Community Pharmacy in 2016-17 and Beyond

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I agree with everything that my noble friend has said—data are extremely important. Of course, with those new reforms we will have the opportunity to make changes and be absolutely sure that the integrated services are working as we want them to work.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, this is beginning to sound like the fate of the post offices. In my local urban chemist—as we still call it; I have not quite got used to calling them pharmacies—I do not think I have ever seen anybody pay for their prescription, because the area is poor and has a high proportion of elderly and long-term disabled people. It already performs a very good public service in an integrated way as far as it possibly can. It seems to me that it is being asked to do even more. My concern is that none of the questions asked by my noble friend on the Front Bench was answered by the noble Baroness. She also did not give any assurance that she would answer his questions in writing. I am particularly concerned about the comments that he made on the impact assessment—it seems that it is not just the data that are very woolly, but the government thinking.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

As I said, the impact assessment was published today. I think that I did answer the noble Lord’s questions. He asked how pharmacies were going to be looked after in deprived areas and I explained about the pharmacy access scheme and how these pharmacies will indeed be protected. He also asked about the integrated pharmacies and as I said there would be £112 million to deliver a further 1,500 pharmacies. They will be integrated into general, joined-up practices within the NHS. This has to be the way to go—multidisciplinary areas where we will be focused on the deployment of clinical pharmacies and pharmacy services in the community and primary care settings. This will make a difference to groups of general practices, care homes and urgent care settings that all have pharmacies within them.

Trade Union Bill

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I welcome Amendment 1. The Select Committee actually said there is a “lack of transparency” over how political funds are spent. Such transparency would assist union members in having an informed choice over whether to sign up to paying a political levy. The amount of money in political funds varies from £14.8 million in reserves for Unite to £8.2 million in UNISON and so on. While I welcome Amendment 1, which seeks to categorise payments, Amendment 2 would take away the whole point of the transparency that would allow union members to see how their money is spent when it is not being spent directly on political parties.

The move to transparency is taking place throughout all areas of our lives. In the Conservative Party manifesto—indeed, it is actually happening—the Government committed to disclose online any expenditure over £25,000. Given the amount of money the Government spend in a year, it does not seem unreasonable to look for similar transparency on union political spending.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, forgot to declare in his contribution that he was the treasurer of the Conservative Party. I support my noble friend Lord Collins’s amendment to the amendment. Of course we support transparency but Amendment 1 adds another section, which in our view is completely unnecessary.

Many years ago I chaired the general political fund committee of—I think it was NALGO then, before Unison came about—and the amount of information given was extremely elaborate. There was an annual report and a magazine. There was absolutely no doubt about where the expenditure went, and I have no doubt that that information is still communicated.

I just wonder why this “Lord Leigh clause”, as I think I am going to call it, is really necessary. It seems to me that it is the thin end of a wedge and could be utilised in future. Amendment 1 adds an unnecessary burden to the unions. Without proposed new subsection (2E), it would still provide all the information that the Select Committee asked for.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, Amendment 2 to government Amendment 1 seeks to reduce the level of transparency on all expenditure from a union’s political fund. Of course, during debates in this House noble Lords have referred to unions supporting various campaigns, causes or organisations from their political funds that are not clearly linked to the categories of expenditure under Section 72(1) of the 1992 Act. As I explained, we are seeking to make things clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, whose knowledge of this area has been extremely helpful during the passage of the Bill, asked about the Certification Officer’s view on what I think has rightly been named the “Lord Leigh amendment”. The Certification Officer acknowledged that this may mean some additional reporting for some unions. However, he welcomed the proportionate approach and clarity of the overall package, and supported the change. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his support, given all the expertise he developed during his splendid committee inquiry.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, asked—as he always does—about burdens, a point on which he and I tend to agree. I will write to him but I think the one-in, two-out rule applies to business costs and therefore on a point of detail may not apply, but I will certainly check that and write to him. What I would say is that in this amendment we are trying to get away from the bureaucracy and detail of the individual recording of bus tickets. That has been the whole point.

