed in order to protect such rights. It provides unions with statutory immunity against claims for damages to enable individuals to peacefully persuade others to break their contracts.

The rights to assemble and to freedom of expression are rights that apply to all of us. That is the whole point. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that right should not be exercised by some at the expense of others. We cannot defend picketing being used as an opportunity to intimidate people who exercise the same rights to freedom of expression and of assembly, which, in their case, is the right to disagree with the union’s position when it is in dispute with the employer and to go into work.

The Bill will require unions to supervise picketing. The main requirement is to appoint a picket supervisor. That provision is in the code of practice on picketing, which states:

“Wherever picketing is ‘official’ (i.e. organised by a trade union), an experienced person, preferably a trade union official who represents those picketing, should always be in charge of the picket line.”

The code also states that picket organisers should ensure that

“the pickets understand the law and are aware of the provisions of this Code, and that the picketing is conducted peacefully and lawfully.”

That provision has been in the code of practice for more than 20 years, and no representation has ever been made that expecting people to abide by it represents an infringement of their freedom. The code provides further detailed guidance on the functions of the picket supervisor that, if followed, should result in peaceful picketing.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and his hon. Friends have said that unions already adhere to the code of practice on picketing, and we have always agreed with that point—indeed, the consultation made that clear—but it does not always happen. For example, Transport for London told the Carr report:

“Conduct on the picket line towards employees not participating in industrial action can be aggressive. The word ‘scab’ is often used. Frequently we have seen swearing and shouting directed at an individual”.

Such behaviour is just not excusable. The picket supervisor therefore plays an important role in ensuring that pickets understand that such behaviour is not in accordance with peaceful picketing.

[Jo Stevens]

Can the Minister tell us whether any arrests were made in that TfL example?

[Nick Boles]

I do not have that information to hand, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady, and obviously to copy in the rest of the Committee, on that question.

The appointment of a picket supervisor comes from the code; it is not new. The other provisions in the code will continue to guide the picket supervisor and the pickets to ensure that the conduct of picketing is peaceful. Where the picketing is peaceful, the union’s statutory immunity will not be compromised. I make it clear that an individual who breaks the law on the picket line is responsible for their own actions—the union is not responsible—but it is important that we take steps to ensure that picketing activity does not resort to intimidation in order to obtain support for a dispute.

The amendment would instead limit the appointment of a picket supervisor only to picketing that is organised directly by a union. Surely there should be no distinction between whether the picketing is organised or supported by a union. The law should apply to all picketing, without exception. The amendment would undermine the intended purpose of this clause by allowing a union to encourage picketing activity among its members without the supervision that I believe is necessary for the reasons I have set out.

The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question on whether the clause will prevent a union from expressing, online or somewhere else, solidarity in general terms with industrial action conducted elsewhere in the country, possibly by another union at an employer where the union expressing solidarity is not involved. The answer, of course, is no—that is freedom of speech—but where a union is encouraging picketing activity among its members without supervision, the application of this clause will be necessary. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Before I move on to the detail of the amendments, I will highlight again that the main requirements of the clause relate to provisions that are already in the code of practice on picketing, that they have been in that code since 1992 and that almost all unions since then have seemed to be perfectly happy to abide by them. In relation to police contact, the code says:

“Whether a picket is “official” or “unofficial”, an organiser of pickets should maintain close contact with the police…In particular the organiser and the pickets should seek directions from the police on the number of people who should be present on the picket line at any one time and on where they should stand in order to avoid obstructing the highway.”

The code goes on to say:

“He should have a letter of authority from his union which he can show to the police officers or to the people who want to cross the picket line.”

Obviously it was drafted when there was less recognition of the possibility of a female picket supervisor. We might want to amend that in future.

[Jo Stevens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I want to make a little more of my argument, but of course I will be happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention in a bit.

I turn first to amendment 28. To require in law that a picket supervisor contacts a senior-ranked police officer for this type of issue would be novel. I can find no precedent for such an approach. I am concerned about the potential practical difficulties for a picket supervisor being required to make contact with such a senior-ranking police officer as a chief constable, especially given that the purpose of the requirement to inform the police is so that they know which individual to contact in the event that a problem arises on the picket. That might be, for example, if the picket supervisor is absent from the picket at exactly such a moment.

