Oral Answers to Questions
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
1. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of availability of broadband to businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of availability of broadband to businesses in the north-east.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
I recently announced a joint review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of business broadband to ensure that businesses are able to access the affordable, high-speed broadband that they need and deserve. More than 250,000 homes and businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber, and more than 100,000 in the north-east, have superfast broadband available for the first time thanks to the Government’s investment programme.
Sajid Javid
No, I do not. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that superfast broadband coverage throughout the UK has increased from 45% of the country in 2010 to almost 90% now, and that we are fully on target to reach 95% by 2017. It is important that we keep looking at new ways to extend coverage through fixed wireless and mobile, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Julie Elliott
A senior adviser at the Institute of Directors has said that they expect the Government to meet the universal service obligation, but that is only because the bar is set so low. How are the Government going to provide the physical infrastructure to maintain Britain’s position at the forefront of digital innovation in business? Will the Secretary of State also answer the question about the lack of provision for SMEs, which he did not address?
Anna Soubry
I am sorry that it seems the hon. Lady did not hear my answer; I remind her that productivity is now 1.7% higher than it was in 2008 and we saw its largest annual increase since 2011 only last year. I do not know where she is getting her information from—I have my suspicions—but unfortunately she is wrong. This Government are absolutely committed to improving productivity, and we have already heard, by way of example, the Minister for Skills talking about the work we are doing to ensure that we have the right skills—that is an essential part of an effective productivity plan.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
Ministers and officials across government continue to work around the clock to support Britain’s steel industry—I have updated the House on progress several times and will continue to do so, whenever appropriate; our two major pieces of legislation, the Enterprise Bill and the Trade Union Bill, are moving closer to the statute book; and we are on the verge of naming the National Environment Research Council’s new polar research vessel. The final decision on that will be made by the Minister for Universities and Science—Joey McJoface, as we like to call him.
Julie Elliott
In The Sunday Times this week it was reported that meetings are taking place in France to look at how people could take advantage of getting business from the UK in the event of a Brexit vote. Does the Secretary of State agree that remaining in the EU is vital for British trade, particularly in the automotive and aerospace industries, and for the health of the British economy as a whole?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady on that. She mentioned the automotive and aerospace industries, two of our strongest manufacturing sectors in the UK, which rely heavily on a supply chain that is international—much of it is in Europe. Equally, she could mention our services industries, which account for 80% of our GDP.
Trade Union Bill
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Did not the evidence that was given to the Committee say that the Bill would not solve London’s problem because in most of the disputes that have taken place in recent years, particularly in rail, the action would have gone ahead in any case?
Chris Stephens
The reason it would have gone ahead in any case is that the thresholds the Government are trying to introduce would have been met.
Julie Elliott
If the genuine motivation behind the Bill was to get turnout as high as possible, would not the Government put forward every possible means to allow members of trade unions to vote in ballots, including workplace balloting and e-balloting? In fact, they are doing the opposite.
Kevin Brennan
Precisely, and I shall develop that a little further in a few moments. Under our proposals, electronic or workplace ballots would be overseen by an independent scrutineer, and before the ballots are run, that scrutineer would confirm that the proposed method met the required standard, that all members entitled to vote had the opportunity to do so and that votes were cast in secret with the risk of any unfairness or malpractice minimised. That is the same standard as set out in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. None of that, however, matters to Ministers.
Julie Elliott
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as he said in Committee, the provisions in this Bill fly in the face of every other bit of legislation that this Government have brought forward, whether it be using online means to apply for benefits, filling in tax forms or anything else? It is entirely at odds with everything else this Government are doing.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right, and for some reason, that does not seem to matter to Ministers—
Oral Answers to Questions
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Soubry
Of course, we offer people information. The British Business Bank puts together the various funds that are available to small businesses. One reason why I am in favour of the great devolution deals is that they take that sort of activity right down to the local level. The coming together of local authorities, businesses and local enterprise partnerships enables us to get this sort of information out. The Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce also have a huge role to play, because they do excellent work, often at a local level.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
15. What recent discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary on the effect on businesses of the UK’s membership of the EU.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
I work closely with the Foreign Secretary, particularly through the exports taskforce, which I chair, to deliver growth for British business. UK businesses send 45% of their exports to the EU and benefit from the single market. The reforms that we are pursuing are good for the EU, good for the UK and good for British business.
Julie Elliott
Some 160,000 jobs in the north-east rely on trade with the EU. We are the only region in the country consistently to deliver a trade surplus. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents, many of whom are understandably concerned about what an isolated Britain on the fringes of Europe might mean for their jobs and livelihoods? Will he vote to stay in the EU and stand up for British jobs?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady has some excellent manufacturers and other companies in her constituency, including Nissan, which recently announced a huge investment. What business wants in respect of the EU is more certainty and reform, so it welcomes the reforms that we are fighting for, and the certainty that the referendum will bring.
Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens
That is an excellent point. Trade unions will be denied money on that basis, as in the very example given by the hon. Gentleman. Another concern is that what we are seeing here is a situation where a voluntary agreement between a public sector body and a trade union is effectively to be banned by the state.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the consequences—unintended, I am sure—of removing check-off will be that if there is, for instance, an industrial action ballot of a public sector workforce of many tens of thousands, with people working all over the place, it will be even more difficult for people to agree on what the bargaining unit is in that case. If people pay by direct debit—as many trade union members already do—then when they change their place of work, if they are still working for the same employer, their place of work will not necessarily notify their trade union.
Chris Stephens
That is right, and it is an excellent point. There is also the other example of someone who works for a large employer who may have two different jobs for that employer—perhaps part time in two departments. Again, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point.
If the state is banning voluntary collective agreements, I must ask the Minister at what the point the Conservative party went from being laissez-faire to Stalinist. This goes against what I consider to be the principles the Conservative Party was founded on. The arguments advanced are also irrelevant because, if income tax can be deducted at source, then why not trade union subscriptions?
The measure will also leave the public sector at risk of legal challenge. The International Labour Organisation is looking at other countries that have tried the same thing, such as Congo. In 2010 the ILO committee of experts reported
“since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee once again notes with regret that the Government has still not specified whether the abandonment of the check-off system in 1991 had the effect of barring trade unions from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee once again reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and their transfer to the unions is not a matter that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining”.
The ILO committee of experts is now making observations on Croatia as well. It noted that
“in general, a legal provision which allows one party to modify unilaterally the content of signed collective agreements is contrary to the principles of collective bargaining”.
Its continues:
“The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the aforementioned Act and underlines the importance of ensuring that any future Act on the Realization of the State Budget does not enable the Government to modify the substance of collective agreements in force in the public service for financial reasons.”
Those are very serious matters. The Government are leaving themselves open to risk on that basis.
Once again, the principles of consent are relevant. Some public bodies, as the shadow Minister has said, receive income from trade unions to administer check-off, and the general secretary of Unison, Dave Prentis, made it clear in his evidence that Unison pays for the facility when it is asked to. The public sector does not support the principle of banning check-off. The consent of the devolved Administrations, local authorities and other public bodies should be required, but we believe that the real intention is to make derecognition easier in the workplace. The new clause strikes at the heart of trade union organisation and is insidious.
I do not think that the Minister has yet demonstrated that he understands the principles of consent or devolution. He has made the extraordinary claim that the Government are complying with the Smith agreement, but I think that the only people who think so are the Government; no independent analysis shows that. I think that it is the right of all public bodies to institute their own arrangements for industrial relations, check-off and facility time. We appeal to the Minister once again to try to understand the principles behind those things, and I hope he will accept the amendment.
Nick Boles
I have clearly stirred a hornets’ nest. I am spoiled for choice. I will start with the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, because we have not heard from her today.
Julie Elliott
I have made a couple of interventions. Can the Minister advise from what return the figure of 22% was derived? My understanding is that it is not based on 100%, so it is not an entirely complete figure.
Trade Union Bill (Eighth sitting)
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 35, in clause 10, page 5, line 43, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 5 on page 6 and insert “it has been renewed”.
The amendment would define an opt-in notice as expired if on its expiry date it had not been renewed.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Good afternoon, Sir Edward. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see the speed at which you got here today to be on time.
I wish to speak in support of amendments 34 and 35, which were tabled in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. This Government and the previous Government, which the Conservative party was part of, have made great play of their desire to get rid of red tape, but the Bill is full of red tape and this clause makes it extremely difficult for trade union members to contribute to political funds.
In all the evidence we heard last week on political funds, no one said that they were a problem or that there were any problems associated with them. Further than that, the thrust of the Bill and these clauses is all about the links to funding the Labour party. That is important from my point of view, but we must not forget that political funds are used for other campaigning measures. Two of the most prominent campaigns that I was involved in during my time working for a trade union were the campaign to stop needle injuries for clothing and textile workers and the campaign to promote recognition of the subtle signs of domestic violence taking place and causing people to lose days at work. Political funds are used for a much broader range of things than just helping to fund the Labour party, although obviously that is an area that I am very concerned about.
The clause is politically motivated. To limit the ability of a political party to raise funds legitimately through its affiliated trade unions is nothing less than scandalous. It goes against 100 years of common practice, where any changes in this area have historically been agreed between parties through cross-party talks. If this is what the Government want to do, then instead of just taking a sledgehammer to what has been common practice all these years, they should call for cross-party talks and have a serious discussion about some of the issues in these clauses.
As it stands, the opt-in works. Because it works, no one is calling for change—except the Government. There is no problem with the opt-in. When I administered part of a political fund in my previous life before entering Parliament, no one raised a problem with it. If people wanted to opt out after they had opted in, that simply was not a problem. They contacted us, and we opted them out. I have to say that very few people choose to opt out, and that is bearing in mind that members of trade unions are not just Labour party supporters—they vote Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP, and some even vote Conservative.
