Trade Union Bill
Debate between Baroness Donaghy and Lord Stoneham of Droxford(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group and I give my full support to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Wheeler. I believe that Clause 14 is authoritarian and represents the Government’s belief that public sector employers cannot be trusted. I shall concentrate on my Amendment 95A and try, for the sake of time, not to cover ground that has already been covered.
Clause 14 creates regulations that may,
“make consequential provision amending or otherwise modifying contracts of employment or collective agreements”.
We do not know what the finished product will look like when this Bill becomes an Act. We do not know to what extent the regulations will cover important issues of policy—this has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—or just explanatory detail, but having a clause of this kind allows the Government to change individual employment contracts and to set aside collective bargaining agreements.
These seem to be Henry VIII powers which not only cut across employer/employee relationships and agreements but reduce the public sector to an employment agency for the Government. What lies behind this proposal and how significant is it from the Minister’s point of view? Is she able to argue that this is not a highly centralist proposal? Finally, what does the Minister have in mind when it comes to the phrase,
“amending or otherwise modifying contracts of employment”?
I notice that paragraph 3 of the draft skeleton regulations—it does not get more vague than that—on the prohibition of check-off states that check-off is,
“void in so far as it purports to require the relevant public sector employer to make trade union subscription deductions from wages payable to workers”.
As has been said many times, check-off is a voluntary arrangement entered into by the employer and the employee. What is meant by “purports to require”, as I am not aware of any employer who is required to do this? I am reluctant to help the Government on this, but perhaps the phrasing in the Explanatory Note would be more accurate, as it talks about purporting,
“to give the right to have such deductions made”.
My Amendments 123A and 124A seek to delay implementation for five years. I sincerely hope that this draconian measure about check-off will not go through at all, but if it does, it will take a huge amount of time for trade unions to put their house in order. Those points have been covered very well by other noble Lords, so I will not cover them again.
However, there will be a disproportionate impact on low-paid employees and part-timers, particularly women. I fear that it is taken for granted by the Government that everyone can create monthly direct debits or standing order arrangements with their banks. As has been said, this is not the case. Banks will not be accommodating if someone has a chequered payment history or if pay is intermittent. I refer back to facility time: some members will be able to pay only by cash or cheque, and there will need to be time for trade union representatives to do the physical collection—a point I made at Second Reading. All those problems will take time to solve, which is what I am asking for.
Finally, I ask a question on the implementation of the ban on check-off. There appears to be confusion in the skeleton regulations about the implementation of the ban. In her covering letter of 22 February, the Minister refers to the ban not coming into force,
“until at least 12 months following Royal Assent of the Bill”.
However, the draft regulations suggest that the ban will come into force,
“no sooner than 12 months of being laid in draft form in both Houses”.
Although the final regulations could be laid at the same time as Royal Assent, that is not guaranteed, so the dates could be quite different. Nick Boles has previously talked about implementation,
“from commencement of the provisions on check-off”.—[Official Report, Commons, Trade Union Bill Committee, 27/10/15; col. 413.]
Will the Government clarify which date they currently support? My amendment asks for a five-year period for trade unions, their members and employers to be able to implement this without detriment. There will still be detriment to employers, of course, because they will not know who the trade union members are. That is still a vital point, even for those who think that trade unions are anathema.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will back down. They have a marvellous opportunity, in the shape of my noble friend’s amendment, to do that with dignity.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I am fearful of keeping noble Lords from their lunch, but I have several points that have not already been made in the debate. I agree absolutely with what the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Kerslake, said about how the Bill, particularly this clause, is designed principally to make life difficult for the unions. It is not about modernising industrial relations.
I challenge the Minister to explain some of the statements made in the impact assessment. It is extraordinary that it states:
“Removing the check off provision is not expected to have a negative impact on industrial relations”—
we have heard arguments to the contrary in this debate. It also states:
“The impact of transition on the trade unions will be minimal”.
How can that be? It further states that:
“We assume that the amount of time taken to become familiar with the proposals will be small as changes introduced in the Bill are straightforward”.
We have heard in the debate that these are complex and difficult procedures that the unions will be inveigled into if the proposals are passed.
I accept that we have moved on a long way from when union dues were collected in cash. I remember in the sector in which I worked, staff had for years been paid in cash and the father of chapel used to go around collecting dues regularly. The only problem was that he was also acting as a bookie’s runner in the plant, so the union was very grateful when the management agreed to accept check-off.
We have moved on from that, but we want union representatives to concentrate on improving industrial relations. We know that, whatever happens, there will be a huge muddle and administrative problem. No one has mentioned that we now have ballots for strikes and industrial action. The complication of not having agreed lists of who can vote in those ballots will be much more difficult in the public sector without check-off. No one has mentioned that there is a huge problem with people not cancelling direct debits when, in this case, they move jobs to different sectors and may even need to join another union. We know that those direct debits are often not cancelled.