There are only about 45 chief constables in Great Britain and they each have a wide portfolio of responsibilities. A picket supervisor may well not be able to contact a chief constable and, even if he or she did, the chief constable may not be able to respond quickly enough in such a scenario. That in turn could lead to problems for the union: for example, uncertainty as to whether a chief constable had indeed been informed could lead to doubt about whether the picketing can proceed and to legal challenge. That is why there is a broader reference to inform the police in the clause. That is more flexible. It will meet the objective and ensure that there is minimal delay for all concerned while still fulfilling data protection requirements. It is also important to recognise that that reflects the language of the code, which, to our knowledge, has not caused any problems.

There has been some commentary in the media about data protection concerns. The police are bound by the Data Protection Act 1998, including the principle that personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. Any concern that the police have mishandled such data can be brought before the Independent Police Complaints Commission for its consideration. Complaints on data handling can also be brought to the Information Commissioner.

[Jo Stevens]

I do not accept that the Government are simply transposing the existing code of practice provisions into legislation. Even if I did accept that point, why is primary legislation necessary if, as the Minister suggests, the code of practice does not cause any problems and everybody is happy with it?

[Nick Boles]

I do accept that this is a matter of legitimate debate, but there are all sorts of laws on the statute book that almost all citizens in the country abide by almost all the time, and that does not mean that we do not think those laws should be on the statute book. Laws are there not just to deal with the general behaviour of most people, but to deal with the extreme behaviour of a very small number of people in very rare circumstances. It is because most unions have abided by these provisions so happily and successfully that we feel it is reasonable to expect all unions in all strikes to abide by them. I fail to see that this is an egregious step. When we were drafting the Bill, I was clear to my officials that I did not want to go further than the existing code. I believe we have satisfied that in the Bill, so I fail to see the hon. Lady’s concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Stevens]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I am just going to move on, because we are never going to agree on this issue. I have stated my argument, and Opposition Members have stated their argument.

Let me move on to amendment 29 and the proposal of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth to remove the requirement to inform the police where picketing is to take place. Knowing the location of where picketing is to take place will help the police ensure that sufficient resources are available in the event of problems arising on the picket line. It will help the police to respond quickly and resolve any problems. This is not new. The code of practice on picketing sets out that a picketing organiser should establish advance consultation with the police and—I have already directly quoted from it—seek directions on where they should stand to avoid obstructions of the highway. The combined effect of those provisions is that the police will know where picketing will take place.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that such advance notification could restrict the right to assemble. I assure the Committee that the Government fully recognise the right to assemble, but we also recognise other people’s freedom and their right to go about their business and move freely. Such rights need to be balanced, and the provision in clause 9 achieves that balance.

Amendment 104 seeks to amend the effect of clause 9 in a number of different ways, which I will address in turn. The purpose of clause 9 is to require union supervision of picketing. The appointment of a picket supervisor is the main mechanism by which that is to be achieved. The picket supervisor should rightly be a trade union official or a member of the union who is familiar with the union’s approach and the reasons for the industrial dispute with the employer.

The amendment would remove the clarity that the picket supervisor should be an official or a member of the union. It would have the effect of removing the provision that the picket supervisor to be appointed must be an official or trade union member who is familiar with the code of practice on picketing. This important point came up earlier in the debate, and I say again that the code sets out practical and pertinent guidance to ensure that picketing is conducted peacefully and lawfully. A picket supervisor’s familiarity with the code represents sensible and practical preparation for someone about to undertake the role of picket supervisor.



