Trade Union Bill

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I will be brief because, frankly, discussing this issue will almost cost more—given all the noble Lords around the Chamber and all the people supporting us with the discussion going on until late at night—than this provision will raise in a year. The relevant figure is about £55,000. The impact assessment refers to five-year periods. I wonder why that is the case. The figures are so low. I could not find any evidence of enforcements in last year’s report, but, apparently, we have had eight enforcements per year on average. I am sure that the political advisers, the Minister, or whoever saw the impact assessment, thought that they had better talk in five-year periods because it makes the figure—40—sound bigger. If we put in these new powers, we will spend another £1.5 million and we will get two more enforcement orders a year. Goodness me, what is this? It is ridiculous. The Government are clearly contriving an issue out of nothing.

That goes back to my earlier point. The impact assessment says there is scope to increase the powers, but actually the Government have provided no evidence that it is necessary. The great sadness is that, as everyone knows, once you start having fines, interests become entrenched. Pride is at stake—nobody likes to be fined—so it becomes a legal process, it becomes drawn out and the poor old Certification Officer, who at the moment is doing a very good job trying to reach voluntary agreements, finds it more difficult because the parties become more intractable. And for what? For eight or 10 enforcement orders a year—goodness me!

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

I rise to intervene briefly, having listened carefully all afternoon to our exchanges. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for his remarks, and I fully support both this and the previous set of amendments. The more one thinks about this obnoxious, sad little Bill—well, it is a fairly big Bill, I suppose—the more one has deep misgivings about it.

I do not mean to embarrass the Minister, but I genuinely thank her for being a listening Minister on this occasion, and for listening very carefully. It is obvious that the Bill has been contrived, through the interstices of the central office apparatus of the party in power, to produce something that does not reflect the reality of modern trade union/employer relations. I cannot think of any examples, in respect of our exchanges on Clause 16 onwards, where employers have asked for anything in this field. That is fairly telling. Normally, Governments respond to legitimate lobbies, but that has not happened on this occasion.

I look back—it is a long way—to when I first entered the House of Commons in 1970 and the nightmare of the Heath Government, the National Industrial Relations Court, the Official Solicitor being called on to adjudicate, the dockers on strike, and all the rest of it. That all arose from anti-trade union legislation built on principles of prejudice, dislike and antagonism, rather than genuine constructive industrial relations—the kind of thing we see routinely in Germany and other civilised European countries where there is a much more balanced picture.

Given that the Minister has been a patient listener, and given that an expectation is building up that we will return on Report, which, if my memory serves me right, will be on 14 March, to lots of these fundamental points, I ask her, at this late stage in the Committee—we only have a short time to go before we conclude this four-day Committee stage—to indicate that she will come back with modern modifications to reduce the onerous and extreme extra bureaucracy being placed on the Certification Officer’s activities. They are not necessary and have not been requested by anybody, least of all the professionals in that department. I ask that she listen to these correct objections.

I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have been involved in objecting, and not just the Labour party, which is the main expert on industrial relations. It shows the authority of the genuine overall opposition—including on these Benches—to these really undesirable measures in a Bill that is widely unpopular among the people observing it. It is a pity that many are not bothering to observe it; they should be, because it is one of the worst examples of the Government’s illegitimate use of a so-called mandate based on 24% of the electorate. It is nowhere near a genuine majority of people in this country. People want proper, modern, civilised industrial relations that do not oppress trade union members.

I thank the Minister for her patience. She has the chance to indicate, either in her reply today or on another occasion, that, when the time comes, the Government will respond and make sure there is a definite change in the text of these clauses.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank Lord Mendelsohn for the amendment. This short debate has raised an important question about the proportionality of penalties for breaches in this area, and I want to emphasise the seriousness with which we should all view the requirements and obligations on unions. The impact assessment helps us to have a useful discussion in this House. It reflects conventions—I do not always agree with the conventions, as I am sure noble Lords opposite will remember, but penalty estimates are one bit of good practice that is rightly included when these assessments are prepared. I emphasise that it is not a target. It is about encouraging good compliance, including as a deterrent, and creating and maintaining public confidence by removing those unfit for union office and ensuring accurate trade union registers. Union leadership elections or political fund rules and ballots should all be carried out according to due process. Any irregularities, quite rightly, would raise concerns and damage confidence among not only union members but employers and the wider public.

We intend that the maximum penalty would vary according to the seriousness of the breach. This is a normal approach among regulators. Within this maximum, the Certification Officer may also set a lower penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case. In a number of areas that the Certification Officer regulates, he is currently limited to being able to make an order requiring the union to correct a breach. There is nothing to sanction a union that has failed to comply with a requirement, no matter how significant the failure. The additional option of a financial penalty being applied will ensure that appropriate sanctions are available as a remedy and a deterrent, as I have said.