That said, let us look at the detail of the clause and the amendments. I firmly believe that the Government’s proposals are not workable; the thrust of the amendments is to make them workable. Our amendments are clear and straightforward and would extend the time limits to a more realistic timeframe. Almost 6 million people are members of trade unions in this country. It is absolutely ludicrous to think that unions could physically sign up, by paper, nearly 6 million people in three months. I do not know what resources the Government think trade unions have, but that is not a workable option. It is impossible. By default, the Government would not be giving the opportunity for trade union members to sign up, because it would be impossible for trade unions to make their full membership aware within the timescale set out in the Bill.
There are obviously issues around using electronic means to sign people up—we will come on to that in our consideration of later amendments, when I will go into more detail—but it would have a significant impact on the Bill if we were allowed to use e-means to sign people up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth outlined, the Bill goes way beyond the Companies Act 2006. That Act covers political donations from companies, which the Conservative party gets most of its funding from. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friends would bring the Bill into line with existing legislation, in particular in relation to the 10-year ballot to decide if a trade union holds a political fund or not. Let us remember that trade unions do not have to hold political funds, although I think they all do.
The existing legislation, which has been there for many years, is very workable. It is a well trodden path, and there are no problems with it. The way to make the opt-in measures practicable is to have sensible time limits and link them to existing legislation. Even the Minister has said, with regard to the code of conduct, that these things work well. Let us simplify the Bill and bring it together with the existing legislation. The bureaucratic nature of the Bill at the moment means that it simply will not work in practice. Removing the time limits would make it a workable piece of legislation, although I would still disagree with it.
Legislation covering the operation of political funds should be fair and reasonable, to be in line with all international agreements covering the rights of trade unions, freedom of association and a union’s ability to engage in political debates. This is key: we must allow unions the freedom to engage in political debates. As it stands, the Bill will not do that, so I urge the Government to support our amendments. If they want their Bill to be workable, bringing in sensible time limits is the only sensible way forward.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. The clause represents nothing less than a cynical attempt by the Government to restrict the political rights of millions of working people in this country. The Government claim that trade union members will retain the right to opt in to political campaigns if they so wish, but in reality they know that this will effectively end trade unions’ ability to represent their members’ political aspirations.
Let us be clear from the outset: trade union political funds are not and never have been solely about donations to the Labour party. Indeed, a significant proportion of the TUC’s member unions—unions such as the Fire Brigades Union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the National Union of Teachers, the Public and Commercial Services Union, NASUWT and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers—are not affiliated with and have no connection to the Labour party. There are, however, many millions of members across such unions.
Trade unions represent those members’ interests in the workplace. They negotiate wages, health and safety, conditions of service and various terms of employment. However, workers’ interests do not end in the workplace. They have family lives and interests outside of work. Workers care about the quality of their children’s education. They care about housing conditions, the quality of our health service, our public services and many other aspects of everyday life that cannot be negotiated with an employer. Trade union political funds exist for that very reason: to campaign on those topics and areas of interest.
John Howell
Not at the moment. If we look at Barclays bank, for example, we see that the level of tolerance of this is phenomenal. It is frightening to see that; in fact, it makes one wish to change one’s account straightaway.
In answer to the question asked some time ago by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth about other organisations that use these methods, I fully accept, as I said at the beginning, that electronic balloting—electronic voting—is gaining wider and wider significance and acceptability. However, the organisations using these methods are approaching that in a systematic way. All I wanted to say at this point was that tremendous caution needs to be exercised. I shall finish again with the opinion of Mr Killock that
“internet voting is a bad idea.”
Dr Cameron
That is another well-made point. The report by Electoral Reform Services indicates that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting and that there are risks associated with both. Essentially, there will be a level of risk in any balloting process.
In conclusion, we are in a modern age and we want to engage people from all aspects of society. We must give people choice that is in line with their everyday lives. Yes, there has to be an element of caution, but that has to be evidence-based, not based on opinion. We have good evidence that electronic voting is already working in many spheres of our lives. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Julie Elliott
I will try to be brief. Amendment 39 addresses electronic communications in regard to political funds. Electronic communication is essential in order to hit the Bill’s deadlines. As I have said before, there are almost 6 million trade union members in this country, and to communicate effectively with that number of people, and to get them to participate in a ballot, purely through the post is unrealistic.
The Bill says “either personally” and several other things. I am not sure whether the Government understand the way in which trade union branches are organised. Small workplace branches at the end of the street or in a place of work are few and far between. I have been a member of various branches in my several decades as a member of three different trade unions. At certain times I have been a member of a workplace branch, a branch particular to Sunderland, as I am at the moment, and, for many years of my career, a national branch based in London. Are the Government suggesting that travelling to the other end of the country is a reasonable thing to expect someone to do?