We are not seeking changes to the political arrangements in relation to expenditure by the Conservative Party, for example, or changes in the Electoral Commission rules. We have brought in an amendment which I think improves things, and agree with my noble friend Lord Leigh that better transparency is required across all expenditure from political funds to enable union members to decide whether or not to contribute and, importantly, that it does so in a clear and proportionate way. I believe that the package of amendments I have set out today achieves that.

Trade Union Bill

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

Finally, technical Amendments 31B, 31C and 31D will ensure that there is flexibility to charge a different amount of levy from federated trade unions as distinct from trade unions. This mirrors the approach in the Bill regarding federated employer associations and employer associations.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I believe that the Government have got it wrong on the proposals for a new role for the Certification Officer. The Government are creating legislation affecting our legal rights in inverse proportion to the need for it. Thousands of people are deprived of access to justice because of the Government’s cuts to legal aid and slamming costs on to employment tribunal applications, yet here we have no complaints, no build-up of steam, no demand whatever and the Government decide that something is up. They create a complex and expensive role for the new-look Certification Officer when there is no evidence that it is necessary.

This is supposed to be a deregulating Government; however, they are setting up this bureaucratic role for the Certification Officer and making the trade unions pay for it. This will politicise the role, and there is still much confusion of roles. Will the CO be judge, jury or executioner? How will the Government clarify this to avoid judicial review? The sheer amount of information that trade unions will be asked to give is disproportionate and will tie up resources which should be used to protect members.

The cost to the trade unions is unreasonable. If, as the Government say, there is a need to ratchet up the role, then it should be paid for from the public purse. I believe firmly that the Certification Officer should be able to initiate investigations only when a union member has made a complaint. Failing this, there must be additional safeguards to protect members’ right to privacy and the right of trade unions to organise their internal democratic affairs without unjustified interference.

The Government are putting out mixed signals to justify the proposed ban on check-off, which we thought we were facing today, on the basis that employers should not be involved in what should be a direct relationship between unions and their members. In contrast, in the same Bill employers are invited to play a direct and active role in influencing enforcement action taken by the CO on key democratic decisions within unions.

The new role could damage employment relations—for instance, if an employer attempts to interfere in the election of a general secretary, or in challenging proposed strike action, and union members will be less likely to trust the Certification Officer to handle complaints fairly. It is important that the new Certification Officer should be required to consult interested parties, including the TUC and unions, on future enforcement strategies. That would be consistent with good practice and transparency. It might even be advisable to require the CO to establish consultative committees for trade unions and employers’ associations. Their views would be sought before issuing guidance or setting enforcement strategies. Where the CO disagrees with the views of the consultative committee or committees, he should be required to provide a written response explaining and justifying the difference of opinion. This might seem to be too much detail but this is a quasi-judicial post and proposed changes should have been much more carefully thought through than this.

We have seen a succession of these Bills which, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, have a skeletal element. I argue they are so naked that even the Windmill Theatre would have been embarrassed. I understand that the Select Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was very impressed by the current Certification Officer, David Cockburn. He embodies all that is good about public service. The fact that there was no headline news does not mean that a problem was buried; it means that the role was performed in an exemplary manner. We should thank him for all he has done, not impose this Eton mess of a package.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s recognition that, as drafted, the Bill could give rise to vexatious complaints which the Certification Officer would be required to investigate. Government Amendment 23A will give greater discretion to the Certification Officer so that he or she needs to investigate only where they have reasonable grounds to suspect a breach. I hope this will not be the only concession today with regard to the Certification Officer because, notwithstanding the concessions the Minister has set out, the Bill’s clauses and schedules relating to the Certification Officer remain obnoxious. They represent an unwarranted interference in the activities of free trade unions and make trade unions pay for the privilege of having this unnecessary regulation.

It is surprising, to say the least, that a Government who purport to champion deregulation are so ready to reverse their position when it comes to trade unions. What happened to the Government’s one-in, one-out rule on regulations, which I think later became the one-in, two-out rule? I hope the Minister will tell us which regulations are being removed from trade unions to meet that commitment. However, I doubt that will happen because we have asked the Minister repeatedly for an answer to that question throughout the passage of this Bill. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that I will get no answer again today, not through any fault of the Minister but for the simple reason that there is none.

