Trade Union Bill
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, there has been a lot of very helpful and constructive discussion with noble Lords opposite and on the government Benches. We have made a lot of progress on the Bill this week, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said so truthfully. I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Bridges for his pivotal role and for setting out some of the changes that we propose to make that reflect that dialogue. We will come on to discuss others.
I turn to why the Government are strengthening the Certification Officer. The Government have a manifesto commitment to reform the role of the Certification Officer and there is a public interest in properly regulated trade unions. This group of amendments includes government and other amendments, so I shall start by addressing the government amendments. Once the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has spoken to his amendments and others have added their views to the debate I shall respond on the whole group.
Much was made in Committee about the Bill giving the Certification Officer the same powers to investigate for all breaches that he currently has for financial matters and will shortly have for the register of members. This would enable him to act without having a complaint from a member, including on matters that he might discover in the course of his duties. It would also enable him to respond to matters brought to his attention—I suppose I should say to her attention for the future—by third parties, although he is not bound to consider these. This is a wholly reasonable power for a regulator.
We have heard concerns that the Certification Officer may receive vexatious complaints and that this could increase his workload and costs. I want to provide reassurance here. The Certification Officer, as a public authority, is required to act reasonably. We would not expect him or her to spend much time looking into representations from third parties that are groundless or vexatious. The Certification Officer cannot appoint an inspector to investigate a union on a whim. He can make inquiries, but can appoint an inspector only where there are circumstances suggesting that a union has not complied with its duties.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I shall not bang on, but I want to make one or two points. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has made a very powerful case. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Bridges have shown that they are in listening and receptive mood, for which we are all genuinely grateful. I say to the Minister who is about to reply to this debate that when she is prescribing or proscribing it is very important that we have a flexible structure in which we can have widespread confidence, that is not overcostly and that it cannot have levelled at it the charge of overregulation. From what I have heard and seen, there is a danger that the suggested amendments to the role of the Certification Officer are moving too far in the direction of proscription, prescription and overregulation. I hope that my noble friend will indicate that she would be happy to have detailed conversations between now and Third Reading with the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and others who have a lifetime of experience in these fields so that we can get a mechanism that is acceptable and adaptable as circumstances change.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank noble Lords. This has been an important follow-up to a series of debates and meetings outside the Chamber that we have had—to reply to my noble friend Lord Cormack—on the important issue of the Certification Officer and the linked issues, because the Certification Officer runs like a rainbow through the Bill. I also recognise that most trade unions work within the regulatory framework most of the time. We are a deregulatory Government—noble Lords know that, and I am unapologetic about it—but let me be clear: some trade unions break the law. Our reforms provide the Certification Officer with the right tools to ensure effective regulation. Equally, they ensure proportionate regulation, which is an important point given the concerns raised about bureaucracy by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and my noble friend Lord Cormack.
Let me give an example: the case of Mr Dooley v the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—UCATT. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will know the case. The Certification Officer determined that the union had breached its statutory duty to ballot all its eligible members during the 2009 general secretary election. He also observed other issues relating to the union’s membership register, but he was unable to investigate further as no complaint had been received. This seems to be the wrong situation, and it is that sort of situation we are seeking to change, but we have also listened, as I promised we would when we started Committee stage in this House.
We agree that the Certification Officer, like any other regulator, is and should be independent. However, it is fair to say that noble Lords are seeking a greater assurance. I therefore intend to bring forward at Third Reading an amendment to confirm the Certification Officer’s freedom from ministerial direction. I also confirm that the Certification Officer will follow OCPA appointment procedures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, suggested that the Certification Officer might consult on his enforcement strategy. Clearly, he needs to have the ability and space to respond to the information that he receives and to decide the right way forward. He is of course independent, and it is an independent matter whether he investigates and what his approach is to an investigation. That is really a matter for him.
“( ) a federated trade union,( ) a trade union that is not a federated trade union,”
“Rights of appeal not limited to questions of law
In each of the following provisions of the 1992 Act, for “on any question of law arising” substitute “on any question arising”—(a) section 45D (appeal from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under section 24B, 24C, 25, 31, 32ZC or 45C); (b) section 56A (appeal from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under section 55);(c) section 95 (appeal from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under Chapter 6 of Part 1);(d) section 104 (appeal from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under section 103);(e) section 108C (appeals from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under Chapter 7A of Part 1).”
Lord Dykes
My Lords, I rise very briefly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, on her proposed new clause. I hope that it will be fully and enthusiastically accepted in this debate today. This is a great opportunity to try to put right some of the deficiencies and weaknesses that we see even now in modern industrial relations in Britain, despite attempts at improvement from time to time.
The tragedy of the “them” and “us” disease—the two nations in industrial relations: the bosses and the employees—is still very strong. Incidentally, although this is not part of the Bill, the very fact that the highly paid executives who run companies are paying themselves far too much in comparison with what people earn on the shop floor is a very dangerous element that contributes to the anger and resentment that is felt in the great divide between the shop floor and the director’s boardroom. It is a great tragedy that, given the modernisation that we expected, with foreign companies coming in and all that the Japanese and Koreans have done to create a new, more modern system, we have not yet made sufficient progress. However, we are beginning to.
I remember vividly that when I was a Member of Parliament for Harrow, more than 30 years ago, I visited within eight weeks the Volkswagen works in Wolfsburg in Germany and British Leyland. British Leyland was going through one of its perpetual crises, mainly because of not the unions but the failure of management to engage their employees and to liaise with them properly. As you can imagine—I am not making this up—the meeting at the Wolfsburg Volkswagen works, one of the biggest motor works in Germany and the world in those days, started at 7.30 am. There was breakfast for an hour and a half, which was black coffee and black bread, and then a tour of the factory for two and a half hours. We then had an early lunch in the canteen, with the employees, directors and bosses eating at the same tables.