The amendment would further remove the requirement to inform the police of the picket supervisor’s name and contact details, and of where the picketing will take place. I have already referred to the importance of the police’s understanding of whom to contact, particularly if a problem arises on the picket line. Knowing where the picketing will take place will enable the police to attend quickly, should they need to. The shadow Minister made a good, sensible argument about the strain on police resources; indeed, that was reflected in the evidence given to the Committee. I would simply say that the adherence to these very measured and sensible provisions—about having a picket supervisor who knows what the code of picketing says and who has told the police his mobile phone number and where the picket is going to be—is what will minimise the need to call on police resources. If everything is there quickly and easily in the event that a problem arises, the need for the police to supervise, unless there is a problem, is removed.

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.

Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting)

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady, but I do not want to have an endless ping-pong session with the hon. Gentleman at this point.

[Jo Stevens]

I refer the Minister to the letter of 14 October from the Welsh NHS Confederation to his colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which states:

“We feel that some of the proposals outlined in the Trade Union Bill could have a detrimental effect on this relationship”—

with trade unions—

“and potentially lead to unnecessarily challenging industrial relations in future…strike action in the NHS in Wales over the last decade has been minimal, despite significant organisational change and the introduction of significant changes to terms and conditions, so we do not believe that any additional measures to protect the public from strikes are necessarily required.”

Will the Minister comment on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Sir Alan, you know as well as I do that if I were even to dare tiptoe on to the question of the financial settlement with devolved Administrations, there is literally a device implanted in my brain that would explode and decapitate me. I am not going to go there, however much pleasure it might give Opposition Members. [Interruption.] However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to the Chancellor—or to me and I can pass on the request—I will, of course, reply to his question.

If there are no further requests for interventions, I will conclude. The amendments in this group seek to use the Bill as a mechanism to carve out different arrangements in employment law and industrial relations for Scotland, Wales, London and English local authorities. Parliament has already determined that these matters are reserved. The amendments are an attempt to extend devolution by the back door and that is why we cannot accept them. I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

[Jo Stevens]

In opposing clause 3 and speaking in support of our amendments, I wish I had the faith in the legal advice that the Minister seems to have in his lawyers. I remind the Government of the evidence that we heard last week from Professor Keith Ewing, professor of public law at King’s College, London, about the Bill being incompatible with settlements in Wales and Scotland, which is entirely contrary to the position that the Minister has just asserted. The Committee will recall that Professor Ewing said:

“The Government are walking, almost blindfolded, into a major constitutional crisis around the Bill. That constitutional crisis could be as explosive for this Government as the poll tax was for the Thatcher Government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is a big, big problem, and I am not sure that people have really thought through the consequences.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 129, Q346.]

Not having thought through the consequences is a recurrent theme in the Bill. I appreciate that the Government seem to have struggled to give examples of good industrial relations in England. Almost every example of industrial action and dispute that they have referred to has involved employees in London, which I would suggest is a reflection on the Mayor of London rather than on current industrial law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Is the hon. Lady as surprised as I am that the Minister’s response appears somewhat flippant, as though he wishes to call the bluff of the devolved Governments and the councils? There is little recognition of possible legal repercussions, costs and contingencies for the public.

[Jo Stevens]

I absolutely agree, and that is a risk that the Government are taking. The Bill has significant equality implications, despite the suggestion otherwise in the equality impact assessment—which reads, frankly, as though it was written on the back of a fag packet. The Bill presents a real danger that decades of progress on equality in the workplace will be undermined through the erosion of trade union rights. We know that trade unions are one of the best protections from discriminatory treatment in the workplace, with trained officers and representatives who deal with a range of workplace issues, protecting equality of treatment and, in the process, saving employers from reputational damage and litigation. It is simply not acceptable or legitimate for the UK Government to impose the Bill on Wales.

We have heard that the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister to set out his position and his concerns clearly and constructively. The Prime Minister’s response has been described by the Minister for Public Services as disappointing. I think he was being too polite. I would go further and describe it as inadequate. It failed to acknowledge any devolved interest whatever. We have heard from the Minister for Public Services that the Welsh Government are considering how they would seek to protect legitimate, devolved interests, including devolved public services, from the Bill, including tabling a legislative consent motion.