Trade Union Bill
Debate between Baroness Donaghy and Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for making those points about having this debate in a vacuum. I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins. I appreciate that the discussion on the role of the Certification Officer will take place on day four of Committee, but in case my silence was taken as meaning that the issue was not sufficiently important, I felt that I should place on the record that Clause 11 will provide the Certification Officer with new powers to investigate how unions’ political funds are used and where the money goes.
As part of their annual return, unions will be required to report to the CO on how all expenditure from their political funds has been used, who it has been paid to and for what purpose. This is not even-handed, as the Government claim. It might apply to employers’ associations in theory. However, none of the 94 employers’ associations listed by the Certification Officer currently has a political fund—not one. Instead, companies choose to make political donations individually or via other channels. These measures will create significant new administrative burdens for unions, as my noble friend Lord Collins said. They will need to collate detailed information on political expenditure at branch and regional level, and the Government will be able to monitor how unions spend their resources and will invite significant public scrutiny of how unions choose to use their political funds.
In itself, this might not be of significance to anyone outside the trade union movement—if it was the only thing in this area relating to the subject. However, if you combine it with the ability of anyone outside the trade union to launch a complaint, it starts to look like an attack on trade unions. The Government may not be concerned about strangling trade unions with all the extra red tape under the guise of consistency of information, which is what I think the Minister is concerned about with these amendments, but they should consider very carefully how this will change the nature of the function of the Certification Officer. It will become a much more political position and because this function will be essentially one-sided, it will lead to accusations of political bias.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, have said.
I thought that the Conservatives were in favour of reducing regulation and bureaucracy and simplifying the way we go about things. That seems to be with the complete exception of the trade unions—I wonder why. It is not realistic or proportionate to require all items of expenditure in excess of £2,000 to be reported to the Certification Officer. How is he going to cope with this? It is mammoth and unnecessary bureaucracy, whereas if you were really intent on having greater scrutiny, you would have a review of the categories of expenditure and you would look to see that there was greater transparency. But to require every invoice over £2,000 in a total expenditure of more than £20 million—the bureaucracy just beggars belief. We know that the Government failed to consult the Certification Officer on the implications of this—that has come out in the work of the Select Committee. They seem to be blindly going ahead without any comprehension of the workload and the way in which the trade unions will be bogged down in the bureaucracy of fulfilling all these requirements.
For those reasons, the Government must question whether it really is necessary to put this bureaucracy on the unions. Is the figure of £2,000 realistic? In the other place, the Minister sort of said that this figure of £2,000 was comparable to that for company donations to political parties that have to be declared. The type of expenditure we are talking about here is not just donations, but all trade union expenditure. That will vary, as speakers have already said, from sending people to political conferences, to paying for stands as part of campaigns and hiring vehicles—or whatever it is—but it is all very detailed expenditure. Is the Certification Officer meant to go through all these invoices and check that they have been done properly?
We have seen the great difficulty the Conservative Party already has with its invoices, and now it seems it will impose this on the trade unions. We should not forget that the Electoral Commission is already looking at all political donations in excess, depending on the recipient, of £1,500—£7,500 for the national parties—so all the information is there. Have there been discussions with the Electoral Commission and has it been consulted on the twin track of bureaucracy the Government are now imposing on trade unions—through the submissions they already make to the Electoral Commission and the excessive ones they are now going to have to give to the Certification Officer? Have they also found out from the Certification Officer what dealing with all this extra work is going to do to his staffing and expenditure requirements?
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for putting some balance into the debate. I have a lot of respect for his experience. He called for honesty. I could say a few words about my experience when I was chair of ACAS of certain behaviours on both sides of industry but I do not think it would be a good idea or take the debate forward, but I would be very happy to have private discussions with him at some stage so that we could swap examples. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Harris, who reminded me what it was like to be a lay union representative, which I was for 33 very long years, for both NALGO and UNISON. I was not a full-time official; we prided ourselves on dealing with our problems without needing a full-time officer.
This issue of transparency needs to be looked at in the context of the Trade Union Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, touched on this just now. This is not just about transparency being a good thing, so that everybody who undertakes a fishing expedition can find out wicked things about what certain individual trade unionists are up to; the context is that the Bill appears to be a general attack on the trade union movement. The context is the clause that is coming up next, which talks about cutting, curtailing and capping facility time. One of the things that I worry about is that facility time should be seen in the light of a cost-benefit analysis. Nothing has been said by the Front Bench on the government side about the positive work that is done by union officials and the savings that are made by union health and safety representatives and union learning reps, through saving time dealing with grievances, redundancies and reorganisations.