Some weeks later, I went to the British Leyland meeting, which, in contrast, started at 11.30 am. It was a half-hour visit to the factory, which was not very long, and we were told that we must make progress but could ask questions later. There was an hour of gin and tonics in the boardroom with the director—a very agreeable English habit that we have—and then a sumptuous lunch in the directors’ dining room, miles away from the workers’ canteen. That was a long time ago and I think that things have improved in many enterprises, so I should not decry that. But it is still not enough. There is still a sinister division between employees and employers in this country, and the pay gap is really menacing for the future of British society and its equilibrium. It has to be tackled one way or another—but that is not, of course, part of this Bill.
I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and thank him for them. He has experience both of the corporate world and of assisting in trade union activities. He cast a warning about these matters, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. So the Government, having been in listening mode on some specific amendments to earlier aspects of the Bill, have a great opportunity now to re-educate some of their ministerial colleagues about these matters, because the “them” and “us” doctrine is deeply embedded among many Conservative Ministers still. That is a great tragedy for this country and does impede our efforts. We helped the Germans have a much healthier system when we were there as the occupying power after the war. What a great irony that was. So now we have an opportunity for Ministers to respond to these matters. This may be a very general matter and not a specific, technical amendment, but it is a very important new clause. I hope that the Government will respond very positively.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to consider wider aspects of industrial relations in the Trade Union Bill. This conversation builds on the valuable debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, last November, which I found extremely useful. The knowledge and expertise in this House is, as usual, impressive. I always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, on the role of good management and the need to engage and inspire employees.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for joining the debate. He is right to mention the importance of appropriate executive remuneration. His tales of Germany reminded me of my time on a German board. But we need to bear in mind that the UK’s growth and dynamism have been greater than Germany’s in recent years. That matters to millions of employees and families right across our country.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for bringing her amendment back again and to my noble friend Lord Courtown for the work that he has done with her on this important matter. The Government recognise the value of good employee engagement. We know that it contributes to improved productivity and business growth. Indeed, as a personnel director many years ago in the Civil Service and more recently from my first-hand experience through links with USDAW when I was at Tesco, I have definitely seen the benefits. I am grateful for the work on employee engagement by my department and others and am pleased that businesses are now more aware of its importance. In 2015, the CBI employment trends survey highlighted that a top priority for business in the coming year was better employee engagement to foster productive workplaces.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, has already told us, there has been a lot of activity. The Prime Minister launched the employee engagement task force in 2011. One of its main achievements has been the development of an employee engagement community, which has promoted the benefits and various approaches to employee engagement. The task force comprised a wide range of businesses, including entrepreneurs and HR professionals. In addition, ACAS has produced an online productivity tool to allow employers to look at which of the seven levers of productivity are most important. There is a range of guidance on each element, one of which is a “strong employee voice”. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, would commend ACAS’s work in this area, and support the work of her successor there, Sir Brendan Barber, in this matter. These initiatives and others have shown that employers want flexibility to decide how best to engage with their employees, and while unions play an important role, they are not the only mechanism for effective engagement.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice that would require all employers to establish a mechanism of employee engagement via trade unions. From my experience, I believe that a prescriptive approach would be ineffective. For small businesses and sectors that are not heavily unionised, having unions as the only mechanism for employee engagement would also be a practical challenge. While I do not believe that we should limit choice, I do agree that the role of employee engagement in positive industrial relations should be highlighted when we come to explain the changes to the industrial relations landscape brought about by the Trade Union Bill.
To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, it struck me that there have been a lot of moves forward, but those initiatives do not have the salience that they need. I would be happy to commit my department to bring together interested parties to discuss not only existing work on employee engagement but how we can raise awareness of its importance as part of the changes that we bring in with the Bill—and how that can link in to the ongoing issue of productivity, which has been a priority for my department ever since the productivity plan we published last July. I hope that I have shown that the Government value the role of employee engagement and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Prosser
I am grateful to the Minister for that response and I am heartened by it. I have just a couple of points. The new amendment does not mention a code of practice. That was removed in the change on the basis that we wanted to ensure that we did not back the Government Front Bench into too much of a corner on this but we could leave open a way for proper discussion.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I should have said that. The powers are not the problem here; it is about what we do, in intent and communication, which is why I gave the noble Baroness the response that I did.
Baroness Prosser
I thank the Minister for that.
Secondly, employee engagement, and the mechanisms to bring it about, must of course take place in workplaces, whether or not they are unionised. That is the whole point. The evidence shows, and I think the Minister agrees, that there is a lot of good will and activity taking place, but there are always employers and organisations that are reluctant to get on the front foot. That is why we are looking for a little bit more of a push from the Government. I am grateful for the Minister’s suggestion that we can continue to discuss this matter to find ways of taking it forward. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, we have had a relatively lengthy discussion, both in Committee and this evening, about the territorial reach of the Bill. We have thought about Wales, the home of my grandfather—although I do not think that that is quite a declaration of interest. I hope that we have made it clear today, clause by clause, that we are listening carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about the helpfulness of the changes on facility time and check-off relating to the concerns about Wales. I congratulate her on the launch of her manifesto today—a good reason for speaking.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness as we never comment on leaked letters, but we had a discussion in Committee about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and about the Supreme Court judgment in the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, which considered the competence of the Welsh Government where multiple subjects were at play. Of course, the court held that the Welsh Assembly had competence as the case concerned a situation where the devolved matter of agriculture was specifically in play. By contrast, this Bill is concerned with industrial relations, which is solely a reserved matter.