Not content with imposing yet more regulation on trade unions, the Government have also determined that the trade unions must pay for it. The imposition of the levy is just one regrettable clause in a highly regrettable and unnecessary Bill. However, it is a particularly symbolic one as it demonstrates the Government’s lack of awareness of the role of trade unions. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, rightly pointed out, trade unions are not composed of people who go to work every day plotting revolution, but rather of people who come together to protect their rights in the workforce and ensure proper representation. However, the Government do not seem to see it that way.

We have repeatedly asked the Minister to explain which comparable organisations are subject to a levy to pay for this sort of regulation by the state. The examples which we were given at earlier stages in the progress of the Bill, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, are just not comparable. The FCA regulates profit-making organisations, many of which pose systemic risks to our economy, many of which have routinely flouted the spirit—and sometimes the letter—of the law, and some of which have been bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of billions of pounds. By contrast, trade unions are representative, democratic organisations, already tightly regulated by law, which play a critical role in our democracy.

However, the Government do not seem to see trade unions in that light. They do not see them as contributors to our democracy or as defenders of the rights of people with less power than themselves; they see them simply as opponents of their party’s interest and as organisations to be regulated, levied and constrained. There is no other explanation for the decision to impose a levy in this way. No such levy exists for the only really comparable organisation, which is the Electoral Commission. The Conservative Party does not fund investigations by the Electoral Commission into the manner in which it operates, but the trade unions must pay for the partisan regulation that the Conservatives impose on them. It is unjustifiable.

Amendment 31A, which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will speak to, would at least help ameliorate the impact of the levy. It would prevent a partisan direction being given by the Secretary of State to the Certification Officer and ensure that the officer would only have to investigate complaints made by non-trade unionists if they could demonstrate that they had suffered detriment. That seems to be a very sensible change to Schedule 2. Together, those changes would help ensure that the Certification Officer, who has operated effectively as a regulator to date, is not turned into an overbearing regulator subject to political direction. I very much hope that, in her response, the Minister will be able to address the points made in that amendment and give some more concessions on the Bill.

Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Lords Chamber

The Act, perhaps well-intentioned to achieve the Government’s and, indeed, the Opposition’s aim of having a recall measure, was hastily drafted and ill-thought-out, with one major policy decision left to a statutory instrument rather than included in the Bill. We have a statutory instrument which, because of its length, makes proper scrutiny impossible. If I were marking the Government’s homework, I would have to say, “Not good enough. Must try harder”. I beg to move.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, in the debate on the Recall of MPs Bill, as it then was, I recall my noble friend Lord Grocott saying that it is a measure of constitutional significance that will, as the Constitution Committee has said, affect the United Kingdom’s representative democracy. He reminded the House that had the Bill been an Act of Parliament 25 years before, only two MPs would have been affected. Although there were some supporters, including the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Windrush, in his maiden speech, the overwhelming majority of speakers expressed concern. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, summed it up by saying:

“Members of Parliament are, bit by bit, dissolving their authority and removing the primacy of the House of Commons”.—[Official Report, 14/1/15; col. 820.]

As a former member and acting chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, I expressed the view in debate that the Bill was unlikely to improve standards in public life or the standing of Members of Parliament. I thought it would enhance the powers of the Executive at the expense of parliamentary democracy.

Nevertheless, we are where we are. The Bill is an Act and will not be implemented fully until the draft statutory instrument before us today has been approved. As has been said, the Bill was 60 pages long and the draft statutory instrument is 174 pages long. I must admit that I approached it with some trepidation, secretly hoping that it would do credit to Jarndyce v Jarndyce. In the interest of staying onside with my noble friend Lady Hayter, who has been incredibly loyal to her Front Bench on this and has played a straight bat throughout, I shall not reveal whether the draft fulfilled my secret hopes or not.

I think we all hope that the Act will never have to be used. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some guarantees about the issues raised by my noble friend in moving her amendment to the Motion. First, what guarantee will there be that people walking in to sign for recall will not be intimidated? Secondly, how will he ensure that there will be no double voting? Thirdly, how much would overseas people be able to put into a campaign? Fourthly, is the Minister content that the election returns will be checked?