I go back to the comments of Professor Ewing from the beginning of my contribution. Do the Government really want to mire themselves in expensive, lengthy litigation with the Welsh Government over the Bill, played out in Supreme Court? Do the Government really want to suffer another embarrassing defeat as they did over the Agricultural Wages Board litigation with the Welsh Government?

The Bill was the subject of a debate in the Welsh Assembly last week. The Assembly Member for Pontypridd summed up the view of the Welsh Government by saying:

“We do not need this law in Wales and we do not want this law in Wales”—

it sounds a bit like Dr Seuss, this—

“And I know that we will do all that we can to support all those who oppose this Bill and, if necessary, to challenge its legitimacy in the Supreme Court.”

The Government have been given a clear warning. By accepting our amendments to clause 3, the Government have the opportunity to save time, save face and save taxpayers’ money. Will they take it?

[Stephen Doughty]

I want to respond briefly to a number of comments made by the Minister. Obviously, he maintained his position that this is a wholly reserved matter and claimed—shamefully—that this was about extending devolution by the back door. We on this side would contend that this is attempting to extinguish part of devolution by the back door. The Government have made that very clear.

The Minister is essentially saying to the Committee and to the public, “Trust me, it’s not devolved in any way: it’s all fine,” but we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central that the Government’s record on this is wobbly at best. They have already suffered serious defeats in the Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayer. I would expect, at the very least, the Government to have taken the most precautionary and consultative approach before proceeding with matters of this seriousness. The Minister did not want to detail all the different meetings or give a running commentary. I gently suggest to the Committee that that was because not many meetings, if any, took place before the Bill was published. That is certainly the impression we have been left with by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, let alone local government in England.

The Minister was very hazy on his expectations of the impact of the Bill on existing contractual arrangements, either retrospectively or going forward. I hope that he and the Government have very deep pockets, because I sense that this is not an idle threat; there are real, serious legal objections to the Bill and its implications and I imagine that a number of the bodies that are raising these concerns will take action over this. It is for that reason that I give the Minister a chance to exempt himself from that cost and trouble to the taxpayer, by pressing amendments 11 and 12 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree absolutely. I think that sits alongside the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that the unions want to have a high turnout and that they want to be able to have as much confidence as possible among their members, because of the fact they cannot sanction members for not taking part in the industrial action as agreed. It is important to look at the German example, because statutory thresholds, as proposed by the UK Government, would actually be unconstitutional in Germany. We heard about international comparisons in the oral evidence, and the Bill, in so many respects—this is yet another one—puts us in a very serious place in terms of the international league of whether these measures restrict or infringe on long-established rights. Therefore, we will oppose the clause, because we think it is ill thought out, partisan, open to serious legal challenge, breaches the devolution settlement and will not do anything to better industrial relations.

Amendment 4 is a probing amendment that provides that the 40% threshold should only apply to those who are normally engaged “solely” in the provision of important public services or ancillary activities. We need to discuss this very important issue, and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on it. The amendment is designed to highlight the problems that unions will face when trying to determine whether the 40% threshold applies. It is not clear whether individuals who spend only part of their time providing important public services will be covered by the 40% yes vote requirement.

Let us take, for example, education unions planning to ballot staff in a school with a sixth form, where they might be involved in the provision of education to young people of different ages. Trade union officials will find it very difficult to assess whether staff who teach both pupils aged under 17 and those in years 12 and 13 are “normally engaged” in providing “important public services”. That will be particularly problematic where teachers’ work schedules vary during the academic year. It is just one of the many implementation problems that I do not think the Government can have seriously thought through if they intend to proceed with the Bill as drafted.

Amendment 5 is also designed to encourage debate. It provides that the 40% yes vote requirement should apply to those employed in the provision of “essential public services” rather than “important public services”. As I have said, the Government’s proposed restrictions extend well beyond the definition of “essential services” recognised by the ILO. The Government claim that the proposed thresholds are justifiable because they do not introduce a complete ban—some would beg to differ—on the right to strike in “important public services”. They therefore argue that the ILO standards do not apply.

