Julie Elliott
Main Page: Julie Elliott (Labour - Sunderland Central)Department Debates - View all Julie Elliott's debates with the Department for Education
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberDid not the evidence that was given to the Committee say that the Bill would not solve London’s problem because in most of the disputes that have taken place in recent years, particularly in rail, the action would have gone ahead in any case?
The reason it would have gone ahead in any case is that the thresholds the Government are trying to introduce would have been met.
If the genuine motivation behind the Bill was to get turnout as high as possible, would not the Government put forward every possible means to allow members of trade unions to vote in ballots, including workplace balloting and e-balloting? In fact, they are doing the opposite.
Precisely, and I shall develop that a little further in a few moments. Under our proposals, electronic or workplace ballots would be overseen by an independent scrutineer, and before the ballots are run, that scrutineer would confirm that the proposed method met the required standard, that all members entitled to vote had the opportunity to do so and that votes were cast in secret with the risk of any unfairness or malpractice minimised. That is the same standard as set out in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. None of that, however, matters to Ministers.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as he said in Committee, the provisions in this Bill fly in the face of every other bit of legislation that this Government have brought forward, whether it be using online means to apply for benefits, filling in tax forms or anything else? It is entirely at odds with everything else this Government are doing.
My hon. Friend is right, and for some reason, that does not seem to matter to Ministers—