In evidence last week the Government showed a misunderstanding of who trade unions represent. Quite a number of trade union members are retired, because people do not stop being a trade union member when they retire. By virtue of being a retired member of society, such people are on a very limited income. In fact, many members that trade unions represent are on very small incomes. Do we really expect those people to be left seriously out of pocket when fulfilling their legitimate right to take part in a ballot to decide whether they want a political fund?
Moving on, electronic communication is absolutely common working practice in 2015. In every other arena, this Government want people to communicate electronically. I sat in a Committee Room for many weeks during the proceedings of the Welfare Reform Bill of 2012, in which the then Government introduced online applications for universal credit and discussed them for many other benefits. The Government therefore think electronically is a reasonable way to communicate sensitive personal information, the secure transmission of which leads to people getting the money that they need to live on, but they do not deem electronic communication acceptable for the communication of whether someone wants to contribute to a political fund. A debate was held just yesterday about registering to vote, which involves incredibly sensitive information such as national insurance numbers and dates of birth, but the Government view the electronic transmission of such information as acceptable.
We have also talked about the acceptance of online banking in this country. The hon. Member for Henley did not take my intervention, but regarding the 48% increase in banking fraud, I wonder what figure that is a percentage of. I think the hon. Gentleman was a tax adviser in his former life, and most tax returns—what more sensitive information is there than a tax return?—are done online. It is unbelievable to say that electronic communication is not widely accepted, is insecure and does not transmit information that is far more sensitive than a trade union member’s indication of whether they want their union to have a political fund.
Moving on to e-balloting, ballots and getting them right are absolutely key. As has been said previously in Committee, the balloting process is crucial. Everyone wants the result as quickly as possible, and an accurate result is essential for all sides to feel that procedures have been adhered to properly. In the evidence sessions, Opposition Members explored the fact that internal political ballots take place all the time, including for the Conservative mayoral candidacy in London. I also have much experience in secure workplace balloting, which is commonplace for recognition voting under right to recognition legislation. It is up to trade unions, their members and employers to decide in which format they want a ballot to take place, which varies enormously depending on whether the workplace is nine-to-five with people sitting at computers all day or a shift-pattern, industrial workplace. The range of balloting arrangements is enormous, but certification officers are always happy with such arrangements, and there are few challenges.
Secure workplace balloting is less disruptive and is over much more quickly than the methods proposed in the Bill. Let us not forget that trade union members could be taking part in a ballot that could affect their income. Many trade union members are low-paid workers, so the decision to lose a day’s pay is a significant decision that they would not take lightly. From the employer’s side, the quicker that it gets a result and thus a conclusion to what will have been by that point protracted negotiations will be to the benefit of all. I really cannot see why the Government are so opposed to e-balloting or secure workplace balloting.
Surely the aim of any part of the Bill is to get the maximum participation possible. That is what it should encourage, in line with the compliance measures for thresholds earlier in the Bill. On the one hand, the Bill seems to say, “We absolutely want almost everybody to take part in the ballot,” but on the other hand, it says, “We want to do everything to discourage and dissuade people from taking part by putting every possible obstacle in place.” This morning, the Minister acknowledged indirectly that electronic communication in other parts of the Bill is acceptable. I struggle to understand the Government’s opposition to our amendment and new clauses.
Julie Elliott
I have two brief points to make, because I know we are short of time. I want to speak in support of our amendments. The proposals in the clause are over-bureaucratic and, quite frankly, over-intrusive into the workings of trade unions.
The money raised in political funds is the most regulated money in politics anywhere in the world. It is transparent. If anyone looks at trade unions’ returns, they will see where the money has come from and where it is spent. To get to the level of declaring exactly what under £2,000 is spent on is absolutely ridiculous. Trade unions make other declarations and people make declarations about where trade union money is spent, and that links into the political funds. It is not just the political funds that have to make declarations; the Electoral Commission also gets spending declarations from trade unions.
A candidate who gets support from a trade union over a certain amount of money has to declare that to the commission. Election returns to returning officers throughout the country will also clearly state when trade unions have spent money on specific campaigns. What the clause asks for is already in the public domain, so I think it is nothing but politically motivated.
Ian Mearns
As my hon. Friend stated, information on all the funds that go directly from trade unions to political parties for campaigning is already open and transparent. What this clause does is put a fetter on trade unions’ other political spending for campaigns that will be imposed on no other part of civil society. I do not understand what is special about trade unions as membership organisations as opposed to organisations such as the women’s institute or the Mothers’ Union. It is an odd situation where a trade union has to be fettered to the extent that it has to release detail about every single campaign that it is involved in.
Julie Elliott
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I have said, there is no reason for this clause other than political motivation. If the Conservative party in government wants to look at how political parties are funded, I urge it to use the system of all-party talks that has worked for decades.