However, the Employment Lawyers Association warned the Government against introducing thresholds to services not covered by the ILO definition of “essential services” in its response to the BIS consultation on balloting thresholds. The response continued:

“ELA cautions that if the provisions”—

in the Bill and any accompanying regulations—

“are not drawn as narrowly as possible then the Government runs the risk of a challenge on the basis that the imposition of the raised thresholds infringes Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any restrictions on the right to strike must not be greater than necessary to pursue a legitimate aim and…necessary in a democratic society.”

That is why it is important that we look at the ILO definition. It is very tightly defined, referring to public safety and so on. It is very clearly defined in terms of where things would be problematic. The Government are going well beyond that boundary. The ILO has criticised Governments who have introduced thresholds for industrial action ballots. The ILO committee on freedom of association has concluded:

“The requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike, particularly in large enterprises.”

The ILO has called on Governments who have imposed statutory thresholds to amend their national laws to bring them into closer conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Dare I make some international comparisons? The countries that it has gone after include Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. Does this country really want to be in that territory? Not only are we going well beyond what a near neighbour in the EU—Germany—believes would be unconstitutional, but we will be putting ourselves in the league of countries that are being criticised by the ILO, such as Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. That simply is not good enough.

I come now to amendment 6. The 40% yes vote requirement will apply not only to individuals directly involved in the delivery of important public services, but to individuals normally engaged in

“activities that are ancillary to the provision of important public services.”

As a result, hundreds of thousands of union members working in large parts of the private services sector are likely to be caught by the 40% threshold. The amendment would therefore delete the reference to ancillary activities. Again, it will be very hard to define and identify who is involved in such activities. The Government are clearly trying to apply the provision as widely as possible and certainly well beyond what the ILO would expect.

Further to amendment 5, amendment 9 would define essential public services in line with the ILO definition. We want the wording to mean

“services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.

We have some very serious issues for the Minister to explain. He needs to explain how these passages will be implemented. When we look at international legal comparisons, the potential impact of the measure, the breach that I referred to and the risk of legal challenge, we are experiencing many of the same challenges as we discussed under the last clause, and I hope that the Minister can explain his position.

[Jo Stevens]

We have heard numerous submissions in evidence to the Committee, both oral and in writing, that the Government’s definition of “important public services” is at odds with the definition of essential services used in international law, but if we go outside the legal technicality of this broad definition, there are many practical considerations to assess when it comes to important public services and I do not see that the Government have put any thought into those practicalities on the basis of the Bill as drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

We will identify the people to whom the provisions will apply within the sectors in the regulations, and we have consulted properly on that. I suspect that Opposition Members would criticise us if we had just written in the Bill a precise breakdown of groups of employees within those sectors to whom the provision will apply without having consulted. We have consulted, and we received many responses. We will make clear proposals for who we expect to be covered by the provision before the Bill achieves Royal Assent.

[Jo Stevens]

Can the Minister tell us when those regulations will be published?

[Nick Boles]

I have consistently made it clear that it will be before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I cannot give the hon. Lady the precise timing. We do not know the precise timing of the Bill’s further parliamentary stages, because that is not entirely within our gift, but the regulations will come forward before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The whole Bill seems to be about creating additional burdens, which will, quite frankly, make illusory a lot of the rights that trade unions and their members—ordinary workers up and down the country—enjoy at the moment and put those people at serious risk of not being able to execute those rights.

Let me turn to the amendments, which have been tabled to encourage debate. We will decide whether to press any to a Division when we have heard what the Minister says. Amendment 14 would require unions to state on the ballot paper

“the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates”,

but they would no longer be required to provide a detailed description of “every aspect of the dispute”—that very amorphous term that the Government are using.

Amendment 15 would require unions to provide a description of the trade dispute, rather than a

“reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue”.

In general, reducing and simplifying the information about the dispute that unions are required to provide on the voting paper would assist in the earlier settlement of disputes. As a result, workers would return to work faster. Disputes would be less likely to escalate, and there would be fewer legal challenges, reducing costs for employers and unions. That is an important point.