There are other cases that I will not go into at this moment, but the key point is that we cannot ignore the fundamental and well-established principle that there should be a unified system of law for certain matters. Employment and industrial relations law is one important example that has to apply consistently across Great Britain. Devolution of these matters, which is the effect of this penultimate amendment we are looking at, could lead to the differential treatment of workers and the development of a two-tier system, making it more difficult for workers to move freely within the labour market. That, of course, is why employment law is reserved in Scotland, and not conferred in Wales. The importance of having this single regime has been reconfirmed in the context of the Scotland Act which received Royal Assent recently.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, sought, in our earlier discussion on the Enterprise Bill to look at the devolution of exit payments and suggested that our treatment of those was inconsistent with our treatment of the Trade Union Bill, to which we have now turned our attention. This is not correct. The Government of Wales Act 2006, which I referred to earlier, gives legislative competence to the Welsh Government for pensions and compensation payments to specific employers and for specific purposes. This is why the Welsh Assembly has regulation-making powers in relation to exit payments in the Enterprise Bill. In contrast, the Trade Union Bill is about employment and industrial relations law, which is not conferred on the Welsh Government—it is a wholly reserved matter, as I have said. The benefits it will bring should apply across the whole of Great Britain.
I appreciate that not all noble Lords share my assessment—hence this amendment—but I cannot accept that the way forward is to exclude certain public bodies outside England from specific provisions of the Bill. That would extend devolution by the back door and undermine discussions in the context of the Scotland Act and the draft Wales Bill. Parliament has put in place provisions for revising the devolution settlements. It would not be appropriate for this Bill, or others unrelated to constitutional devolution matters, to determine the boundaries of devolution in isolation. We are here today not to debate and amend the devolution settlements but to deliver our manifesto commitment for industrial relations and employment law.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we do treat devolution with respect, as noble Lords can see, in many different ways, but I cannot agree with her or with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, about the way forward on this amendment. Can we just consider the hugely significant impact of the amendment on the Bill? Under the amendment, none of the Bill’s provisions would apply to any public body in Wales, regardless of whether the public body were devolved. That would mean that neither the 50% turnout threshold nor the 40% support threshold for important public services would apply to industrial action ballots in Welsh schools or Welsh hospitals. The threshold provisions in the Bill ensure that strike action only happens where there is a strong and positive mandate. That is as important, it seems to me, in Cardiff and Wrexham as it is in London or Glasgow.
This amendment would also mean that ballot papers for industrial action in the DVLA or the Border Force in Wales would not be required to contain a summary of the matters in dispute, despite the fact that both bodies are responsible for matters that are solely reserved. Not only would this amendment therefore undermine the devolution settlement with Wales, and the principle that employment matters should be reserved, but there could also be unintended consequences, as I have highlighted. Where bodies have premises in Wales, there would have to be two different sets of rules for different workers by virtue of where they were located.
If the House were to approve the amendment today, it would set a precedent that future employment and industrial relations legislation would not apply to public bodies in Wales. We could anticipate a time when individual rights, such as protections from unfair dismissal, would not affect public bodies in Wales. I am sure that that is not what anybody wants, but we have to look at the implications of making a change in an area which is clearly reserved. Of course, we will continue to talk about the delivery of devolution in the weeks and months ahead, but I hope that I have explained our position clearly this evening.
Lord Hain
The Minister has been very generous this afternoon, but I fear that her generosity is now straying into dangerous territory. I am very concerned. May I point out that when Welsh Ministers start to read the text of the Minister’s reply, they will find that she is digging herself into a deeper hole in this matter? Some of what she has said is very contentious on the interpretation of the devolution settlement for which I was largely responsible in the Government of Wales Act 2006, as Secretary of State. I am very concerned, if I may so, in the gentlest way possible, that she is reading from a civil servant’s script that is seeking to get back some of the powers and responsibilities that have already been devolved.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord. I am certainly not seeking to make any changes. I said in response to a point made by a colleague that it was important to respect the devolution settlement. I am trying to explain that this is a reserved area and that if you change that there are implications of the kind that I outlined. That is why we feel strongly that this needs to be a national measure. It fits in well with the unified system that is needed for certain matters and takes account of the fact that employment and industrial relations law is reserved. Of course, as we discussed earlier in relation to the Enterprise Bill, there are particular detailed provisions—apprenticeships are a good example—where I completely understand that the Welsh Government create their own rules. What I am trying to do on this Bill is to make sure that we do not move into constitutional areas which are not appropriate for today’s debate. I have also tried to explain that there is a risk of things being unworkable. I consider that the amendment has far-ranging implications which I cannot accept. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Trade Union Bill
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be back debating this important Bill. Since our Committee stage, the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has reported and we have had a comprehensive debate on the issues raised. I have tabled a number of amendments to respond to concerns expressed in Committee and I will continue to be in listening mode today.
The Bill is about rebalancing the abilities of union members and the interests of the wider public. It will restore a level of fairness to our industrial relations regime, and give effect to the Government’s manifesto commitments. We have seen further strike action by junior doctors, which would have been valid had the provisions of this Bill already been in force, which goes to show that the Bill is not about stopping strikes.
The threshold provisions in Clause 3 ensure that strike action happens only where there is a strong and positive mandate from union members. It cannot be fair that strikes can go ahead on the basis of low turnouts and low support, particularly in important public services where they can have serious consequences for the public.
I appreciate that noble Lords are concerned about the uncertainty for unions in complying with the new rules on balloting. As I explained in Committee, existing legislation incorporates requirements of reasonableness to ensure that balloting obligations are not unduly onerous for unions, and that unions are protected against challenge over insignificant breaches of the balloting rules.