Nick Boles
I will try to reassure Opposition Members on a few points. They seem to be suggesting that this is somehow an egregious singling out of trade unions to require a level of transparency that does not apply to anyone else.
First, let me assure the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that employers associations will be covered by the provisions in clause 11. Even more importantly, companies are already required to declare the details of spending on political activity above £2,000 per annum and have been for a long time. To require the same of trade unions therefore does not seem unfair or unreasonable.
There is currently inconsistency in the level of detail provided in union returns on political expenditure. Some unions are transparent and provide detailed information in their annual returns to the certification officer. We want the example of those unions that provide clear information to be followed by all. That is why we propose that where political expenditure is more than £2,000 per annum, expenditure should be broken down to detail the different items of spending. An equivalent provision applies to companies.
Trade Union Bill (Seventh sitting)
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Would the Minister expect that information to be given to the police in writing, or by electronic means?
Nick Boles
That is a very good question. I imagine that the picket supervisor could communicate with the police in whatever form they wanted. I promise to check that point.
Amendment 104 further removes from the clause the requirement for the union to issue the picket supervisor with a letter of authorisation. It also removes the requirement to show that to a constable or any other person who reasonably asks for it. As I have already mentioned, the letter of authorisation relates to the picket so that it is clear that the picket is lawful. The removal of the letter of authorisation would create uncertainty about whether the picket has been authorised by the union. It would also make it more difficult for the union to show that it has complied with the requirement to appoint a supervisor.
The other substance of the amendment proposes to insert new requirements for the constable in relation to any entitlement to see the letter of authorisation. It sets out that the constable would need to provide their personal details, to which police station they are attached, the reasons to see the letter of authorisation and a written record whether the request had been complied with.
Our intention in clause 9 is that this letter authorises the picket, not the picket supervisor. Therefore, it does not need to contain the name and personal details of the picket supervisor. I would like to reflect again on whether that is articulated as clearly as it could be in the Bill.
The police will already have been informed of the name and contact of the picket supervisor so that they are able to respond quickly should a problem occur. All uniformed police officers carry a warrant card as proof of identification and authority. Those generally include a photograph of the holder as well as the holder’s name, rank, warrant number and a holographic emblem to mark authenticity. A requirement for a written record would appear an additional and unnecessary burden when considering this in relation to a letter of authorisation for a picket.
I am aware that the entitlement to see the letter of authorisation by any person who reasonably requests it has caused some concern. I am grateful for the insights provided by hon. Members and will reflect on those further. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Glasgow South West to withdraw the amendment.
Trade Union Bill (Fifth sitting)
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I draw the Committee’s attention again to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a part-owner and director of a trade union law firm prior to election in May, and I am a member of the GMB and Unison trade unions. Unusually, I would like to start by agreeing with those in the party opposite sitting on the Front Bench. In responding to concerns about participation levels and thresholds in the election of police and crime commissioners, the Home Secretary said:
“I never set a turnout threshold for any election, and I’m not going to do it now”.
She continued:
“For the first time ever they”—
police and crime commissioners—
“will have a democratic mandate for the people for the work that they’re doing”.
That is probably just as well, because the Home Secretary’s mandate for police and crime commissioners was an average turnout of just 14.7%. While the Home Secretary would not place a threshold on the election of those who run our police forces, we are here today looking at the very same issue for trade union members deciding whether to take industrial action as a last resort. The thresholds proposed in the Bill are arbitrary, as we have heard. They are out of kilter with international standards in law, and they simply do not make sense.
Let us take the ballot held by the Royal College of Midwives last year on whether to undertake industrial action. It was the first such ballot in the college’s 134-year history, and it was won with a very clear margin: 82% of those voting were in favour of industrial action, and 8% were against. Despite that vast margin of support, because the turnout was 49% of eligible members, that proposed industrial action could not legally have taken place had the Bill received Royal Assent at the time. It could not have taken place because every vote not cast would have been counted as a vote against industrial action. Yet, had a few more thousand midwives voted against the action, it could legitimately have taken place. Abstentions here would perversely have more power to influence potential industrial action than the vote of a member who was opposed to it. That is a real, practical example of how ill thought out this legislation is, and how it will adversely impact on industrial relations.
I suggest to the Minister that not only does this clause make no sense, it also raises real legal concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth referred to these in his opening address. The ILO states that only votes cast should be taken into account in a ballot. It has already indicated that it would accept a complaint in relation to dual ballot thresholds. Several of the written evidence submissions to the Committee highlight our position in respect of the ILO, but one statement from the Freedom of Association Committee stands out. It said:
“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.”
There is also potential for challenge in the European Court, because under the clauses we are considering today, the minority can undermine a ballot by not voting rather than by participating. I thought this was what the Bill was all about. It gives disproportionate rights to abstentions.