The Bill is muddying the waters around straightforward and transparent processes that already exist. Essentially, we are providing a very big space for the lawyers’ hands to come in and for a lot of cost to be expended on behalf of business, the public sector and trade union members. We should avoid legal proceedings wherever we can and encourage arbitration, negotiation and the reasonable settlement of disputes without recourse to the courts. All the proposals in the Bill will increase costs for all the parties involved.

Amendment 16, approaching things in a different way, would remove the requirement to describe the types of action short of a strike on the ballot paper. Amendment 17 would remove the requirement on trade unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action. Instead, trade unions would be required simply to state whether the proposed action is continuous or intermittent, which is perfectly reasonable. That would clearly set out whether it would be one long piece of industrial action or one with numerous parts to it.

Amendment 18 would remove the requirement on trade unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action. Instead, trade unions would be required to state when the industrial action was scheduled to start—in principle, that is reasonable—and when any discontinuous industrial action would come to an end. If we are going to start requiring unions to set out detailed explanations and timetables on how they will conduct the action and so on, action may be stirred up at earlier stages in disputes and people will be encouraged not to seek arbitration and reconciliation. Instead, conflict will be encouraged. Amendment 19, taking a slightly different approach, would completely remove the requirement on unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action.

The amendments are intended to tease out of the Minister how he sees this part of the legislation operating in practice and make him justify why it is necessary. Balloting is already a straightforward process. It is already clear what people are voting on and what types of action are being proposed. This part of the Bill simply seeks to muddy the waters and may result in a lot of expensive litigation.

[Jo Stevens]

I rise to speak in opposition to clause 4 and in support of amendments 14 to 19. From reading the clause, the Government appear to think that trade union members are not capable of understanding what they are voting on in a ballot on industrial action. That is a patronising attitude to working people, who do not lightly take industrial action; they consider carefully what they are voting for. They understand the issues. There is not one single shred of evidence of union members saying that they did not understand what they were voting on or why.

The Government propose changes to the law that will turn an industrial ballot paper from a succinct statement with a yes or no question to something resembling a legal disclaimer. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that the proposals are “counterproductive”. Employers’ lawyers have said that the proposals are vague and unworkable and that they will lead to legal challenges and expensive litigation. No one wants that—apart from the Government, it would appear.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, the purpose of the proposals appears to be to encourage court cases by employers. Witnesses to the Committee have said that they are not about information for union members, but ammunition for employers. Looking at the detail, the ballot paper must include

“a reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute”.

What does that mean? It has been criticised by lawyers across the spectrum for being so uncertain as to be meaningless. What is “reasonably detailed”? It is an oxymoron and it is contradictory. How will both sides of industry know whether something is detailed enough to be “reasonably” detailed or regarded as too detailed? Unions and employers will be in court every single time. What is “an indication”—a nod or a wink? This is not the language of statute, and I wonder whether it might come from the Prime Minister’s nudge unit. Anyone with any experience of industrial relations will know that the question of what is in issue in a dispute is often a matter of disagreement. This wording will further add to legal challenges.

The next requirement imposed by the Bill is to state

“the type or types of industrial action”.

What does that mean? We heard in evidence to the Committee that even Government lawyers themselves cannot explain it. The current definitions of “strike” and “action short of a strike” have been clarified by case law and amendments to statute over the years. They are now clear and well understood, so what are the “types” of action the Bill refers to? We are told that they include an overtime ban, for example, and work to rule, but those are not legal terms of art. Again, this will lead to expensive litigation and legal wrangling in the courts.

Finally, the union must state on the ballot paper

“the period or periods within which the industrial action or…each type of industrial action is expected to take place.”

Why should a union be required to state that information at the stage of the ballot, weeks before any action could lawfully take place, when they must in any event give notice of dates of action after the ballot is completed and before action takes place? The intention behind every single one of these provisions is to set legal traps for unions so that employers can run off to court and get injunctions to stop legitimate action.

Employers, however, do not want the provisions either. They fear the consequences. Employers’ lawyers have said they are concerned that unions will have to draw the descriptions on the ballot paper as widely as possible to give themselves legal protection. Unions will have to include every possible type of action they might take and set out every day on which they might take each type of action.

