Proxy Voting

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is obviously a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who gave a characteristic speech. I recall my suggestion during the urgent question, when I said that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) might be seeking a pair for this evening and I thought the hon. Gentleman might have been up for that, but he is here instead. What I would say is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so while I disagree with much of what he said, there are none the less some good suggestions for progress in some of the amendments he has tabled.

I am delighted to be here for this debate, as I am that we are having this debate and that we have this very good news. I again thank the Leader of the House for her dogged work behind the scenes, those from the Procedure Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee, and of course the Mother of the House and everybody who has helped to make this happen, which is so important.

I am particularly happy that, tomorrow, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn will be able to vote by proxy. I think she is probably still awake—she has a small baby, so I reckon she is still awake right now—so I would just say, “Tulip, we are so happy for you. Tomorrow, enjoy little Raphael and making sure your constituents are represented at the same time.” Indeed, I hope that this will go on to be useful for other hon. Members. I know that, with the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and for Fareham (Suella Braverman), many more babies are due to be born, and I think this is going to be a really positive step.

One thing I did agree with the hon. Member for Shipley about was the importance of fathers. In the urgent question last week, I was particularly moved by quite how many men stood up and talked about their experiences as dads and MPs, and about the guilt that they feel. I do hope, given that this is a pilot, that that is an issue we can return to as soon as possible. I just think it is not right in the 21st century for us to leave men out of this and say that two weeks is enough; it is not. Dads are incredibly important, which is why we introduced shared parental leave and why we should make sure this applies to men as well.

The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment, which seems to command support, about miscarriage, which is also incredibly important. I am fortunate in that I have not experienced miscarriage, but we have heard from hon. Members who have. However, I have had scares involving heavy bleeding. In fact, on one occasion when I was pregnant with Gabriel, I was in the House in the evening, I had just had something to eat and we were due to be voting late on Brexit, and that was when I started to bleed heavily. Anyone who has been pregnant will know how that feels: even though it is not uncommon, the fear strikes that something is going wrong, particularly in the first trimester.

I telephoned my midwife, who advised me to go to accident and emergency, and I went across the bridge to St Thomas’s. It became clear that, by the time I was seen, I was going to miss the vote on Brexit, so I had to contact my Chief Whip and, in doing so, tell him I was pregnant. I had not announced it to anybody yet, so it was not necessarily the circumstances in which I wanted to do that. I was kept in overnight as it happened, and I had a scan and everything was fine—do you know what, I was so delighted that that was the case—and the rest of the pregnancy was good, but that is a not uncommon experience. It is not one where a proxy vote would necessarily made a difference, but I share that because these are the types of experiences that people have when they are pregnant.

I know there will be so many other experiences like that that others have had, which is why a modern workplace ought to be able to accommodate and understand the types of things that people are going through. Of course it did not help that I inevitably received criticism from constituents for not having voted in that Division. I said that I was unwell, but that was not good enough and people still said that I should have been there. If someone has not announced she is pregnant, and in particular if she is worried about having a miscarriage, she really does not want to suddenly tell the world about it.

I hope that we will in future be able to extend this provision to other categories. My right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) has spoken movingly about his first time in Parliament when he was caring for his terminally ill first wife, and others have had similar experiences. In the future, bereavement and other circumstances should be covered, so that this place can be a genuinely modern Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

It would help if colleagues could shorten their speeches somewhat, but I am guided by colleagues.

Proxy Voting

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Leader of the House of Commons if she will make a statement on the obstacles to introducing proxy voting in Parliament.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this urgent question. I thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for her question. I have great respect for her, particularly for her invaluable work on the steering group to establish the Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy. She has also been a strong voice on the issue of proxy voting and I know that many of us enjoyed seeing her in her place during the previous debate on this matter with baby Gabriel.

I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) welcomed a new baby boy, Raphael, on Thursday. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending our very best wishes. There are a number of Members right across the House who are expecting babies in the coming months and so I know that this matter is, quite rightly, of huge importance to many.

I profoundly believe that all new parents should be able to spend uninterrupted time with their new baby. That is vital both for the physical and mental wellbeing of parents and their babies. Working to give every baby the best start in life has been a passion of mine for many years, and during this time I have had the pleasure of working closely with many hon. and right hon. Members across the House.

I was delighted that the Prime Minister asked me to chair a cross-Government ministerial group in June to explore what more the Government can do to improve the cradle-to-grave effects that result from better support in this critical period of our lives. The group that I chair will make recommendations to relevant Secretaries of State on how the Government can improve the co-ordination and cost-effectiveness of early years family support, and identify gaps in available provision. I am delighted to be visiting Home Start and Sure Start in Manchester this Friday with the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) to hear directly from parents about their experiences.

I assure the House that I am absolutely committed to making progress on the issue of proxy voting, and I am truly delighted to be able to confirm to the House today that a substantive motion on proxy leave in the case of maternity, paternity and adoption has been tabled today for the House’s agreement on Monday 28 January.

The motion I have tabled will largely follow the helpful recommendations set out in the Procedure Committee’s fifth report of the Session. It will facilitate baby leave for Members of Parliament and implement the House’s decision to agree to proxy voting in instances of baby leave.

The motion and Standing Order changes that I will table deviate in two minor ways from the drafting in the Procedure Committee report. First, the motion will provide for a pilot scheme of one year, with a formal review at the end of that by the Procedure Committee to ensure that it is working well. Secondly, for that reason, the Standing Order is temporary, and in agreement with the Clerks, the ability to make provision for proxy voting in so far as not provided for by the Standing Order was deemed unnecessary for the scheme to be fully workable. Those are the two minor changes.

This is a perfect example of how Parliament can work collaboratively to bring about important change, demonstrating the work of many colleagues from all parties, who have been determined to see this happen. This is a really positive moment for many colleagues across the House. There have been a number of constructive debates about this issue, and ultimately it is clear to me that the balance of opinion is that baby leave is a unique period of time and is crucial for new parents. This is a step forward, removing the choice between parliamentary and parental responsibilities and helping to make Parliament a more modern workplace.

I do hope that the House will be of the same opinion, and that it will fully support the motion next week to bring forward a pilot scheme for proxy voting.

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid.

[Jo Swinson]

First, I absolutely share in the congratulations that the Leader of the House is sending—I am sure from the whole House—to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on the birth of her gorgeous baby boy, Raphael.

I thought that things were pretty bad when, back in June in the heat wave, I was 10 days past my due date, but the Government’s response to the House’s instruction to introduce proxy voting gives a whole new meaning to the word overdue. In all seriousness, I congratulate the Leader of the House on her work and on getting to this stage; she is a genuine advocate. Those of us who have worked hard on this issue—the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and those of us who have recently been pregnant or are currently pregnant—know from our meetings with the Leader of the House that she has been seriously helping to drive this initiative within Government, I am sure to her frustration at times, because she is committed to this issue. However, it is shameful that last week the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn was put in the invidious position of having to make a choice—weighing up the potential health risks to her baby against whether her constituents could have their voice heard on the biggest issue of our time. Nobody should be put in such a position.

I would also say, for the record, that I think that it is disgusting that some have suggested that the hon. Lady was just trying to make a point. She was put in an impossible position and she made a choice. The judgment that comes from all corners of parents making choices like that, and all sorts of others, is out of order. We should respect the choice that she made.

Yes, the hon. Lady was offered a pair—that is what some people have said: “She was offered a pair.” but it is the Government’s fault that pairing is entirely discredited as a mechanism to enable pregnant MPs and new parents to discharge their responsibilities. I was nursing my two-week-old baby in July when I found out that the person I was paired with had voted anyway. He had not voted all day; he had voted in just the two Divisions that happened to be very close—one that the Government lost and one that they won. So forgive me if I am a bit sceptical about the assurances that we were given that that was a genuine mistake, because the result of the Chief Whip’s behaviour—as it then turned out, others had been asked to break their pairs too—was to cheat my constituents out of their voice on one of the biggest issues of our time: Brexit. So some Members of the Government—not the Leader of the House—have been dragged kicking and screaming to this position.

I also think we should put on record thanks to Esther Webber of The Times, whose article suggesting that it was the Chief Whip who was blocking this issue is, I suspect, not entirely unrelated to the date at which this announcement has been brought forward today, in response to this urgent question.

However, I ask the Leader of the House, why the delay? It has been nearly a year—five babies born; three more on the way. Does she appreciate the appalling message that that sends out about maternity rights? Fifty-four thousand women a year lose their jobs because of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and the Government’s response has been completely inadequate. The charade that we have seen in this House just underlines that message.

The baby son of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn is five days old. We in law do not allow new mothers to work for two weeks after their baby is born, which is why I am delighted that the Leader of the House says that the House will discuss this issue on Monday. May I ask her some practical questions? Will the motion have time allocated to it, so that it is not possible for a single voice to shout “Object!” and stop the debate happening? What discussions has she had with the Speaker’s Office to make sure that all the preparatory work is done, and that a scheme is in place, so that if the House approves the motion on Monday, the scheme can be in place on Tuesday?

Of course, that does not get round the issue of the voice of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn being heard on Monday for that vote. Perhaps the Leader of the House might like to suggest a pair for the hon. Lady on Monday evening—I do not know what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is doing then, but somebody like him may well appreciate having the night off.

