Trade Union Bill (First sitting)

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Mearns]

Q 14 In the aftermath of this session, will you write to us to present us with the evidence you have to back up those statements?

Dr Adam Marshall: I would be very happy to look at what evidence is available. As I say, the statistics collected by National Statistics are not acceptable.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)]

Q 15 Thank you all very much for being here. I am sure that everyone here agrees that the intimidation of non-striking workers and illegal activity on picket lines is wrong and that it is concerning to read reports of that. What are your experiences of picketing from an employer perspective? What are your thoughts on the current status of the code of practice and the provisions in the Bill to put that on a statutory footing? Do you think it does enough to reduce the concerns that some of us might have about behaviour in this area?

John Cridland: The principal concern of business is where picketing action does not fit in with the code. Generally, I think the code works well. The Bill contains a sensible provision to bring legal recognition to the part of the code that it covers, and I think the major provision in the Bill that would impact on picketing is the requirement to have an official who is clearly responsible, and who the employer knows to be responsible, for the actions of the picket line, which is something that employers welcome. I think that is a relatively moderate change to the existing legislation. It builds on a code that has served us well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I still have seven people who want to ask questions, so from now on we will have one question and one brisk answer, if you do not mind.

[Rishi Sunak]

Q 59 Thank you, Sir Edward. I very much echo the comments in your submission that responsible trade unions are a force for good in the workplace and the community, so thank you for that.

I just want to return to the topic of the political levy. I was glad to hear that both of you, on your membership form, specifically provide members with the information to opt out. It turns out that that is not as common as you would think and many other unions do not do that. Given what you have said about the importance of transparency and the reason for you to have put that on the form, do you think that it is appropriate that other unions do not include that information?

John Hannett: Well, you are going to be speaking to other unions and they will give you their answer, but for me, it is right to do it, because I think that if I am going to recruit somebody into the union, I have a responsibility to tell them what they get for their money; I have a responsibility to tell them where their money is allocated. Our form is very clear, and we can certainly give you copies of the form. It is explicit that if you wish to drop out, you can. I think that is honest and the right thing to do. I think that is honest and the right thing to do.

[Jessica Morden]

Q 60 Can I ask Mr Hannett a specific question? You have run campaigns such as “Freedom From Fear”, which is about highlighting abuse against workers in retail and other such sectors. Can you tell the Committee how the measures in clause 11 might affect your ability to run such non-political campaigns?

John Hannett: I am sure that the Committee is aware that there are two separate funds. One is the political fund, which allows us to do political campaigns, so where there is a political link clearly we identify the campaigns as such. For instance, that one is linked politically; it is also linked industrially. On one level we engage with employers about providing good, safe environments for people to work in, but there is also a political impact when we want to campaign for new legislation to protect shop workers. Therefore, we need the resources to do that. We need the right balance, and the political levy and the combination of general and political funds enable us to do that. Without that kind of resource what you are doing is effectively making it harder for unions such as mine to campaign on such issues.

What is really important for me in the question though is the transparency. In a sense, when we go for that 10-year ballot we make it absolutely clear what we spend the money on and we also, of course, let the certification officer see clearly where we spend it. I suppose that unions such as mine and Roy’s are confused about why we are in this situation when we have had a highly successful model.

Roy Rickhuss: We also ran a fairly successful campaign around betting shops and against violence towards workers and staff in those shops, and I am pleased to say that it had all-party support. It was a successful campaign. It is questionable, and I do not know the answer at this stage, whether we would have been able to run those campaigns if they had been deemed to be political and the money had needed to come out of a political fund.

We also ran a fairly successful campaign on pensions when the last Labour Government was in power. We had a company in Cardiff that went into receivership—administration—and our members lost their pensions. We ended up taking the Labour Government to the European courts to establish the financial assistance scheme. Again, would we have been able to do that had we not had a political fund? That was about holding the Government to account in terms of protecting our members and their pensions, and we did it—and always will do it—irrespective of the colour of the Government. Whether it be Labour or Conservative, we will use our funds to protect our members’ best interests and that is what it is about for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We do not want any anti-Bulgaria comments.