The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled in the Demir case that:
“it does not follow that the government can deliberately impose a restriction on fundamental union activities and so make the position of the parties so unequal that there is no incentive to engage”.
The Bill does the exact opposite of incentivising participation, while at the same time taking no measures to remove barriers to engagement. If participation and legitimacy are the real aims of the Bill, then I urge the Minister to abandon clause 2 and accept our amendments.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Like my colleagues, I refer to the declarations I made at the start of proceedings last week. I want to talk in practical terms about my experience of what was referred to in some of the evidence, but I will start by saying that I totally support the comments made by my hon. Friends today. The overarching thrust of the Bill is that it will make thresholds almost impossible to meet. The premise of the Bill is based on a total lack of understanding of how the real world of industrial relations works in this country today.
In the real world, industrial action is always an absolute last resort. Last week in the evidence session, some of the leaders of the largest trade unions stated that industrial action is not what trade unions are about and not what they aim for. At the end of the day, their members lose money by taking industrial action. They often represent some of the lowest-paid people in society and that is always at the forefront for any trade union leader or official when negotiating.
No one takes industrial action lightly. Trade union officials are trained today in order to avert industrial action at all costs. However, it is a legal right and is there as a last resort. That needs to be borne in mind in everything we are discussing today. The thresholds proposed in the Bill of 50% and 40% are extreme in their nature. Modern ways of working were outlined very articulately last week by the general secretary of Unison, Mr Dave Prentis, when he talked about partnership working. The big trade unions today work very closely with the employers of their members, whether in the public or private sector. Obviously, one of the thresholds applies to all, the second applies to the public sector of a yet undefined group of people.
Partnership working is about building up relationships and getting to know people and to understand the way they work and what the real issues and nubs of the problems are. Some of the later measures in the Bill will have an impact on that working. Removing some of the facility time from people will not lead to better relationships or better partnership working. The opposite will happen and there will be a lack of trust and understanding of people and where they come from.
Some of the later proposals on check-off are probably even more significant. A ballot is the most intensive thing that any trade union and any employer prepares for, which is why the vast majority of employers in this country are not comfortable with the Bill. Drawing up the list of eligible people in the bargaining group is the most difficult thing that anyone on either side has to do. Check-off facilitates and helps with that process, because it means that the employer knows exactly where a person works within the organisation, but that is not known if someone pays by direct debit. There is also, potentially, a data protection issue, because if someone pays their trade union membership by direct debit, that information is confidential and known only by the union member and the trade union, not the employer. Therefore, in an industrial action ballot, the crucial checks and balances for getting the lists correct will not be there. Everyone wants the lists to be correct, because if they are not, the matter will end up in court.
Tom Blenkinsop
Apart from the fact that in certain sectors management would want to pay their trade union membership by direct debit, perhaps to keep it private and away from managerial colleagues, any employee with fewer than two years in post might not want to let their employer be aware of their trade union membership—depending on the relationship between the union or workforce and the employer—because of the employer’s history of behaviour towards unions. That would lead to problems for individuals seeking to exercise their right to be a union member. Furthermore, if someone had information about trade union members on direct debit, the potential for litigation in court over small anomalies being bounced back and forth between the employer and the trade union would be vast, and create even more expense for the employer and the union.
Julie Elliott
I could not agree more. None of us ever wants to reach the point where an industrial action ballot has to take place, but if we do, the time spent on the accuracy of the lists, under the new conditions, will be an enormous task. If it is a national public sector dispute, there will be at least hundreds of thousands of people to deal with. It is not just 50 or 60 people, or a handful in either direction. We are talking about huge numbers, and if it is a national dispute, they will be working all over the country and in displaced workplaces.
Chris Stephens
Does the hon. Lady believe, as I do, that part of the point of an implementing threshold is to stop national, or UK-wide, industrial action, by design, for many of the reasons she has mentioned?
Julie Elliott
That might well be the motivation behind some of it. As I said in my opening remarks, the measure makes it almost impossible for certain types of dispute to take place.
If the trade union side has to spend so much extra time not only on getting the lists correct, but on making the turnout so high, that is time the officials are not spending on talking to the employer and trying to avert strike action, which has to be the motive of everyone involved in an industrial dispute. The only way to resolve a dispute, whether an industrial dispute or any other disagreement in life, is by talking to people. If there is no time to sit down and talk constructively, the problem escalates. That is common sense.
So much time will be spent on the accuracy of the lists, with all the problems that the later clauses of the Bill throw up, and then on getting the enormous turnout. The 50% threshold is a difficult one in itself, but adding on the 40% threshold is incredible, if not completely unrealistic, except in a specific workplace with everyone working for one employer, as the rail disputes in recent history have shown. In the broader public sector there is genuine doubt as to whether the 40% threshold is achievable. The evidence from Stephen Cavalier, from Thompsons Solicitors, is that it will probably lead to more industrial action. Professor Ewing says in paragraph 10 of his written evidence:
“The ILO Committee of Experts pointed out that ‘account should only be taken of the votes cast’, while any ‘required quorum and majority should be fixed at a reasonable level’.”