We have waited long enough for this change. Modernising the House of Commons is a slow and laborious process—frankly, it is often quite like childbirth—so let us get on with it. I hope that on Monday night I will walk through the Lobby with the Mother of the House, the Leader of the House and many modernising MPs from all parties to get this done.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I say again that I consider the hon. Lady to be a friend and I entirely understand her frustration. I will respond to her questions in turn.

First, the hon. Lady talks about the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). As I said in business questions last Thursday, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn was offered a pair. She has also received an invitation to be nodded through should she wish her vote to be recorded. That would obviously require her to come to this place at some point during the day before the vote, when her name would be recorded; but in the meantime, she is invited to have a pair. I understand that she had a pair yesterday.

As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) knows, until proxy voting is in place, that remains the way in which those with illnesses and those having parental leave are accommodated. She will also be aware, as was said at the time, that the breaking of the pair in her case on, I believe, 17 July was done entirely in error. My right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) apologised directly to her, as did my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip on behalf of the Whips Office. I apologise to the House again, but I can assure all Members that it is intended that a pair be provided for the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn should she wish it, as was the case yesterday.

The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire asks about the delay. She will appreciate that this is a fundamental break with the past in this House. She will also appreciate that I wrote to the Procedure Committee in November 2017, asking it to look into this matter, because it was a significant change for the House, and the Committee raised a number of issues that needed resolution. For example, when should a proxy be used? Could it be just for Government business? Should it be for private business? Should it be for a closure motion? Should it be for life-or-death decisions only? Those were very important questions. Also, who should offer the proxy? Who should be the proxy? Who should provide that role, and what sort of consequences does that offer for the individual who may be voting against their conscience on behalf of another Member? Finally, there is the question of whether proxy should be used only for those on baby leave rather than for those who are ill or who have other priorities.

Those were significant questions and I understand the hon. Lady’s frustration at the time it is taking, but we have had a number of very constructive debates, and I believe that we have concluded that the issue of baby leave is unique, and therefore should have priority. That is why I am able to bring this forward today.

Finally, with the breaking of pairs, I totally understand that in the hon. Lady’s case that was extremely regrettable, but she will appreciate that, as an informal system, there are a number of problems with the administration of pairs. I would very gently point out to her that five Liberal Democrat MPs—almost half of the party’s MPs—have broken their pairs in this Parliament alone. It is not unique to the Government side; a number of pairs have been broken through genuine errors. All hon. Members need to consider the fact that there is a strong commitment to making the informal pairing arrangement work as well as it possibly can.

Proxy Voting

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I am very glad that I can contribute to this debate, as it falls in the period when I am briefly back in the saddle before going off on a further period of leave in October. Colleagues will not be surprised that I, having introduced shared parental leave as a Minister, and Duncan have chosen to share caring for our new baby.

I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and in particular to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for enabling me to speak early in the debate. The slight changes to its timing, with the urgent question and the statement, have made the feeding and expressing schedule slightly difficult. Gabriel will be arriving in the House in half an hour or so, so I really appreciate colleagues’ help in enabling me to make my speech at this point.

I do wish that I could say I welcomed this debate, which for some of us it is too little, too late. This House first resolved that Members with small babies should be able to vote by proxy seven months ago. Since then, Gabriel, Elijah and Solomon have been born, whom, instead of calling “honourable”, we might call the “adorable” babies for East Dunbartonshire, for Lancaster and Fleetwood and for North West Durham. Two more Commons babies are on the way, and I am sure colleagues will join me in sending good wishes to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), whose baby is due next week, and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who says she wishes she could be here. Unfortunately, she is experiencing heavy morning sickness, but she has been a strong campaigner for proxy voting. I very much welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and members of his Committee, who, to their credit, have produced an excellent report. They carried out the inquiry swiftly, and it is almost four months ago that they published their report recommending motions to be put to the House to make proxy voting on baby leave a reality, yet here we are having another general debate.

I can absolutely see the merit of looking at proxy voting more widely than in cases of baby leave, not least after the atrocious treatment of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) back in June. She travelled hundreds of miles in an ambulance from hospital, and was wheeled through the Lobby with a sick bucket on her lap. This does need to be looked at, but that is no reason to delay cracking on with the vote on introducing proxy voting for baby leave along the lines suggested in the report. It is better to take a step forward now than wait for perfection that may never arise.

I want to share the message one of my new fellow parly mums has sent me. She said:

“I am sick of being asked to vote on this and that by constituents and having to reply about pairing. People either don’t know what it is or they do because of how you were done over by the Tories—not a great advert!”

I have to say she puts it very compellingly. A cynic might conclude that, because all five pregnant or new mum MPs sit on the Opposition Benches, the Government are trying to kick this issue into the long grass. After what happened to me in July, I think I might be forgiven for being cynical about the Government’s motivations. I am sure the House can imagine my fury when I found out that the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) had voted in those two knife-edge Brexit Divisions, despite being paired with me, as I nursed my two-week-old baby.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady find it mysterious, as I did at the time, that the right hon. Gentleman actually remembered the pairing system on the other votes, which were not so close?

[Jo Swinson]

That really gave the lie to the line that this was some kind of honest mistake. It was, quite simply, a shameful act for the Government Chief Whip to ask a Member to break a pairing arrangement and for him to agree. It clearly was not an honest mistake, especially when it emerged that other MPs had also been asked to break their pair in those Divisions. I would say that, whether for reasons of maternity or illness or anything else, there is nothing honourable about deliberately breaking a pairing. It is cheating, plain and simple. What a sign of desperation!

However, on a more positive note, I want to put on the record my thanks to MPs from right across the House, and I include the Leader of the House in this, for the support they gave me when that happened. In particular, I say to those Conservative MPs who told their Chief Whip to take a running jump when he asked them to break their pair—unnamed, but they know who they are, whoever they are—that that is the behaviour of an honourable Member.

Despite the support of lots of people in the House, not quite everybody was supportive. On Twitter, I was told that

“duty comes before your health, happiness or family, if you’re not up to that, resign”,

and

“she should decide whether she wants to be a mother or an MP”.

A journalist wrote about

“whingeing women MPs who are not serious about parliamentary work”.

I have to say that one Member of this House questioned why on earth I could not spend five hours voting in Parliament in the evening with a two-week-old baby, because I had managed to spend 45 minutes in the afternoon at an anti-Trump demonstration a few days earlier. Well, I wonder why.

Maternity leave is a hard-won right, and no new mum should have to justify her activities when she leaves the house with her baby. Any parent of a newborn knows that just leaving the house is an achievement in itself. I do want to use my voice to help people who do not know what it is like and to understand the challenges so that they might be a little slower to cast judgment on new parents in future, and I want to talk frankly about breastfeeding.

When our first son was born, we tried everything to get him to latch on properly. We searched endlessly online for advice. We went to breastfeeding support groups, and we attempted every possible position to get a good latch. All the while, we were desperately trying to syringe enough expressed milk into his mouth, every couple of hours, so that he would not get ill. That was for only eight days, but it felt like an eternity. I am glad we persevered, because once you get the hang of it, breastfeeding is lovely, and frankly much less hassle than formula. Sleep deprivation can make people forget things, but if they are breastfeeding, that is one less thing to have to remember when they leave the house. Of course, not everyone can breastfeed, and the whole breast and bottle debate is just one more stick that is used to beat new mothers with. Parents need much more support and much less judgment.

This time round it was much easier to establish breastfeeding, but it still takes some time before mother and baby are confident and practised enough to get a good latch quickly at every feed. People are often less comfortable feeding in public in those early days—after a while, they can get up and answer the door while still feeding the baby and not break the latch, but at the beginning, they might find themselves staying perfectly still during a feed so that they do not disrupt the latch. A four-month-old can easily finish feeding in 10 minutes, but a four-week-old might take 45 minutes or more. Small babies can get confused switching between nipples and bottle teats, which is why the advice is not to use the bottle as well as the boob for the first four to six weeks. I doubt that such details have been discussed much in Parliament previously, but when we are considering how MPs can combine being a new parent with their responsibilities as an elected representative, it is important context.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting the challenges of feeding a baby, whether by bottle or breastmilk. I had to bring my baby in for a vote when she was around three months old. My baby was unable to latch on properly, even at that point, and I sat in the tea-room with a cover over me, trying to feed my baby and vote. I ended up feeding her in the Lobbies behind us, because I was determined and she wanted to eat. I do not think that is an appropriate setting for a baby of that age, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. These are the realities for mothers across the House.

[Jo Swinson]

Absolutely, and that is part of the challenge. What should someone do if they are in the middle of a feed and the Division bell rings? Do they stand up and try not to disrupt their baby, or do they feed in the Lobby, as the hon. Lady did? When babies are a lot older it is easier to manage those things, but there is a reason why proxy voting would be so helpful for parents of very young babies.

Above all, newborn babies are unpredictable. Duncan put it well to me the other day when he described being on parental leave by saying, “It’s like you need a bottomless well of contingency.” I just thought, absolutely. Someone can try to plan their day according to when their baby might respond best, when to go out, and when the baby is likely to sleep and be happy and not to fuss—in Gabriel’s case, that is early afternoon. Someone could be ready to head out, but then all of a sudden there is an up-the-back poo explosion, which means not just a change of nappy, but a change of vest and babygro. By the time they have cleaned all that up, the baby is hungry again, and by the time they have fed and winded them and are ready to go, they are more than an hour late for whatever it was they were doing.