I appreciate that there will, at times, be uncertainty for unions in making precise calculations where a ballot includes some staff who deliver an important public service and some who do not. The 40% threshold applies only to ballots where the majority of eligible union members are delivering an important public service as specified in secondary legislation. I have reflected carefully on concerns that it would be difficult for unions to make a judgment in these circumstances. I have brought forward Amendment 1, which would provide unions with an additional “reasonable belief” defence as to whether a majority of their eligible members are normally engaged in delivering an important public service. This means that unions will not be liable for breaches of the 40% threshold where they reasonably believe that the majority of members involved in a ballot do not normally provide an important public service. Under these circumstances, their decisions will be protected from legal challenge, even if the reasonable belief later proves erroneous.
Noble Lords have raised concerns that unions may feel that they have to go through a complex and bureaucratic process to conduct a ballot, or risk litigation over their judgment. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, suggested in Committee that the concept of reasonable belief could be introduced to address these issues, and that is what this amendment does. It will ensure that unions can take a sensible and proportionate approach in making their assessment under the new threshold.
I have sought to explain that this Bill seeks to strike the right balance between the interests of unions and their members, and those of the wider public. Amendment 1 does just that, and ensures that unions have flexibility when applying the new rules, in line with the existing legislative protections. I commend Amendment 1 to the House.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)
My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 1A or 1B by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
This is an important debate, and I thank noble Lords who have taken time to contribute. I think that the sense of the House is clear, and I would say that electronic communications are the future—as I have said on many occasions, on other matters. Society is changing, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, explained so eloquently, which is why the Government are promoting the programme of digitalisation, supporting the British-based creative economy, with apps such as Lyft share—and, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, there is the use of the internet across government services. So there is a lot of support for the introduction of electronic balloting for decisions by trade unions. I have to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with these sentiments, and I am not going to argue with the substance of much of what has been said.
I am afraid that I cannot agree to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It seeks to require that an independent review is commissioned within six months of this Bill becoming an Act and that the Secretary of State publishes a strategy for the rollout of electronic balloting after consulting relevant organisations. We do not think that that is the right approach. The fundamental problem that we have with it is that if the review found problems, the Secretary of State would nevertheless be committed to pressing ahead with e-balloting regardless.
The common ground we have is that we agree in principle with the concept of electronic balloting. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said, we already have the ability to bring it into effect for statutory trade union decisions, including industrial action ballots. The power is contained in Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Where we differ, I think, is on the issues of timing and security, and I will outline the issues that are currently holding us back from exercising that power right now.
To respond to my noble friends Lord Forsyth, Lord Deben and Lord Cormack, there are risks. They cannot just be ignored. The consequences are serious, particularly for strike ballots, because strikes have such far-reaching consequences for union members, who may lose pay for the days they are on strike; for employers, whose businesses are adversely affected; and, of course, for the public, whose daily lives are disrupted.
Perhaps I should at this point thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, for repeating his question regarding the bizarre example. I should of course have come back to him in Committee. It is an extreme example when exactly 50% of workers turn out for a ballot for industrial action in an important public service. It is right that we ask for 40% of eligible members to support strike action before it can take place in important public services on which millions of people rely, as I have said. Recent events show that the threshold can be achieved when union members feel strongly about live issues.
To return to the issue of electronic voting, we must ensure that there is the utmost confidence in ballot processes. The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy quoted the Open Rights Group summing up concerns over the security of online voting:
“Voting is a uniquely difficult question for computer science: the system must verify your eligibility to vote; know whether you have already voted; and allow for audits and recounts. Yet it must always preserve your anonymity and privacy. Currently there are no practical solutions to this highly complex problem and existing systems are unacceptably flawed”.
The key challenge is how to be sufficiently confident about both the security and the confidentiality of the votes—so let me try, step by step, to explain the problem. First, there is the need to confirm identity. Computer expert Dr Kevin Curran reported to WebRoots Democracy, for its recent report on secure voting, on the difficulty with ensuring a system that is secure enough to ensure voter verification. Professor Robert Krimmer says in his contribution to the WebRoots report that ensuring that the system is sufficiently secure “is really tough”. He was particularly concerned about the practicality of testing a system that incorporates individual voter verification.
Secondly, there is the need for confidentiality. This is an active field of research. Electoral Reform Services acknowledges the challenges of the secrecy of the vote, which is critical if we are to ensure a truly secret ballot. It is important that no one—neither the union nor the employer—can see how a member has voted. Noble Lords may argue that electronic voting is as secure as postal voting, but I am not convinced. It is potentially easier to gain access to huge quantities of electronic votes, which it would be physically impossible, or certainly much harder, to do with postal votes. Mi-Voice, an organisation that develops secure transactional applications, has stated that while,
“it is possible to de-couple the identity of the voter with the vote cast … this … represents one of the biggest challenges to e-voting providers”.
Thirdly, there is the issue of security. Dr Curran also exposes the significant risk that exists of cyberattack, explaining that approaches which had worked just a few years ago are now useless and that we can expect many more attacks. The Electoral Reform Services report, while recognising that it is right and proper to give consideration to the use of e-balloting, recognises a number of difficulties. For example, how can people securely vote if their computer is infected with viruses? Although antivirus software exists, it has to be kept up to date in order to be properly effective. I know from my own unhappy domestic experience just how important this is. So the system relies on people following best practice advice, and it can only protect against known issues. The WebRoots report also indicates that the Du-Vote system, which is being developed at the University of Birmingham, could resolve the issue, but not until about 2020 or 2025.
Finally, there is integrity. The risk is of voter coercion. I will not test your Lordships’ patience by suggesting that this is a problem that is unique to an electronic method of voting but obviously it is an issue that affects it, and is serious. This issue does not solely affect the UK—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am listening to this series of difficulties which the Government do not know the answer to. Is that not the most powerful argument we have heard this afternoon for having an independent commission to look at them and report?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I have explained that we already have the power, and we also have the will to move in this direction. However, for the reasons I have stated, we should not agree to the review set out in the amendment. As I was saying, other countries have struggled to implement online voting successfully and sustainably. The Speaker’s commission identified 14 countries that have tried internet voting for binding elections, which included five countries—the UK, Finland, the USA, the Netherlands and Spain—which either piloted or fully adopted electronic voting and then decided to discontinue its use.
There is a problem here. The only country that has succeeded with a sustainable system is Estonia, and that is because its ID card system makes it unique. I met with the President recently and we had an interesting discussion about this. Of course, it is possible there because their system is different.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, of course, the concept of a review is not new and, as I said, a lot has already been done to review the case for electronic balloting. I have spoken of the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, which published a report on 26 January last year. Obviously, the Electoral Reform Services looked at the case for e-voting for trade unions in the UK and published its findings—indeed, they were published online—and WebRoots Democracy published a report on 26 January on secure voting with contributions from global experts and academics in the electronic voting field. Therefore, we are not short of reviews.
Against that background and despite the excellent points made by noble Lords, I cannot agree with the amendment because it irrevocably commits the Secretary of State to press ahead with a strategy for the rollout of electronic balloting, irrespective of any problems the review finds. I have tried to explain that another review could find problems—it is not absolutely dead easy. As I have said, we have the power to permit e-balloting, and we will use it when we are convinced that all the concerns have been addressed. This is why the current legislation is framed as it is, and for good reason.
I am conscious that this all sounds rather negative but, rightly, noble Lords want to know what problems prevent us agreeing to electronic balloting and I hope I have given a flavour of them. There has been a good deal of positive progress in the way technology can help to address these issues, and that is reflected in the reports I have cited.
I hope that I have been clear. I have listened to the case for the amendment and the case made at other stages of the Bill but, for the reasons I have given, the Government do not support the amendment and I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate. In the interests of time, I will not go through every single one but I am deeply grateful for what noble Lords have said. A number of noble Lords expressed puzzlement about the Government’s position, but I fear that the Minister’s response has not ended my puzzlement.
Perhaps I may briefly take up a couple of points before I conclude. The first is that security is relative. We are not talking about absolute security here; we are talking about whether electronic balloting can be as secure as postal balloting. I hope I made it clear beyond doubt that, specifically in respect of balloting for industrial action, there is no argument: it is as secure. One might have a debate about it in relation to elections but, for this purpose, it is as secure.
Secondly, we are clear that this is an independent review. My amendment says that the Secretary of State should consider that review and come back with a strategy. Of course, if the review concluded that the whole thing was impossible, we would have to think again, but from everything I know, I am absolutely convinced that it is not; indeed, electronic balloting is now used for very important elections.
I am very sorry that we have not seen more movement from the Government on this issue. I am deeply disappointed and I am afraid that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, we had an interesting debate on this clause in Committee and the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Oates and Lord Pannick, all expressed concern at what is meant by the term “reasonably detailed indication”. There is a feeling that it is contradictory. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, were worried that it could leave unions open to legal challenge and that the dispute would be drawn as widely as possible in order to protect the unions. This could have the effect of confusing union members and is clearly not in anyone’s interests. I have listened carefully to those concerns, most especially about the possible consequences that might flow from the use of the phrase. We want unions to be absolutely clear with their members about what they are being asked to vote for. In order to ensure full transparency in any industrial action ballot, members must be able to make a properly informed decision.
Currently, information about the trade dispute can be as unclear as “pay”, “terms and conditions” or “redundancies”, and there is no requirement even to state this on the ballot paper. It does not provide enough clarity for union members to determine whether they choose to support industrial action. That cannot be right and it is not democratic. However, if the clarity we are seeking to achieve on the ballot paper is undermined, we would not achieve our objective. That is a serious concern, too. We are mindful of the need not to make compliance with the information on the voting paper too burdensome or unnecessarily costly for unions. This is always a thing that I am concerned about. That is why we are proposing that the words “reasonably detailed indication” are replaced by “summary”.
The word “summary” should ensure that the voting paper contains a brief statement or account of the main points at issue in the trade dispute. For example, under our reforms, a trade dispute that might have been expressed simply as “pay” could be summarised as “pay for level 3 engineers in 2016”. I beg to move.
“(b) ending with the 14th day before the starting date, or the seventh day before that date if the union and the employer so agree.In paragraph (b) “starting date” means the day, or the first of the days, specified in the relevant notice.””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, made a powerful case that increasing the period of notice from seven to 14 days could damage the flexibility of unions and employers to negotiate the settlement of a dispute. I listened very carefully. As a result, we are proposing an amendment that would allow the period of notice to be reduced from 14 days to seven days, if the union and employer agree. This may prove very valuable in circumstances where negotiations are proceeding well between the parties. It should reduce pressure in that a union might otherwise feel that it would have to serve notice of industrial action to preserve its position.
We fully appreciate that a negotiated settlement is best for all concerned: the employer, the public, and the union and its members. This amendment demonstrates that the Government have listened and that we are keen to promote every opportunity for such discussion to take place. Our intention is to encourage negotiations between a trade union and employer as a way of reaching a resolution of a trade dispute, without recourse to industrial action. This is, of course, the very approach that ACAS encourages, which the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, was instrumental in leading. I beg to move.