There were times during my trade union lay career when I was accused of being a management stooge because I was delivering an unwelcome message to the members about what was practical; there were times in ACAS when I was accused of being a management stooge because I was not in a position to agree with everything that the union said; and there were times when I was accused of being a union stooge because of my background and because I did not always entirely accept what the management argument said. It is extremely important that we keep on reminding ourselves, in the context of the Bill, that things of this kind are not just about saying, “Oh let’s get some information; it’ll be a jolly good idea”. It is more like a scene from an Arnold Schwarzenegger film with him standing there, fully armed, and saying, “We are not going to do you any harm, just give us the information”.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I share experience of the print industry with the noble Lord, Lord King, although mine is slightly more recent than his, I think. I know the benefit of union facilities. I also accept that both management and unions should question those facilities from time to time to ensure that they are efficient and the money is well spent. It also has to be said—here I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward—that if we just look at this from a slightly anti-union perspective, we will not take into account the fact that, often, more union facilities are needed when the management is poor. I do not know the detail, but I suspect that in the modern successful car plants we now operate in this country, they will have union facilities but not to the degree that they needed them in the 1960s and 1970s when they had all their problems. They will now have much more professional management and, indeed, much more professional union representatives.
Union facilities are also a factor in change. When you are undertaking a lot of change, you need more facilities, such as when you have redundancies because skills and so on are changing. I remember in the print industry taking union delegations abroad to try to negotiate manning agreements on the basis of what our competitors were doing on machinery. Noble Lords may remember that. It took a lot of time and cost to do that, but that was because we were conducting major changes.
I also find it extraordinary that a Conservative Government can advocate another layer of bureaucracy to achieve this so-called change, but that is what they are doing. The impact assessment says it is going to cost £2.4 million to have the information collected regularly. The initial cost of getting that information together will be over £2 million and then there will be another £2 million going on. The Government also say that they expect there will be £100 million of savings. I accept that is not insignificant and that it is important to have those changes, but I question, when we are trying to find £35 billion of cost savings in the public sector, with all the change that that requires, whether this is the priority. I suspect we are just going up a blind alley here, and it is wrong.
Trade Union Bill
Debate between Baroness Donaghy and Lord Stoneham of Droxford(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, one of the difficulties about moving an amendment on employment relations in a Bill which some of us consider is not about employment relations is finding a context where employer and employee have a mutual relationship which works most of the time but occasionally breaks down—and the extent to which the state intends to help or hinder on those occasions.
A senior civil servant, who shall be nameless, was once asked, “Why is there always an anti-trade union Bill when the Conservative Party wins an election?”. The civil servant replied: “There are two reasons. First, it will delight the local Conservative associations and, secondly, it does not cost anything”—unlike building a motorway or lowering taxes. My Amendment 33 does not cost anything either. Its purpose is to highlight the importance of the relationship between the employer and the trade union and its members, and to recognise the benefits of mutuality in the timing of industrial action. Its objective is to give some flexibility in what can be a very fraught atmosphere.
The existing requirement of seven days’ notice of industrial action once a ballot mandate is achieved is not, in itself, a problem. It is extremely rare for employment relations to be so bad that the lines of communication between management and trade union are completely severed, and notice of intention to hold the ballot will already have been given. During the ballot period, the union will campaign for a successful outcome, and management will inform employees why industrial action is unnecessary. The seven days’ notice only kicks in when the ballot is successful from the trade union angle; it is not relevant if the ballot fails. The employer and union will then know where they stand. If the intention is to hold, say, a one-day demonstrative strike, it is in the interests of the employer to be allowed to agree the timing of the strike with the union—not because it will agree with the strike, but because it recognises the reality of the situation and wants to lance the boil as soon as possible. I am not arguing that two weeks’ notice, in isolation, is a bad thing, but in the context of the total package of this Bill, it is patronising. It is also damaging to take certain judgments away from management and unions in this situation.
The impact assessment talks about “contingency arrangements” and then goes on about,
“more cost effective contingency arrangements”.
I would be interested to know what these are and what the difference is between them. For instance, is it hiring agency staff to cover, which, of course, is more expensive? I do not believe any respectable agency will get involved with this anyway. Will it be hiring people at 4 am from the car park near B&Q on the Old Kent Road—similar car parks are available—which is what the construction industry does? That would certainly be more cost effective as a contingency plan.
The impact assessment refers to both parties seeking,
“to reach a mutually acceptable”,
that word mutual,
“conclusion to the dispute without resorting to a ballot for industrial action”.