That is not a massive problem if it means that someone has missed baby rhyme time, or if they have had to text an apology to a friend, who is also a parent and will totally understand that they will be late or miss the coffee they were going to have. Indeed, if someone does not manage to make it to an anti-Trump protest after all, nothing bad will happen. However, if it means that someone has missed a key vote in Parliament, that is an entirely different calculation, which is why it is so important to have a proper system for proxy voting.

Expressed milk is a lifeline for breastfeeding mums who go back to work, but it is not necessarily easy. As Gabriel is still just 10 weeks old, my diary has to accommodate slots for expressing or feeding several times a day, and I sit doing paperwork as the pump whirrs away noisily in the background. I am lucky; I have advantages that many mums do not enjoy. I have both a private office to express milk in, and the ability largely to control my diary. One member of parliamentary staff has been in touch with me to tell me of her frustrated attempts to find somewhere private to express milk when on the parliamentary estate. Although this debate is about voting, we must do better for breastfeeding mums who work in Parliament, whatever their role, and I hope that the House of Commons Commission will respond positively to that challenge.

We legislate here for the employment rights of new parents, but far too often those are flouted. In our country, 54,000 women a year lose their jobs because of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and that is a huge disincentive for men who want to be more involved as fathers when they see the consequences and what happens to mothers. We must do better at enforcing those rights, and we must set the tone for this issue. To put it simply, we must put our own house in order and make this simple change to enable new parents to fulfil their responsibilities to their child and their constituents. We should get on with it.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I am so much more in favour of persuasion than coercion. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. We could force MPs to attend a training session, but what kind of attitude would they have towards that training if they did not want to do it? Let us take a step back and think about how we want to do this. I agree with the hon. Lady, however, that unless we promote conversation and understanding about the principles and values that should guide behaviour, the risk is that confusion about what is acceptable will persist.

Rules and regulations are, of course, important, but PACAC’s work has shown so often that when rules are not underpinned by clear principles and values that are understood, discussed and talked about, the outcome is a preoccupation with compliance with the rules rather than with upholding what reflects the values and principles we want upheld. The road to damnation is all too congested these days with people arguing how their conduct was “within the rules”.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is talking about what we can do to improve the culture in this place, and I wholeheartedly endorse his suggestion of training on the seven principles of public life, although I actually think that we probably do need some sanctions and mandatory training. Does he think we need a different way of looking at this? It would be arrogant of someone to take the view that they did not need training, as if we stop learning at 18, when we leave full-time education, rather than continually aiming to find out more and work out how to do our job and fulfil our responsibilities better—and that includes continual learning and, yes, continual training.

[Mr Jenkin]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady, and I so much want her to win this argument and win hearts and minds, rather than have to resort to coercion, which would be so counter-productive.

To avoid just being preoccupied with compliance in the future, both the regulations and the principles and values that we want behaviour to reflect must be clearly set out and adjudicated. Perhaps only a breach of the rules should attract sanction, but nevertheless there needs to be some authority—we suggest, in respect of MPs, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—who would at least call out people who are failing to live up to the principles and values we have all signed up to. We also argued in our submission that the rules should be adjudicated by a separate person with appropriate legal expertise—the appointment of legal advice to the commissioner is a really good step in that direction, because the role of the commissioner as a thought leader is perhaps more important than her role as an adjudicator of rules.

The working group recognises the need for comprehensive training for MPs, peers and staff to help them to understand and prevent harassment and sexual abuse and to assist professional practice and Members in their position as employers. It is essential, however, that the work to embed the values outlined in the behaviour code throughout the parliamentary community be led by leaders, including MPs and peers themselves, and not delegated to support staff, who will not have the authority to carry out the kind of training that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to earlier. The culture of an organisation is the responsibility of its leaders. We parliamentarians must be the champions of change, or it will not happen, and we must be held accountable for its success. We cannot delegate this vital governance function to anyone else, and nor will Parliament secure public trust if we seem incapable of exercising effective governance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I almost take that as a personal chastisement. I am sure that hon. Members will know that I sometimes enjoy a pint of the guest ale in the Strangers Bar, but she is absolutely right to say that this is all about personal behaviour. However, we have an unusual workplace where this is allowed. I do not know of any workplace in my constituency that has six bars as a normal feature. I think we have to recognise that the way in which this place has been designed—I am not just talking about the bars—can lead to difficulties, as we have begun to see in the past few years. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex talked about how we had got to this point historically, and perhaps it has a little bit to do with how the House has been designed and constructed, as well as the way in which we do our business. It is worth looking at all those things.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex talked about training. The working group spent hours discussing that issue, and I think we reached a point at which consensus emerged on how it should appear in the report. I take the view that there should be compulsory training, and I supported the idea that there should be a kitemark for Members of Parliament who had been through such training. Members of staff looking around to see who they might work for would see the kitemark and know that that Member had been through the training. They would then have an expectation of a better workplace environment with that Member, compared with what they could expect from someone who rejected training out of hand and who there might be issues with. I thought that that was a good suggestion, although I could not convince the Leader of the House on that one. It was a proposal that came from some of the staff representatives on the group, and I think that we have to do this as a way forward.

Training will be mandatory for new Members of Parliament when they come into this place. The point was also made that most Members of Parliament have never been employers before. I was never an employer, and I think that that applies to most of us on the Opposition Benches who are perhaps from a more modest background, although perhaps less so to the denizens of business on the other side. I did not know how to manage staff when I first came here. I had to learn from experience and do it on the job. It would be helpful and useful to be given that training, not only on issues to do with equality but on how to be a good employer. There would be nothing wrong with that, and I welcome the recommendation that in the next Parliament, Members will be obliged to go through training.

The people who rush to do the training will be those of us who are interested in equality issues. I have no issue with taking training, and I look forward to doing it, but the real question is how we are going to drag the old dinosaurs into it. There will be those who have a more traditional view of the workplace environment, which might influence their approach to employing members of staff. Perhaps the kitemark could be a way of distinguishing those who were prepared to undergo equality training from those who were not.

[Jo Swinson]

I hope to be able to encourage the hon. Gentleman, because I know that we went through so many drafts of the report. The proposal on the good employer standard is in paragraph 81 and also in paragraph 79. I was very happy that we reached the point of stating:

“Until such time as training is mandatory, records of those who have completed the recommended training will be publicly available.”

I think that that will help to focus minds before the training becomes compulsory.

[Pete Wishart]

I agree. The kitemark suggestion is perhaps slightly different from what was eventually agreed, but of course I accept that, and it is a welcome addition to the report.

As you can probably sense, Mr Speaker, this is an important report, and it was certainly worth spending all those 100 hours on it over the past few months. I see it as being more than just a report of this House; it could be a blueprint for complex workplaces across the country. It could be the start of a permanent change in the culture of this place. There is no going back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). It sounds as though she has some excellent skills and perspectives that will be important in the consultation about how to make this organisational culture change stick.

As a member of the working group, I very much welcome the motion and the debate. As well as making specific comments on what we put in the report, I want to talk about the wider context. We have come at this issue in Parliament from the events at the end of last year, which followed hot on the heels of the Weinstein scandal, and in recent weeks we have heard about the issues in the charity sector. An important point for us all to remember is that this is not a problem in any one specific industry. This problem is endemic across society and every sector. It is important that we get our house in order with our own procedures, but we also need to understand the wider perspective and the wider societal cultural change that, as parliamentarians, we have a role in leading. That is why it is vital that what we do is of an excellent quality and can act as a beacon to other organisations and institutions that are trying to grapple with similar issues.

Of course, for all that we have seen these cases in politics hit the headlines, I am painfully aware of how many women are in positions with so much less power than those connected to this place—women working in low-paid jobs—whose cases do not hit the headlines. We read in the briefing from the Young Women’s Trust that three in 10 young women have experienced sexual harassment at work. This is happening all over the country.

The working group was a generally positive experience, if occasionally frustrating, but that was partly because we were grappling with difficult issues. I would like to praise the contribution of the staff, particularly the three representatives of staff who work for Members in various parties and the experts who advised the group. I for one learned a huge amount from listening to what they had to offer and the wisdom they had to impart.

These issues are not easy to deal with. We all come to them saying that we want to deal with them and get it right, but there are sensitive issues to work through. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) talked about confidentiality. On the one hand, if names are published, that might encourage others to come forward and we might spot more patterns. On the other hand, that might discourage some people from coming forward because of the fear that their anonymity will be breached. We had a lot of discussions about how we work through that and how we deal with historical allegations and people who have already gone through a different process and are very upset with how that went. There are no answers to some of these questions.

We also discussed at length the interplay with the criminal justice system. While we want to ensure there is support for people who want to pursue a criminal conviction in a case of sexual assault, for example, we recognise that in the survey we did, a tiny proportion of people—I think it was 2%—said that they would feel comfortable to go to the police in those circumstances. We looked clearly at how we could provide people with support if they wanted to do that, but we also looked at how we could give them control, so that if they wanted the case to be pursued as a grievance and effectively as a matter of professional conduct, it could be dealt with as an employment issue, rather than their being forced to have faith in our criminal justice system, which they may not have.

It is because this is not easy that the review clauses we have suggested are so essential. I am very confident that what we propose today will make things much better. I am also very confident that it will not be perfect. It will only improve things if we make sure we review it regularly and learn from what works well. There may well also be cases where it does not work well, and we need to make sure we take those lessons on board and not be overly defensive about that.