I defy anybody to say that some of the measures in the Bill around thresholds are reasonable.
Where will the Bill take us if it comes into law as it is written today? My view is that it will make positive industrial relations much more difficult. Because of that, it will inevitably lead to more strikes, which I do not believe is what any Member, on either side of the House, wants. It will most likely lead to the Government ending up in court, with a massive cost to the taxpayer. Nobody wants us to end up in that situation, so I urge the Government to look again at the two thresholds.
Julie Elliott
Absolutely, and that is a fundamental point. If the motivation behind the Bill is to try to limit industrial action, its net effect will be to make things worse.
Ian Mearns
Building on my hon. Friend’s experience, industrial action is usually taken by members of trade unions when extreme frustration at a lack of progress in negotiations is being experienced. Therefore, given the levels of frustration that exist in these situations, would the imposition of thresholds enacted by this legislation make wildcat action more likely?
Julie Elliott
That is highly possible: if people do not have an avenue to resolve their dispute with their employer—in an organised workplace with trade unions, that is usually through their trade union discussing the issue with the employer—that would be an inevitable consequence. None of us wants to see that kind of action. In the past 10 years or so, legislation in this area has led to very good industrial relations. I remember very personally and vividly, as the daughter of a miner living through the 1970s, how industrial relations used to be in this country. None of us wants to end up in that situation again. It was a dreadful time to live through. What we want is constructive, good relationships where industrial action ballots are an absolute last resort. The changes that the Bill proposes will make that impossible.
Tom Blenkinsop
There is also a potential business cost. If we do not have collective bargaining, where one individual, on behalf of the company, talks to one individual, on behalf of the workforce, that will necessitate individual consultation. Depending on the size of the workplace, that could take a very long time and cost a lot of money.
Julie Elliott
I totally agree, and these are issues we will explore later when we talk about practical implications of facility time. In conclusion, I urge the Government to look again at the thresholds and what I believe will be their impact—probably unforeseen by the Government—namely more industrial action and more disharmony in the workplace, and the potential legal consequences, with the Government having to spend a lot of taxpayers’ money defending challenges in the courts.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I declare my membership of Glasgow City Unison and the fact that I was a Unison activist for 20 years prior to my election. Indeed, when I submitted my new application to join the branch again, it had created a House of Commons sub-branch, so that is a good tale to have.
I oppose the threshold for three main reasons. The first is the impact on equality issues, particularly gender equality. The Government have not addressed the difficulties of women workers being able to prosecute and to try to get an industrial dispute on such issues as shift changes, where they would be impacted far more than male workers. Amnesty, Liberty and other organisations made clear their concerns on those issues during the evidence sessions. The second reason is the issue of people not voting. I find it incredible that the deceased will be described as being people who are against industrial action. There are many reasons for people not voting, and that principle is wrong.
The third reason concerns the practicalities of what happens during a ballot process and afterwards leading to a dispute. The key test of whether there is a mandate for industrial action is how many trade union members participate in the industrial dispute. The trade union has arguments and has to make a calculation after a ballot result about whether that is support for industrial action. Where there has been a low turnout, some trade unions have not gone forward to industrial action because they did not believe that they had that support. That is the true test of whether there is support, and on that basis trade unions make a gamble as to whether they should go forward.
With low turnouts, the notion has been presented that trade union activists and officials, after the ballot result has been announced and they have been unable to persuade members to take industrial action, develop mystical powers to persuade trade union members to participate in industrial action. It is almost as if trade union officials adopt Jedi-like powers, where all they have to do is make one wave of a Jedi hand and say, “This is the industrial action you’re looking for.” Frankly, that is a fanciful notion, and on that basis we are opposed to the principles of thresholds.
Nick Boles
I will not give way.
I am absolutely going to assert that millions of parents had to take a really difficult decision that had a great impact. Either one of them had to take a day off work, which they did not expect and so could not give their employer much notice, or they had to spend a great deal of money on emergency childcare, or they had to inconvenience another member of their family to provide childcare cover. So do not come to me—I know you would not, Sir Edward; I say this to the shadow Minister—bandying about your very low figures for the number of days lost directly to industrial action when 1 million parents in that strike that closed 20% of the nation’s schools had either to take a day off work or spend a great deal of money that they would rather not have spent on emergency childcare.
Nick Boles
I want to move on to the amendments. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember that the strike I was talking about, which happened last year, was supported by 22% of NUT members. I am sure it was very important for those 22%, but it was not particularly important—not sufficient for them to fill out a ballot paper and put it in the post—for the other 78%, so let us get this in perspective. It was clearly of rather more importance to the millions of parents who were affected than it was to the 78% who had the right to vote but did not.
I will now turn to the amendments unless hon. Members want to intervene.