That is language I understand and anyone involved in employment relations understands. However, everything in this section of the Bill reveals a mindset that is just the opposite of good employment relations. This mindset wants to maximise bureaucracy for trade unions and make any strike open to legal challenge. It puts so much on the ballot paper that the exit strategy becomes impossible, takes away any flexibility to manage a difficult situation and implicitly encourages strike breaking. The TUC has said that the proposal for 14 days’ notice,
“is designed to reduce the momentum in union campaigns”.
My amendment would allow management and unions some control over events. It recognises that mutuality is important even in times of strife and keeps the channels of communication open. I hope the Minister feels able to support it.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I want to make a couple of points on this group. Why it is necessary to change the notice? What is the significance? On the face of it you might say, “What is the difference between one or two weeks?”. In the context of our suspicion as to where the Government are coming from on this, I think there needs to be suitable due diligence to look at what really is necessary. The Committee ought to be reminded that it will not be one week. To give notice that you are going to have a ballot, to have a ballot and then to have another week or two after it to give notice for industrial action gives the employer quite a lot of notice already of what could happen.
I accept that the Government are changing the need for action within four weeks of the ballot, so if this was a quid pro quo for that requirement—I do not see the Government arguing that—that might be more understandable. With all the detail that is going to go on the ballot paper, if the date of the industrial action is specified on the ballot paper is that going to act as notice? Is that going to be adequate? Have the Government thought of that?
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, recognises reality, and where there is agreement between an employer and the trade union it makes sense to recognise that and exclude it from this provision. We question the essential nature of this section of the Bill but we also understand that whether it is one or two weeks will not make a huge difference in the context of the notice that the employer already has of industrial action.
Enterprise Bill [HL]
Debate between Baroness Donaghy and Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Hayter and speaking to the two amendments in my name, I want to give the Government the opportunity to keep their word and to give peace of mind to thousands of public service workers who will be affected if Clause 26 is enacted. The consultation period for this clause was brief and took place in the height of the summer vacation. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was extremely critical of all aspects of this clause and the Minister’s assurance that any future changes will be subject to affirmative procedure in no way mitigates the overwhelming centralising powers which the Government are giving themselves.
The first promise was that the exit cap would not apply to the lower paid. As my noble friend Lady Hayter said, the then Treasury Minister, Priti Patel, said in January 2015:
“Crucially”—
I repeat, “crucially”—
“those earning less than £27,000 will be exempted to protect the very small number of low earning, long-serving public servants”.
What has happened to this exemption? The purpose of Amendment 70C is to ensure that the figure, and the promise, is contained in the Bill.
The second promise appeared in the Conservative election manifesto, which said:
“We will end taxpayer-funded six-figure payoffs for the best paid public sector workers”.
The key phrase here is “best paid”: not low paid or averagely paid. The fact that this clause proposes to include those on very moderate pay, but with long service, shows that the manifesto statement was misleading. This is why exempting the pension strain payments is so vitally important to these workers, who will not receive a pension lump sum if they are made redundant after long years of service. This is why I support Amendment 70ZG and why I tabled Amendment 70D about long service.
The third promise to public sector workers—made after difficult negotiations on changes to public sector pensions—was that the new pension schemes would be a settled issue for 25 years. There is a statement by the then Cabinet Office Minister, now the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, to that effect. Suddenly, a few months later, over 100 pension schemes, affecting thousands of workers, will be forced to change their rules. People have made life plans on the basis of agreed entitlements. The anguish and stress on the lower paid caused by this clause could be prevented if the Government honoured their promise.
Finally, it is important that the Government are clear about when this clause might be enacted. The headline news is that the clause is intended to control excessive payments at the top end for the “best paid” public service workers. Not many would take issue with this, but the reality is that long-serving, lower-paid workers would also be affected, despite assurances to the contrary. This is a highly centralist measure giving this Government, and future ones, the right to overturn national agreements and increase uncertainty for public service workers who already face redundancy and reorganisation. It is still not too late for the Government to keep their promises.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I said in Committee that there are a number of aspects the Government should be looking at. One was that they should retain some flexibility for dealing with special cases, particularly where value for money was involved. Given all the reforms in the public sector that will be required in the next few years, to miss out on the opportunity to compensate people who will be involved in those, and hit them with caps when they are seeking to co-operate, is not progress in any respect. We pointed out in Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, did this evening, that these measures are not just aimed at people in the public sector on high pay. They are aimed at quite low earners who, because of long service, could reach the proposed cap. That is unfair. We have also heard that pension arrangements struck only quite recently are being further undermined by imposing this inflexible cap. For these reasons, we hope the Government will show some flexibility on these amendments, to give them the capacity to respond to the injustice they are creating through a commitment they made at the general election without really realising the unintended consequences.