I also want to touch on the issue of gender. Harassment, bullying and sexual harassment happen to men as well as to women, but we know from our survey that they happen to women more often. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) posed an essential question: how did we let this happen? Part of my answer to that is that this institution was designed by men and built for men, and for the largest part of its existence, it has been run by men and made up almost exclusively of men. Therefore, the place of women within the institution, whether in this Chamber or among the staff who support our work, has not been viewed as equal.

As women in Parliament, we have all experienced being talked over in meetings, questioned about whether we are allowed to be somewhere—whether we have the right to be on the Terrace, or in a particular lift during a Division—and asked whether we are a researcher or a cleaner, instead of a Member of Parliament. A woman journalist bravely reported that somebody said to her, “Here comes the totty.” We now know that many other women journalists have experienced similar, and indeed worse, treatment from people in this place. When I was a Minister, I learned of a former Minister from the House of Lords who had engaged with his male private office staff but refused to speak to or take seriously the female staff, even when they were more senior, because they happened to be women. We know that these things happen.

I was really struck by the Young Women’s Trust briefing, which states that 89% of women MPs and 58% of men MPs say that sexism still exists in Parliament. That gulf is significant. Almost all women know that there are still instances of sexism, but only just over half of men recognise that. That gulf is part of the problem, and it is part of the reason for the complacency that still exists. We are talking only about gender, but there is a layering of race, LGBT and socioeconomic barriers and disadvantage that all come together in this place.

Not every man does it, but this kind of behaviour is present in every single political party, and we all experience it and see it from time to time. It is not just a few bad apples; it is cultural. We all—women, too—have the capacity to make these assumptions or thoughtless comments. When we are in a position of power, those comments have so much more force, and we have an extra responsibility to be aware of that. I say to all Members of the House, including myself, that often when these things happen, they are tolerated. Someone will roll their eyes, or they will be embarrassed, but the behaviour is not always called out because doing so may feel uncomfortable or inconvenient, or it may be easier not to rock the boat. Part of what we need to do is to challenge and tackle that culture throughout our work in this place.

I want to touch on a couple of issues in the report. The behaviour code will be the foundation of what we do. It needs the widest possible involvement of Members and staff, and of passholders who are not in those categories, to ensure that it is built on a shared sense of values. That is vital to ensuring that it has the resonance that we need it to have so that people really buy into it.

There has been quite a lot of discussion about training, which I think is essential. For anyone who employs staff, such training should be part of what they have to do to access funds from IPSA to pay somebody. Training is also needed on harassment and issues of consent. When I did an interview on the day the report was released, I was challenged on the “Today” programme by John Humphrys, who said, “Surely, MPs know what is appropriate behaviour.” If that were universally the case, we would not be in this situation. There is no room for complacency. The #MeToo movement shows us that. It is, incidentally, why I think we need consent education in relationships and sex education in schools for all pupils, and I am slightly dismayed at the Government’s recent rowing back on that.

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Lady is making such a good speech, particularly when it comes to the point about assumptions. If we want to change culture, everyone has to stop making assumptions about their own beliefs and other people’s. We need to talk about that and get it into the open, without judgment. I agree with her wholeheartedly about training for MPs who employ staff. Ultimately, if an MP has not been through a basic training package, why should the taxpayer allow them to employ their own staff?

[Jo Swinson]

I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support on those points.

Some of what we experience on these issues of harassment is undoubtedly deliberate—done with intent and entirely with knowledge—but some is inadvertent. It is to tackle that complacency that the training is so essential. There will be people who sometimes do not understand the impact of all the words they use. I attended a recent session on anti-Semitism by the Holocaust Educational Trust, which was fascinating, and the more we can all listen and learn from the experiences of others, the more that will help us to engage in a more mature way on these issues.

That cultural change is important. Sarah Childs, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) outlined, produced an excellent report in “The Good Parliament”. She recommended ways in which we could change the culture. She also gave evidence, and she talked about challenging the exceptionalism of MPs—that we think we are in some kind of unique scenario. Yes, there are many elements of our job that are very unusual, but that should not be some kind of excuse for not having basic professional standards. That might be about good employment relationships; if we had good employment practice, that would deal in large part—not entirely, but in large part—with the problems we experience here. It might also be about the macho approach to late-night sittings, which are some kind of badge of pride—the parliamentary equivalent of having a jacket on the back of the chair in the office. That is not how modern workplaces are effective, so that cultural change is essential.

I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that we need as fast as possible to extend the behavioural code to Members of Parliament and staff of Parliament, wherever they are when they are in that role and carrying out their duties—whether they are in their constituency, in an office or at some event, or whether they are here in Parliament.

I know that others want to speak, so, in conclusion, let me say that the problems that we are facing are not unique to Parliament, but we all have our part to play in dealing with them. This motion and this report are an important first step. They will lead to a real improvement and hopefully help us to get our own house in order.

Business of the House

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his huge efforts in this area and commend him for the meeting that he called. He might be aware of the Backbench Business debate that takes place later today on the role of disabled people in economic growth. The Government spend more than £50 billion a year on benefits that support disabled people and people with health conditions. That is more than ever before—in fact, it is up £7 billion since 2010—with the result that there are now 3.5 million disabled people in work, which is an increase of nearly 600,000 in the past four years. He is right that there is still a lot more to do, and a lot more that can be done, but we are making some good progress.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Last year, a 13-year-old boy with a dairy allergy died after allegedly having cheese forced on him at school. Next month, children at the cinema will watch the much-loved character Peter Rabbit forcing a child to undergo an anaphylactic reaction, which can be fatal. Sony has apologised but has refused to cut the scene, and the film certificate classifies the film as having mild threat and comic violence. Food allergy is no laughing matter; it can be life or death. Can we have a debate on the bullying of children with allergies, which is clearly not taken seriously enough?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point, and she is absolutely right to highlight the seriousness of food allergies. We should do everything that we can to raise the importance and the awareness of the potential life-threatening impact of food allergies. She may well want to seek an Adjournment debate, so that she can talk to Ministers directly on that point.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can assure him that one of the proposals the working group is looking at relates to the provision of services by an independent sexual harassment and sexual violence advocate. That particular expertise will be key to this. His proposal for a bicameral Select Committee is an interesting one, and I have mentioned that it is one of the proposals that has been put to us. The working group will look carefully at all the suggestions for taking this work forward, to ensure that we have consulted thoroughly and done our work considerately in the full knowledge of views across this place.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I thank the Leader of the House for her statement and praise her diplomacy. What she has announced is fine as far as it goes, but she knows that we urgently need to make more progress. Many of us on the working group, including some very assiduous members who cannot be here today, are disappointed and frustrated that we are not further forward. She is right to say that change is hard, but would she agree that vested interests, not least Whips Offices that are reluctant to give up their power, must not be allowed to derail parliamentary progress on harassment?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution to the working group. She has worked tirelessly on it. I should also like to mention the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who was spent a great deal of time and effort on this. I have spoken to the Whips in all the parties, and they are all keen to see the resolution of this matter. There must be careful consideration, but I believe that we will be in a position to make fast progress in the new year.

Sexual Harassment in Parliament

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, again, about the vital significance of what we do as MPs. Certainly, repeating slogans about lynching other MPs is incredibly despicable behaviour that is occasionally encouraged. That is deeply regrettable, and we all need to look very carefully at what sort of behaviour we endorse in this House.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Sexual harassment is a problem in Parliament—as it is, indeed, in workplaces and schools right across the country—and it is often worst where there are big discrepancies of power. I really hope that the news reports of the past few days will act as a watershed moment and help to catalyse the change that we so clearly need, not least in the outdated attitudes that exist, still, in some quarters. I welcome the cross-party agreement that we need an independent reporting mechanism for investigating complaints, but does the Leader of the House agree that if people are to have confidence in using it, the process needs to be very clearly set out, as do the outcomes, because repercussions in secret via the usual channels will not cut it in 2017?

Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am trying to explain that that is exactly what the Government are doing in those debates by matching up speaker for speaker to ensure that Back-Bench speakers get their views heard, with Secretaries of State opening the debates and senior Ministers closing them, and by taking account of and listening to Members’ views. It cannot possibly be the case that the Opposition can require Government Members to vote against a motion in order to prove that they were listening—what a daft thesis that is.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I am listening to the Leader of the House with great interest, just as I did to what the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said. He seemed to suggest that the Government chose not to vote on those motions—certainly the first one—because the Government were in agreement and the debate was a political one about what “fair” meant, but she seems to be saying something different about whether or not there is political game playing. Will she confirm that when the Government disagree with the words of a motion, even if they disagree because of political purposes, they will vote against it? Will they vote against any motion whose words they disagree with?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady is trying to put words into my mouth and to make me disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, with whom I absolutely agree. This House expressed a view; what she and other Opposition Members want to do is to force the Government to oppose. The reason why they want the Government to oppose is so that they can then put out a press release that the Government oppose fair pay for public sector workers. That is what this is all about. I am saying that the Government sent their best, most senior Ministers along to take part in the debate and our Back Benchers fully took part in it. We listened, we heard what was said on all sides of the debate, we took part fully, and then we chose to allow those motions to go through unchallenged. That is a completely different issue. This House expressed a view and the Government are listening, but we will not necessarily always choose to take part in party political games. That is what this was, and the Labour party needs to accept its responsibility for the financial mess that means that Conservative Members have to get us out of the economic disaster that they left us. There is just no denying the truth of Margaret Thatcher’s words when she said:

“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”

She said that in 1976—it was true then and it is still true today.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to take part in the debate and to set out for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the Opposition the Government’s strong record on encouraging scrutiny in this House and our deep respect for Parliament. Our Parliament is admired the world over for the way in which it gives the Opposition the opportunity to conduct fierce and effective scrutiny of Government—on Second Readings, in Committee, on Report, on Opposition and Backbench Business Committee days, in Adjournment debates, in Westminster Hall debates and on the Select Committee corridor.

The reason why scrutiny matters is precisely because the Government are listening. That is what this Government have been doing, and it is what they will continue to do. I look forward now to moving on to the more substantive business of the day and debating the issues that really matter to people.

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

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

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

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I will happily explain. The assessment has been in the public domain for more than eight days on gov.uk. My understanding is that it has been sent to the Vote Office, but we are investigating whether there has been a problem in communication.

[Ian Murray]

Problems of communication are not the responsibility of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, the staff in my office in Edinburgh and the office of the shadow Business Secretary have been searching for the impact assessment. I think that the Minister might be referring to the equality assessment, not the impact assessment. We will wait for it to be photocopied and handed round.

[Ian Murray]

We are compiling a rather expensive list of photocopying.

[Jo Swinson]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that although he has been searching so hard for the impact assessment, he clearly has not looked on gov.uk, which one might have expected would be an obvious place to look.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It should be in the Vote Office.

[Jo Swinson]

I happily accept that it should be in the Vote Office. We are looking into that now.

[Ian Murray]

I have looked at the pages of the gov.uk website that relate to the Bill incessantly over the past week or so. The only thing I have been able to find is the equality assessment for the Bill. As far as I am aware, the impact assessment is not there. I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister. If it has been published on the website, we would certainly be talking about its contents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

He could resign—that is a good idea.

I am clear that the Government will not pause and reflect because they want to ram this measure through. There is a timetable involved. The Conservative party has decided that 7 May 2015 will be the date of the next general election, so 8 May 2014 is the day when campaigning stops, when criticism stops, when the charities have to shut up and when the trade unions have to watch what they are doing. We will get through the process of the Bill going to the Lords and coming back here just before Christmas. It will then be banged on the head and the Queen will put the stamp on it before 8 May 2014, so that Government Members can try to hide from their liability for the state they have got this country into. It is not on. This measure is not needed and it should be withdrawn. I will be supporting the very moderate amendments that have been tabled by Labour’s Front-Bench team, but it must be said that we are being led by the coalition, which is doing this for no other reason than self-interest, just as was the case on other constitutional matters. They are trying it on in this way and if the measure gets through it will be a disgrace for democracy in this country.

[Jo Swinson]

We have had a wide-ranging debate this afternoon on this string of amendments. At some points it might have resembled more of a part 3 stand part debate, but we have certainly discussed clause 36 stand part and the amendments, and I hope to address the points that have been made.

It is important that union activity and decisions reflect the will of members. Knowing who their members are and being able to engage them is fundamental to unions’ democratic accountability.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we are almost four hours into the debate and I want to make a little progress. I will then be happy to take some interventions, particularly from Members who have not been able to be in the Chamber for the whole debate.

Unions are already required to keep an accurate and up-to-date list of their members. Indeed, many hon. Members from all parties have talked about how that is an important requirement and how it is in the interests of members. Many unions serve a large and diverse membership across different employers, job types and regions, and of course we all know that unions can take action that may have widespread consequences beyond the immediate members of the organisations. That is why it is reasonable that the Government should examine the formal requirements for the unions’ responsibility to keep their membership records accurate and up to date and that unions should be able visibly to demonstrate that they know who their members are and that they can communicate with them.

Of course, accurate membership records are essential to ensuring proper democratic representation and, of course, they are important for administrative efficiency, particularly when a postal vote is necessary. Good membership records make that process much easier. Of course, members need to be confident that the activity their union undertakes is representative of the view and wishes of its members generally. For example, if there has been a low turnout in a postal ballot on general executive positions, members should be confident that that is because some people are choosing not to vote and not because they have in some way been disfranchised. As union activity can also affect everybody’s daily lives, it is important that the general public can have confidence that the unions’ actions are also based on a representative view of their members.

This is a relatively modest measure to give such confidence and assurance. I agree that membership lists are important, a point that has been made by many Members. As unions are already undertaking activity to try to ensure that the lists are up to date, it should not be a particularly onerous obligation to demonstrate that they have procedures in place to keep those lists up to date.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Labour Members have made the point that the certification officer ensures that trade unions keep their records up to date. I spent 23 years of my life working in the trade union movement. They are the most rigorously democratic and the best administered organisations that I have ever seen. The hon. Lady ought to recognise that.

[Jo Swinson]

I certainly recognise that trade unions play an important part in our national life, both in the workplace and more widely, and that they are a positive force in our communities. I also recognise that there is already significant regulation in place. That said, however, there is a requirement to keep lists of members accurate and up to date, but the certification officer does not have the full powers to ensure that that happens except when they are responding to a particular complaint. That is the very narrow issue that these clauses, and particularly clause 36, are designed to address.

Before I take further interventions, let me mention the impact assessment. A full impact assessment was published, submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee and made available on gov.uk from 3 September. It was informed by evidence collected during targeted consultation over the summer. I apologise to the Committee that that was not placed in the Vote Office when it should have been, due to an oversight. It should have been there last week, of course. The situation has been rectified—that was done shortly after the issue was raised in the House. For the benefit of the Committee, let me cite the impact assessment. Using the best estimate figures that have been put together, the assessment identifies that the combined annual total cost of producing the membership audit certificates across all 166 unions will be £461,225—less than half a million pounds and, as has already been mentioned, about 6p per union member. At present, the certification officer can investigate only in response to a complaint from a union member. Clause 36 and the subsequent clauses are therefore an appropriate way to give union members and the general public greater confidence that the list is representative.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully as the Minister sets out her stall and I noted that she agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) about the effectiveness of the current processes. What problem is she trying to solve, and what is the evidence that there is a problem?

[Jo Swinson]

It is has been interesting that various hon. Members have highlighted some of the difficulties faced by unions when trying to keep large lists up to date, given the extent of churn. We recognise that considerable efforts are made, but that is a difficulty, so we want to reassure the public, union members and others in workplaces that proper processes are in place to make that happen. We are trying to plug a specific gap—

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why I wish to finish my response to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) before I give way again.

Our modest and reasonable measure is a specific response to that gap, but it has given rise to a bit of hyperbole throughout the debate.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but in what I can describe only as her rather waffling answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), she failed to identify exactly what the problem is and why the measures are required. Will she tell the Committee what evidence she has to show that there is a problem?

[Jo Swinson]

If that is how the hon. Gentleman describes my answer to his hon. Friend, I would be interested to hear how he would describe several of the speeches we heard during the debate.

Trade unions have a significant impact on the lives of people in our country. We want to ensure that their membership lists are up to date, and everyone has an interest in that being achieved. As hon. Members have said, we know that that can often be a challenging process, for good reasons, so we want to provide assurance that it will happen.

Clause 36 will give wide assurance that unions know how to contact their members so that their decisions will reflect what their members want. We do not want to change the vital and positive role that unions play in society, but we do want to give confidence in their accountability.

Under section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, unions have to ensure that their lists of members’ names and postal addresses are accurate and up to date

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

That section allows any union member to find out whether there is an entry relating to him or her and to see a copy of the information. Clause 36 builds on that by making unions give the certification officer an annual membership audit certificate alongside the annual return that they already submit. Clause 37 provides that a union with more than 10,000 members will have to appoint an independent assurer to produce the certificate, as well as setting out what is required for that process, but clause 36 states what smaller unions with fewer than 10,000 members will have to do. They will be able to have a union officer sign off the certificate with a statement that, to the best of their knowledge, the union has complied with its duties under section 24. I hope that the Committee will agree that that is a pretty light-touch approach and that the duty is not onerous in the slightest. Of course, we expect that smaller unions will have a less complicated register, so it is reasonable that a union officer would know the content well enough to be able to make such a statement.

As the clause is designed to give widespread assurance, all unions of any size will have to let anyone who asks to see their most recent certificate to do so, for which they may charge a reasonable amount, if they want. The certification officer will have to keep copies of all certificates and to allow the public to look at them. Subsections (3) and (4) allow a trade union to fulfil the new duty on behalf of its branches and require that federated unions comply with the new duty. Our aim is not to change what unions should already be doing to maintain their membership data, but to get them to provide assurance of what they are doing to their members and the public.

[Katy Clark]

rose—

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and then to the hon. Member for South Down.

[Katy Clark]

The Minister said that unions have some influence and she is trying to give assurance. Does she accept that trade unions and trade union members have very little power in society compared with many other organisations, such as multinationals and other vested interests? Does she not think it is inappropriate that she is focusing on this area rather than trying to give all of us more assurance that some of those other organisations which hold massive power in society are brought into check?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady raises a point that others have raised, which I will come to in my remarks about the regimes that are in place for different types of organisations. The trade unions have their particular tailored regime, which is appropriate. We would not necessarily want the same regime to apply to charities, trade unions and political parties. It is appropriate that we have systems in place that deal with those particular organisations.

I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for North Down—apologies for getting the constituency name wrong.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the Minister for putting me in my right place in North Down. She has given the impression in her contribution this afternoon that the clause is just a tidying-up operation. If it is that, what consultation have the Government had with the trade union movement? What efforts have been made to reassure the trade unions that this is just a small tidying-up operation?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady raises a reasonable point. We carried out a targeted consultation exercise over the summer. We issued a discussion paper, to which we received 42 responses. This goes to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). Twenty-four of those responses were from trade unions, and a variety of employers, business organisations, and local and devolved Administrations also responded. It was important that we did that. I regularly meet the Trades Union Congress general secretary. I have met her to discuss issues surrounding the Bill and I am due to do so again. It is important to have that positive relationship.

As I am responding to the hon. Lady, I will respond to the point that she raised earlier in an intervention about an aspect of the terminology—“reasonable hours” as opposed to “reasonable time”. The terms mean the same thing and there is no legal difference, but the phrase “reasonable hours” is copied from what the certification officer already has to do in making available the union annual returns. In practice that will probably mean that they will be on the website, which will meet that requirement.

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I will give way again to the hon. Lady, then I shall make progress as there are other groups of amendments that we will want to discuss.

[Lady Hermon]

I am enormously grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention from me. May I make a plea to the Government about drafting such a Bill? It is very difficult to make it comprehensible for those who are not legally qualified. It is very poor drafting that clause 36 states:

“The Certification Officer must at all reasonable hours”,

and that when we turn the page to proposed new section 24ZE we see that an assurer

“has a right of access at all reasonable times”.

May we please have some consistency in drafting?

[Jo Swinson]

I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady makes. Like her, I am not a lawyer—[Interruption.] I apologise. I am certainly not a lawyer; I am not sure what the hon. Lady’s background is. Legislation should be in plain English where possible, and that is something that I endeavour to advance within Government, but sometimes terms are taken from other pieces of legislation for very good reasons, to create consistency. I appreciate the point that she makes.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I said that I would make progress. I shall do that and then take some more interventions.

It is worth noting that there are also obligations on employers to provide information. If an employer has recognised a union, they are already required to provide the union with information that is relevant for collective bargaining and good industrial relations practice. We plan to provide guidance for employers in relation to the information that they hold that will assist unions with meeting their new obligations.

As has been outlined, there may be circumstances in which an employer has more information than the union on the names and addresses of employees who may be union members. For example, if a union member has their work address as a contact and the workplace moves, the member might forget to notify the union. Making sure that there is better guidance on how employers can assist unions to comply with all the requirements is an important part of what we are looking to do.

I have covered clause 36 in principle. Before I come to the specific amendments, I will give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran).

[Mr Doran]

Everything the Minister has mentioned so far could be done within the existing system and without applying this further layer of bureaucracy. Is she aware of the cost of accountants these days? For a union such as Unison, which has over 1 million members, auditing the membership would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. The figures in the impact assessment are laughable.

[Jo Swinson]

I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. It is not a question of every single membership entry having to be audited; it is about the process the union has in place for doing so. The certificate needs to be provided to give assurance on that. He also said—a few Members mentioned this—that the proposed powers somehow exist already, but they are actually very narrowly drawn. The certification officer’s power to investigate a complaint by an individual member applies only to that individual’s membership record; it does not extend to other members in the organisation. Indeed, it does not give those who might not be a member of a trade union the ability to complain. Of course, a member might not know that there is a problem with their records. Indeed, if they are not receiving information from the union, they might not know when there is a ballot for a committee, for example.

I will turn now to the specific amendments and respond to some of the points that have been raised. Amendment 103 would remove the annual duty to provide a membership audit certificate. Instead, the certificate would need to be submitted only if a complaint were received by the certification officer and he thought that it was necessary. Amendment 121 would go along with amendment 103 by removing the duty to appoint an assurer. I do not think that the amendments are useful, because they stop the key policy objective. I agree that there is clearly a difference of opinion between both sides of the Committee on the reasonableness of the measure, but that is why the Government do not support the amendments. The current arrangements just do not give that assurance, because they rely on members proactively checking the register. Even if they do check the register, they cannot see all of it and they do not know whether other names and addresses are up to date; neither do they know who should and should not be on the register.

Various Members have mentioned the difficulties of tracking membership. Indeed, the Engineering Employers Federation has commented that trade unions

“do not have a unified way of tracking membership and it remains difficult for them to do so”.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said that

“Unions have stated difficulties at times maintaining the addresses of members”.

Amendment 104 would allow for delaying the submission of a membership audit certificate if the union were appealing. I absolutely understand that unions do not want an assurer to send mistakenly or maliciously a qualified certificate to the certification officer without their knowing about it, but I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and hope to give some reassurance on why. The current drafting states that the assurer will send the copy of the membership audit certificate to the certification officer only after it is provided to the union, which means that the union will already have seen the certificate and had that opportunity to talk with the assurer. Of course, it is worth noting that it is the union that will appoint the assurer, and it has every ability within the agreement it makes in appointing an assurer to say that it would like the opportunity to see the certificate and comment before it is sent off.

[John McDonnell]

I think that most of us are still mystified about the objectives of the clause, so I will put one scenario to the Minister to test its purpose. The clause will enable someone who is not a trade union member—a member of the Conservative party, for example—to contest the membership list. This is about communications between the union and its members, so if the union in the run up to the next general election, say, sends out a letter to its members urging them to vote for the Labour party, the Conservative party member, who is not a member of a trade union, could contest the accuracy of the membership list and, in that way, undermine the trade union’s ability to communicate with its members. That is possible under this legislation, and it betrays its purpose.

[Jo Swinson]

The certificate that will have been issued, and which will be available for any member of the public to look at, will show that the union has a proper process in place for maintaining its membership list. That will give that assurance to anybody who looks at it. It of course will not give the details of the names and addresses of the union members, as some Members seem to have suggested; it will simply give that assurance.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I will make some progress, because many points were raised in the debate, but I will give way shortly.

Amendment 106 would mean that an individual who wanted to see the membership audit certificate had to pay the union’s administrative costs. That is not necessary, because under the Bill a union providing the certificate can do so for free or for a reasonable charge, as it sees fit. The union can already obtain payment, so the amendment is not necessary. I urge hon. Members, vainly perhaps, to withdraw their amendments.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) raised specific questions about the certification officer asking for powers. He referred to FOI requests. The “one in, two out” measure will come from the general stock of measures that BIS undertakes, although a significant burden is not being imposed. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would give the certification officer additional resources. Yes, we intend to do so; we anticipate that three members of staff will be needed to make sure the role can be properly carried out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is a suspicion that the issue is about industrial action? If the assurer is to prepare for the audit and certification, surely that process could be challenged; it would be yet another matter that could be brought up in the context of an employer’s seeking an injunction to stop industrial action of some sort. Is she not simply creating more avenues for litigation?

[Jo Swinson]

The short answer is no. The longer one is that the case law is clear. As has been outlined in the past two or three years, small and inadvertent errors that would not have affected the outcome of a ballot are not grounds for an injunction, and it is right that that should continue.

[Katy Clark]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I want to make progress, because we want to scrutinise other elements of the Bill today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) made a powerful contribution. He mentioned that social pressure can be applied to make people go on strike; those at the workplace who are not members of a particular union may be affected by industrial action. They might be an example of those who would like reassurance about the updating processes for the membership lists.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) asked whether we would commit to publishing legal advice. As he will know from his time as a Minister, the convention is that the Government do not publish such advice. I am, of course, happy to give reassurance on his point. Clause 36 requires the provision of the certificate but will not contain information about individual members, so the article 8 right to privacy is not breached. I am sure that when we discuss the next group of amendments we will come to some of those human rights, privacy and confidentiality issues.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said that data would be revealed in some way, but the confidentiality of members’ details will still be subject to data protection rules, the Human Rights Act and the obligations of confidentiality in clause 37.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that the provisions would displace core union activity, but we should recognise that the changes are modest. Unions are already required to keep the register of names and addresses and of course we will work with unions and others to ensure that there is a smooth transition to the new system, supported by appropriate guidance.

Analogies with other membership organisations were raised by various Members. As I outlined to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, charities are regulated by the Charity Commission, which has widespread powers that focus on financial management because of the importance of donors and beneficiaries. The commission can carry out regular supervision and monitoring, including compliance visits. If a charity is under investigation, the commission can freeze assets and suspend or remove trustees. In the case of companies, the Companies Act provides the regulatory powers. The information has to include names and addresses and dates of membership, and fines and penalties are in place for non-compliance with these duties. The IOD and the CBI are lobbying organisations incorporated by royal charter, which means that the Privy Council is responsible for significant aspects of their internal control. I doubt that unions would think that those regulatory frameworks were appropriate to their unique status. Trade unions have a unique set of powers. They have rights and obligations—for example, the ability to take industrial action without financial liability for the consequences on those it affects. That is a special set of rights and it is therefore appropriate that they have a tailored set of regulations.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) said that it is hard to keep accurate records of a work force, particularly in sectors where they are very fluid, such as construction, where there is significant churn. I absolutely appreciate those points and agree with him. That is why it is important that good procedures are in place to provide assurance that the lists are up to date. That is qualified by the phrase,

“as far as reasonably practicable.”

We will take into account the difficulties that are encountered.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made a thoughtful contribution in which he made good points about previous problems with great swings in policy direction from one Government to the next and the importance of trying to get agreement between the TUC and the CBI. There can often be common ground, as we find through the agreements on, say, the agency worker regulations or the way in which such organisations are able to work together through institutions such as the Low Pay Commission. He thinks that we are demonising trade unions, but I respectfully disagree. Many companies have very good relations with trade unions which play an important and welcome role. He over-eggs the impact that this measure will have.

I have dealt with the consultation issue raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made a number of points that mainly echoed others that had already been made and that I think I have dealt with. I appreciate that I may not have satisfied every member of the Committee. None the less, I have set out why clause 36 should stand part of the Bill and the amendments should be rejected.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you, Mr Sheridan, for chairing this debate.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friends the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer). We also heard from two Government Members—the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland).

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Minister, but let me put on record that this is yet another case of a Liberal Democrat doing the Tories’ dirty work for them in this Chamber: again, that has been left to her. We are over four hours into this debate and we have yet to hear one bit of evidence for clause 36 being necessary or what problem it is trying to remedy. The Minister has said absolutely nothing about that. The TUC, the certification officer, ACAS and BIS officials are still to produce any evidence at all about the problem in the system that this clause is trying to remedy.

Before we test the will of the Committee on amendment 103, let me point out that Labour Members are saying clearly that if there is a problem, the Government should bring forward the evidence. The amendment would say to the certification officer that if a complaint is made by any third party and he decides that it is verifiable, he can then take the power, if he so wishes, to instigate action under the clause. That is a very modest change to a very draconian part of this ramshackle Bill.

Finally, I remind Members that we are not talking about trade unions in the round; we are talking about the people who deliver the mail, serve in the shops, teach our children, care for the sick, look after the elderly, clean our streets, assemble our cars and build our houses. The Liberal Democrats should remember that and come into the Lobby to vote for amendment 103.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I have no idea what that means. It has such a range of interpretation that it gives the assurer the ability to provide information to virtually anyone for any purpose. It will undermine the confidence of workers who have experienced blacklisting or victimisation and workers who are currently at risk if the Bill is passed in this form.

One of the reasons why there may be a disclosure of information is

“where it is required for the purposes of the investigation of crime or criminal proceedings.”

In the real world of industrial relations, many Opposition Members have seen a crime being alleged because of the process of picketing. Because the list includes the investigation of an alleged crime, the certification officer will be able to hand over the names and addresses of pickets who are accused of action that could be construed to be illegal. That will undermine people’s ability to exercise their democratic rights as trade unionists by undertaking picketing or other forms of industrial action.

I am anxious about the whole clause. It flies in the face of the assurances that have been given in the House that blacklisting and victimisation will be addressed. People have been blacklisted or victimised simply because they are trade unionists or health and safety representatives. On the blacklist that we discovered, names had been misinterpreted and the wrong people had been identified. Some people had been blacklisted simply because they had undertaken political activities unrelated to trade union activities.

The Opposition amendments simply try to gain the assurance that a duty of confidentiality will be placed on the officers who will implement the new regime. I do not find that to be excessive. It will not introduce burdens on trade unions, the certification officer or the assurer. It will simply clarify their legal duties. One of their legal duties must be to protect the information that they are inspecting or, to use the new verb, “assuring” as a result of this legislation.

I urge the Government to accept the amendments. I hope they do, but even if they cannot, they can at least take the spirit of what Opposition Members have said and return with their own amendments to ensure that there is a duty of confidentiality on the officers concerned; that the qualifications can be properly examined when the assurer is appointed; that assurers can be dismissed if there is a breakdown of confidentiality; and that there is absolute security for the information the assurer guards and controls on behalf of the trade union.

[Jo Swinson]

I welcome the debate on clause 37 and the amendments and I shall respond to some of the remarks hon. Members have made. Clause 37 gives credibility to the maintenance of trade union membership registers to members, employers and the wider public.

As hon. Members know, unions are already required to report on their financial affairs. They need to appoint an auditor, which gives the accounts authority. When a large union submits its membership on its certificate, the Bill provides the same kind of independent assurance that is provided in financial affairs. For the larger unions, that assurance needs to be independent if it is to be credible, which is why trade unions of more than 10,000 members must appoint a qualified independent person to provide the membership audit certificate, which will state whether, in the assurer’s opinion, the union’s systems are satisfactory in relation to compliance with the duties to maintain an accurate register—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Sheffield (Angela Smith) wants to intervene, I am happy for her to do so—[Interruption.] I apologise if I did not get the hon. Lady’s exact constituency name quite right. I should have referred to her as the Member for Barnsley and Penistone or whatever. She had a slightly different constituency in the previous Parliament.

The clause provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State to define who may act as an assurer. Somebody cannot act as an assurer if the union has grounds to believe they would not act competently, or that their independence might be called into question. For example, union officers or employers may not act as an assurer. In practice, the assurer will need to be somebody who can understand how records are stored, collected and updated, so that they can provide the audit certificate. They might want to know how the union collects new member data and how members are reminded to keep their details up to date—the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) described how a union with which she had been involved did that regularly. The assurer might also want to know how unions update the register once changes are notified.

Unions will need to set out in their rules the process for appointing and removing an assurer. We have provided flexibility for the union, but certain provisions will apply regardless. An assurer may be removed by resolution, or be automatically re-appointed unless one of various specified conditions are met. However, it will always be up to the union to have the final say—it can appoint or remove an assurer by resolution.

[Paul Flynn]

Before the hon. Lady gets into the detail, will she answer the question that has been asked again and again in the debate? Why is there a need for assurers? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has said, the measure is a solution looking for a problem. What is the problem?

[Jo Swinson]

That was discussed at length in the debate on the previous group of amendments and I refer the hon. Gentleman to my remarks in that debate. Clearly, we want to ensure that there is confidence in the names and addresses that trade unions use for the membership lists. There is agreement on both sides of the Committee that it is important that membership lists are accurate and up to date. That is an existing responsibility and duty on unions. The membership audit certificate will provide confidence in the list. It is much more proportionate for smaller unions, for which it is much easier to keep details up to date—smaller unions have fewer than 10,000 members, whereas some of the larger unions have more than 1 million members—to provide an assurance themselves. However, to have the credibility required for the larger unions, we must have that independence, which is where the assurer comes in.

[Ian Murray]

Regarding the example we heard earlier, would it be helpful for the Minister to tell the Committee categorically whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) could or could not be an assurer?

[Jo Swinson]

As I recall it, the hon. Member for Wansbeck was talking about whether he would be in a position to do that where he had been elected within a union. I have made it clear that that would not be appropriate for union officers, because they need to be independent of the process. What is clear is that there will be an order published about assurers, which I will come on to shortly, and hopefully that will answer the question. We need to look at the terms of the order as it develops—it may well be that the hon. Gentleman has a promising career ahead of him as an assurer. It will be up to unions themselves to define the assurer’s contract terms, subject to minimum requirements, to ensure that they fit the nature of the organisation and are not disproportionately costly.

Various Members have raised concerns about data protection, and about an assurer’s access to membership details could risk breaching data protection rules. I hope to provide reassurance to Members that that concern is unfounded, but I recognise that it has been expressed. The assurer will be bound by current data protection rules, as well as by the additional confidentiality provisions set out in clause 37. The assurer owes a duty of confidentiality to the trade union, which is built into the appointment. They must not disclose the names and addresses of members, except where the member consents, where it is required for the purposes of their functions under the Act, or for criminal proceedings. They must also take all reasonable steps to ensure that there is no prohibited disclosure by other parties.

A certification officer and any inspector appointed by the certification officer have access to membership data, but that is immediately limited to the performance of their functions in relation to the register and the audit requirements under TULCRA—the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It cannot be used for any other purpose. The duty concerns just the register of members’ names and addresses under section 24 of the 1992 Act. Other information should not generally need to be provided; the minimum amount only will be needed. Information is, of course, sensitive personal data. We absolutely accept that people’s names and addresses—often their home addresses—and whether they are members of a union are sensitive data. That will, therefore, fall under the protection of existing data protection rules. That will apply to any other personal data accessed under the powers in this Bill.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) raised the ability of the certification officer to provide documents and a test of what a good reason would be. The certification officer will be able only to request documents that are relevant and where there is good reason to do so—a consistent test that is used elsewhere under the TULCRA legislation. For example, it is already applied by the certification officer for investigations of financial affairs.

It is important to note that there is no evidence of a problem with how the certification officer has exercised discretion. Indeed, respondents to the targeted consultation we undertook over the summer said that they did not feel there was necessarily a problem. I do not believe that hon. Members are necessarily making the charge that they would be concerned about how individuals undertook their duties. However, it is important to note that the test is available. If a union believes that the certification officer is overstepping their remit, it can withhold the information, and, ultimately, there is a right of appeal if there is an order made by the certification officer requiring production of the information.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Earlier, the hon. Lady mentioned that the details would be provided in an order and that they would be subject to the minimum requirements for the post of assurer. Will she explain what those minimum requirements are, so that we can assess how to vote? Also, how will she militate against potential conflicts of interest between the assurer and other clients they might have?

[Jo Swinson]

I will come on to the issues relating to the assurer. I would like to deal with data protection sensitivity and turn to the issue of blacklisting before I come back to the specifics about the assurer, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South was asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) about penalties if there is a breach of data protection or confidentiality issues. Various protections are in place. The assurer would have to comply with the Data Protection Act. If they did not do so, they would be in breach of their contracts, so as well as being removed, the union could sue them. However, the assurer would also be a data controller, so the Information Commissioner could take action. The Information Commissioner has significant powers under the Data Protection Act, which include serving an enforcement notice setting out action that the data controller must take and—where required to address a serious contravention of the duty—imposing a fine of up to £500,000. Failing to comply with an enforcement notice by the Information Commissioner is also an offence, so there are significant protections in place.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others raised the important issue of blacklisting. Let me reiterate on the record—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said this on various occasions in the House—that the blacklisting of trade union members is unacceptable and illegal. Following an investigation, of which the Committee will be aware, that uncovered the Consulting Association’s blacklist, the law was strengthened at the end of the previous Parliament by the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. That was also when the maximum fine for a breach of data protection rules was increased to £500,000.

The Committee will also be aware that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has been conducting an inquiry into this issue. In July, the Committee contacted the Secretary of State to say that it had new information that blacklisting continues. We have always encouraged anyone with evidence of blacklisting to come forward so that we can investigate. The Scottish Affairs Committee is the first to get in touch formally to say that it possesses new information. We are grateful to the Committee for passing that information to the Department. We have referred it to the Information Commissioner’s Office, as the appropriate body to investigate any breaches of the Data Protection Act. I understand that the office is requesting more information from the Committee, so that it can examine it and investigate. My right hon. Friend and I will of course continue to take a close interest in this matter. If any evidence of blacklisting is found, the perpetrators must feel the full force of the law.

Let me turn to the amendments in this group. Amendment 107 would make the assurer owe a duty of confidentiality to the union and its members—this deals with the concerns raised about data protection. I hope that the protections I have outlined will reassure hon. Members about compliance with the existing legislation, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in part 3—the convention is to keep legislation concise and not to repeat existing legal requirements. I am happy to reassure the Committee and put it firmly on the record that compliance with the Data Protection Act will be necessary for anyone who handles sensitive data.

Amendment 108 would require the Secretary of State to set out eligibility criteria for the assurer—this goes to the point about the future career ambitions of the hon. Member for Wansbeck—along with what qualifications, status and experience assurers must have. Our approach will be the same as for independent scrutineers of trade union ballots and elections. It is important that the assurer has widespread credibility with unions, their members and the public. The order will say which organisations are eligible or list the criteria that must be met. We imagine that assurers will probably be recognised professionals, such as solicitors, auditors or independent scrutineers. The responses to our targeted consultation over the summer supported that approach. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman falls into any of those categories, but he might be interested to know that we will need to consult on the content of the order, and I give the Committee an assurance that we will do so. There will therefore be an opportunity—this is important—for unions, their members and the public, as well as the hon. Gentleman, to comment.

[Katy Clark]

The hon. Lady was asked in an earlier intervention how she would deal with potential conflicts of interest. Will she deal with that now?

[Jo Swinson]

I gave some examples of where there might be a conflict of interest, such as where somebody was already an officer of the union, which would not be appropriate, as they would need to be independent. However, as I have set out, there will be a process in the order for outlining eligibility.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Jo Swinson]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I want to make some progress.

Amendment 110 would mean that unions do not have to set out in their rules how they will appoint and remove an assurer. Not only is the amendment unnecessary, but it is more prescriptive than what we have set out in the Bill. Our intention is to allow unions more discretion over when they remove or appoint an assurer.

Amendment 109 would prevent the appointment or reappointment of an assurer when there was a breach of confidentiality or a breach of their statutory duties or terms of appointment, or when there were reasonable circumstances not to reappoint. Of course it is important that the assurer should take their duty of confidentiality seriously, but the amendments are not necessary to achieve that aim. We can trust the unions to do this, and they will be able to pass a resolution to get rid of an assurer for any reason. It will be up to the unions to decide. The relationship between the assurer and the union is rightly one for the union to define. We have added a minimum level of protection in the Bill to ensure that an assurer is not reappointed if they are not qualified, are incapacitated or have decided that they do not wish to be reappointed. In general, however, it is better that the union should be responsible for the terms of the relationship with the assurer. That will allow much more flexibility to deal with the individual circumstances of each union.

Amendment 111 would expect the assurer to give an opinion as to whether the union had complied with the duty to keep its membership register accurate and up to date. This would replace the current proposal to give an opinion on whether the union’s system for compiling the register was satisfactory for that purpose. What is being proposed in the amendment would be far more costly and onerous to the union. In some cases, the assurer might conclude that they needed to carry out a thorough audit of all the content of the register. We believe that a systems check is more proportionate, and that is what we are setting out.

Amendment 112 has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and others. It would add an additional requirement to the membership audit certificate. This would be to include the assurer’s opinion as to whether the employer had shared “timely and accurate details” with the union. The hon. Lady took the view that bad employers would try to prevent unions from having the right information. As I mentioned earlier, there is already statutory protection to ensure that unions cannot be held accountable for information that they do not possess, or for inaccuracies that are beyond their control. It is also important to note that we will produce guidance for employers, to help them to assist unions to comply. It is important that employers should comply with their requirement to provide information to unions, and we believe that that additional guidance will be helpful in that regard.

Amendment 166 seeks to assist the assurer by requiring the Secretary of State to produce guidance and define in statute what is “satisfactory” and “not satisfactory”. The amendment is either necessary or desirable. What is satisfactory or not will vary from one union to another, and a one-size-fits-all definition would be onerous for some and ineffective for others. Our approach is to retain flexibility. Assurers will be professionals, and it is reasonable to rely on their professional judgment and ability to apply these phrases appropriately. Ultimately, the membership audit certificate represents only the opinion of the assurer. It is only the certification officer who has the power to make a determination.

Amendment 116 would mean that the union’s assurer was entitled to require only the union’s data controller to provide the necessary information. This would be instead of being able to approach

“the union’s officers, or the officers of any of its branches or sections”,

as set out in the Bill. That could result in the assurer being unable to ask questions of the right people. They should obviously be able to question those who handle sensitive membership data, but they should also be able to question others who understand how those data are kept up to date. In some cases, that might be one and the same individual, but in others it might not be. So the form of words that we have used in the Bill, which is also used throughout the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, is much better.

Amendment 115 seems to suggest that a union should not be penalised for errors when the correct details are held by the employer. I have already set out why existing legislation renders such an amendment unnecessary. There is already a “reasonably practicable” test, and we will be issuing improved guidance. Amendment 117 would mean that the union could supply information to the assurer to help them to carry out their role only if it did not conflict with the union’s responsibility to comply with data protection requirements. I have already outlined the safeguards relating to data protection. The assurer will have to be able to see the register if they are to carry out their responsibilities effectively, and the amendment could prevent that from happening.

Amendment 119 also seeks further reassurance on the Data Protection Act, but that is unnecessary because it will already apply. Amendments 118 and 128 propose replacing the words “all reasonable steps” with “all steps necessary”. I must ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh South what steps he can imagine that are necessary yet unreasonable. Is he really suggesting that we want necessary and unreasonable steps to be taken?

Amendment 120 would change the disclosure requirements, but I have already set out the safeguards, so the amendment is unnecessary.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee on a few points of concern. These measures will not present an unreasonable burden on unions and the safeguards in place against the misuse of data are more than adequate. This clause is necessary to provide independent assurance of the maintenance of large and complex registers. Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill, and I urge the hon. Member for Edinburgh South not to press his amendments.

[Ian Murray]

Given the time, all I will say in summing up is that the Government cannot win the next general election on the arguments, so they will win it on—

Sittings of the House

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Knight]

The hon. Lady makes her point very well indeed.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of tourism here. It is important for our constituents to visit the House, but I think that his point about the expenses regime also applies to tourism—in other words, we should facilitate tourism around the hours the House sits. To address the problem he raised, perhaps we could look at other options, such as providing greater facilities at the weekend, which would be much more convenient for many of our constituents.

[Mr Knight]

That is one option, but I have to say that my constituents prefer me to give them a guided tour, and I prefer to give them a guided tour rather than putting them into the hands of others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Procedure Committee’s report and thank the Committee for allowing me to give evidence. I have only one point to make. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) said that I teased her when I tried to draw a distinction between our sittings hours and what we do, but I was not teasing her. It is very important. The difference between what MPs do today and what they used to do in the past is dramatic. What we do in our constituencies has become much more important. Casework, campaigning, visiting schools and all the things the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) mentioned have become much more important than they used to be, but we as individual MPs have to decide how to deal with that. It has nothing to do with sitting hours. The sitting hours are supposed to be arranged around what we do in Westminster, where we have Committees, all-party groups, meetings and any number of different things.

A variety of Members have spoken about the different kinds of constituency and the distances that they have to travel. There are inner-city and rural constituencies and constituencies far away and close by. We have also heard details from any number of Members about their domestic arrangements. The issue is that every single MP has different domestic arrangements. Some people have families and some have social lives—[Interruption.] Very lucky people have both.

The point is that we are not here to fit our hours around those families and social lives, but to make and change laws. We are supposed to be running the country; we are not here to look at sitting hours and fit them around my children’s bed times. In looking at the sitting hours, what we are doing today is wrong. We should be considering the changing role of MPs, because that is the issue. As individual MPs, we have to sort that out between ourselves and our constituents rather than looking at changing the sitting hours.

[Jo Swinson]

rose—

[Natascha Engel]

I will take a very brief intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that in our roles as legislators, it is incredibly important that we should be able to work efficiently and make good decisions? Important decisions are made here. Sitting late into the night does not always guarantee good decisions. Having a bit more control over how we can arrange our working lives would make for more efficient and effective working.

[Natascha Engel]

I do not really take that point. If the problem is late-night sitting, people should get up later. The sitting hours are not the problem. The hon. Lady mentioned the efficiency and effectiveness of an MP’s work. The sitting hours are not the issue. The issue is what we do when we are here and what we do in our constituencies.