(a) of six months, or(b) of such longer duration not exceeding nine months as is agreed between the union and the members’ employer.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, it may be that I should have grouped today’s amendments, but they are all obviously different and reflect an important debate that we had in Committee. They show that we are moving forward.
We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we want to ensure that any industrial action is based on a current mandate on which union members have recently voted. That is our manifesto commitment. We have been equally clear that we want disputes to be resolved by negotiation, before the matter results in industrial action. We proposed a period of four months for the ballot mandate to balance our objective of, on the one hand, ensuring that strikes cannot be called on the basis of ballots conducted years before and, on the other, allowing sufficient time for constructive dialogue to continue.
I listened very carefully during the Committee’s scrutiny of this clause. Two points came across clearly, which I indicated at the time that I should reflect on. The first was about the effect which a period of just four months would have on the parties’ ability to continue negotiating. The second was about extending the ballot mandate, if that is what the employer and trade union agreed. I listened closely during that earlier scrutiny and have given careful consideration to the points raised. In order to underline just how committed the Government are to providing proper opportunity for negotiations to continue, we are making a substantial concession by extending the time period for the ballot mandate from four to six months. A mandate that lasts six months provides plenty of time for a trade dispute to be resolved while ensuring that the mandate does not become stale. We are also allowing the union and the employer to agree between them an extension of this for a further period, up to a maximum of three months. We accept that this may be particularly useful where negotiations are progressing well and a resolution of a dispute is in sight. It may avert a situation where a union might otherwise feel that it has no choice but to take industrial action before the mandate expires.
We have thought carefully about how long the overall mandate, including the extension, should be. We believe that the employer and union should not be able to agree an indefinite extension. We need to ensure that, after an appropriate period, a union is required to seek the views of its members about whether to continue with industrial action. We believe that, overall, nine months is more than sufficient. This takes account of the need to balance the interests of not just employers and unions but the wider public, who may be affected by impending industrial action. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad that the Government have thought it right to do this. I felt strongly that to constrain too strongly the time for which the ballot has authority was dangerous from the point of view of prejudicing resulting negotiations, which might take some time. In particular, I thought that to make the end independent of the view of the employer was unnecessary and really rather dangerous. I am very happy that the Government have moved this period up, from four to six months, and allowed the ballot’s authority to continue if the employer agrees to a further three months. This seems a very practical solution to a quite important problem.
Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)
My Lords, I rise simply to suggest that, where an important agreement, as this may be, is concerned, it ought to be an agreement in writing.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for his comments. It shows the value of scrutiny in this House. If I may, I will reflect on the point about it being in writing, but this is an area where we are finding a way through on the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, Clauses 10 and 11 implement our manifesto commitment for a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions. We had substantial discussion last week in this House about these clauses following, and informed by, the excellent work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his Select Committee. I share the tributes paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, to the committee, its staff and the speed of its proceedings.
These clauses are about the relationship between trade union members and their unions. They are not about the relationship between union members and political parties. The relationship between trade union members and their unions should be based on transparency and choice—an active choice, not a theoretical choice buried in fine print.
There are a number of areas where I believe progress has been made and where there is consensus. Principally, the Select Committee accepted that members should be asked to make an active choice when contributing to a union’s political fund. In looking to achieve wider consensus, the Select Committee has looked for a middle ground. I appreciate these efforts, but I believe that when it comes to the treatment of existing union members the proposals have not gone far enough. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for which I thank him warmly, would not extend opt-in to existing members, only to new members. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, one of the hard-working members of the committee, put it well when he talked about this being a wrecking amendment in that respect.
The Select Committee concurred with the Government’s view that the current approach has not operated with enough transparency. All members are not consistently informed about their rights. If it is deemed right that new members are required to make an active opt-in choice, I do not understand why the same principle does not apply to existing members.
It is not acceptable in many areas of daily life automatically to deduct payment for a cause or purpose that has not been actively consented to. We see that in consumer law, financial services, marketing communications and the way charities approach potential donors. I have not heard a compelling reason why we should treat all union members differently.
We debated at length last week the wider and distinct agenda of political party funding. Some have argued that pursuing only a partial opt-in system can be justified, given the lack of consensus on party funding reform—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned this. It is a difficult problem to crack and I shall not seek to repeat what was said in the discussion last week. Our trade union reforms are about the transparency arrangements between a union and its members. I quote again from page 19 of the Conservative manifesto:
“We will … legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions”.
The Select Committee agreed that we had not cherry-picked from the 2011 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and recognised our democratic mandate to introduce an opt-in process, irrespective of agreement or not on party funding.
Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and apologise for intervening early in her remarks. Her reference to a manifesto commitment is of course a valid point, except that we all know that manifesto commitments are abandoned quite frequently by parties in the course of events and do not proceed, that the manifesto is based on a Government elected by 24% of the electorate and that only some 0.4% of the population read any of its paragraphs.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Well, I believe that manifesto commitments are important. This is an important and clear manifesto commitment. If I may continue, I will seek to respond to points that noble Lords have made.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke about union membership turnover. I cannot accept his argument that we should not allow existing members to be covered because, over time, all individuals would be covered. Obviously, turnover is faster in some industries than others. I know and am very fond of USDAW, which represents shop workers, where turnover is high, but the noble Earl’s approach would deliver a two-tier position, while moving to opt-in is what we have a democratic mandate to implement.
I turn to three key elements of the noble Lord’s amendment: that new union members would be required to make an active opt-in choice; giving a new role for the Certification Officer; and—perhaps most important of all, because several people have mentioned them—the transition and communication arrangements.
