School Funding: North-east of England

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

As with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, it was in my excitement at the start of my speech that I said we might never hear from my hon. Friends again; I did not mean that, obviously.

The desperate state of schools in the north-east is clear from the speeches that my hon. Friends have made, but I am afraid schools throughout the country are in similar circumstances. The crisis in schools is a national failure, perpetrated by the Conservative Government, and made worse by news today of the failed free schools policy and by the decision made by the Prime Minister in her short time in office to divert school funding to grammar schools. That is despite all the teaching bodies, the unions and thousands of teachers talking about the crisis in schools. The Government’s response is to deny that the problem exists, trot out the mendacious response that funding in schools has never been higher, and try to introduce an inequitable new funding formula that has been universally condemned and under which every school in England is likely to face funding cuts in the next three years.

I hope that today the Minister will at least accept that there is a crisis in schools, and take the opportunity to explain why the Government are not responding to the consultation on the new funding formula this side of the general election. Surely the public deserve, at the very least, a summary of responses to the consultation, so that they can make a fully informed decision before they go into the polling booth.

Alan Hardie, the principal of the excellent Whitburn Church of England Academy in my constituency was recently forced, as many others have been, to do the Government’s dirty work; he had to send a begging letter to parents, asking for donations of £10 a month to cover basic resources. Alan said:

“We hear the same phrase repeated time and time again by the Department for Education that school funding has never been higher. What they neglect to mention is more and more of this funding returns directly back to central government through the very significant increases in employer’s National Insurance and pension contributions. This is a stealth tax that means that schools have less and less to spend on the pupils in their care”.

The truth is that schools in England are facing their first real-terms funding cuts in 20 years, and must find about £3 billion-worth of savings—on average about 7% of their overall budget; that the secondary schools that will experience the largest cuts will, in real terms, lose an average of £291,000; and that funding to the most deprived secondary schools, where more than 30% of children receive free school meals, will fall, while the highest relative gains will go to pupils in the least deprived areas. It is an all-too-familiar approach from the Government, who, time and again, make those who can least afford it pay for their mistakes.

Since 2010 the Conservatives have offered much in the way of rhetoric on education, but have consistently failed to make that a reality. Instead, they have left in their wake a litany of broken promises. They promised us they would recruit and keep the best teachers. Yet schools face a crisis of both recruitment and retention. Teachers are leaving the profession in record numbers, and many more are set to follow. The Conservatives promised they would create small schools with smaller class sizes, but the opposite is true. Even analysis by the Department for Education has revealed that more than 500,000 primary school children are now in super-sized classes of more than 30. In secondary schools more than 300,000 pupils are taught in classes of more than 30. The Government promised in their manifesto that money following children into schools would be protected and that funding would rise in line with pupil numbers. Yet the National Audit Office has confirmed that schools are required to make £3 billion of efficiency savings.

Worse still, the Department for Education does not have a clue where it expects schools to make those savings. Perhaps the Minister can use the debate as an opportunity to let us, and schools, know how the savings can be made; or will he confirm what we all know—that the only way to make the savings is by schools continuing to increase pupil-to-teacher ratios, reduce basic services such as cleaning and site and premises work, stop investment in books and IT equipment, cease providing apprenticeships to people such as Liam, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, design curriculum offers that fulfil only basic requirements, not replace staff who leave, outsource support services, and lose more support staff, teaching assistants, lunchtime supervisors, caretakers and—the death knell—teachers?

The National Union of Teachers general secretary, Kevin Courtenay, said that headteachers are cutting back on all spending areas to try to keep teachers in front of classes. That is where the Government have taken us; it is the depth of the crisis in schools. Schools are struggling just to put teachers in classrooms. He has said that the fears about schools operating on a four-day week are real. Four-day weeks—that is the future of children’s education under another Tory Government.

Children with special educational needs and disabilities are another group that the Government promised to prioritise, but it is the hardest hit, as specialist support is no longer available.

The pupil premium, which was designed to help children from poorer backgrounds, is being used by almost a third of schools to cover their budget shortages, with schools with the highest numbers of disadvantaged pupils more likely to report cuts to staff as a result of those shortages. Is it not true that the Government’s priorities do not lie with disadvantaged children or children with special educational needs?

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of these cuts have come from fiscal pressures? If the Government really were a defender of state education, they would review those fiscal pressures and the needs of state education above those of private education. At the moment, private schools, due to their charity trustee status, are exempt from taxation, to the detriment of state schools, which now have to pay higher national insurance levels and the apprenticeship levy. Private sector education seems to have special dispensation, unlike its state counterparts. Does she agree that the Minister should look at that fiscal arrangement first before making further cuts to state education?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I completely agree with him. This is about priorities, and the Government’s are completely wrong. Some £320 million has been promised for 70,000 new places at grammar schools, while other schools, such as those my hon. Friends have referred to, are having to send out begging letters and get rid of staff.

New Grammar Schools

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I agree that it is about choice, about diversity and about having more choice for parents and a school system that means that they can find the school for their child that is tailored to their needs.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

How does this help the Government’s new industrial strategy? We know that they still have a policy of having technology colleges, which seem to have disappeared somewhat. How will grammar schools help the new industrial strategy? In addition, has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church about the potential impact on existing faith schools, particularly in the Teesside conurbation?

[Justine Greening]

As I have said, we will announce our policy options in due course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to respond to them, but education in schools is critical to delivering our long-term industrial strategy and to meeting the dual challenges of having a successful economy and of having our migration levels more under control. One way we can do that incredibly constructively is to meet more of our skills needs through our own young people—to train and educate them to be able to play their role in British industry, helping our country to be successful.

Educational Performance: Boys

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Indeed, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I point him in the direction of what is now Career Ready—it was formerly Career Academies UK. I helped to set up a Career Ready in my constituency. It is very much a London-and-south-east-centric charity, but I believe it needs to be rolled out across the country.

Perhaps the education sector shies away from any focus on boys because it is not politically correct. Certainly, there is deafening silence from the education trade unions and others. There would be no silence if the genders were reversed—of that I am sure. Also, the move from all-or-nothing exams to continual assessment at GCSE has been seen as favouring a female way of learning, albeit with the recent changes swinging the pendulum slightly back towards a level playing field.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I think this debate is very important and much needed, coming from an area that is still reliant on heavy industry—although there have been setbacks in the last couple of years, whether that be the steel sector or indeed potash mining or the chemical industry. What is of real concern, particularly for young men who seek skills-based training for employment, is the Brexit vote. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my area of Teesside and east Durham was one of the primary areas of European social fund and European development fund funding for sector-specific training in industry, which primarily benefited young men who needed skills training to enter heavy industrial work.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

The hon. Gentleman from the Opposition, who is my friend, makes a valid point from his point of view, but I would counter that I see Brexit as much more positive than perhaps he does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I think it would take ages—it would take absolutely years to renegotiate. I recently returned from a G7 meeting in Japan, proving again that the leave campaign’s fear campaign is completely wrong. I was able to spend some time with the European vice-president, talking about the great opportunities that the digital single market presents. It was a lot of fun. We want to be part of that digital single market—growing for Britain.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the most significant threats to the UK steel industry.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)]

Global overproduction and reduced demand have caused steel prices to collapse, eroding the profitability of steel producers across the world. We have acted decisively to help UK steel companies by delivering lower electricity prices, tackling unfair trade, updating procurement guidance and introducing flexibility in emissions regulations.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

One of the main issues in the current steel crisis is time. The Greybull deal took nigh on 12 months, and that time was allocated to ensure that a better buyer, as opposed to the original potential purchaser, came forward. What has the Secretary of State done and what conversations has he had with Tata to ensure that it will be a responsible vendor and allow enough time to encourage not just buyers, but the best buyers, to come forward? Where does he see strip and tube in the future? Does he still see Tata remaining in situ in some form in both those sectors?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of time for securing a viable long-term future for the Tata strip business. I have had a number of discussions, as have my officials, with Tata. It has been very straightforward in being reasonable about time—of course, it does not have an unlimited amount of time, but it has shown through the long products business that it understands that things take time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The TTIP deal is worth £10 billion to this economy, and it is surprising that the Opposition are not supporting it more loudly. We are driving exports with India. As the Leader of the Opposition is in the Chamber, it might be interesting to ask whether the shadow Chancellor still actively campaigns for the overthrow of capitalism.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

With Hartlepool Tata, Hartlepool Caparo, Air Products, Johnson Matthey, SSI Redcar, Boulby Potash and oil and gas industry job losses, Teesside is being hit hard. May I ask the Minister to meet me and other Tees MPs to discuss the future of the SSI site? May I also tell the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise that between 1987 and 1992, in Redcar alone, the Tory party sacked 20,000 steel workers?

[Sajid Javid]

I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and any colleagues, and I have met him before, to discuss this important issue. He will know of all the action we have taken, and are taking, to help the steel industry. However, he makes it sound as if, when Labour were last in office—over 13 years—they actually helped the industry. Production halved, and the number of employees fell by thousands—that is Labour’s record. It is left to this Government to actually support the steel industry.

Onshore Oil and Gas

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate on the role that manufacturing can play in the unconventional gas extraction industry.

This is not really a debate about whether the UK should develop a shale gas capability. The House has rightly focused on the need for a robust regulatory framework for such an industry, and it will no doubt continue to debate such important issues, but this morning’s debate is much more pragmatic. The question before us is clear: if the shale gas industry is going to develop within the clear regulatory framework agreed by the House, how do we best ensure that UK manufacturing can exploit to the maximum the supply-chain opportunities made available by that nascent industry? That pragmatic point is what is important to people up and down the country who have traditionally depended on manufacturing jobs to maintain their prosperity, living standards and family life. At its heart, this is about a debate that understands the importance of manufacturing to the UK economy.

In the US, which has had a shale gas industry for some time, one of the biggest winners has been the chemicals industry. Shale gas production in the US has seen feedstock costs reduce significantly, giving the chemicals sector a major competitive advantage over manufacturers in the EU and Asia. Shale gas ethane from the US is much cheaper than that from the EU, which is produced from naphtha, a refined form of crude oil. Cheaper energy, combined with cheaper feedstock, has kick-started investment in the US chemicals industry, attracting $138 billion of investment so far and funding 225 new projects.

In the UK, the chemicals industry is already a major exporter, with about £25 billion of exports. Yearly, it adds almost £9 billion to the UK’s GDP, as well as underpinning much of the manufacturing sector, including steel. In terms of competition, the chemicals sector could benefit greatly from a new source of domestic feedstock. It would benefit from lowers costs and, importantly, from shorter, more secure supply lines.

There should also be opportunities for many UK-based manufacturers in other sectors to supply an emerging shale gas industry. A report by Ernst and Young estimates that more than 39,000 indirect jobs could be created by UK shale gas extraction. It also suggests that the total spend involved in bringing UK shale wells into production would be £33 billion by 2032, which would include £17 billion on specialised equipment, such as high-pressure pumps and mixers. I note with interest that EEF has said that, although the majority of pumps are currently manufactured outside the UK, with some assembly done here, there is significant potential to increase UK production. However, if UK manufacturing is to benefit, it will be necessary to build the case for investment in those things, and that is my first ask to the Minister.

This is, however, not just about pumps; it is also about the sand that will be required for the fracking process. That will come from existing quarries and could generate a £2 billion spend in the UK from 2016 to 2032. This is also about the cement, for which there could be a nearly £1 billion market, and that cement could come from the UK’s four cement manufacturers. We cannot afford to dismiss that potential.

For me, as a south Yorkshire MP, however, the most exciting prospect lies in the opportunities the shale gas industry could create for steel manufacturing. Steel is in crisis. A global slump in demand, contractions in the oil and gas industry and the dumping of cheap, subsidised steel on global markets by the Chinese have combined with high energy costs and unsustainable business rates to create a debilitating sense of volatility in the industry. I acknowledge entirely that the industry must respond positively to the challenges it faces, but if UK steel is to develop a positive way out of its difficulties, it needs Government support.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good case in relation to the UK steel industry, but the shale industry could help other integrated industrial sectors in the wider economy to develop, and one of those is carbon capture and storage. In a world where fossil fuels are getting cheaper, we should be using pots of funds originally used for renewables for CCS, and the Government should review their decision to get rid of it. In addition, non-conventional gas such as syngas, which comes from coal gasification—there are still tons of coal in the Durham coalfield under the North sea—could be less than 50% of the price of conventional gas. Those two pillars could lead to an industrial renaissance in some areas.

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend on both those points. On CCS, it is difficult for the Government to make progress on gaining public acceptance for the shale gas industry, and part of the argument against the industry has always been the emissions and the problem of using fossil fuels into the foreseeable future. CCS is one of the key ways we can deal with that issue and that argument. If there is to be a long-term future for any fossil fuel, the Government must think again about their abandonment of CCS technology.

We need to understand that the nascent shale gas industry offers one of those rare opportunities to create new demand for steel—something we badly need at the moment—and a new sense of hope that there is a positive future for one of our foundation industries. As United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas points out, the crisis that the industry faces will not be solved just by dealing with issues relating to energy and business rates, important though those issues are. It needs to be addressed by supporting UK steel to play a bigger role in manufacturing supply chains domestically and globally. This is about the Government supporting the development of a wider range of steel capabilities, by building the business case for the development of a UK shale gas supply chain.

What we do not need, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, is a repeat of what has happened with the UK’s offshore wind industry, where we have missed opportunities to build a robust supply chain, despite our strength in the wind energy market. This time, the Government can get things right by working with industry and by supporting the building of a business case for developing shale gas. They can encourage confidence among investors and supply-chain companies and prevent the industry from meeting the fate that has befallen the green energy sector.

Steel’s opportunities as part of the shale gas supply chain focus on two main capabilities. First, as was pointed out earlier, the shale gas industry could need more than 12,000 km of high-quality steel casing, costing £2.3 billion. It could also need 50 drilling rigs, which would cost £1.6 billion to manufacture. So how do we make sure that we make the best of British, in meeting that potential demand? I suggest that we need first to identify the best means of making the UK contribution to the rigging requirements of the shale gas industry. That may or may not mean the domestic manufacturing of the rig components; but at the very least there is great potential for exploiting domestically the need to upgrade rig components to UK standards and to provide ancillary equipment. According to EEF, that market could be worth £1.2 billion. That is a good, practical, pragmatic way forward, which the Government could help to deliver.

As to the steel casing, the problem is, of course, that the UK manufactures welded tubing—not the seamless tubing required by the industry. UKOOG points out, however, that a significant amount of work is required on seamless pipes before they are ready to be used by the shale gas industry and that that could and should be done in the UK. That position is supported by EEF. I would prefer it if the necessary investment could be made to give a UK home to such a manufacturing capability once again; but, however we look at the issue, the Government have a role to play in supporting the steel industry to exploit the opportunities available and thereby to secure a better future for itself.

The Government need to support the establishment of the business case for all aspects of the shale gas supply chain, with particular urgency in relation to the steel aspects of that supply chain. As UKOOG points out,

“We are at the start of the shale journey and the steel industry needs help now.”

UKOOG has pledged to work with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether any support can be given. That is incredibly helpful. What we want from the Minister today is a commitment to ensuring that that offer of collaboration from an industry that in a sense is new to the UK—shale gas extraction is new—is taken up enthusiastically by the Government; we want it to be translated into a supply chain strategy that guarantees that the best of British will lie at the heart of a successful, safe and environmentally sustainable British shale gas industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing the debate. He is quite a brave man—I can stand up and support fracking because it largely does not affect my constituency, but when fracking does affect a Member’s constituency, supporting it is a much braver thing to do. He made a measured speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans). We have to ensure that the public understand what we want to do, because they want to be reassured that it will be safe.

I have made the point before in this Chamber that we sometimes miss a trick in this country. I spent 10 years in the European Parliament—do not blame me for everything that happened in Europe over that period. In France, for example, when they build nuclear power stations they ensure there are houses, roads, infrastructure and leisure facilities. I am not saying we can do all of that with the fracking industry, but we can make the industry more beneficial for local residents. That is what we need to do, because at the moment we are not really selling fracking very well. That is the trouble; we need to sell it.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Carbon emissions are obviously a big issue surrounding shale or any form of fossil fuel extraction. We have to treat CO₂ as not only a waste product but a potential by-product, because the chemical industry already uses it as feedstock for a lot of different things, including agriculture, the bottling industry, the canning industry and the food preparation industry in general. It is the purest form of CO₂ when it comes through those energy-intensives. We need to educate people about the benefits of fossil fuels, the CO₂ from which can be sequestered and used again, thereby reducing the emissions that they create.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but we have to ensure that the people who will be living around the mouths of the wells, where the shale gas comes up to the surface, feel that there is a direct benefit to them. It is good to appeal to the greater good, but it is also good to appeal to those who will see the fracking most. That is the particular point I am making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I want to back up what he is saying. He is a fellow North York Moors MP, where we have the Boulby potash mine in the national park. The mine goes more than 1 mile underground and 2 miles out under the North sea. Although it does not use the same technology, it goes through the same strata that the shale and gas industry will go through and is completely controlled. When large developments such as that occur, there is initially big uproar and upheaval, but the mine now employs more than 1,000 people. Although it is sadly letting people go, without it, the community would not have benefited from the well-paid jobs and solid employment they have reaped over the past 30 or 40 years.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I became very much involved with potash, because it is important in growing crops. We have such a massive amount of potash that we can probably produce enough not only for this country but for virtually the whole world. As he says, everybody has to be reassured that the processes can work together.

I am really heartened by this morning’s debate, given what I was expecting—perhaps I am tempting fate, as Members may yet come in with the opposite view. I often think that when we are talking about shale gas, it is easier to support those who are protesting against it. They make an awful lot of noise and have a fair point to make, but they get almost undue attention, and I think we have to be realistic about the potential for shale gas and the resource that we have.

To pick up on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale made, we are potentially very reliant on gas from Russia, given that it may well come through Europe to Britain. We also import an awful lot of frozen gas from the middle east by tanker through Milford Haven. All those routes are susceptible to problems, and we will need a lot of gas in future. As we reduce our carbon emissions, there will still be a great need for gas. I think about 40% of our heating in this country comes from gas, and when people have gas in their homes, they expect to be able to turn on the gas boiler or gas fire. It would be wrong of people on all sides of the political debate not to allow shale gas to be got out of the ground, although we have to make sure that the controls are there, that we can do it safely, and that local communities feel that they get huge benefits from it.

We will continue to need gas as we decarbonise, particularly for heating and manufacturing. If we are not able to extract shale gas, the UK will have to import. In 2014 the UK imported 48% of its gas needs, and in 2030, without shale gas, it will import three quarters. Shale gas is still in its exploration phase, and if production is successful, it could vastly reduce gas imports. National Grid projects that it could meet about 40% of UK gas demand by 2030, but we need to get the process up and running if we are ever to hit that figure. We have to make shale gas extraction much more acceptable to local people, and we need to have a single regulator.

Additionally, shale gas extraction has the potential to create more than 64,000 jobs, which would not only help our long-term economic plan but ensure energy stability, which, with our ever-growing population, is a matter of increasing concern. Furthermore, the shale gas industry could help to revitalise our struggling steel industry. If shale gas extraction were to take off in the UK, the industry could need more than 12,000 km of quality steel casing, which would cost in the region of £2.3 billion. I have looked into that, and it is interesting that the type of pipes that are needed are not manufactured in this country. If we were to go into shale gas in a big way, we could invest in the steel industry to get it back up and running.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The two tube mills in Britain are in Corby and Hartlepool, and they could easily be adapted to produce non-welded tubing. Of course, there is also a very good site in Teesside that is no longer being used. Again, that site could be adapted to provide non-welded tubing if virgin steel were produced once again there.

[Neil Parish]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because a way of supporting our steel industry would be to make sure that we produced British steel that went into the British shale gas industry. We would also be certain that the steel pipes that we produced were of great quality. We should be able to reassure the general public about the quality of that steel piping, so it could be a win-win situation.

In the US, having abundant cheap shale gas has helped to attract $138 billion of investment in the chemical industry, which is funding something like 225 new projects. The US has also brought a huge amount of its manufacturing back to that country because of its supply of shale gas. I do not believe the UK has quite the resource that the US has, but it will make a significant difference.

This has been a good debate, with many ideas being raised that I hope the Minister will take on board. My final point is to repeat what I said at the beginning: we have to make sure that the plans are acceptable to local people and benefit them. We have to bring out into public exactly what safety measures are being put in place, and we have to make that argument clearly in public meetings. We should ensure that we bring shale gas out of the ground in this country, to create better energy security in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

That is a strong point and I agree with it. It is extremely important that, as in the US, there are no methane emissions. We have seen over and again in places such as Pennsylvania that methane is not emitted and that some of the scare stories are not true. I am sure that when the Scottish Government conduct their pragmatic and responsible review of the industry they will find that out for themselves.

In the US—I will not repeat my points—there are two elements in what cheap energy can do in manufacturing. The US has created around 200,000 jobs in that industry but, more important, the estimate is 1 million jobs in the onshoring chemicals industry in the US eastern seaboard. The transformation is extraordinary. It is re-shoring industry from Asia, China, Europe and, frankly, the UK.

Organisations make marginal decisions—this is not about closing Teesside and moving it to the US. When it comes to the marginal decision of where to open the next production unit, it will not be in Grangemouth, Teesside or Runcorn, but in Pennsylvania or Cleveland because that is where energy prices and feedstock prices are so competitive that more money can be made. We need to be cognisant of that. We sometimes talk in this House as though it is a new industry, but it is not.

The question arises—it is a fair one—of whether that applies to the UK. I have heard it said many times that things are different in the UK. It is true that we have a smaller manufacturing base and a much smaller chemicals industry, so perhaps it will not be so dramatic. People sometimes say, “Well, US gas prices have reduced by 70%, but that can’t happen here because we are on a European grid.” Generally speaking, when there is more of a commodity, the price falls. It is true that we have a European gas price and a European hub, but we had a global market for oil and look at what shale eventually did to the oil price. We are still living with that.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman is saying about a sheikhs versus shale fight, but the reduction in general fossil fuel prices, because of the online, downstream effect of renewables in the last 10 years, has also had an effect on driving down fossil fuel prices. The future of shale could be very beneficial to energy intensives because of cost, which is at least 50% cheaper than conventional gas. In addition, most of those industrial sites in Britain are located close to where those feedstocks are found.

[David Mowat]

I meant to say at the start that with current prices where they are, I do not think we will see a massive upkick in the UK’s shale industry. I think that will happen where shale is available near a chemicals site—INEOS in Runcorn and in Grangemouth is an example—because the costs and economics are different.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Rather than seeing shale as a means by which to reduce consumer prices for heating boilers, for example, we should also have an industrial strategy that targets the use of shale gas for cheap energy-friendly intensives because that would be a cheap benefit.

[David Mowat]

My point was more about feedstock. I have no problem with an industrial strategy along those lines, although I make the point gently that the million jobs that were created on the eastern seaboard of the US were the result not so much of industrial strategy, but of a massively cheaper economic model and business case and all that goes with that. We need to learn from that.

The Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made a number of points about the fact that we are running out of gas. This is not principally a discussion about whether we should have gas versus renewables. It is gas versus coal, as I said earlier, in environmental terms. Gas production is now 70% lower than five years ago and we are importing it from Qatar and principally from Norway, but increasingly from Russia. Centrica has a contract with Gazprom and around 10% of our gas will come from Russia by 2020. We need to understand that and be comfortable with the implications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

We are still in the process of researching this. The research does not finish until later this year, and then in 2017 the public consultation will finish, so we are not at the point in time at which we will be publishing the evidence. I think that that is reasonable. It is reasonable to look at the research properly before we bring it all together—

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Not now. I want to make some progress because I do not have long.

I want to talk briefly about carbon capture and storage, which is very important for reducing carbon emissions; that is not just about moving from coal to gas. I have mentioned already the issue in relation to methane emissions. I understand that there is some evidence that methane emissions are relatively low, but I would like to see the body of evidence brought together in a report on unconventional oil and gas.

I also want to talk briefly about the supply chain and the benefits in that respect. I represent Aberdeen, where we have been feeling the effects of the oil crash for much longer than a few weeks or months. For the past year, contractors have been finding it very difficult to get jobs and redundancies have been being made. In terms of the supply chain and supporting jobs in the UK, particularly in manufacturing around the supply chain, renewables would be very helpful. Also helpful would be looking at supporting the oil industry as it is now. I understand that the unconventional onshore oil and gas industry would bring jobs, but we need to protect the jobs that people currently have and are currently losing.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being generous with her time. The argument that I have certainly tried to make is that to have the industry that provides the solutions for renewables, which we still need to keep pushing hard for, we need the cheaper energy in order to retain the industry—so that we onshore that industry. For a steelworks to go forward and development to become cheaper and more efficient, it needs cheaper energy; and it is only the steel industry that provides the slab that is then rolled into tubes for monopiles that go into wind turbines, for example. It is the only onshore solution and it needs that cheaper energy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate that. I am not sure how much the onshore oil and gas industry will affect the price of energy. I did not know a huge amount about the chemicals industry and things like that; a point was made about feed. However, we do have the lowest oil price for a long time, and natural gas is at a 10-year low as well, so energy prices should be cheaper as things stand, without the need for fracking.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Angela Smith]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand that, although I think that there is a case to be made for saying that some of the subsidies that the Government have withdrawn could have been planned in a longer term way. We will leave that point, however, because is not the subject of our debate.

I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), as other hon. Members have done, for her speech and for campaigning assiduously, particularly on behalf of the steel industry and her constituents. She put the case very well. Whatever we may think about the industry, the House has taken a decision, although it may not be the one that we wanted. There are clearly opportunities for British manufacturing, so we have to take a pragmatic approach and plan accordingly. We need a strategic approach to ensure that UK plc and jobs in the UK benefit to the greatest extent possible from the development of the industry. My hon. Friend outlined the potential for the UK chemicals industry and for manufacturing in general. She made some good points about the pumps that would be required for the industry, about sand and cement and about the steel industry. I congratulate her on her contribution.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) described a public meeting in his constituency. I understand the difficulty of getting the message across. Energy generation is one of the great “wicked issues” of politics. We all know the rule in politics: everybody wants cheap, plentiful, clean energy at the push of a button, but nobody wants it to be produced anywhere near to where they live. Those two things, as we all know, are incompatible. We are required to wrestle with such wicked issues every day as constituency MPs, Ministers and leaders in our community and across our country. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to point that out.

I believe that Ministers might have a more direct role than the hon. Gentleman seems to think in taking the message to the public. That is part of Ministers’ responsibility, and they should not duck away from taking on difficult issues. In my experience, when Ministers take such responsibility, in the longer term they produce results for the Government in question—not that it is my duty to give them advice on how to win elections. I certainly think that Ministers have a direct role, although I appreciate that the Minister might not wish to spend his Friday nights in the way in which the hon. Gentleman described.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) gave us an interesting insight, in his brief contribution, into the fact that the industry had its place in the 19th century. Shale was exploited in his constituency in the 19th century, so it is not a new concept.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) told us about his experience in Europe, and told us not to blame him for the bad things that have gone on there. Yesterday, other hon. Members and I attended a dinner with the aerospace industries. Since the start of the European collaboration that is Airbus, the European share of the commercial airline market has gone from 18% of the world market to 50%. It was made absolutely clear to us last night that that would not have happened without European co-operation and our membership of the European Union, so it is not all bad.

The hon. Gentleman described his friend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton as brave, and I am sure that he is. I am sure he would be equally brave if his majority were 456 rather than 19,456. He is quite right that it is always tough to have to wrestle with concerns from one’s own constituents.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) made, as ever, an informative and expert speech. He pointed out—this is the elephant in the debate—that the current wholesale price makes it substantially more difficult for the industry to get going than might otherwise be the case. He made a well-informed and interesting speech, in which he pointed out the potential for other industries.

We had a speech from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who laid out her party’s position. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) had made a speech. He made many interventions, all of which were interesting and, as ever, informative. We slightly missed out, but he did give us the benefit of his interventions.

It is my responsibility to set out our position as a party. We have already laid out the conditions that we wanted to see in place before the industry developed further, to ensure the implementation of the protections that hon. Members have expressed concern about. I will not go into great detail on that, because we have not got time. Given that the UK will rely on gas, on any estimate, until at least the 2030s and possibly beyond that—we are very reliant on imported gas from Norway and Qatar, as was pointed out during the debate—we support exploratory drilling, but it must not be at any cost. We made that clear in the amendments we tabled last year to the Infrastructure Bill. Despite conceding some of those points during the debate, the Government have somewhat reneged on them since the general election. We laid out a large number of conditions that we thought were necessary before exploratory drilling could go ahead. I will not list them now, because of the time, but they are well established on the record. That remains our party’s policy.

We have criticised the Government for allowing communities to decide whether they want onshore wind farms but not extending the same community involvement to this industry. There are questions about the appropriate level of local concern over a strategic industry of this kind. In relation to onshore wind, the Government have rather undermined their argument about the industry by the position that they have taken. I will not press any further on that point.

The development of this industry offers great opportunities for manufacturing industry in this country. One might call it “manufracturing”, as some have done. The Government must acknowledge that unless they bring forward an active industrial strategy, those opportunities will not be realised. We have heard about opportunities that have been missed with other industries, including offshore wind, because of a failure to understand and exploit the supply chain opportunities of a developing industry. There is a great danger that the same thing will happen in relation to this industry as it develops, unless there is an active industrial strategy. That must be driven by the Government being prepared to pull every lever at their disposal and bring all the appropriate parties together in the same room, as the previous Government did, for example, with the creation of the Automotive Council. In fairness, that was carried on beyond 2010 and is still in existence. It has brought tremendous benefit to UK manufacturing by getting industry and interested parties together and encouraging them to understand that there is a commonality of need, even where people are in competition with each other, for the sector.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

On the subject of an integrated industrial strategy, the comments of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) about the east coast of America are quite interesting. The Obama Administration underwrote a lot of those projects with stimulus funding, which is part and parcel of the Obama Administration’s industrial strategy.

[Kevin Brennan]

On this side of the Atlantic, we tend to think that the USA is a laissez-faire society, but when we go there and see the reality of policies, not only at federal level but at state level, we soon find out that the picture is very different from our assumptions. Next time, I hope that my hon. Friend will prepare a speech, because we will not let him intervene so many times, no matter how interesting his contributions are. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about what he will do to make sure that the Government pull every possible lever.

Trade Union Bill

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

If it was felt there had been abuse in some areas, that could be dealt with, but to legislate to outlaw something of this kind is shocking. Yet that is, in effect, what the Government are doing.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The point is that under the law, a human resources director of a large company would still have to consult individuals. Through collective consultation, a lot of agreements can be made very quickly; the union can communicate with its members very quickly and negotiate with an HR director. With this legislation, an HR director will have to go round to every single employee. We are talking about the NHS, and councils that have several thousand employees. That will cost vast amounts of money, take vast amounts of time and leave the Government and those employees in a really peculiar situation in which they could be taken to judicial review.

[Kevin Brennan]

As ever, my hon. Friend brings his vast experience of these matters to bear in the debate.

Our amendment 9 would ensure that the ban on check-off arrangements would not apply to services that were wholly or partly devolved. In Committee, the Government introduced a new clause—it is now clause 14 of the Bill—to prevent all public sector employers from deducting union subscriptions via the payroll. The proposed ban is clearly designed to target union finances and to make it harder for individuals, including lower-paid workers, to access union representation in the workplace. Under the clause, the Government will be able to introduce regulations imposing a ban on check-off arrangements across the entire public sector.

The Government claim that that will save the taxpayer £6 million, but many unions already cover the cost of check-off services. There is a real risk that if the ban on check-off services comes into effect, the Government— and therefore the taxpayer—will actually incur costs, potentially including legal costs arising from the need to compensate trade union members for the loss of their contractual right to have their union subscription deducted at source.

The proposed ban on check-off arrangements has been introduced without consultation with employers, without engagement with the unions and without any proper assessment of its impact on employment relations. It was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto or in the Queen’s Speech, and there was no reference to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the impact assessments that accompanied the Bill. I note the concern that has been expressed by Conservative Members on this matter in amendments that we will consider later today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I am not going to escalate our dispute as to whether this is a farce, a tragedy or simply sinister, but the hon. Gentleman is right.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

In Committee, we raised this issue about other things that can be collected centrally by an HR department or the payroll. For example, some members of staff may be chartered accountants or nurses who pay for their qualifications on an annual basis through their payroll, and that would not be affected but their trade union membership of course would be.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is entirely appropriate from time to time for payroll to be used in this way. Often, members pay into a credit union through their payroll. These things should be encouraged; they are very good for industrial relations.

This ban was not included in the Conservative manifesto or the Queen’s Speech, and no reference was made to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the Department’s impact assessment. As we have heard, there have been concerns among Government Members about this move as well. It is almost universally opposed, except by the TaxPayers Alliance, known colloquially as the tax-dodgers alliance, which gave evidence during the oral evidence stage.

In pressing ahead, the Government have failed to secure substantial employer support for their proposals, with many employers, particularly in local government and the health sector, having expressed concern that they could undermine positive industrial relations, which are vital for the delivery of quality public services. Is it any wonder that that is the case, given that employers and trade unions were not consulted? We believe these provisions are unnecessary and draconian, and I give notice that we may wish to press amendment 9 to a vote later—for some strange parliamentary reason, it does not come at this knife.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

That legislation was brought in during Baroness Thatcher’s period of Government. Is the hon. and learned Lady saying that she was wrong, incorrect or flawed in any way for bringing in that legislation?

[Lucy Frazer]

The legislation that we have at any time must reflect the position of the country at the time. This is the place in which we find ourselves, and this is the Bill that is right for the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I entirely agree. As I said earlier, does anybody want this Bill? Has anybody asked for it? Even some of the major Tory party donors have said it is purely union-bashing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, and he was absolutely right, that is what Tories do. [Interruption.]

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The Minister just said that the Tories voted for it at the last election. You did not declare that as a policy prior to the last election. You also did not declare the NHS Act or the changes to the tax credits. If you are so proud of this planned legislation, why did you not declare it before the general election?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. First of all, I am not responsible. I want to clear that up. [Interruption.] No, “you” refers to me. Mr Blenkinsop, you were wrong: it is not me. It may be those on the Government Benches, but you said “you”. Secondly, we need to speak about the amendment. I have allowed some latitude, Mr Lavery, because you have been tempted away, and I know that you want to get back to where you were.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) pointed out that that self-same witness had no idea what life and limb cover was, nor did she know that it has been in existence since at least the early ’80s, if not the late ’70s, as a TUC agreement with the emergency services to make sure that there was always cover in the event of an emergency. The fact that witnesses called by the Government had no idea about long-term existing legislation shows how poor this Bill is and how poor the Minister’s work on it has been.

[Ian Lavery]

This individual, who runs a private health organisation the length and breadth of the UK, was asked if she had read the Bill. She said, “Not really.” She was then asked, “Have you read most of the Bill?” “Not really.” “Do you understand what facility time is?” “Not really. What is facility time?” She did not even understand life and limb cover, which is integral to trade union law, whereby if there is a problem that is a life and limb issue, trade union representatives will break off industrial action to ensure that people are safe. And, let me say, she was the best witness we had.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), would give union members the right to direct their union to pay donations straight to a UK political party of their choice, rather than contributing to a union’s political fund. We oppose the amendment as it assumes the union’s role is simply to act as a conduit for political donations. All individuals have the right to decide to donate to a political party of their choice. Unions cannot be required by law to associate them with any political parties whose values or objectives are not consistent with those of the union.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Depending on the union, unions can have several political funds. For example, Unison does, which goes back to agreements made when the National Union of Public Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association amalgamated.

[Ian Mearns]

Don’t forget COHSE.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

They amalgamated with the Confederation of Health Service Employees, as my hon. Friend says. The legislation does not recognise internal agreements that have been reached over decades.

[Dr Cameron]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I would add that we heard testimony from witnesses in the Public Bill Committee on the very good work that unions contribute in terms of political donations to campaigns.

Amendments 11 to 13 to clause 13 attempt to limit the ability of Ministers to use their powers under the Bill where such powers are in breach of treaty obligations by stating that the powers cannot be used unless they are “compatible with treaty obligations” arising from the Council of Europe and the ILO. The cap on facility time will reduce the capacity of trade unions to represent their members and resolve disputes in the workplace before they escalate. According to the TUC, there is a risk that the proposal for a cap could conflict with EU law protecting the rights of health and safety reps to have paid time off for their duties and training; the rights of union representatives to have paid time off and office facilities during consultations on collective redundancies and outsourcing; TUPE rights; and even rights under general information and consultation arrangements covered by the information and consultation of employees regulations.

Amendments 35 and 36 also attempt to limit the ability of Ministers to use their powers under the Bill where such powers are in breach of treaty obligations by stating that the powers cannot be used unless they are “compatible with treaty obligations” arising from the Council of Europe and the ILO. Clause 14 will prevent all public sector employees from deducting union subscriptions via payroll. That will make it harder for individuals, including lower-paid workers, to access union representation in the workplace. The TUC is concerned that clause 14 will apply only to trade unions, not to staff associations. That suggests that the Government want to make it harder for people to join trade unions and to access the benefits of trade union membership, including effective representation in the workplace and specialist advice on employment rights, health and safety, and other work-related issues.

Under clause 14, the Government will be able to introduce regulations imposing a ban on check-off arrangements across the entire public sector. In particular, the plans to impose changes to collective agreements voluntarily made by employers and unions do not comply with ILO standards. Minister Roseanna Cunningham made it clear during the evidence sessions that the Scottish Government do not support the proposed ban on check-off arrangements. In recent weeks, more than 50 local authorities, NHS employers and employer organisations have criticised the Government’s plans to ban check-off arrangements in the public sector.

The Government claim that the proposal will save taxpayers up to £6 million. However, many unions already cover the cost of check-off services, as has been said. In some cases, fees charged by public sector employers for check-off provision generate a net gain. Another great concern that was raised in Committee was that legal challenges to the Government could cost the public purse.

Amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), provides that the ban on check-off arrangements would not apply to public sector workplaces where the employer and the relevant unions had an agreement. We support that amendment.

In conclusion, this debate is about people, their lives, their pay, their conditions and their safety in their workplace. It deserves to be paid the utmost respect by Members in all parts of the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

18:24

Division 120

Ayes: 269

---

Labour: 205
Scottish National Party: 52
Liberal Democrat: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 304

---

Conservative: 303

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication of whether there will be a written or oral statement by any Minister, given the statement today from the chief executive of Tata Steel Europe reported in The Economic Times in India that the long products division within Tata will have no future within Tata beyond this financial year? This includes the beam mill at Redcar, Skinningrove special profiles in my constituency, and Scunthorpe long products site.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I have had no such indication, but he has placed those serious matters on the record and I imagine that he will return to them when the House returns.

Third Reading

Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

It is good to be on to the new clauses. It is intriguing that the Minister was talking about using mobile phones and the ease of doing things online—almost the very arguments that could be used in support of e-balloting and the methods connected to it—but he has chosen to apply those methods in other measures. That emphasises the debate we have been having throughout the Bill.

New clause 11 would prevent all public sector employers from deducting trade union subscriptions via payroll and would mark the end of what is called check-off. I believe that the Government are deliberately targeting trade union finances by making it harder for individuals, including lower paid workers and many women in particular, to get access to trade union representation in the workplace. That is particularly true for dispersed workforces. I was struck by the evidence I received from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which works in the retail sector, about the many people working in small shops and retail outlets throughout the country who find check-off a convenient way to have their payments taken, without a complicated process. They will struggle because of the new clause.

The move is almost universally opposed, save for the Government and the TaxPayers Alliance, and we all know that the basis of the oral evidence they gave was very flimsy. It is all rather ironic when we consider that the Government’s claim that the proposal will save taxpayers’ money is, in fact, a red herring, given that many trade unions already cover the cost of check-off services. In some cases, the fees generated in the process and charged by Government employers for check-off provision generate a net gain for the public finances. There seems to be no sense at all in the proposals.

In pressing ahead in spite of the critics, the Government have failed to secure any substantial employer support for their proposals, as far as I am aware. Indeed, many employers, including employers in local government and the health sector—as we have heard with respect to the Scottish and Welsh Governments as well—have expressed concern that the removal of check-off arrangements could undermine constructive relations between managers and unions, which are vital to the quality of public services. Is that any wonder, when employers and trade unions were not even consulted properly?

The proposals have been introduced without a proper consultation process, engagement with the unions, or an assessment of the impact on employment relations. The proposals were not included in the Conservative party manifesto, Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, or the briefing accompanying the speech, although it would have been easy for the Government to do that. The Minister has said that everyone has long been aware of the change and has had time to prepare, but if the Government are so clear about it, why did they not make it clear when they first suggested introducing the Bill? There was no reference to the proposal in any of the BIS consultations or impact assessments that accompanied the publication of the Bill. Instead, the Government announced the plans on 6 August 2015, and published the new clause introducing the ban, which we are discussing now, only a matter of days ago.

That does not strike me as the most transparent, engaging or consultative process. Unfortunately that has been the hallmark of the Bill from start to finish. To date, the Government have failed to publish any evidence justifying the introduction of the ban, or any assessment of the potential impact of the proposal on those who would be affected.

There are also huge implementation issues. Transferring millions of members on to direct debit would create significant organisational challenges for many trade unions, particularly those operating in dispersed work forces. It will therefore be vital, if this goes ahead, that trade unions are provided with ample time to transfer members on to direct debits. We have talked about the potential unwinding of collective agreements and employment contracts in many sectors, but time will also need to be provided for employers and trade unions to renegotiate existing collective agreements, which often include aspects relating to the check-off provision.

I know many are concerned that no timetable for the introduction has been specified in the amendment. The Minister said he wants to allow a reasonable period and I hope that when he gets to his feet he will specify broadly what he has in mind. The explanatory note similarly suggests that a reasonable period will be provided, but that has no legal effect.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

As I was listening to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech, I was thinking about potential ramifications of this and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. For example, if an accountant working for a council is a chartered accountant paying annual fees, does that come out of his pay packet in certain circumstances, in much the same way as check-off does? If a nurse pays annual fees to be registered as a nurse, does that come out of their pay packet as well?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, one we discussed during the oral evidence sessions as well as here: there are many things that are deducted in the same format as check-off. We as MPs are allowed to make salary deductions for various things, from repayments of loans to charitable donations. Again, this is one rule for trade unions and another for everybody else and it is simply not acceptable. I hope the Minister will provide an explanation and more detail on that provision and a definition of what is a “reasonable” transition period.

The Minister will be aware of the specific concerns outlined by the TUC that trade unions will be required to sign members up to direct debit payments at the same time as needing to comply with the other significant legislative changes in the Bill. Those include encouraging millions of members within just three months to opt in to the union’s political fund, even though they have voluntarily contributed for many years, gathering additional information for the certification officer and complying with the oodles and oodles of red tape and blue tape that are being put in by the Bill, let alone previous provisions such as those introduced by the gagging Act. In these circumstances, the need for significant time to allow unions to move their members on to direct debit is very clear.

As I have argued throughout this Bill, the Government are not pursuing a plan for modern and forward-looking industrial relations. They are trying to turn the clock back and offering solutions to the problems of yesteryear.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I have just thought of another question. This goes back to my industrial background working with predominantly female workforces in the textile industry. Many did not have bank accounts, but were trade union members and worked on piecework rates. How will they be affected if they are disfranchised, rendered unable to join a trade union at all because they do not have a bank account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

The purpose of our amendment is to require consent from public bodies, but I wish to make some remarks about the role of check-off and the principles behind it. Our first concern is the impact on collective bargaining arrangements. An employee can pay bills through salary deductions, including council tax and rent. They can also make charitable donations—for example, in Glasgow employees can make trade union charitable donations to organisations such as Action For Southern Africa or Community HEART. Staff association subscriptions, too, can be taken off as a salary deduction. Under these proposals, however, in a collective bargaining arena where there is a staff association and a trade union or unions, the staff association would be allowed check-off, but the trade unions would not. That shows an extraordinary bias towards staff associations. I asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office about this in the evidence sessions and was advised that a staff association is internal and a trade union is not. What remarkable ignorance of how a workplace operates. Surely both organisations are internal, and employees have made a choice about who is to bargain on their behalf?

In our view, new clause 11 is designed to interfere with and unsettle those collective bargaining arrangements. I ask the Minister what is to stop a trade union reclassifying itself to become a staff association. Is that how they will be able to get round the Bill? We are asked to believe that these proposals are modernisation. In reality, they are a 19th century solution in a 21st-century world. If allowing other deductions is modernisation, then why is check-off to trade unions not modernisation? It is a fanciful and quaint notion.

We are also concerned about the legal risks that public sector employers will face in relation to these arrangements. In a recent court case, Mr Justice Supperstone said:

“I am not impressed by the argument that check off is only or primarily for the benefit of the union as such, rather than for its members in their capacity as employees. It seems to me that there is a real benefit to employees in the administrative convenience of not having to make their own arrangements for payments each month, or having to set up a direct debit or standing order and then change it or replace it from time to time as may be necessary”.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Obviously, it depends on the workplace. If someone is a private sector construction worker or employed in an industry working shift patterns which are not annualised, pay will fluctuate depending upon production targets and what the market is doing. Inevitably, as a result their union subs will change, because most unions have a redistributive model for their subscriptions.

[Chris Stephens]

That is an excellent point. Trade unions will be denied money on that basis, as in the very example given by the hon. Gentleman. Another concern is that what we are seeing here is a situation where a voluntary agreement between a public sector body and a trade union is effectively to be banned by the state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Funnily enough, the hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the heart of the difference between the Conservative party and the Scottish National party. We believe that the public sector employers are the taxpayers—the people of Great Britain who work and pay taxes in order to pay for us and for everybody else in the public sector, and for everything that the public sector does. They are the employers, not the board of this NHS trust, that police force or this local authority, which are charged by the taxpayer to discharge their responsibilities and handle taxpayers’ money cautiously and carefully. It is entirely reasonable for us as representatives of the ultimate employers of the public sector—the taxpayers—to represent their interests and insist that they get value for their money, which they are currently not getting through check-off. I will now move to the amendment, unless—

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I have not heard from the hon. Gentleman, so why not?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The main point that we are trying to make is that there are managers who run large public sector organisations who have HR competencies and deal with vast amounts of public sector workers: take the NHS, for example, or any hospital trust. They will be very concerned about any breakdown in recognition—the ability to know where their staff are, who represents them and who to talk to on a collective basis. There will be massive chaos if individual consultation is required on every HR matter.

[Nick Boles]

I am the first to defer to the hon. Gentleman on intimate knowledge of the detailed realities of working for trade unions and working in an organisation with high levels of union representation—I do not claim to be able to match him on that—but we have got rid of check-off in the civil service over the last few years. There are many issues at debate in the civil service. I am not going to suggest that everything is sweetness and light there, but it is a bit of a stretch to say that the removal of check-off specifically has caused chaos in the civil service.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

No, I will just finish. The hon. Gentleman can put his hand down, because I have noted that he wants to intervene. He will be well aware that some civil service unions—I mention no names—have lost members to other unions, not to no union but to other unions, because, now that there is no check-off, other unions that offer a better service, possibly at a lower cost, can get in and win the support of individuals in the civil service, whereas the legacy union was simply relying on individuals being locked in through a check-off system. I would have thought that the modern Labour party, which I know he always feels he is part of, would want to support the introduction of a little competition among unions in offering a consumer service to their members.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Unfortunately, the Minister displays his ignorance, because inter-union competition has been going on for decades, since the Bridlington agreement. In the interest of the nation, its people, the public sector and its employees, we want proper recognition agreements so that both parties know with whom they are talking. Trying to say that this is about helping trade unions to recruit members is pathetic. That is a completely redundant argument, and it does not represent the interest of the British general public. What we want to know is that, when paramedics bring up industrial issues and health and safety concerns, they will be talking to an HR manager who knows what they are talking about, rather than having to talk to various individuals in a scattergun fashion, thereby putting services at risk.

[Nick Boles]

I feel that I may have touched a nerve, so perhaps I better not press that any further.

I will move on to the amendment tabled by the SNP. The Committee debated similar amendments at length last Tuesday. As I said then, all the provisions in the Bill relate to employment and industrial relations law, which are clearly reserved matters under the devolution settlements for Scotland and Wales. New clause 11 relates to the same reserved matters, so it is entirely in order for the Government to propose that its provisions should also apply to the whole of Great Britain. I see no reason why the Government should seek consent before applying those provisions in particular areas.

In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, employment and industrial relations are transferred matters so, respecting the agreement that was properly reached with Northern Ireland, new clause 11 will not apply there. Certain responsibilities are being devolved to local authorities in England and to the Mayor of London, but none of those responsibilities includes employment and industrial relations law. Amendment (a) seeks to carve out different arrangements for Scotland, Wales, London and English local authorities on matters of employment and industrial relations law, which Parliament has already determined are reserved. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendment.

Trade Union Bill (Fifth sitting)

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

That is an important point. During our considerations we will see that, rather than hanging together coherently, the Bill belies its original drafting intent and is more like a Swiss cheese full of holes. Many aspects of the Bill do not sit together well because they are being put together for a different purpose than what the Government say they are trying to achieve.

Amendments 7 and 8 would apply similar principles to those that I have just laid out, to clause 3 of the Bill which deals with the proposed 40% threshold. I know we will come to that in due course. We have a number of serious concerns about the 40% threshold that go beyond even our concerns about the 50% threshold, but the same principles exist. If we are to have thresholds, we need to ensure that unions will not be opened to all sorts of vexatious legal challenges.

Amendment 20 would apply a similar principle to the reporting requirements on ballots outlined in clause 5 of the Bill. Amendment 23 would remove the requirement on trade unions to take the responsibility of informing members and employers whether the 50% turnout threshold was met and, where relevant, whether the 40% turnout threshold was met. I do not understand why the Bill—evidenced throughout its text—seeks to bog down trade unions in extra red tape, particularly when the Government claim that it is all about reducing regulation and burdens. Surely employers would be able to easily calculate whether a trade union has met any statutory thresholds applied using the numbers provided by the trade union? I really do not see why this reporting requirement is necessary.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think this goes beyond the percentages required for a ballot? The fact is that companies with recognised trade unions on site have either gone through voluntary recognition or compulsory recognition, which means that the workforce have already been balloted on whether they want a trade union representative liaising on their behalf with an employer. Is this legislation not going way beyond ballots and actually trying to give employers the ability to de-recognise unions across the country in all sorts of different workplaces, public or private?

[Stephen Doughty]

I believe that the Bill has many sinister intents. There are many provisions that can be used to tip the balance between employers and employees well beyond what would be reasonably expected in a democratic society. We heard during the evidence sessions that the Bill and these provisions put us at the bottom of the league when it comes to international labour standards and the rights of workers and trade unions.

Amendments 21 and 22 are to clause 5 and are consequential to other amendments for consistency.

Before I conclude on this group, it is worth referring to some of the comments. Many comments were made about this set of proposals in the written and oral evidence and it is important to bring the Committee’s attention to a number of them.

The Royal College of Nursing said that:

“The changes that are proposed…will do nothing for the improvement of industrial relations. The emphasis on ‘strikes’ and seeing all industrial action through the prism of strikes is misleading. This is at a time when the number of disputes is low compared to the past. The effect of the proposals to set thresholds”—

and a whole series of other measures—

“is not a ‘neutral’ step, rather it further strengthens the power already held by employers in workplace disputes now.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which was made on Second Reading and by a number of witnesses. The Bill has a disproportionate impact on women, many of whom would be standing up on issues such as disparities in equal pay. We have repeatedly heard how, despite the Equal Pay Act being so many years ago, the reality is that women earn significantly less than men for the same hour of work conducted, particularly in certain sectors. Unions play a crucial role in standing up for those women. Importantly, I mentioned the diffuse nature of the workforce in sectors such as retail, highlighted by USDAW and others. A lot of women work in those sectors, and there will be a disproportionate impact.

Turning to some of the other evidence, we heard from the GMB which underlined the point I made that thresholds will lead to unions taking more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure the necessary turnout. It stated in written evidence that

“Employers will be encouraged to sit on their hands and wait to see if the threshold can be reached rather than address the underlying issues in the dispute.”

USDAW, which I have referred to a number of times, said:

“The best method to ensure high levels of workplace democracy is to make it as easy as possible to vote and to ensure that each vote counts equally. Under the proposed system of ballot thresholds, an individual choosing not to vote is likely to have more of an impact on the outcome of the ballot than someone choosing to vote against industrial action. If an individual votes against industrial action, their vote will be added to the turnout threshold even if they are in the minority, meaning that their vote could help to ensure that the ballot threshold is met. However, if someone chooses to abstain, their vote will not be added to the turnout threshold potentially meaning that, even if the vast majority of votes cast were in favour of action, the ballot will not meet the threshold requirements. As such—”

—USDAW is categorical about this

“the proposed ballot thresholds will clearly be detrimental to workplace democracy.”

I have another piece of evidence from Unison:

“In the UK an absent vote is not regarded as a negative one. There are a range of reasons why trade union members might not vote.”

It then gives a very practical example:

“There might be a positive decision to abstain. They might be on holiday or ill. They might not have an opinion on the dispute and rely on their colleagues to make their views clear.”

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Does my hon. Friend agree that they can be in management and also in the trade union, and it is dependent on the employer to recognise that member of management within the business unit, although not necessarily in their branch?

[Stephen Doughty]

That is indeed the case. To touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, low-paid workers are more likely to move and change address, and they might not regularly update the trade union on their latest details.

Unison is very clear:

“Rather than enabling such members to participate more easily in trade union ballots, the Trade Union Bill will restrict the democratic rights of working people and the ability of trade unions to represent their members in the workplace. It will ultimately lead to a diminishment of workplace democracy.”

We also had a response from UCATT, an important union representing workers in the construction sector. We did not hear from UCATT in the oral evidence sessions, which was a shame, but it has submitted written evidence, which says:

“It should be also noted that for trade unions taking strike action is always a last resort, no union asks members to lose money on a whim, it is only called for following an end to protracted negotiations that 90% of the time reach an amicable settlement.”

That point cannot be overemphasised. Unions want to find resolutions to disputes, but the Bill puts a whole series of barriers in the way of successfully resolving disputes.

Finally, it is important to look at some of the Bill’s potential legal contraventions. I mentioned the evidence given by Thompsons Solicitors. It also submitted evidence to the Government’s consultation, the conduct of which was significantly lacking, as identified by the Regulatory Policy Committee. In section 10 of the submission from Thompsons Solicitors to the Department on the consultation on ballot thresholds in important public services, it says:

“The ballot thresholds in ‘important public services’ will engage Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any restriction on the right protected by Article 11 must be ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’. To be ‘prescribed by law’ the proposed legal framework must have sufficient clarity and precision to enable the trade union on whom the restriction is imposed to regulate its conduct accordingly (i.e. to know exactly which of its members the additional threshold applies to). There is a very real prospect, on the evidence so far, that the government’s attempts to meet this standard will fail. It is completely unacceptable to palm responsibility for identifying whether a particular member is covered by the additional threshold off on to the trade union, (paragraph 17 of the consultation). The problem will be particularly acute when considering ‘mixed’ balloting constituencies—i.e. ones including some members who are covered by the additional ballot threshold, and some who are not.”

The complexity and uncertainty created by the way the Bill is drafted provides all sorts of grounds for legal challenge and undermines the ability of unions to stand up for their workers. Industrial action must always be seen as a last resort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Like my colleagues, I refer to the declarations I made at the start of proceedings last week. I want to talk in practical terms about my experience of what was referred to in some of the evidence, but I will start by saying that I totally support the comments made by my hon. Friends today. The overarching thrust of the Bill is that it will make thresholds almost impossible to meet. The premise of the Bill is based on a total lack of understanding of how the real world of industrial relations works in this country today.

In the real world, industrial action is always an absolute last resort. Last week in the evidence session, some of the leaders of the largest trade unions stated that industrial action is not what trade unions are about and not what they aim for. At the end of the day, their members lose money by taking industrial action. They often represent some of the lowest-paid people in society and that is always at the forefront for any trade union leader or official when negotiating.

No one takes industrial action lightly. Trade union officials are trained today in order to avert industrial action at all costs. However, it is a legal right and is there as a last resort. That needs to be borne in mind in everything we are discussing today. The thresholds proposed in the Bill of 50% and 40% are extreme in their nature. Modern ways of working were outlined very articulately last week by the general secretary of Unison, Mr Dave Prentis, when he talked about partnership working. The big trade unions today work very closely with the employers of their members, whether in the public or private sector. Obviously, one of the thresholds applies to all, the second applies to the public sector of a yet undefined group of people.

Partnership working is about building up relationships and getting to know people and to understand the way they work and what the real issues and nubs of the problems are. Some of the later measures in the Bill will have an impact on that working. Removing some of the facility time from people will not lead to better relationships or better partnership working. The opposite will happen and there will be a lack of trust and understanding of people and where they come from.

Some of the later proposals on check-off are probably even more significant. A ballot is the most intensive thing that any trade union and any employer prepares for, which is why the vast majority of employers in this country are not comfortable with the Bill. Drawing up the list of eligible people in the bargaining group is the most difficult thing that anyone on either side has to do. Check-off facilitates and helps with that process, because it means that the employer knows exactly where a person works within the organisation, but that is not known if someone pays by direct debit. There is also, potentially, a data protection issue, because if someone pays their trade union membership by direct debit, that information is confidential and known only by the union member and the trade union, not the employer. Therefore, in an industrial action ballot, the crucial checks and balances for getting the lists correct will not be there. Everyone wants the lists to be correct, because if they are not, the matter will end up in court.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Apart from the fact that in certain sectors management would want to pay their trade union membership by direct debit, perhaps to keep it private and away from managerial colleagues, any employee with fewer than two years in post might not want to let their employer be aware of their trade union membership—depending on the relationship between the union or workforce and the employer—because of the employer’s history of behaviour towards unions. That would lead to problems for individuals seeking to exercise their right to be a union member. Furthermore, if someone had information about trade union members on direct debit, the potential for litigation in court over small anomalies being bounced back and forth between the employer and the trade union would be vast, and create even more expense for the employer and the union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott]

That is highly possible: if people do not have an avenue to resolve their dispute with their employer—in an organised workplace with trade unions, that is usually through their trade union discussing the issue with the employer—that would be an inevitable consequence. None of us wants to see that kind of action. In the past 10 years or so, legislation in this area has led to very good industrial relations. I remember very personally and vividly, as the daughter of a miner living through the 1970s, how industrial relations used to be in this country. None of us wants to end up in that situation again. It was a dreadful time to live through. What we want is constructive, good relationships where industrial action ballots are an absolute last resort. The changes that the Bill proposes will make that impossible.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

There is also a potential business cost. If we do not have collective bargaining, where one individual, on behalf of the company, talks to one individual, on behalf of the workforce, that will necessitate individual consultation. Depending on the size of the workplace, that could take a very long time and cost a lot of money.

[Julie Elliott]

I totally agree, and these are issues we will explore later when we talk about practical implications of facility time. In conclusion, I urge the Government to look again at the thresholds and what I believe will be their impact—probably unforeseen by the Government—namely more industrial action and more disharmony in the workplace, and the potential legal consequences, with the Government having to spend a lot of taxpayers’ money defending challenges in the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I am always happy to look and reassure myself, but I am pretty confident that that is the case. The amendments proposed by the Opposition go further. They would allow the union to import a reasonable belief into a trade dispute. That is in stark contrast to the current position, where there is an objective test to determine whether a matter constitutes a trade dispute or not. That is important because it is the basis from which flows the legal protections for unions and for strike action that is taking place properly. It would allow the issue to be open to a degree of uncertainty, according to what the union believed. That would be detrimental to employers and would tip the balance too far in favour of trade unions. The current wording allows clarity for both parties.

Other changes that the Government are making to the regulation of trade unions will simply make amendments 1, 8 and 22 unnecessary. The coalition Government introduced a new requirement for unions to submit membership audit certificates to show that they are complying with their duty to keep membership records accurate and up to date. The changes are designed to ensure that unions know who their members are, enabling them to be democratically accountable and to reflect the will of their members. The first membership audit certificates are due in June 2016. The fact that unions will therefore have more reliable membership records means that they will in future have more confidence that those who are entitled to vote receive the ballot paper. I am therefore not convinced that unions need leeway to allow certain members to be left out of the number of those who count towards the thresholds. Of course, that same point applies to amendments 20 and 21.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Is an industrial ballot conducted among members or among employees?

[Nick Boles]

Obviously, the people who are eligible to vote have to be members of the union. They are also employees of the unit where the ballot is being held. Their entitlement to vote is based on being members of the union.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The two are different, because the employees list could include people of other unions or none.

[Nick Boles]

I did not entirely catch what the hon. Gentleman just said. Perhaps he would repeat it.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

One list is the list of members set by the union. The other is a list of employees, which can include members of another union or of none. That is the proper list for an industrial ballot, not the members’ list by the union.

[Nick Boles]

I am not sure that I entirely understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw. To be eligible to vote, someone obviously has to be both.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

No.

[Nick Boles]

To be able to call for strike action, people have to be both an employee of the unit where there is a dispute and a member of the union that is calling the ballot.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

No. The Minister is obviously unaware of the law.

[Nick Boles]

I am sorry not to have satisfied the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is always good to be reminded of whom we are sent here to represent. Sometimes, I get the sense that Members think they are representing other people.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland by describing as well as I can who is entitled to vote in a ballot:

“Entitlement to vote in the ballot must be accorded equally to all the members of the trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced by the union to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the industrial action in question, and to no others.”

That is my understanding of the law. I have no doubt that he will want to draw my attention to where he disagrees with the law, but I believe that that is what it says in section 227(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I do not want to instruct the Minister in actual law, but as someone who has actually conducted a ballot, in terms of practice, a business unit and the employees within in it—[Hon. Members: “That is not the law.”] Well, it is the law. It is the same thing—it is a business practice that is conducted under the law and it means that employees on site are all part of the industrial ballot, whether members of the recognised union, another union or not a member of a union at all. We are talking about a business unit. That is the law.

[Nick Boles]

One of the beauties of British democracy is that we Members are not sent to Parliament to control the practice out there in the real world. We are sent here to pass laws and regulations. If the hon. Gentleman wants to confess that he has been party to practice that was not in accordance with the law, I am certainly not going to report him for it, but it seems to me that he is suggesting that there is a difference between workplace practice and the current law.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I do not know where the Minister is going with this, trying to infer things or besmirch my reputation when I was simply pointing out what the law and business practice is. We are only two hours into line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I do not think this is a very good start, Sir Edward.

[The Chair]

I am not sure that that was a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman made his point.

Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting)

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Nick Boles]

I would simply say that if they all do that, and I agree that that practice is welcome, it should hardly be difficult just to provide a few more details on the ballot paper so that when somebody’s vote is decided, it is clear what they have voted for or against. I promise Opposition Members that from now on there are no blinkers on this Minister, as I am sure that they will be happy to admit.

Let me explain why we have used the words “reasonably detailed”, because the hon. Member for Sunderland Central in particular thought that was a mistake. That specific form of words is used in clause 4 to take into account the particular circumstances of each trade dispute. If there is any more detail that a union could reasonably give on the ballot paper, the requirement is not satisfied. For example, if the issue is identified simply as “pay”, it may well be right to say that there are further details that the union could have included. Those details might include which year’s pay offer is in dispute, and which employees are covered by the offer. Again, that links back to our overall objective to ensure that unions provide clarity to their members about what they are being asked to vote for so that there is full transparency in any industrial action ballot.

We think it is much more helpful to union members if a trade dispute that affects them in different ways is articulated in sufficient detail so that everyone knows the point on which they are being asked to make a decision on industrial action and how each individual is affected by the trade dispute. However, we do not want to put unnecessary burdens on unions by asking them to include a long and detailed account of the trade dispute. That would be onerous and would dilute the very clarity that we are seeking to provide. That is why the clause does not require a “reasonably detailed” description of the trade dispute. It is about balance, and the Bill as currently drafted best achieves that.

Amendment 16 would not assist members to understand what type of action they are voting for. That is particularly important because there is no definition of action short of a strike. If we do not require a trade union to state on the voting paper what specific type or types of action it is proposing, a member will not know what action he or she is being asked to back. Even stating that the proposed action is action short of a strike does not help members to make a sufficiently informed decision, because there are various types of action that amount to action short of strike. Just using that phrase will not help members to understand what they are voting for. For example, a member may support industrial action that amounts to an overtime ban, but not a period of work to rule. If the voting paper does not specifically state which of these actions the union proposes its members take, how will they know how to vote?

Having said that, I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman made about there being a degree of uncertainty at the stage when the union is drawing up the voting paper about how the negotiations will continue to play out and therefore what action the union might subsequently take. Nevertheless, if the union has reached the stage at which it is asking its members to support a ballot for industrial action, it must surely have in mind a plan for such action. All we are asking in new section 229(2C) is that the plan should be disclosed to the union members. I do not believe that is unreasonable.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The Minister gave work to rule as one example of action short of striking. Can he define what work to rule is?

[Nick Boles]

My understanding is that it is working to the contractually committed hours and not being willing to work beyond those or in a different place, perhaps, than contractually committed. I am sure I can provide the hon. Gentleman with the legal or commonly accepted definition, but that is my understanding.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Would the Minister apply that definition to all workplaces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she is absolutely right. In a sense, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland has, perhaps unintentionally, made my argument for me—I do not have to understand what is proposed on every single ballot paper; I am the mere Minister in this. The people who have to understand it are those being asked to vote on whether to strike—which, if they choose to, will have huge direct personal effects on those being asked to strike, as hon. Members have pointed out—or being asked to co-operate with an overtime ban or anything else. It is they who need clarity about what is being proposed, and that is all we seeking to ensure.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I am not giving way again; I need to make some progress.

On the period for proposed industrial action, a union member may be fully supportive if he or she knows that it would take place in late November or early December, but not if it was to take place, say, over the Christmas period. Trade union members may want to consider the proposal in relation to their personal circumstances, as well as their work. Amendment 19 would simply not meet that objective, because it would preserve the current situation, in which there is no requirement whatever to provide any information in the voting paper to union members about the timing of industrial action.

I have similar concerns about amendment 17. Simply knowing whether industrial action is to be continuous or discontinuous, without any further information about timing, does not help a member to understand when such action might take place. Indeed, I doubt whether the words “continuous” and “discontinuous” in the context of industrial action mean very much to a lay person. Surely it is the time period that is the key to ensuring that members have clarity about when action is due to take place. Of course, it is also important that employers know whether the proposed action will be continuous or discontinuous. That is why the notice of industrial action, which a union must provide to an employer under section 234A(3)(b) of the 1992 Act before taking such action, must include a statement to that effect. Crucially, however, that notice must also contain details about the intended dates for such action. Indeed, that is its purpose: to tell the employer exactly when the action will happen. That is in contrast with proposed new section 229(2D), which requires a union only to provide an indication of when the expected industrial action would take place, not a specific date or set of dates.

That brings me to amendment 18. To require a union to state whether the industrial action is intended to be continuous and to state the intended dates would be to require it to specify a particular date on which the action is to start—for example, from 15 October. That would be very restrictive; indeed, it is much more prescriptive than the requirement under clause 4, which, in this example, would just be to indicate the period of industrial action as being in, say, October. That would give a union the flexibility to start such an action on, for example, 1 October, 15 October or 25 October, and for it to last for, say, one day, one week or longer—subject, of course, to the union providing 14 days’ notice to the employer and the action taking place within the four-month time limit of the mandate.

I have even more concern about a union’s ability to meet the proposed requirement to specify that the action is discontinuous, together with the intended date for such action. That combination of words would effectively require a union to state up front and before it has even secured a mandate for action the precise dates on which such action is planned or intended. It would be much more difficult for a union to predict such dates so far in advance, and they may well turn out to be unreliable. For example, if the union finds that it does not want to take action starting on or specifically on those precise dates because negotiations are ongoing, it would no longer have a ballot mandate. The dates would need to be reliable or the union would risk misinforming members. Making a union set out its plan in such detail, so early, means that the dates would be very likely to change.

Having said that, let me be clear: it is entirely reasonable to require a trade union to specify that the action is discontinuous, together with the intended date for such action, at the point when it is serving notice of intended action to the employer under section 234A(3)(b) of the 1992 Act, as is the current position. However, to suggest that a union should articulate the precise dates on which it will take particular action so much earlier in the process is an entirely different proposition, and one I cannot support for the reasons I have outlined. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

In most unions, by the time strike action is taken, a local dispute will usually have been taken to a regional level, and if the matter was not resolved at a regional level, it will have been taken to a national level. That is certainly what happens in large private industry, particularly the steel industry. I imagine that there are such cultural norms in most trade unions.

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree. It is important to recognise something that Government Members seem to have lost in this debate: the vast majority of trade union members and workers, whether in public services or the private sector, will seek to resolve disputes through very reasonable mechanisms, such as talking to line managers, colleagues and others in the management of a firm or public service, before they reach the stage of even contemplating industrial action or disputes. Most people act in a human way and want to resolve things as easily as they can. It is only when frustrations build up and concerns are not listened to—for example, on health and safety or fundamental disputes with the Government about restrictions on pay or pensions—that things reach the point where industrial action is considered. I say gently that the Government do not appear to understand how things operate in practice.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, I can barely think of any possible examples in which a trade union would not explain the progress of negotiations and what might be going on and feed back to its members what is happening in a workplace.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

As a former trade union officer with the Community trade union, I was part of the National League of the Blind and the Disabled section, which deals with blind and disabled workers who work in Remploy factories—

[Ian Mearns]

Who used to work in Remploy factories.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Sadly, that is right. My section also dealt with blind and disabled people working in sheltered workplaces, including at Ayresome Industries in Middlesbrough. As well as union officers, the unions brought in, over a prolonged period, signers and Braille writers to ensure that those employees were informed of the situation and the exact nature of any dispute.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very important example. The Minister selectively looking at a couple of ballot papers proffered to him by his officials is simply not reflective of the wide degree of communications and engagement that will go on when trade union members—workers in a firm or a public service—are considering industrial action. It goes back, again, to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West: why would trade unions want to be hoodwinking people into action? How would they then convince them to take part in it? It is just nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, and it would be a strange situation were we to find a Minister in a future Committee sitting able to find many examples of ballot papers to read from, casting all sorts of aspersion on the conduct of businesses in industry and the public sector up and down the country.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

A potential example that we would certainly not want documented or in the public view is a trade union dispute between GCHQ and its employees. Would the Government really want that information published?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can think of all sorts of other examples. Again, the implications of this do not seem to have been properly thought through. Will the Minister briefly comment on who has requested this? Who has said they want this? Have employers, businesses and public servants up and down the country been banging on the Minister’s door saying, “We want this information out there in the public domain,” as the Bill would require?

This would not only add to the regulation of trade unions and the implications for employers; new powers for the certification officer would inevitably be followed by additional costs. The wide extension of the certification officer’s power will have significant fiscal implications. What assessment has the Minister made of the likely cost implications of the certification officer having to gather this additional information? Will it come from existing budgets, will new moneys be provided or will it be cost-neutral?

In any other sector, I am sure the Government would attack such burdensome regulations as needless officialdom that should be done away with in a bonfire of bureaucracy. Does the Minister agree that legislation affecting trade unions should be held to the same standards?