What is more, employers’ lawyers fear that to avoid legal challenges, unions will have to stick to every single detail spelled out in the ballot paper. They will not be able to resolve any issues in the dispute unless all issues are resolved, otherwise they will face legal challenge. They will have to take every type of action specified and on every single day specified, otherwise they will face legal challenge. How on earth is that supposed to reduce the number of disputes that take place? It will simply increase them.

Disputes will escalate. They will become more entrenched and more difficult to resolve, all because of these changes. That is why the CIPD says that the proposals are a “significant step back” that will “harden attitudes”. I invite the Minister to withdraw them, but if the Government persist with these counterproductive proposals that no one wants, they should be amended as we propose.

[Nick Boles]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to set out in more detail what sort of information we expect unions to include on the voting paper. I fear this may take a little time, but I want to address all the amendments tabled and why we will resist them.

I will start with first principles. We want unions to be absolutely clear with their members about what they are being asked to vote for, in order to ensure full transparency in any industrial action ballot. It is clearly in the interests of union members, as well as employers and the wider public who are affected by strike action, that those being asked to vote for such action can make a fully informed decision about whether to back it.

I remain concerned that merely requiring a trade union to state the trade dispute without requiring any further detail, as suggested in amendment 14, would not meet the objective of enabling members to make a fully informed decision. It would only require a very broad statement. In reality, it will in most cases mean that members have no more information about the dispute than they have from wider communications. It does not provide enough clarity for union members to determine whether they choose to support industrial action. That cannot be right or democratic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

Perhaps I can help the Committee because, before I came to this House, I conducted industrial relations on behalf of the business of which I was an owner with a recognised trade union. I would certainly not have wanted detailed information about the disputes, very few of which took place over a 26-year period, to be publicly available online for anyone else to see. This raises not only issues of reputation and industrial relations between businesses but also issues of commercial sensitivity that would adversely affect businesses. I am sure that is not what the Government want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

There the hon. Gentleman goes again with his blood-curdling language. I have been described as introducing “an executioner” of trade unions. The simple truth, as ever, is a lot duller: we are just trying to beef up the certification officer’s role so that it can be a modern regulator of trade unions.

The certification officer will have no greater and no more expansive powers than other regulators—indeed, rather less in some examples. We also want more transparency for everyone about industrial action undertaken by unions. Effective regulation and transparency help to improve confidence in how institutions are run, which can only be a good thing. It is slightly surprising to hear the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues argue against transparency, as if somehow the public interest is better protected by keeping things secret. That is a surprising position for the Opposition to take.

We will discuss the detail of the certification officer’s role later, and I do not want to anticipate that. This debate is about the information that trade unions are required to provide to the certification officer about industrial action. That is an important requirement, because the timely provision of good quality information is a key component of ensuring effective regulation. It gives more confidence to those affected by industrial disputes, which is of course why trade unions are already required to provide certain information every year to the certification officer. That is set out in section 32 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and annual returns submitted to the certification officer are already available for public inspection. I do not remember any proposal coming forward from the previous Labour Government to alter the fact of those annual returns or of that availability. If industrial action is taken during the period of the return as a result of a successful ballot called by a union, the clause requires that union to include certain information about the action in its annual return to the certification officer.

[Jo Stevens]

Can the Minister tell the Committee who exactly has asked for the provision? We are not aware of anyone, neither employer nor union, who has asked for it.

[Nick Boles]

I have news for the hon. Lady: the Government sometimes act because they have received a mandate—and a majority—at a general election on a clear proposal in their manifesto. That clear proposal was to reform the role of the certification officer. The Government have also, during the term of the coalition Government, had a longstanding commitment to transparency in the public interest and we are not ashamed to continue that in the clause.

The union will need to provide details about the nature of the dispute, the nature of the industrial action and when the action was taken, as specified by clause 4. One of the ways in which we seek to achieve a more effective role for the certification officer is by ensuring that he has full information about any industrial action proposed and taken by a union. We want to achieve that through increased transparency in the annual return to the officer. The clause also requires a union to provide the certification officer with details of the outcome of any ballot for industrial action, if the union has called a ballot during the period of the annual return. That requirement applies whether the ballot was successful or not.