On the treatment of new members, I can of course support the introduction of an opt-in requirement. The amendment would achieve this by giving new members a clear choice on the application form. It is appropriate to make this choice clear at the point of joining. It is the point at which a member is making their first financial commitment to the union, and they should be told what the commitment covers in sufficient detail to make an informed choice. The amendment also provides that new members should be informed that their decision will not impact unfavourably on any other aspect of their membership. I believe that is also an important measure to support making an informed decision.
Turning to the proposed new role for the Certification Officer, I appreciate that the amendment tries to enhance information for union members about their right to opt out of a political fund. We are in favour of better communication, but I believe that we are past the point of trying to make the current opt-out work better. We tried that in 1984, and I agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham. We presented evidence, which the Select Committee appeared to concur with, that the current approach has not operated with enough transparency. Even for new members, the amendment would not require that they should ever again have to opt in while they remained with the union.
I also believe the proposal to expand the remit of the Certification Officer to set out a code governing union communications is inappropriate. We heard concerns during Committee about the new burdens we are placing on the Certification Officer, and I do not believe that expanding his role is necessary or sensible.
I want to move on to the proposals for transition and electronic communications, on which I believe there is more consensus in the House, and about which I have indicated on previous occasions that I am open-minded. I have listened carefully to the issues raised regarding transition and the fact that members should be able to make their choice electronically.
There are two different transition periods: first, the period between Royal Assent and when Clause 10 applies to trade unions, which is important to allow unions time to prepare by, for example, changing their rulebooks; secondly, the period, mentioned in the Bill, for existing members to opt in under the new arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, expressed concern about what he called a “guillotine”—members automatically being opted out after three months. I have said that I am in listening mode on the implementation of this clause. As I have explained, I need to consider how each period of transition is delivered, but I think, together, they provide a good opportunity.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, would also make electronic communications an accepted mode of communication between unions and their members on political fund provisions. I recognise the force of the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and others in favour of the use of email and electronic communications, and I have said that I would reflect further on this.
We note that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, gives the Certification Officer a role in relation to transition arrangements as well as annual communications. We will continue to engage with the Certification Officer, whom I intend to meet before Third Reading. We all agree that the transition must be done in a way that is successful for unions and for their members.
If noble Lords are prepared to accept my wider arguments on the case for opt-in applying to existing members, I would like to bring back for consideration before the Bill leaves this House provisions on a more generous transition period, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham and others, and on electronic communications. The Bill will, we believe, secure consistency and equity across all members of unions with political funds. The default position will be that all members will be able to exercise a positive choice. This will improve transparency, choice and debate within a union of how political funds are spent. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burns
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate. I am not surprised that so much of it has concentrated on the issue of the opting in of existing members versus the opting in of new members. I understand the concern about that, but there is an enormously important practical issue at stake here: how do you get existing members to exercise an informed choice? It is clear that that choice can be forced in respect of new members because people have to fill in a membership form on which you ask them the question. When it comes to persuading existing members to respond to mailshots, it is actually very difficult, as anyone who has ever been involved in trying to run an exercise of this type will know. The response rates are typically very low. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, the average payment we are talking about here is £4.80 a year, which is not exactly the sort of thing that gets people leaping out of their chairs, having reminded themselves they should be filling in a form.
Those of us who have been involved with financial services, as I tried to make clear in my earlier remarks, know full well that this is a problem for the industry. The emphasis is put on new buyers and what happens at the sales point. It is much more relaxed about what happens to those people who have previously bought a product, as long as they are reminded of what their rights are.
I deny that this is a wrecking amendment. Over time, I have argued, increasing numbers of people will come into these arrangements. In some areas it may be slow, but in the end it will happen. I am grateful to the Minister for her response about the transition issue and electronic communications, which is very welcome, but I am sorry that there has not been more movement on this point. I believe that my amendment meets the manifesto commitment. Nowhere in that commitment is any distinction made between new members and existing members. I believe that what I have proposed is proportionate and avoids the trap of being drawn into a war on political funding, which I also believe is very important.
I shall only say this once: there is no one who is more surprised than me to find myself in this position today on this particular subject. Having said that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief in supporting my noble friend Lord Leigh. I wish to bring up one point. In the last debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, reflected that the amounts we are talking about are trivial—less than 5p per member contributing to a pension fund a week. That is trivial, but the point is that the amount we are talking about is nearly £24 million a year, or nearly £125 million over the life of a Parliament. We should realise that these are not small amounts. They have an impact on the causes that my noble friend mentioned, and on donations to political parties or whatever. It is important that we bear in mind that this is a large amount of money and we should not dismiss it just because most people do not know that they are even paying into it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the Government are committed to greater transparency for all contributing union members in the use of union political funds. Not only should members have a choice whether to contribute, but it is only fair and reasonable that union members know how their political funds are used. As my noble friend Lord Robathan said, this is important because the totals can be large. We want members to make informed decisions about whether they want to contribute to such a fund. Increased transparency will also increase debate within unions about what the political fund is used for.
My noble friend Lord Leigh raises an interesting point about the level of transparency provided for by Clause 11. In particular, I understand that his amendment seeks to ensure that all expenditure from the political fund is subject to enhanced reporting requirements. I accept the principle of the point that my noble friend makes and I am sympathetic to his proposal. Our intention is that members should understand how the political fund is spent. It is important because, as I have already said, members need to know this if they are to make informed decisions about whether to opt in or opt out.