[Rishi Sunak]

Q 82 Thank you both for giving up your time today. I want to turn to the clauses about the transparency of political donations. Stephen, I noticed that in your submission you made the point that you do not think any other bodies are subject to similar provisions. I am not a lawyer, so perhaps you can help me, because my understanding from my business life is that the Companies Act 2006 requires the annual disclosure of political donations by companies and, further than that, requires active shareholder consent and a resolution to be passed, rather than an opt-out system, which is obviously a higher threshold than what we have today. I think you used the language “oppressive”. Would you consider the system of corporate donations we have today to be oppressive?

Stephen Cavalier: I would like to see a lot more transparency around corporate donations—things such as the Midlands Industrial Council, which is the major contributor to one of the political parties—and funds that are channelled through intermediaries into political parties. I would like to see shareholders having a real say in whether there are political donations. We have heard the point about the wider political implications of the political fund rules on broader campaigning. There is already complete transparency of the donations that are being made.

It is extraordinary to suggest that every trade union whose total donations exceed £2,000 per annum has to give details of every single individual donation, what it is used for and to which recipient on an annual return each year. That is an extraordinary intrusion of privacy on the individuals who make those donations. I do not see any equivalent provisions in relation to companies. I defer to you if there are such provisions.

[Rishi Sunak]

Q 83 The difference would be that a company cannot just take money from shareholders, give it to political parties and ask shareholders to opt out; they have to acquire active shareholder consent. Unions today do not have to do that. Do you think that balance is right?

Stephen Cavalier: Well, that is not a correct characterisation of the situation. At the moment, unions have to ballot every 10 years for a political fund. You have heard from Mr Hannett already; 93% of USDAW members voted in favour. That is quite a common percentage among trade unions. Every single union must have a political fund ballot every 10 years. Every single member is legally required to have a notice when they join that gives them the opportunity to opt out of the political fund if they want to. Those provisions already exist.

The measure suggests that that should be changed, by the way, on the basis that within three months of the Bill becoming law, every single trade union member who pays the political fund will have to write in by post or by hand to opt in, with no opportunity to do so electronically. It completely fails to take into account that, as matters stand, unions are required by law to have a political fund rule adopted under their own constitutional provisions, which is approved by the certification officer. If you change the law in this way, every single union will need to change their rules, have those rules approved by the certification officer and get their members to sign up, which they simply cannot do within three months. To my mind, it is another example of a deliberate attempt to draft the legislation in such a way as it cannot be complied with by trade unions.

[Rishi Sunak]

Q 84 This is the basic issue of fairness—of people’s contributions being taken without their active consent at the time of membership. We heard in earlier evidence that some unions support that but it is very much not the widespread practice among all unions to provide that information to their members. If you support transparency, it is clear today that that transparency does not exist across the entire board.

Stephen Cavalier: It is a legal requirement to tell members that they have the right to opt out of the political fund. If they wish to, they do so.

[Chris Stephens]

Q 85 I have several questions. First, do you agree that there is a danger in introducing thresholds—the impact that it will have on some gender equality issues, for example? Shift changes impact workers trying to pursue equal pay issues and the like. Secondly, is there a new danger of public bodies having to reissue new, individual contracts on the basis of opportunities to check-off and those sorts of issues? Do you see any impact on the devolved Administrations given that your organisation has offices across the UK?

Stephen Cavalier: First, on the equality point, the TUC has already submitted evidence. There is a disproportionate impact of thresholds on women workers; it is absolutely clear that there is a discriminatory impact. On the question of check-off and facility time, we are also a large employer. We have check-off and facility time and we are pleased to do so. It is something that we have agreed with our workforce and it works very well for us. I very much endorse the comments made in a 2012 paper by called “Stop the Union-Bashing” by Robert Halfon MP, who says that Whitehall should not dictate to employers and that it should be a matter for employers to agree facility time. I commend that paper to the Committee. It is certainly right that employers should agree facility time and check-off. It is a matter for them.

There are serious issues here associated with the devolved Administrations. As I understand it, they have the right to determine these arrangements within their own spheres. This does cut across that, and it does so in a very negative way. It is very concerning that the impact assessment itself—in fact, I think the European convention assessment that the Government have produced says specifically that this removal of existing contractual arrangements and collective agreements may have retrospective effect. That is a serious potential breach of article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention.