Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Nick Boles

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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 (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Nick Boles

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.

Trade Union Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Nick Boles

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Trade Union Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Nick Boles

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Blenkinsop]

You are under no obligation, of course, to show a forensic audit to local MPs, but local MPs, of which I am one, have not been shown that information.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

Sir Edward, may I inquire about the relevance of this to the legislation that the Committee is charged with scrutinising?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Nick Boles

Monday 20th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I have been encouraging planning inspectors to recognise that perfection is not something that we mere mortals can ever hope to achieve, and that they should be pragmatic in recognising the way in which national policies can apply to local circumstances.

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

T7. On 8 January, I was told by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) in a written answer that he does not know“the net change in central Government support to individual local authorities”since May 2010.—[Official Report, 8 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 257W.] If he does not know by how much he has decided to cut the funding for particular local authorities, how can he possibly assess whether it is beneficial or detrimental?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Nick Boles

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend has been indefatigable in his representations on the issue. He knows all too well that I cannot say anything about it, but he has made his representations here, in his constituency, in the Tea Room and almost everywhere else.

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

If a fire brigade is “spun out”, to use the Government’s terms, what procurement route could be taken to prevent tendering to the private sector within a three to nine-year window? If the Minister cannot say, why are he and the Government actively funding the process as a stepping stone from mutualisation to privatisation?