Trade Unions
Lord Balfe Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the president of the British Dietetic Association and, separately, as president of the pilots’ union BALPA. I do so to point out that Conservatives, too, can not only support but actively support trade unions and I pay tribute to the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who was my predecessor at BALPA. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, for initiating this most valuable debate. One cannot fill in all the history of the ILO but perhaps I can fill in a couple of bits that are missing.
First, it was in 1916 that David Lloyd George established the first Ministry of Labour, and George Barnes became the first such Minister. It was in that same year of 1916 that the TUC drew up and published the first statement of workers’ rights, to be included in the peace treaty at Versailles. That was a historic document because leading out of it came the ILO; there were of course a lot of other people who had input. In its early years the ILO had a difficult time, largely because of the United States’ refusal to endorse Versailles and the fact that the new Government in Russia—the Soviet Union, as it then was—decided that the ILO was a capitalist plot to undermine the workers. It was attacked vigorously from both sides but then saved by Roosevelt.
When Roosevelt came into power in 1933 the ILO took on a new life, not so much through him but very much with the assistance of Frances Perkins, his Labor Secretary. I shall stop my history lesson in a minute but John Winant, who later became the ambassador in London, was appointed by the Roosevelt Administration as the first senior American to serve in the ILO. He was followed by a series of Americans. I am in no way demeaning the contribution of the Brits but David Morse, who took over as secretary of the ILO in the immediate aftermath of the war and was Truman’s Labor Secretary, undoubtedly shaped it and carried it forward for a long time after that.
We have a lot to thank the ILO for. Even today, when you go to third-world countries such as Vietnam, where I was last year, the ILO plays a sterling role there in getting adherence to its conventions for workers, who are often exploited in that country. The ILO is the one independent voice that can put forward demands for decent working conditions, so full marks to the ILO.
The British trade union movement has problems. It is not that the Tory Government have got rid of trade unionism, but that demand has washed in a different direction. If you ask my children their view of trade unions, I am afraid it is based on Len McCluskey, which is not an attractive view. They do not look at Len McCluskey and say, “This is the sort of world we want to live in”, but you never see the word mentioned in the public prints without the trade union connection being made. The fact of the matter is that trade unions were overtaken by events.
I well recall that when I was David Cameron’s envoy to the trade union movement, he met the general secretary of a very large union—not the T&G, needless to say—and he said, somewhat mischievously, “I want to understand your concerns. Which one of the laws that Tony Blair has passed to help you would you be most reluctant to see me abolish?” There was rather an embarrassed silence. We have to face the fact that, from 1979 onwards, unions have had a pretty rough ride from both Governments, frankly, but that it is also up to them to bring themselves forward.
I commend the TUC because it has not fallen back into its laager. It has pioneered racial tolerance. It would have been very easy for the TUC to say, “British jobs for British workers”—as I remember someone once said—and for it to discriminate against people of colour, but it has not. In fact, it has gone the other way: it has led the public perception that trade unionists stand for equality and fairness, so it has a lot to commend it. I hope the TUC will continue for many years to come to pursue its very positive policies.
Speaking of which, I want to say something to our Minister. I am delighted to see my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe here. At the time of the 2016 Act, the matter of electronic balloting came up very vigorously. The Minister, as she then was, was able to promise that the matter would be carefully examined, and indeed it was. Sir Ken Knight, who carefully examined it, came out in favour of some trials—not the whole thing, but he was willing to try it. It appears that this recommendation has been forgotten, but we want to see it implemented. It is a matter of honour; the Government promised something. They have had the inquiry and, in many people’s view, if we are to have a level playing field and say that we all appreciate trade unions, which I believe both sides of the House do, we now need to see these trials put into operation. As reported at our party meeting the other day, people of 15 years of age are entitled to join the Young Conservatives and vote for the leader of our party by electronic ballot. If we can extend it to all of the members of the Conservative Party, stretching from those aged 15 to whatever age—a very old age—I think we can afford to have a few test ballots to see whether it will work with the trade union movement. I will not make a lot of requests, but I ask the Minister to look at operationalising that commitment, so generously given when we were passing the 2016 Act.
Brexit: Protection for Workers
Lord Balfe Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement. We need to remember that trade unionists do not all vote for the Labour Party. More than 30% of them vote for the Conservative Party. Furthermore, statements by the TUC are capable of selective quotation, so I shall selectively quote from Frances O’Grady’s statement:
“successive UK Governments have been exceptionally resistant to introducing improvements even when they are required to do so by the EU”.
Those of us who have been fortunate enough to serve in the European Parliament will remember the blizzard of letters that we received from such people as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, imploring us to oppose the working time directive. I make the point that both parties have form in this matter and that when I asked a leading trade unionist a few ago to name me one significant advance that he had from 13 years of Labour government, he could not name one.
Lord Balfe
I will ask a question. In repeating the Statement, the Minister said:
“Parliament will be given the opportunity at least every six months to consider any changes to EU workers’ rights”,
and so on, and referred to,
“a document which has been subject to consultation with employers and trade unions, and which will be scrutinised by the relevant Select Committees of this House”—
meaning the House of Commons. Can he give us any more enlightenment on whether there will be any opportunity for this House also to scrutinise these documents? We are, after all, a bicameral legislature.
Lord Henley
My noble friend has made a number of points very well, particularly the fact that not all trade unionists vote Labour. He also referred to remarks made by Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC. I think Frances O’Grady is absolutely wonderful; it is just that we do not necessarily always agree on every matter. She took rather a negative approach to my right honourable friend’s announcement. I assure my noble friend that a document will be produced by the Government every six months after consultation and it will refer to any changes made in the EU. We might want to consider whether we wish to follow those changes, do something better or reject them for whatever reason. My noble friend referred to how they would be examined by another place. I am sure this House will find ways of examining them, just as another place will.
Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018
Lord Balfe Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I thank the Minister for his explanation. These four statutory instruments have been somewhat of a revelation to me. I was not aware that Northern Ireland has a different system of rules, although it comes under the same European legislation as the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister and other colleagues will forgive me if some of the questions I am about to ask seem a little naive: I do not have the same level of expert advice, and hope that the Government and the Official Opposition will bear with me. I also did not get the TUC paper referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monks.
Two of the statutory instruments obviously relate to Northern Ireland, and I was surprised to discover that legislation which presumably covers the same European Union rules differs. Why, under the same general legislative EU framework, does Northern Ireland go its own way, to a degree? In what way do the Northern Ireland regulations differ?
The regulations for mainland UK and Northern Ireland cover paternity and adoption pay, fair employment tribunals, industrial tribunals, shared parenting, working time, posted workers, small businesses and so on. I saw no reference to TUPE regulations in the Northern Ireland statutory instruments. I am sure that that is my omission, but do those elements operate differently? Surely TUPE exists in Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I also note that the statutory instruments amend primary as well as secondary legislation, so presumably the instruments cover areas where the primary legislation is amendable by secondary legislation. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct?
I have another question on the instruments relating to England, Wales and Scotland. Paragraph 12 of the main regulation relates to statutory paternity pay where a person has worked in the EEA. Can the Minister confirm that statutory paternity pay will not be affected by our exit from the European Union for fathers working in the rest of Europe?
Finally, I get twitchy when I read examples such as in part 1 of Schedule 1, paragraph 2, which states:
“In section 79(2) (entitlement to parental leave—supplemental) omit subsection (3)”
of the Employment Rights Act 1996. There are several such examples throughout the SIs. Can the Minister assure us that no existing rights are being omitted or weakened in any of the statutory instruments we are considering this afternoon?
In discussing the withdrawal Act—it seems a long time ago now—we sought assurances from the Government that employment rights would not be weakened post Brexit. Our fears were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Monks. We do not know what will happen; indeed, one needs a crystal ball to predict what will happen next week, let alone after any possible Brexit. Will the Minister assure the House, as much as he can, that employment rights will not be diminished?
In conclusion, I hope that none of these instruments will ever need to apply, unless we commit the wilful act of self-destruction of leaving the European Union without a deal. The Minister alluded to that. Is he still feeling optimistic?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my various interests in the register to do with trade unions. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monks, a distinguished former general-secretary of both the TUC and the European TUC. Many of us in this House forget that the European TUC is a very powerful body that represents workers from all over Europe and has had a decisive impact on much legislation that has covered workers.
I have also been extremely pleased recently to see that the Government, on the road to Damascus, are now again talking to the unions. It must be two and a half years since union leaders last met a Prime Minister. When I was working as trade union adviser to David Cameron, one of my jobs was to ensure that that scenario never existed. I hope that the present Prime Minister will realise that a regular dialogue with the trade union movement is for the good of Britain, because it enables trade union leaders, who have a very good bird’s eye view of what is going on in Britain, to contribute to the national wealth.
We have spent most of today talking about things which we really hope will never matter—in other words, that we will not leave the EU without a deal and that therefore none of what we have dealt with today will come into force. I noticed that both of the main SIs state that they can be,
“deferred, revoked or amended”.
My first question is whether consideration has been given as to which one of those three is likely to come into force. I would like them never brought into action and revoked straightaway, but the word that worries me the most is “amended”. In other words, they would no longer be SIs if we leave without a deal but would be amended in some way to accommodate a deal.
My next point is on the enshrinement in law of workers’ rights in the side agreement that we had with the EU. When I met Gavin Barwell, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, I specifically asked: “How strong is this agreement and how enforceable is it?”. He confirmed to me that it was not enforceable. When legislation comes to this House to deal with post Brexit when there is a deal on the table, a number of Members will be looking to write those agreements on workers’ rights into Bills, to make them fully enforceable.
I want to make one or two points on the documents in front of us. I will try not to copy what the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has said. However, there is concern about workers’ councils. They play a valuable role and we will be looking to the British industry part of workers’ councils to maintain a commitment to them—in other words, not to use the absence of Britain from the EU as a way of weakening the ability of workers from the British side of workers’ councils to continue to participate in them. We will be looking for the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations to be kept fully in force.
What will happen if an external request is made for a new European workers’ council from a European country? I notice that companies that operate in Switzerland often include Switzerland within their scope and include Swiss worker representatives as EWC members. Switzerland is not in the EEA—that is one reason why I use this example—and the provisions do not appear to make provision for workers’ councils continuing to include the UK within their scope on a voluntary basis. I would like to know what the Minister sees as the future in that area.
On the updating rights, the Minister can enact legislation to keep UK law in line with EU law. I would like to think that we will do our best to do that. Has he had any thoughts on that?
I turn briefly to the other regulations. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, that we need a much clearer definition of what “TUPE-like” means. This looks like something, but is not quite the same. I would like to see an agreement that TUPE-like means that TUPE, as practised at the moment, will be the standard to which Ministers will try to hold any future statutory instrument or legislative developments.
I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House tonight. I look forward to his responses and promise him that when labour relations matters come up, I will continue to represent the 30% of paid-up trade union members who vote for the Conservative Party.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out these draft regulations. Like other noble Lords, I am concerned about any potential loss of updating rights.
Does the Minister agree that, both on the European works councils and on TUPE, these regulations remove powers currently enshrined in primary legislation, under which Ministers can enact legislation to keep UK law in line with EU law? Will removing those powers mean that it will be harder to keep workers’ rights up to the same standard as EU workers’ rights, as EU law develops?
May I underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and my noble friend Lord Monks on the “TUPE-like” reference? TUPE has been a boon, particularly for women workers moving between jobs, especially when we see how women’s pensions are often a lot less than men’s pensions.
Employment: Terminal Illness
Lord Balfe Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they will take to prevent workers being dismissed from their jobs following diagnosis of a terminal illness.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by praising the work of the Government and, in particular, the Minister for Disabled People, Sarah Newton, for their support for the TUC Dying to Work campaign and for encouraging employers through the disability confidence scheme to adopt the TUC voluntary charter. I also wish to mention my good friend and colleague, Pauline Latham MP, who sadly cannot be with us today but has done a lot of work at that end of the Corridor, as has, in a slightly different context, Madeleine Moon on behalf of people suffering from motor neurone disease.
The TUC charter, as many noble Lords will know, has been a great success, with almost a million workers protected and companies such as Rolls-Royce in Derby, Bombardier, Legal & General, Santander, TSB, Lloyds, Weetabix, E.ON and the Royal Mail all signing up to demonstrate their commitment to protect and support their terminally ill workers.
While the Government’s support for the charter is commendable, not every employee is fortunate enough to be employed by such a supportive employer. Jacci Woodcock, the patron of the TUC Dying to Work campaign who I am delighted to say is with us today, faced significant problems after she informed her employer of her diagnosis of terminal breast cancer. Ms Woodcock is not alone, and therefore I believe that there is a need to strengthen the provision that is afforded to terminally ill workers.
Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics in certain areas of life, including employment. Anyone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness will almost definitely be covered by that definition of disability. However, within the Equality Act, employers retain the ability to dismiss a disabled worker on the grounds of capability following a reasonable adjustment. While this is clearly reasonable in standard cases of disability, where the employee has the opportunity to learn new skills and adapt to the adjustments made, I am sure that noble Lords will acknowledge that terminally ill workers find themselves in a fundamentally different situation. First, their condition is necessarily degenerative, so any adjustments made for them which may be reasonable one day are perhaps not reasonable the next. There can also be significant differences and life expectancies between, say, a cancer diagnosis and one of motor neurone disease. Therefore, there is a need for a very different approach.
Secondly, such procedures can be stressful. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that such additional stress and strain is very unwelcome at such a difficult time and, indeed, may exacerbate the health issues being faced.
Finally, when a terminal diagnosis is made, people’s first thoughts are often with the loved ones they will leave behind. People understandably want to make sure that their nearest and dearest are financially secure. Many people currently have death-in-service schemes or life assurance as part of their contracts of employment, and these often pay out significant sums. However, should a terminally ill worker be dismissed in their end-of-life period, they would lose not only their job but their entitlement to these benefits.
Despite the clear need to provide additional protection for terminally ill workers, I can understand the Government’s reluctance to begin amending the Equality Act. However, I think this could be done with a suitable statutory instrument. The TUC has received legal advice that I have been made privy to, and am happy to share with the Minister, which suggests a sensible way forward without the need to amend the Act. The Secretary of State can lay regulations that determine the circumstances in which an employee is incapable of carrying out their duties due to ill health. It would still be reasonable for an employer to retain such a person in their employment, and not to dismiss them, where that employee is disabled by a terminal illness.
In the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, terminal illness is defined as being where death is expected within six months. This definition could be maintained. However, should the Government wish to pursue this course of action, a protected period of two years might be more appropriate, to ensure that employees are not concerned that their legal protection will imminently expire.
Colleagues across the House may be concerned that such a proposal might put additional strain on small and medium-sized enterprises. However, judging by the way maternity leave has worked in small businesses, I believe that these can be overcome. Regulations made under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act mean that recovery of benefits is usually made by deducting the relevant amount from PAYE, national insurance and any student loan repayments that the employer is due to make to HMRC. There is, therefore, no immediate need for a cash-flow crisis to hit an employer. Further provision could be made in regulations without the need for any primary legislation.
I would like the Government to look closely at these proposals, of which I have given the Minister details, and seek to lay the necessary statutory instruments, so that in future no other terminally ill workers need have the additional stress or strain of worrying about their job and their family’s financial future.
On a purely personal note, I decided, on my own initiative, to consult my daughter and my daughter-in-law. One is a director of HR for a company in the City; the other is a deputy director of HR for a very large firm of solicitors. I asked them what they knew about how to deal with terminal illness. They basically said that they looked it up in the book. They both have an MSc in human relations. For neither of them was dealing with terminally ill workers part, for even half an hour, of their course. In other words, they qualified with an MSc in HR from different universities, at different times, in different cities and on different courses, without dealing with terminal illness even being referred to.
We need, therefore, to look beyond the terminal illness that we are dealing with here, and to ask the Government and the TUC to support the training of HR workers in how to deal with this problem, which affects a lot of workers. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester for being here, because this is a problem that is often dealt with by people of faith in many different religions. The right reverend Prelate will acknowledge that all faiths have to deal with this matter. It is a great strain, and many people in work faced with a terminal illness need a huge amount of support, love and effort. We owe it to them to train our workforce, and as a Government we owe it to the people of this country to do the best we can—without undue legislative weight—to make this a bearable problem for the many people affected. I thank noble Lords for listening to this opening speech.