Accurate information presented in a transparent manner about industrial action proposed and taken by a union helps to demonstrate to union members, and to the wider public, that unions are properly regulated and fully accountable for their actions. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I regularly speak to many small businesses up and down my constituency. I have a very positive relationship with them, and I have a good degree of understanding of the challenges they face. As I have repeatedly said in this Committee, we want to avoid situations in which industrial action takes place. That is not under dispute in this debate or in our discussion about the whole Bill, but we believe the Government are going too far on the restrictions on reasonable rights.

[Jo Stevens]

Is it not the case that the litigation to which the hon. Member for South Ribble referred is actually brought by employers, not by employees or trade unions? It is employers who bring injunctions against industrial action.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend speaks with a great degree of legal experience and expertise from her previous career. That is indeed the case, and it is a very important point to make. I believe this is just a case of providing opportunities to undermine, rather than seeking resolution and negotiation in a consensual manner. It again provides the potential for protracted disputes, which means that amicable settlements will be more difficult to achieve. If the Government were serious about promoting positive industrial relations, dialogue, agreement, conciliation and arbitration, they would not simply be extending time, which is already extensive, on the basis that people will be shocked if there were a tube strike tomorrow. People know well in advance if such things are happening, and it is deeply patronising to suggest otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 8, page 4, line 14, leave out “four months” and insert “twelve months”

The amendment would extend the period before any new ballot would be required, and reduce the risk of incompatibility of the provisions with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – an issue addressed by the Government in its memorandum on the Bill.

As we have discussed, Opposition Members believe that many of the measures we have scrutinised risk making industrial relations worse, not better. Clause 8 is no exception to that rule. Existing legislation provides that so long as industrial action starts within four weeks of a successful ballot, the mandate for it remains intact for as long as the dispute with the employer exists. The changes brought about by clause 8, however, will mean that trade unions are no longer required to start industrial action within four weeks. Where industrial action, whether continuous or discontinuous, lasts for more than four months, the union will be required to reballot.

The clause will have two effects. First, it will create substantial legal and administrative costs for trade unions, which spend significant sums of money on ballots to ensure the very participation that the Government say they want to encourage. I do not see that the Government appreciate the impact this will have—perhaps I am suspicious that they do—on unions in terms of costings.

Secondly, where ballots meet the Government’s thresholds, the measures will actually intensify disputes, leading to more sustained industrial action at the outset as unions try to settle disputes without the need to reballot, given the financial implications. That is a real threat, and one that I do not believe the Government have given consideration to. Again, if their intent is to prevent industrial action and strikes, why are they introducing this sort of measure? This inevitably risks worsening employment relations and creating more disruption for the wider public, which none of us wants.

The additional risks posed by the clause to industrial relations, coupled with the fact that the number of days lost to industrial action are at a historic low—my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead pointed out that the days lost to industrial action today are barely one hundredth of those lost in the 1970s, with nearly two thirds of actions lasting only one day—mean that many are rightly wondering what the purpose of the clause is.

I gently suggest to the Committee that the Government’s focus for the proposals is some particular public sector disputes relating to the Government’s proposals on pay and pension changes. In those disputes, trade unions have often relied on one ballot mandate to organise a succession of strike days over 12 months or so, to limit the immediate impact in the short term but make clear their concerns over a period and encourage the Government to negotiate on the matter. However, under the Government’s proposals, after four months, unions will be required to reballot, even if employers refuse to engage in genuine negotiations and the dispute remains unresolved. I believe this has more to do with silencing the critics of Government who want to raise legitimate grievances about pay, pensions and conditions at work.

[Jo Stevens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause is designed to allow employers to effectively sit out a dispute and refuse to negotiate in order to force a union to reballot, at considerable cost? For big public sector unions with hundreds of thousands of members, the costs are significant. In contrast, unions will feel forced to bring forward any planned strike days in an attempt to secure an earlier settlement.