Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting)
Jo Stevens Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Boles
I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady, but I do not want to have an endless ping-pong session with the hon. Gentleman at this point.
Jo Stevens
I refer the Minister to the letter of 14 October from the Welsh NHS Confederation to his colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which states:
“We feel that some of the proposals outlined in the Trade Union Bill could have a detrimental effect on this relationship”—
with trade unions—
“and potentially lead to unnecessarily challenging industrial relations in future…strike action in the NHS in Wales over the last decade has been minimal, despite significant organisational change and the introduction of significant changes to terms and conditions, so we do not believe that any additional measures to protect the public from strikes are necessarily required.”
Will the Minister comment on that?
Nick Boles
Sir Alan, you know as well as I do that if I were even to dare tiptoe on to the question of the financial settlement with devolved Administrations, there is literally a device implanted in my brain that would explode and decapitate me. I am not going to go there, however much pleasure it might give Opposition Members. [Interruption.] However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to the Chancellor—or to me and I can pass on the request—I will, of course, reply to his question.
If there are no further requests for interventions, I will conclude. The amendments in this group seek to use the Bill as a mechanism to carve out different arrangements in employment law and industrial relations for Scotland, Wales, London and English local authorities. Parliament has already determined that these matters are reserved. The amendments are an attempt to extend devolution by the back door and that is why we cannot accept them. I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.
Jo Stevens
In opposing clause 3 and speaking in support of our amendments, I wish I had the faith in the legal advice that the Minister seems to have in his lawyers. I remind the Government of the evidence that we heard last week from Professor Keith Ewing, professor of public law at King’s College, London, about the Bill being incompatible with settlements in Wales and Scotland, which is entirely contrary to the position that the Minister has just asserted. The Committee will recall that Professor Ewing said:
“The Government are walking, almost blindfolded, into a major constitutional crisis around the Bill. That constitutional crisis could be as explosive for this Government as the poll tax was for the Thatcher Government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is a big, big problem, and I am not sure that people have really thought through the consequences.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 129, Q346.]
Not having thought through the consequences is a recurrent theme in the Bill. I appreciate that the Government seem to have struggled to give examples of good industrial relations in England. Almost every example of industrial action and dispute that they have referred to has involved employees in London, which I would suggest is a reflection on the Mayor of London rather than on current industrial law.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Is the hon. Lady as surprised as I am that the Minister’s response appears somewhat flippant, as though he wishes to call the bluff of the devolved Governments and the councils? There is little recognition of possible legal repercussions, costs and contingencies for the public.
Jo Stevens
I absolutely agree, and that is a risk that the Government are taking. The Bill has significant equality implications, despite the suggestion otherwise in the equality impact assessment—which reads, frankly, as though it was written on the back of a fag packet. The Bill presents a real danger that decades of progress on equality in the workplace will be undermined through the erosion of trade union rights. We know that trade unions are one of the best protections from discriminatory treatment in the workplace, with trained officers and representatives who deal with a range of workplace issues, protecting equality of treatment and, in the process, saving employers from reputational damage and litigation. It is simply not acceptable or legitimate for the UK Government to impose the Bill on Wales.
We have heard that the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister to set out his position and his concerns clearly and constructively. The Prime Minister’s response has been described by the Minister for Public Services as disappointing. I think he was being too polite. I would go further and describe it as inadequate. It failed to acknowledge any devolved interest whatever. We have heard from the Minister for Public Services that the Welsh Government are considering how they would seek to protect legitimate, devolved interests, including devolved public services, from the Bill, including tabling a legislative consent motion.
I go back to the comments of Professor Ewing from the beginning of my contribution. Do the Government really want to mire themselves in expensive, lengthy litigation with the Welsh Government over the Bill, played out in Supreme Court? Do the Government really want to suffer another embarrassing defeat as they did over the Agricultural Wages Board litigation with the Welsh Government?
The Bill was the subject of a debate in the Welsh Assembly last week. The Assembly Member for Pontypridd summed up the view of the Welsh Government by saying:
“We do not need this law in Wales and we do not want this law in Wales”—
it sounds a bit like Dr Seuss, this—
“And I know that we will do all that we can to support all those who oppose this Bill and, if necessary, to challenge its legitimacy in the Supreme Court.”
The Government have been given a clear warning. By accepting our amendments to clause 3, the Government have the opportunity to save time, save face and save taxpayers’ money. Will they take it?
Stephen Doughty
I want to respond briefly to a number of comments made by the Minister. Obviously, he maintained his position that this is a wholly reserved matter and claimed—shamefully—that this was about extending devolution by the back door. We on this side would contend that this is attempting to extinguish part of devolution by the back door. The Government have made that very clear.
The Minister is essentially saying to the Committee and to the public, “Trust me, it’s not devolved in any way: it’s all fine,” but we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central that the Government’s record on this is wobbly at best. They have already suffered serious defeats in the Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayer. I would expect, at the very least, the Government to have taken the most precautionary and consultative approach before proceeding with matters of this seriousness. The Minister did not want to detail all the different meetings or give a running commentary. I gently suggest to the Committee that that was because not many meetings, if any, took place before the Bill was published. That is certainly the impression we have been left with by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, let alone local government in England.
The Minister was very hazy on his expectations of the impact of the Bill on existing contractual arrangements, either retrospectively or going forward. I hope that he and the Government have very deep pockets, because I sense that this is not an idle threat; there are real, serious legal objections to the Bill and its implications and I imagine that a number of the bodies that are raising these concerns will take action over this. It is for that reason that I give the Minister a chance to exempt himself from that cost and trouble to the taxpayer, by pressing amendments 11 and 12 to a vote.
Stephen Doughty
I agree absolutely. I think that sits alongside the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that the unions want to have a high turnout and that they want to be able to have as much confidence as possible among their members, because of the fact they cannot sanction members for not taking part in the industrial action as agreed. It is important to look at the German example, because statutory thresholds, as proposed by the UK Government, would actually be unconstitutional in Germany. We heard about international comparisons in the oral evidence, and the Bill, in so many respects—this is yet another one—puts us in a very serious place in terms of the international league of whether these measures restrict or infringe on long-established rights. Therefore, we will oppose the clause, because we think it is ill thought out, partisan, open to serious legal challenge, breaches the devolution settlement and will not do anything to better industrial relations.
Amendment 4 is a probing amendment that provides that the 40% threshold should only apply to those who are normally engaged “solely” in the provision of important public services or ancillary activities. We need to discuss this very important issue, and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on it. The amendment is designed to highlight the problems that unions will face when trying to determine whether the 40% threshold applies. It is not clear whether individuals who spend only part of their time providing important public services will be covered by the 40% yes vote requirement.
Let us take, for example, education unions planning to ballot staff in a school with a sixth form, where they might be involved in the provision of education to young people of different ages. Trade union officials will find it very difficult to assess whether staff who teach both pupils aged under 17 and those in years 12 and 13 are “normally engaged” in providing “important public services”. That will be particularly problematic where teachers’ work schedules vary during the academic year. It is just one of the many implementation problems that I do not think the Government can have seriously thought through if they intend to proceed with the Bill as drafted.
Amendment 5 is also designed to encourage debate. It provides that the 40% yes vote requirement should apply to those employed in the provision of “essential public services” rather than “important public services”. As I have said, the Government’s proposed restrictions extend well beyond the definition of “essential services” recognised by the ILO. The Government claim that the proposed thresholds are justifiable because they do not introduce a complete ban—some would beg to differ—on the right to strike in “important public services”. They therefore argue that the ILO standards do not apply.
However, the Employment Lawyers Association warned the Government against introducing thresholds to services not covered by the ILO definition of “essential services” in its response to the BIS consultation on balloting thresholds. The response continued:
“ELA cautions that if the provisions”—
in the Bill and any accompanying regulations—
“are not drawn as narrowly as possible then the Government runs the risk of a challenge on the basis that the imposition of the raised thresholds infringes Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any restrictions on the right to strike must not be greater than necessary to pursue a legitimate aim and…necessary in a democratic society.”
That is why it is important that we look at the ILO definition. It is very tightly defined, referring to public safety and so on. It is very clearly defined in terms of where things would be problematic. The Government are going well beyond that boundary. The ILO has criticised Governments who have introduced thresholds for industrial action ballots. The ILO committee on freedom of association has concluded:
“The requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike, particularly in large enterprises.”
The ILO has called on Governments who have imposed statutory thresholds to amend their national laws to bring them into closer conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Dare I make some international comparisons? The countries that it has gone after include Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. Does this country really want to be in that territory? Not only are we going well beyond what a near neighbour in the EU—Germany—believes would be unconstitutional, but we will be putting ourselves in the league of countries that are being criticised by the ILO, such as Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. That simply is not good enough.
I come now to amendment 6. The 40% yes vote requirement will apply not only to individuals directly involved in the delivery of important public services, but to individuals normally engaged in
“activities that are ancillary to the provision of important public services.”
As a result, hundreds of thousands of union members working in large parts of the private services sector are likely to be caught by the 40% threshold. The amendment would therefore delete the reference to ancillary activities. Again, it will be very hard to define and identify who is involved in such activities. The Government are clearly trying to apply the provision as widely as possible and certainly well beyond what the ILO would expect.
Further to amendment 5, amendment 9 would define essential public services in line with the ILO definition. We want the wording to mean
“services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.
We have some very serious issues for the Minister to explain. He needs to explain how these passages will be implemented. When we look at international legal comparisons, the potential impact of the measure, the breach that I referred to and the risk of legal challenge, we are experiencing many of the same challenges as we discussed under the last clause, and I hope that the Minister can explain his position.
Jo Stevens
We have heard numerous submissions in evidence to the Committee, both oral and in writing, that the Government’s definition of “important public services” is at odds with the definition of essential services used in international law, but if we go outside the legal technicality of this broad definition, there are many practical considerations to assess when it comes to important public services and I do not see that the Government have put any thought into those practicalities on the basis of the Bill as drafted.
Nick Boles
I have consistently made it clear that it will be before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I cannot give the hon. Lady the precise timing. We do not know the precise timing of the Bill’s further parliamentary stages, because that is not entirely within our gift, but the regulations will come forward before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Stephen Doughty
I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The whole Bill seems to be about creating additional burdens, which will, quite frankly, make illusory a lot of the rights that trade unions and their members—ordinary workers up and down the country—enjoy at the moment and put those people at serious risk of not being able to execute those rights.
Let me turn to the amendments, which have been tabled to encourage debate. We will decide whether to press any to a Division when we have heard what the Minister says. Amendment 14 would require unions to state on the ballot paper
“the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates”,
but they would no longer be required to provide a detailed description of “every aspect of the dispute”—that very amorphous term that the Government are using.
Amendment 15 would require unions to provide a description of the trade dispute, rather than a
“reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue”.
In general, reducing and simplifying the information about the dispute that unions are required to provide on the voting paper would assist in the earlier settlement of disputes. As a result, workers would return to work faster. Disputes would be less likely to escalate, and there would be fewer legal challenges, reducing costs for employers and unions. That is an important point.
The Bill is muddying the waters around straightforward and transparent processes that already exist. Essentially, we are providing a very big space for the lawyers’ hands to come in and for a lot of cost to be expended on behalf of business, the public sector and trade union members. We should avoid legal proceedings wherever we can and encourage arbitration, negotiation and the reasonable settlement of disputes without recourse to the courts. All the proposals in the Bill will increase costs for all the parties involved.
Amendment 16, approaching things in a different way, would remove the requirement to describe the types of action short of a strike on the ballot paper. Amendment 17 would remove the requirement on trade unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action. Instead, trade unions would be required simply to state whether the proposed action is continuous or intermittent, which is perfectly reasonable. That would clearly set out whether it would be one long piece of industrial action or one with numerous parts to it.
Amendment 18 would remove the requirement on trade unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action. Instead, trade unions would be required to state when the industrial action was scheduled to start—in principle, that is reasonable—and when any discontinuous industrial action would come to an end. If we are going to start requiring unions to set out detailed explanations and timetables on how they will conduct the action and so on, action may be stirred up at earlier stages in disputes and people will be encouraged not to seek arbitration and reconciliation. Instead, conflict will be encouraged. Amendment 19, taking a slightly different approach, would completely remove the requirement on unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action.
The amendments are intended to tease out of the Minister how he sees this part of the legislation operating in practice and make him justify why it is necessary. Balloting is already a straightforward process. It is already clear what people are voting on and what types of action are being proposed. This part of the Bill simply seeks to muddy the waters and may result in a lot of expensive litigation.
Jo Stevens
I rise to speak in opposition to clause 4 and in support of amendments 14 to 19. From reading the clause, the Government appear to think that trade union members are not capable of understanding what they are voting on in a ballot on industrial action. That is a patronising attitude to working people, who do not lightly take industrial action; they consider carefully what they are voting for. They understand the issues. There is not one single shred of evidence of union members saying that they did not understand what they were voting on or why.
The Government propose changes to the law that will turn an industrial ballot paper from a succinct statement with a yes or no question to something resembling a legal disclaimer. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that the proposals are “counterproductive”. Employers’ lawyers have said that the proposals are vague and unworkable and that they will lead to legal challenges and expensive litigation. No one wants that—apart from the Government, it would appear.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, the purpose of the proposals appears to be to encourage court cases by employers. Witnesses to the Committee have said that they are not about information for union members, but ammunition for employers. Looking at the detail, the ballot paper must include
“a reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute”.
What does that mean? It has been criticised by lawyers across the spectrum for being so uncertain as to be meaningless. What is “reasonably detailed”? It is an oxymoron and it is contradictory. How will both sides of industry know whether something is detailed enough to be “reasonably” detailed or regarded as too detailed? Unions and employers will be in court every single time. What is “an indication”—a nod or a wink? This is not the language of statute, and I wonder whether it might come from the Prime Minister’s nudge unit. Anyone with any experience of industrial relations will know that the question of what is in issue in a dispute is often a matter of disagreement. This wording will further add to legal challenges.
The next requirement imposed by the Bill is to state
“the type or types of industrial action”.
What does that mean? We heard in evidence to the Committee that even Government lawyers themselves cannot explain it. The current definitions of “strike” and “action short of a strike” have been clarified by case law and amendments to statute over the years. They are now clear and well understood, so what are the “types” of action the Bill refers to? We are told that they include an overtime ban, for example, and work to rule, but those are not legal terms of art. Again, this will lead to expensive litigation and legal wrangling in the courts.
Finally, the union must state on the ballot paper
“the period or periods within which the industrial action or…each type of industrial action is expected to take place.”
Why should a union be required to state that information at the stage of the ballot, weeks before any action could lawfully take place, when they must in any event give notice of dates of action after the ballot is completed and before action takes place? The intention behind every single one of these provisions is to set legal traps for unions so that employers can run off to court and get injunctions to stop legitimate action.
Employers, however, do not want the provisions either. They fear the consequences. Employers’ lawyers have said they are concerned that unions will have to draw the descriptions on the ballot paper as widely as possible to give themselves legal protection. Unions will have to include every possible type of action they might take and set out every day on which they might take each type of action.
What is more, employers’ lawyers fear that to avoid legal challenges, unions will have to stick to every single detail spelled out in the ballot paper. They will not be able to resolve any issues in the dispute unless all issues are resolved, otherwise they will face legal challenge. They will have to take every type of action specified and on every single day specified, otherwise they will face legal challenge. How on earth is that supposed to reduce the number of disputes that take place? It will simply increase them.
Disputes will escalate. They will become more entrenched and more difficult to resolve, all because of these changes. That is why the CIPD says that the proposals are a “significant step back” that will “harden attitudes”. I invite the Minister to withdraw them, but if the Government persist with these counterproductive proposals that no one wants, they should be amended as we propose.
Nick Boles
I am pleased that the hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to set out in more detail what sort of information we expect unions to include on the voting paper. I fear this may take a little time, but I want to address all the amendments tabled and why we will resist them.
I will start with first principles. 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. It is clearly in the interests of union members, as well as employers and the wider public who are affected by strike action, that those being asked to vote for such action can make a fully informed decision about whether to back it.
I remain concerned that merely requiring a trade union to state the trade dispute without requiring any further detail, as suggested in amendment 14, would not meet the objective of enabling members to make a fully informed decision. It would only require a very broad statement. In reality, it will in most cases mean that members have no more information about the dispute than they have from wider communications. It does not provide enough clarity for union members to determine whether they choose to support industrial action. That cannot be right or democratic.
Jo Stevens
Perhaps I can help the Committee because, before I came to this House, I conducted industrial relations on behalf of the business of which I was an owner with a recognised trade union. I would certainly not have wanted detailed information about the disputes, very few of which took place over a 26-year period, to be publicly available online for anyone else to see. This raises not only issues of reputation and industrial relations between businesses but also issues of commercial sensitivity that would adversely affect businesses. I am sure that is not what the Government want.
Nick Boles
There the hon. Gentleman goes again with his blood-curdling language. I have been described as introducing “an executioner” of trade unions. The simple truth, as ever, is a lot duller: we are just trying to beef up the certification officer’s role so that it can be a modern regulator of trade unions.
The certification officer will have no greater and no more expansive powers than other regulators—indeed, rather less in some examples. We also want more transparency for everyone about industrial action undertaken by unions. Effective regulation and transparency help to improve confidence in how institutions are run, which can only be a good thing. It is slightly surprising to hear the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues argue against transparency, as if somehow the public interest is better protected by keeping things secret. That is a surprising position for the Opposition to take.
We will discuss the detail of the certification officer’s role later, and I do not want to anticipate that. This debate is about the information that trade unions are required to provide to the certification officer about industrial action. That is an important requirement, because the timely provision of good quality information is a key component of ensuring effective regulation. It gives more confidence to those affected by industrial disputes, which is of course why trade unions are already required to provide certain information every year to the certification officer. That is set out in section 32 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and annual returns submitted to the certification officer are already available for public inspection. I do not remember any proposal coming forward from the previous Labour Government to alter the fact of those annual returns or of that availability. If industrial action is taken during the period of the return as a result of a successful ballot called by a union, the clause requires that union to include certain information about the action in its annual return to the certification officer.
Jo Stevens
Can the Minister tell the Committee who exactly has asked for the provision? We are not aware of anyone, neither employer nor union, who has asked for it.
Nick Boles
I have news for the hon. Lady: the Government sometimes act because they have received a mandate—and a majority—at a general election on a clear proposal in their manifesto. That clear proposal was to reform the role of the certification officer. The Government have also, during the term of the coalition Government, had a longstanding commitment to transparency in the public interest and we are not ashamed to continue that in the clause.
The union will need to provide details about the nature of the dispute, the nature of the industrial action and when the action was taken, as specified by clause 4. One of the ways in which we seek to achieve a more effective role for the certification officer is by ensuring that he has full information about any industrial action proposed and taken by a union. We want to achieve that through increased transparency in the annual return to the officer. The clause also requires a union to provide the certification officer with details of the outcome of any ballot for industrial action, if the union has called a ballot during the period of the annual return. That requirement applies whether the ballot was successful or not.
Accurate information presented in a transparent manner about industrial action proposed and taken by a union helps to demonstrate to union members, and to the wider public, that unions are properly regulated and fully accountable for their actions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I regularly speak to many small businesses up and down my constituency. I have a very positive relationship with them, and I have a good degree of understanding of the challenges they face. As I have repeatedly said in this Committee, we want to avoid situations in which industrial action takes place. That is not under dispute in this debate or in our discussion about the whole Bill, but we believe the Government are going too far on the restrictions on reasonable rights.
Jo Stevens
Is it not the case that the litigation to which the hon. Member for South Ribble referred is actually brought by employers, not by employees or trade unions? It is employers who bring injunctions against industrial action.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend speaks with a great degree of legal experience and expertise from her previous career. That is indeed the case, and it is a very important point to make. I believe this is just a case of providing opportunities to undermine, rather than seeking resolution and negotiation in a consensual manner. It again provides the potential for protracted disputes, which means that amicable settlements will be more difficult to achieve. If the Government were serious about promoting positive industrial relations, dialogue, agreement, conciliation and arbitration, they would not simply be extending time, which is already extensive, on the basis that people will be shocked if there were a tube strike tomorrow. People know well in advance if such things are happening, and it is deeply patronising to suggest otherwise.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 8, page 4, line 14, leave out “four months” and insert “twelve months”
The amendment would extend the period before any new ballot would be required, and reduce the risk of incompatibility of the provisions with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – an issue addressed by the Government in its memorandum on the Bill.
As we have discussed, Opposition Members believe that many of the measures we have scrutinised risk making industrial relations worse, not better. Clause 8 is no exception to that rule. Existing legislation provides that so long as industrial action starts within four weeks of a successful ballot, the mandate for it remains intact for as long as the dispute with the employer exists. The changes brought about by clause 8, however, will mean that trade unions are no longer required to start industrial action within four weeks. Where industrial action, whether continuous or discontinuous, lasts for more than four months, the union will be required to reballot.
The clause will have two effects. First, it will create substantial legal and administrative costs for trade unions, which spend significant sums of money on ballots to ensure the very participation that the Government say they want to encourage. I do not see that the Government appreciate the impact this will have—perhaps I am suspicious that they do—on unions in terms of costings.
Secondly, where ballots meet the Government’s thresholds, the measures will actually intensify disputes, leading to more sustained industrial action at the outset as unions try to settle disputes without the need to reballot, given the financial implications. That is a real threat, and one that I do not believe the Government have given consideration to. Again, if their intent is to prevent industrial action and strikes, why are they introducing this sort of measure? This inevitably risks worsening employment relations and creating more disruption for the wider public, which none of us wants.
The additional risks posed by the clause to industrial relations, coupled with the fact that the number of days lost to industrial action are at a historic low—my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead pointed out that the days lost to industrial action today are barely one hundredth of those lost in the 1970s, with nearly two thirds of actions lasting only one day—mean that many are rightly wondering what the purpose of the clause is.
I gently suggest to the Committee that the Government’s focus for the proposals is some particular public sector disputes relating to the Government’s proposals on pay and pension changes. In those disputes, trade unions have often relied on one ballot mandate to organise a succession of strike days over 12 months or so, to limit the immediate impact in the short term but make clear their concerns over a period and encourage the Government to negotiate on the matter. However, under the Government’s proposals, after four months, unions will be required to reballot, even if employers refuse to engage in genuine negotiations and the dispute remains unresolved. I believe this has more to do with silencing the critics of Government who want to raise legitimate grievances about pay, pensions and conditions at work.
Jo Stevens
Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause is designed to allow employers to effectively sit out a dispute and refuse to negotiate in order to force a union to reballot, at considerable cost? For big public sector unions with hundreds of thousands of members, the costs are significant. In contrast, unions will feel forced to bring forward any planned strike days in an attempt to secure an earlier settlement.
Trade Union Bill (Fourth sitting)
Jo Stevens Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Kennedy
Q 371 So you accept it then.
Dr Roach: I am not going to challenge the logic of the argument you have put forward. The best way to minimise disruption to parents up and down the country is through sensible dialogue, genuine negotiation and a will to resolve industrial disputes before disruption becomes necessary. I would take you back to a point I made at the outset: by and large, our industrial action features action short of strike action, which does not disrupt the rights and ability of parents one jot. At the moment, we have in the Bill a blanket or universal provision affecting all forms of industrial action. That seems to us to be unnecessary and disproportionate.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Q 372 I have a question for Mr Skewes. Earlier this week, we heard from a Government witness from 2020 Health who seemed unaware that trade unions already have life and limb cover in hospitals when industrial action is taken. Do you believe that the Government’s wider proposals on the use of agency workers during strike action are required?
Jon Skewes: No, not at all. The last thing the English NHS in particular needs is more agency workers, the cost of which has gone up by a factor of 11 over the past two years. If there were proposals to bring in agency workers instead of, for example, midwives, first of all, someone attending a woman giving birth has to be, by law, a midwife or a doctor. We think it would undermine quality and safety. Frankly, in our last industrial action, we ensured that every women in this country had the service that would normally be available to them. Most of our members were not on strike—I would say that 90% of our members were providing that cover and 10% were on what were essentially protests. I think that that was hugely supported by the British public.
There are a number of other things. First, there are not that many of those people. If we look at the figures—I think this is in our written evidence—most agency workers are already working in the NHS at the moment. They are probably also our members, so the agency workers themselves would be on strike.
Secondly, I think it would have a really bad effect on team morale and the way in which safety is underpinned. Those people do not have the knowledge of trust safety protocols, quality protocols and so on. We resent the fact that, given the way we absolutely went out of our way with trusts and NHS England to underpin safety during that dispute, we would be faced with a dilemma in the future. Do we allow them to just replace our members with agency workers, which would be much more costly but we know would not be as safe? I do not think we would do that. It is a dilemma that we resent.
James Cartlidge
You get the point. There seems to be growing support for the proposal from some moderate voices.
Nick Boles: I think that is the first time that Len McCluskey has ever been described as a moderate—he might shoot you, Mr Cartlidge.
Jo Stevens
Q 433 I have a question and I would be very grateful for an answer in writing from the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Bill will give powers to extend the facilities time cap to the private sector. Which private sector businesses do you intend to apply that facilities time cap to? Bear in mind that we heard evidence from John Cridland on Tuesday that private sector employers have no strong views or attach any importance to that.
Julie Elliott
Q 434 My question is to Minister Hancock. We heard evidence this afternoon that check-off actually makes a profit for employers in the public sector and figures were quoted about the numbers of workers who were employed as a result of the profit the public sector makes out of that. Will he answer in writing why he thinks it is correct to put people out of work as a result of removing the check-off facility, the obvious consequence of removing funding from the public sector?
Matthew Hancock: I dispute the premise of the question, but I will answer in writing.
Trade Union Bill (Third sitting)
Jo Stevens Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Q 265 I have a question for both witnesses, if I may. You have both talked about the pressures on operational resources at the moment. Given the additional workload for the police that will come in if the Bill becomes law, would you rather have that, or not?
Deputy Chief Constable Hall: Well, I think what we would rather be able to do is concentrate on the priorities set down to us by chief constables and police and crime commissioners. There is potentially some additional work for recording the notifications that come through, but I do not think I would want to over-emphasise how significant that is likely to be. That will vary, depending on where you are in the country and those mechanisms. Where we would be concerned is if there is an expectation that at every picket line there is a higher level of police presence. If that is the case, that will impact on other priorities.
James Cartlidge
Q 297 This was while there was a fire?
Commissioner Dobson: No, this was during the strike. During the fires, we had some instances where the striking workers followed emergency crews to incidents, damaged fire engines en route and tried to intimidate the emergency workers, while they were trying to deal with an incident. In some cases, they were trying to deal with actual fires and they were being obstructed by striking workers.
Jo Stevens
Q 298 I have a question for Mr Dobson. You have talked a lot about examples of intimidation during the 2010 dispute, and you also said that you had a private meeting with Mr Carr. You will be aware that the impact assessment for this Bill drew on the Carr review to justify what is in the Bill. I am sure you are also aware that Mr Carr was unable to make any evidence-based proposals or recommendations for change because of the lack of a significant body of evidence to support any recommendations for change. In your meeting with him, did you give him the examples of intimidation that you have described?
Commissioner Dobson: I did, yes.
Jo Stevens
Q 299 And you did that in a personal capacity, not a professional one.
Commissioner Dobson: Yes.
Jo Stevens
Q 300 Was it because a majority in the Greater London Authority had decided that you should not give evidence to Mr Carr?
Commissioner Dobson: There was no decision about whether or not I should give evidence, because it was never presented to elected members in that way.
Jo Stevens
Q 301 At its meeting on 29 January this year, the GLA indicated that your evidence appeared in the Carr report in contravention of the wishes of a majority of assembly members. Do you deny that?
Commissioner Dobson: My giving evidence to the Carr review was never presented to the London Assembly for their view on it. The fact that I had spoken to Mr Carr was discussed when the Carr review was published, but it was not discussed beforehand.
Jo Stevens
Q 302 Are you aware that the Regulatory Policy Committee has described the impact assessment for the Bill as “not fit for purpose”?
Commissioner Dobson: Yes.
Jo Stevens
Q 303 Following on—a very brief question, if I may—in relation to the same dispute, can you tell the Committee what you believe led to the dispute happening in the first instance and what action you took to try to prevent it from occurring? I am aware that you attempted to de-escalate the dispute by docking the pay of 368 staff; that was later found unlawful by an employment tribunal. Can you tell us a little about that?
Commissioner Dobson: There was a dispute over the start and finish times of shifts. We sought to change the start and finish times of shifts in order to increase productivity. We negotiated fully with the Fire Brigades Union on that but were unable to reach an agreement, which led to a strike ballot and that led to strikes. During the industrial action that took place, via either action short of a strike or a strike, some members of staff took actions that were against their contracts and were not covered by the ballot, so some workers’ pay was deducted. The employment tribunal has found only in the cases of three staff at the moment; the remainder of cases are still subject to discussion with the Fire Brigades Union. Let us be absolutely clear—the Committee needs to be aware of this—that the employment tribunal has listened to the cases of only three workers, not the others.
Jo Stevens
Q 304 But it found against you: what you did was unlawful.
Commissioner Dobson: In those three instances, yes.
Jo Stevens
Q 321 Can I ask you a question about clause 10? Some people are arguing—wrongly, in my view—that clause 10 equalises the arrangements, mirroring the situation in Northern Ireland. Do you agree that the provisions in the Bill go well beyond the current practices in Northern Ireland, which require trade union members on one occasion to contract into paying into the political fund—I repeat, on one occasion—and they are not required to renew their opt-in?
Byron Taylor: Sorry, can you just repeat the last bit?
Jo Stevens
There is a suggestion that clause 10 mirrors the arrangements currently in place in Northern Ireland about opting in. The question I am asking is: do you agree that the provisions in this Bill go well beyond what is currently in operation in Northern Ireland? Trade union members there only have to opt in on one occasion.
Byron Taylor: Indeed. The Northern Ireland situation is a leftover from the 1920 provision that moved towards an opt-in. Given the unique historical and political circumstances of the Province of Ulster and Northern Ireland, I think there are particular reasons why that exists in the current format.
The Bill, as it is currently proposing to change the law here in the UK, is significant. When people join a trade union, they will have to opt in. If they are already members of a trade union and already paying the political levy, they will have to re-opt back in. We will find ourselves in a situation where people have to renew that every five years. I fail to see why that is required in a fund where you can opt in or opt out at any time, where you have the representative democracy of the union and where you have a 10-yearly political fund review ballot. It seems to be another over-extension. We are going to be in a situation where you can opt in or opt out when you first join the union, you can opt in or opt out at any time, you have to renew every five years, and you have to renew through a political fund ballot every 10 years.
What level of regulation is required on trade union political funds, because they clearly are the most highly regulated political funds in the western world? If you compare them to some of the transparency arrangements that apply to companies, I think they are overbearing. For example, there are unincorporated associations that donate to the Conservative party—one that springs to mind is the Carlton Club, which has donated £1 million to the Conservative party in the last five years—and there is no clarity over who those people are who are paying those moneys and raising those kinds of sums. That is just one example.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Q 322 From your comments earlier, it sounded to me—I do not want to put words in your mouth—as though you were basically saying that the opt-in system that has been proposed within the time period is effectively unworkable. I would be interested in your comments on that.
Byron Taylor: I think it would be very difficult for the trade union movement to conduct those kinds of operations in a three-month time scale.
Trade Union Bill (Second sitting)
Jo Stevens Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Q 109 Going back to devolution, on which I recognise you are avowedly not an expert, take it from me that health is a devolved issue. I think my colleague mentioned that. Do you view the Bill as being concerned more with employment and industrial relations than health? Obviously, you look at it from a health perspective, but in your mind, what is the Bill concerned with?
Julia Manning: The Bill from my perspective and the interest I have in it is how patient experience would be affected by the Bill and has been affected by strikes. When we already have a scenario of shortages in the workforce and treatment being curtailed and postponed for other reasons, it is another consideration for us that would mean that people are not seen when they expect or need to be. That is my interest in the Bill.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Q 110 Can I ask you about clauses 12 and 13? They propose to change the current arrangements for facility time, and facility time operates within the NHS. What do you know about the current arrangements and what do you consider their benefits?
Julia Manning: Of facility time? I do not know about that.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
Q 112 Concerning patients’ access to healthcare, as you mentioned, when there are strikes in other sectors outside healthcare, for example, in transport or schools, presumably that impacts a lot of people who are employed by the NHS or other healthcare operators. Do you have any thoughts on the disruption that strikes in those sectors have caused in healthcare and in the NHS, and do you think that this Bill will at all improve patients’ access to healthcare in those circumstances?
Julia Manning: That is an interesting question, particularly in the light of the recent strikes that we have experienced in London and on London transport, which we know have had a significant impact on the ability to run clinics in hospitals across the capital. That is the extent of our interest. Again, I take that back to the patient experience and either their managing to get there and then not being able to be seen, or their being told that they cannot be seen because of that action—the influence that has on someone who requires urgent treatment for sight loss or on someone who is isolated, has had a fall and then had their hip replacement postponed again.
Our interest is very much at that personal patient level, but the repercussions go beyond that individual’s experience, because of those around them and the other circumstances that have had to be arranged. Your point is very valid in terms of the influence of other industrial action on the ability of the health service to do its job and, quite practically, for staff to be able to be on site.
Jo Stevens
Q 137 I must apologise, Sir Alan. I did not say in my previous intervention that it was a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I have a question for Janet, if I may. You did some research, in May 2014 I think, about the dangers presented by overcrowding on the London underground. Many employees on the underground share those concerns. Do you think it is right that they should have the right to take industrial action to address their and passengers’ health and safety concerns?
Janet Cooke: As I said earlier, we have no view on whether staff should be able to strike. Yes the underground is overcrowded, but I think that London Underground closes the network—restricts access, as you will all have experienced at Victoria station—if they think that the platforms are getting dangerously overcrowded. It is a measure of whether you think it feels very overcrowded. It is certainly very uncomfortable, but I am not sure that London Underground would run the system if it felt there were an absolute health and safety risk.
Jo Stevens
Q 138 Would you accept that trade unions have a role to play in highlighting those sorts of issues, including health and safety?
Janet Cooke: Trade unions definitely have a role. They have a close working relationship with passengers. They work with passengers so they can certainly highlight things to management.
Jo Stevens
Q 139 Do you also accept, if I do not push you too far into areas into which you do not want to stray, that facility time in the workplace— trade unions having time to carry out trade union duties— helps in generating those issues and resolving things such as health and safety concerns about overcrowding?
Janet Cooke: I think that we would expect Transport for London to be a good employer and to allow, as a good employer should, the appropriate legal time for the trade union activity that is required. I do not think I can go any further, I am afraid.
John Howell
Q 140 Do you think that the balance is right in the Bill? Is it likely to have an adverse effect on industrial relations?
Janet Cooke: I do not think that I have a view on that and, I will be honest, I am not sufficiently familiar with exactly what you are proposing to be able to comment. Without doing proper research, I could not give a view.
David Sidebottom: I think the same. We do lots of research into how passengers are disrupted, with Network Rail, train operators and passengers. If there were more frequent strikes and disruption on the railway caused by industrial action, we would perhaps be prompted to spend time and do some research on the impact felt by passengers. Like Janet, I have not formed a particularly strong view based on any evidence that we have gathered.
One point that I picked up from doing some background reading was notification of strike action. For rail passengers, whether it is seven days or 14 days, the issue of getting the information is the key thing. It is not just social media and websites, it is posters at stations and that kind of thing. That is probably the best help I can give in terms of answering the question.
Victoria Prentis
Q 225 My question ties in quite well. It was held by the court that the agricultural wages case concerned agriculture. There is no way that this Bill could possibly be concerned with anything other than employment and industrial relations. It was argued that the agricultural wages case concerned wages but it clearly did not: the court held that it concerned agriculture. This is quite different, is it not?
Jo Stevens
Q 226 Have you had any discussions with your counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland about the measures in the Bill and their application?
Leighton Andrews: I start by saying that I am not in front of this Committee to divulge any conversations that have been held with our own legal advisers in respect of our position as a Government. We will reach our own conclusion as to whether this Bill from the UK Government requires a legislative consent motion. That is something we are currently considering.
In respect of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, I think we need to be clear about that Bill. It went beyond what was said by the questioner. What it confirmed in that case was that where an Assembly Bill fairly and realistically satisfies the test set out in section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and is not within an exception, it does not matter whether it might also be capable of being classified as relating to a subject that has not been devolved, such as employment rights and industrial relations. The Trade Union Bill very clearly relates to devolved public services—that is the three obvious ones: fire and rescue, health and, of course, education under 17, but potentially others as well. This clearly cuts across the devolution settlement, and we have very strong issues that we will be raising in that regard.
In respect of relations with Scotland and Northern Ireland, officials certainly have had contact with Scottish Government officials. The legal situation in Northern Ireland is slightly different from that in respect of Scotland and Wales, but I think that there is considerable unease among the devolved Administrations about this Bill.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your time, Minister. You are obviously a very busy man. We will now move on from you to the Scottish Minister.
Examination of Witnesses
Roseanna Cunningham and Grahame Smith gave evidence.
Trade Union Bill (First sitting)
Jo Stevens Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I am a member of the GMB and a former trade union official.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Prior to the election in May, I was a director and partner of Thompsons Solicitors LLP, which is giving evidence to the Committee. I am also the partner of the chief executive of Thompsons, who is giving evidence to the Committee. Clients of my former firm included the Royal College of Midwives, GMB, Unison and Unite, which are giving evidence to the Committee. Finally, I am a member of GMB and of Unison.
The Chair
If you want to add more you can always write to us. Do not feel constrained in that sense. We are anxious to hear the whole story.
John Hannett: Thank you, Chairman. The point I would make is that if you want thresholds and turnout to be the case, you must help as much as you can to get turnout—the access, the facilities and the objective of talking to employees before they participate. But the interesting thing is that if you look at the world of work —I mentioned seven-day, 24-hour sectors—reaching out to those people is very difficult. Our members expect us now to communicate in a way we did not some years ago when people would be released from work when branch meetings took place. Now we have to use the technology to do it. You will get the thresholds up, providing you give the opportunity for people to participate.
In conclusion, it is very difficult, today, even where we have legislation for unions to be recognised, to get access to employees. The private sector is only 15% organised, and that in itself creates a problem. I have no problem with thresholds, but it is the facilities and the access that is the issue.
Jo Stevens
Q 62 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Mr Rickhuss, I have a question about the related consultation on agency workers. Have you received any assurances from the Minister that insufficiently trained workers will not be used in safety-critical positions in your industry during industrial action?
Roy Rickhuss: Well, no, we have not but, in fairness, we have not had that discussion with the Minister at this stage. We have put our evidence to the Committee and we are here today. In terms of agency workers, that is a major concern for all of us. Across all our traditional industries, it seems such an easy thing to say, “We’ll bring in agency workers”, but it just cannot happen. People get killed in every industry and health and safety is paramount and so fundamentally important to all of us—to employers as well. I do not think employers would want this if you speak to them, because what employer is going to put people into a position where there is potential danger? It is not going to happen. These workers are not aliens from another planet; they live, breathe and work in our communities, they are part of our communities, they are people’s sons, daughters, family friends and relatives. It is, potentially, a very divisive clause in this Bill, to say that employers can bring in agency workers.
Briefly, the other impact, which I do not think has been thought through properly, is that we currently have really good agreements with employers—most employers—for the use of agency workers. They are brought in to supplement the workforce if there is a peak or a blip in an order book or a blip in terms of absenteeism. So we already have really good agreements with employers, where we co-operate fully with the use of agency workers to the point that our members—direct employees—will help to train and support those agency workers. My feeling on this, and this has not been said to me, so it is just a feeling at this stage, is that one of our direct members will now say, “Why are we co-operating with the use of agency workers if, if ever there was a dispute—which none of us wants—these agency workers can now be used against us to do our roles?”. My feeling is that some of those good agreements will be ripped up. We will have to give the required notice, but they will be ripped up and binned. Our members will say, “Why are we training agency workers to potentially do our jobs in the event of a dispute?”. I think that this is a really counterproductive measure.
The Chair
I know that our next question will be very brief and to the point and our trade union team will give just one quick answer.
Trade Union Bill
Jo Stevens Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he is deeply concerned about fraud, which is in no way in the interests of fair strikes and the trade union movement.
Robert Jenrick
Let me continue. Far from diminishing the voice of trade unions, as I said in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), achieving the thresholds would increase the legitimacy of trade unions with management and shareholders and in the eyes of the general public. As we politicians know only too well, a strong mandate increases our legitimacy and the power and authority of our actions, and we have heard a lot over the past few days from the trade unions and their leaders about the value of a strong mandate.
As a result of this Bill, there may well be fewer strikes on less substantive matters that are not viewed by the unions’ own members as sufficiently serious to justify putting their employer and thus their job in jeopardy or that seriously inconvenience customers and the general public. Those that do go ahead will have a greater mandate and higher legitimacy, and consequently will need to be taken much more seriously by everybody involved in the negotiation.
Andrew Bridgen
My right hon. Friend has made that point and it is worthy of consideration. I am sure that he will bring his knowledge of the subject to our discussions of the Bill as we proceed.
That incident was linked to a Labour party candidate selection row and was perpetrated by union officials. That serves only to highlight how intimidation tactics have recently been employed by a limited number of trade union activists, and those tactics have no place in this country, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) agrees.
Andrew Bridgen
I have already given way, and I am afraid I will not do so again on this occasion—I would love to, but I cannot.
That leads me neatly on to the political levy. I see no reason, other than self-interest, why there should be any objections to the notion of opting in to pay towards a political fund. Many people join trade unions to protect their rights, not to prop up the finances of the Labour party. We have evidence from Northern Ireland—it came out earlier in the debate—that, having been asked to choose, only 39% were in favour of paying this political levy. This clause should also be of particular interest to SNP Members, given that many of their supporters in Scotland are no doubt paying the political levy to finance support for the Labour party. Clause 10 will make the act of political donation one of free will, and I see no reason other than self-interest why it should not be supported.
I turn next to clause 12 and the issue of facility time. I believe that in an increasingly transparent world, with the publication by public bodies of items of expenditure over £500, it is only right that trade union activity, effectively subsidised by the taxpayers, is subject to the same scrutiny, particularly at a time of reduced budgets. I know that the vast majority of hard-working taxpayers in my constituency would be outraged if they knew their taxes were being used to support aggressive political campaigns.
I welcome the enhancement of the role of the certification officer, and it is again a common-sense reform for officers to be able to act on information or concerns they have received from a third party. In addition, I welcome the fact that they have specific investigatory powers to regulate trade unions in order to make this legislation workable.
In conclusion, I have been lobbied at great length regarding this Bill, but on close analysis I believe it to be both proportionate and necessary. Trade union members have the right to be protected from being exploited not only by their employer, but by their union bosses who seek to use them to further their own political aims. Given the make-up of the Labour leadership team, this Bill is vital to protect the rights of all working people who seek to go to work, to raise their family and to contribute to this country, free of politically motivated strikes, unnecessary disruption and threats from union officials to topple a democratically elected Government enacting the mandate given to them by the British people as recently as this May. I am therefore happy to endorse the Bill as another step forward to greater economic prosperity for this country.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that I am a member of the GMB and Unison.
This Bill is illegal, illiberal and illiterate: illegal because it contravenes international standards; illiberal because it takes a hatchet to civil liberties; and illiterate because it is badly drafted and will leave the law in a mess, creating uncertainty and cost not only for trade unions, but for employers. The reason it is so badly drafted is that it is a crudely partisan measure that the Conservative party is seeking to rush through for purely political ends.
Why are we debating the Bill today? Is there any urgency for these provisions, or any demand resulting from the parliamentary timetable? No, there is not. We all know why we are here today. We are here today because the Government deliberately timetabled the Bill’s Second Reading to coincide with the first full day of the Trades Union Congress, when those MPs who are proud trade unionists, as I am, would have been in Brighton talking with working people about the issues that really matter, such as low pay, zero-hours contracts, inequality and insecurity at work. Instead, we are here to discuss this shabby, shameful Bill. That shows the Government’s contempt not only for trade unions, but for democracy.
The Bill was published on 16 July. Consultations were scheduled to take place over the summer recess and closed only five days ago. This debate was scheduled for today even though the Bill is incomplete and the Government have accepted that it will require many amendments. The clearest example of that is on the deduction of union subscriptions. On 6 August the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General announced the Government’s intention
“to abolish the practice of checkoff across all public sector organisations”.
He announced that those changes would be in the Bill, so where are they? Where are the proposals and the draft clauses? They are nowhere to be seen. There is neither a timetable for publication of those clauses, nor a commitment to any period of consultation. The Bill is a disgraceful attack on the right of employers and unions to freely negotiate arrangements that best secure constructive industrial relations.
Before being elected to this House, I was a director of a significant private sector employer, responsible for industrial relations with around 1,000 members of staff. We recognised a trade union to represent our staff, to collectively bargain on their behalf, to represent their interests and to ensure that we could discuss with them any changes necessary for the continued success of the business in the best interests of staff. To do that, we had check-off and facility time in place. As we have heard from many Members today, deductions from payroll are a common way for employers to help employees with regular payments. Many Members make payments to charity through our payroll and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It is good enough for them, but it seems that it will not be good enough for trade union members. Check-off arrangements worked for us as an employer and for our staff, and it was freely agreed. Many employers in both the private and public sectors feel the same.
I will finish with a point about devolution and the inadequacies of the Bill. The Bill deals with public services that are devolved to Wales, including the way public sector bodies work with trade unions to ensure effective delivery of services to the public, including my constituents in Cardiff Central. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to heed the warning from my Labour colleague, the First Minister of Wales, that there are necessary and critically important changes that must be made to the Bill. But I would go further. It is an unnecessary, dangerous and flawed Bill.
Jo Stevens
I will not give way.
I urge the Government to listen not only to me and to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but to the business community, civil liberties organisations, respected academics, trade unions and, most importantly, the public—
Equal Pay and the Gender Pay Gap
Jo Stevens Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicky Morgan
I respect the hon. Lady’s experience as a magistrate. The fees were introduced during the last Parliament to reduce a £71 million burden on the taxpayer, but, as she may know, on 11 June the Government announced the start of a post-implementation review. We will consider how successful the policy has been in achieving its original objectives, which include the maintaining of access to justice. Of course, those whose claims are successful can recover the fees.
The important question that we shall discuss today, however, is how we can prevent the need for employees to go to tribunals. There should be no discrimination in the first place, in the context of both equal pay for equal work and closing the gender pay gap. I think that the hon. Lady should wait and see how our review progresses.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentions a review, but is it not already clear from the 68% drop in the number of claims that the fees are not working?
Nicky Morgan
One reason for the introduction of fees was to ensure that people did not have to go through the tribunal process, which, as I suspect we all know from our constituents, is costly, time-consuming and stressful. There are other ways of resolving disputes such as mediation. I do not think it right for us to prejudge what the review will find, and I am not sure that this is the right debate in which to focus on the economic situation with which the Government have had to deal, but the £71 million of taxpayers’ money that we have saved will go towards paying off the deficit and debt that was left to us.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Before I speak to the motion, I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) on his impressive first speech. He mentioned a skilful, determined force and superior tactics. I am sure he will be skilful and determined, but I hope that his party will not have too many superior tactics.
I speak today on behalf of the women in my constituency, who earn just 81p for every pound my male constituents earn. It is 45 years since the pioneering Equal Pay Act 1970 and women in Cardiff Central are still paid less than their male counterparts simply because of their gender. I have listened to the debate and I have to say that I do not accept the Secretary of State’s assertion that the wording of the motion conflates equal pay and the gender pay gap. It is the lack of pay equality that leads directly to the gender pay gap itself.
Tackling unequal pay should be at the top of the Government’s agenda, but looking at their record with the Liberal Democrats over the past five years I do not hold out much hope. Pay discrimination is still an everyday experience for women in Cardiff Central and across the UK. Employers who discriminate against women by paying them less know they can do so without condemnation, let alone any concrete action. Those employers’ actions are unlawful, not illegal, but opportunities for remedying this are, as we have heard today many times, being reduced.
We know that despite the progressive intentions of those who pioneered equal pay legislation 45 years ago, the law has not achieved what it intended. With many colleagues from the Labour Benches past and present, I have championed the campaign for equal pay. During my law degree in the mid 1980s, I wrote a thesis on the equal pay legislation, analysing how, and in my view why, it had not succeeded at that time in delivering pay equality for women. After graduating, I practised as a solicitor in a UK-wide law firm that has represented tens of thousands of working women who have suffered pay discrimination. As a director of that law firm, I led equal pay auditing and pay transparency reporting. I can say that it is an easy thing to do. It beggars belief that only 300 companies have chosen to do the same.
Despite progressive intentions in the late 1960s, the law still does not deliver pay equality for women. The previous Labour Government delivered the Equality Act 2010, providing an opportunity for those on the Government Benches to implement pay transparency. However, the Conservative party has never prioritised pay transparency, never mind pay equality. The coalition Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming earlier this year, by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), to agree to implement a pay transparency requirement for employers with more than 250 employees. At the same time, however, the Conservatives, along with their Liberal Democrat colleagues, ensured it was made even more difficult for women to fight equal pay claims by introducing prohibitive employment tribunal fees. As with much else that the Conservative party does—public spending cuts, welfare cuts, pension reform—it is always women who seem to bear the brunt. The figures on employment tribunal claims speak for themselves, with a 68% drop in claims being brought since fees were introduced.
For those women who can afford to bring tribunal claims and for those women who are trade union members and are lucky enough to have the backing of their trade unions, equal pay cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) so eloquently explained, take far too long to litigate because of the evidential burden. Cases take years rather than months, and they require a woman to prove that her job is of equal value to that of a male comparator. Even job evaluation experts, however, cannot and very often do not agree on that requirement, and the result is no change for women and no change in pay inequality. That is why we need the Government to support this motion. We urgently need reform of equal pay legislation, and we must have employment tribunal fees abolished.
It is clear that pay discrimination is institutionalised across the UK. The Government need to listen and to act, because even in circumstances where equal pay is achieved, it does not deal with the underlying issue of unfair pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield has said, the headline figure published by the Office for National Statistics is the full-time pay gap rather than the pay gap for full and part-time workers together. So, for example, in Wales, men hold nearly two thirds of all available full-time jobs and women hold 80% of the part-time jobs. Those part-time jobs are not only lower paid, but tend to be jobs that are under-valued compared to others. I am sure that Members across the House will agree that specific action to tackle institutionalised pay discrimination in this country is long overdue. By supporting this motion, the Government could demonstrate their commitment to action—rather than simply words.