We will reflect and come back on that point of principle at Third Reading, giving careful consideration to how we deliver our transparency reforms in the most proportionate way. In the mean time, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I thank my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to review and to come back at Third Reading and, accordingly, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, I will not detain the House for very long. When the committee met we noted that this clause was not a manifesto commitment. Accordingly, there is not that complication as one seeks to apply common sense. The committee was lucky to receive a written submission from BIS as to what Clause 11 was intended to do. It stated:
“Clause 11 provides for additional transparency over the expenditure of the union’s political fund. It places a requirement on unions to provide more detail about political expenditure … This information will allow union members to make an informed choice about whether they wish to contribute to the fund”.
We were lucky also that Nick Boles in his evidence said several times—I have picked just one instance—that we must make sure that this is,
“not designed to trip people up”.
The difficulty—I think the Select Committee was unanimous on this—was that the current clause did not “scratch the itch” that was outlined by BIS but certainly amounted to “tripping up”, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, have just given. I feel that the amendment we have put forward does scratch those itches. I therefore urge the Minister to accept it as it is proportionate, effective and balanced.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the Government are committed to greater transparency for union members in the use of political funds. Members can then make an informed decision as to whether they want to contribute.
I am pleased that the Select Committee has also endorsed the principle that the current level of reporting is insufficient and that union members are entitled to a reasonable amount of detail about political expenditure.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Tyler, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, the aim of Clause 11 is to make sure that all unions meet a minimum standard of transparency. The current provisions in Clause 11 ensure that where unions spend more than £2,000 per annum from their political fund, they provide a breakdown of expenditure.
I do not believe that we should start from the position proposed in this amendment, which is to place all the detail on the level of reporting in secondary legislation. Placing these requirements on the face of the Bill helps to reduce uncertainty about what is intended—a consideration which often appeals to noble Lords.
As I said in the Select Committee debate last week, we will reflect on the technical recommendations of the committee in relation to Clause 11. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out that the provision could mean that a union would have to declare the reimbursement of a bus fare to one of its members who attended a Labour Party conference. That was never our intention. We are not trying to trip people up, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, the Government have always been clear that the transparency requirements in Clause 11 are important so that members can exercise an informed choice. The proposal for a review would delay this transparency and I cannot see its rationale. However, I have said that I am open to continuing the conversation on how best to achieve improved reporting of political expenditure in the most proportionate way, and on making the requirements of the provision less onerous, with a view to coming back to this issue at Third Reading. As I said earlier, I am already planning to see the Certification Officer, which I am sure will be helpful.
Finally, I turn to the government amendment. I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its careful scrutiny of this clause. It has noted that the power to substitute the £2,000 threshold in Clause 11 can be used not only to raise the amount but also to lower it again to an amount not less than £2,000. Raising the threshold would reduce the reporting requirements on unions. However, if, in the future, a Government wished to reduce the threshold back again, the reverse would happen and the reporting requirements on unions could increase considerably. I have listened carefully to concerns voiced by the committee. Our amendment ensures that any decision in future to lower the threshold would be subject to the affirmative procedure, and therefore subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean—if I have understood her correctly—that this would increase burdens. I hope that she agrees with me now that I have explained what is intended by this amendment.
Lord Tyler
As a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I acknowledge the point the Minister has just made. But would it not be rather extraordinary if she is effectively asking the proposers of the other two amendments that are relevant to this clause to wait to hear what she will do at a later stage of the Bill, while she pursues her own amendment? Would it not be better to take a comprehensive view on all these amendments and the whole of this clause at Third Reading? Otherwise, there is a real danger that they may not all be compatible. We may accept her amendment—if the House decides to do so—but may not be able to deal with the other points which she acknowledges still need further consideration. Would it not be appropriate for the Minister to withdraw her amendment?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am just checking whether, if I withdraw my amendment, I can then retable it if, after consideration, that seems appropriate. I understand that if I make my intentions clear—which sounds like a good principle—I can bring it back. I will certainly withdraw it today and look at the provision in the way that I have suggested. But I give notice that I will return to it because it is an important provision that tries to respond to the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which I know the noble Lord serves.
I have said that I will reflect further on the technical reporting requirements to ensure that they do what we intend. I have set out why I do not believe that a further review of reporting requirements on top of the excellent work done by the Select Committee is necessary and I have agreed to hold the government amendment over to Third Reading. In the circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Burns
I fear that I am even more confused than I was when I started. I fully understand why the Minister says that it was never the intention to do what I described might happen with this bus ticket. But I am not clear what she is suggesting that the Government will do about this, given my interpretation of this clause. I have checked this many times. We have been through all sorts of procedures to try to find out whether it really says what we think it says, and no one has yet come forward and said to me, “No, that’s not what it says. Our legal advice is that it says something different”. So I assume from the noble Baroness’s remarks that she will come back to this and suggest amendments that will make sure that the lack of intention, as it were, is corrected.
Lord Burns
I thank her very much. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Elections: Weekend Voting
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether moving United Kingdom elections from Thursday to Sunday has been considered in order to minimise disruption, especially for parents and schools.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Government have no current plans to change polling day from Thursday to Sunday.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that brief reply, and welcome the news about the success of online registration that he has already referred to. I wonder if more thought can be given to this important issue. The biggest single thing that has not been covered in debates on electoral issues is the cost of days lost for millions of schoolchildren—and often, no doubt, their working parents—on election days. Does the Minister agree that this adds an extra dimension to the argument that should be considered in the interests of our education system?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the previous Government conducted a consultation exercise in 2008 on whether or not to move the day of voting to the weekend. The majority of responses to that consultation were against such a move. Of course, there are additional costs of transferring voting to a Sunday. If one were to have voting on two days over the weekend, it is likely that those costs would be in the order of £100 million-plus. I know that the Department for Education has suggested that schools that have to close for voting should use that day for staff training as a means of minimising the loss of teaching time.