Julie Elliott
I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to ask one simple question. Does the Minister regard children going to school as childcare?
Nick Boles
I am glad to say that it is a great deal more than that, but when a school is closed because of a strike supported by 22% of union members then, unfortunately, childcare is what parents have to be able to deliver.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a very clear point about the problem the Bill seeks to solve. We have heard that again and again. I am pleased that the Minister said he will ask the ONS to look at the issue of indirect impact. It will be helpful for the House to have that information. I suspect it will confirm many of the views that have been expressed by Opposition Members and many of the witnesses. It is disappointing that some witnesses, including the CBI and others, made grand statements about the need for the Bill without being able to justify it. Even without ONS statistics, there are other ways of making the case clearer, but they have been unable to do it.
Julie Elliott
On whether bits of the Bill are legal and whether they will end up in the courts, the evidence presented last week by legal experts Stephen Cavalier and Professor Keith Ewing confirmed that the measure would end up in the courts. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Stephen Doughty
I certainly do. I am not a lawyer and I do not have experience of testing such things in the courts, but a significant amount of legal opinion suggests that the Bill is potentially in breach of a series of international conventions, let alone the devolution settlement and existing domestic legislation, and it questions whether many aspects of the Bill are enforceable in the courts.
Going back to the necessity of the measures in the Bill, the Minister has said that he accepts that there are historically low levels of industrial action in this country, and yet the Government have repeatedly extrapolated a sledgehammer from a limited number of examples. We can debate at length the rights or wrongs of any individual strike or industrial action, but we are making legislation for the whole country, all forms of industrial action and all trade union members. The legislation will affect every single trade union member in this country and every single dispute. It simply cannot be right to extrapolate and make general points on the basis of a few examples that the Government have used to back up their case.
Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting)
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
We have already touched on aspects of clause 3, but there is a more substantive debate to be had on it. As Committee members will know, the clause seeks to introduce a requirement that in “important public services”, 40% of those entitled to vote must vote in favour of industrial action, and that there must be a 50% turnout. In certain important public services, that will mean that if 50% of members participate in the ballot, 80% of those voting must vote in favour in order for a strike to take place. For example, if 500 members are balloted, at least 250 members must vote in the ballot and 200 must vote yes for industrial action to go ahead.
As I have said, if the Government were serious about increasing participation, whether in important public services or anywhere else, they would be taking the measures that we are proposing. I certainly believe, and I am sure my fellow Opposition Members would agree, that the Government’s real agenda is to prevent public sector workers in particular, on whom the legislation will have a significantly greater impact, from raising legitimate grievances and opposing changes to their pay, pensions and rights at work planned in this Parliament. One might even suspect that the Government had such plans in their agenda for the months ahead.
While politics are clearly at the heart of the Bill and this clause in particular, the Government have other legal obstacles to manoeuvre. As I outlined in the debate on the last clause, many legal experts believe that treating abstentions as “no” votes for industrial action is undemocratic and potentially illegal, and conflicts with international standards. International supervisory bodies such as the International Labour Organisation state that only votes cast should be taken into account.
The next hurdle for the Government will be of particular interest to noble Friends and Members in the other place when they read the debates we have had on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Conservative manifesto in the 2015 general election referred to making provisions regarding only “essential public services”. That was also the specific term used in Her Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, delivered on 27 May 2015:
“My Government will bring forward legislation to reform trade unions and to protect essential public services against strikes.”
In a previous life, I was involved in drafting a line in Her Majesty’s speech. Obviously, it was subject to Her Majesty’s approval, and I am glad she delivered it. A great degree of rigour and attention is paid to the specific wording, so that Her Majesty feels confident with it and it reflects the Government’s intent very clearly. That is an important point.
“Essential” is the word used in International Labour Organisation conventions, and it has a very narrow legal definition. To quote an ILO general survey, the definition is restricted to services
“the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.
Transport services, public transport, public education, port authorities, postal services and others all fall outside that category. Given that, I very much suspect—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us when he gets to his feet—that the Government realised that the legislation was poorly drafted and that using those words would leave it vulnerable to serious legal challenge, so they sought to row back, instead changing the wording to “important” public services, as we now see in the Bill. Disturbingly, those public services are to be defined by the Secretary of State in as yet unseen secondary legislation.
A number of categories of services are referred to in the clause using very broad terms, such as “health services”. There is
“education of those aged 17 and under”,
which we discussed in the devolution debate; I do not want to go over old ground, but that causes particular issues for differing education systems across the UK. “Fire services” are referred to, as are “transport services”—in a very general sense, and we have already heard how those are excluded from the ILO definition. There is
“the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel”,
and “border security”.
Those provisions, alongside the consultation document, are so wide that they could apply to nearly every area of publicly funded activity. One might think that the Government have taken their chance not only to ensure that they can potentially avoid legal challenges—although I think this could still be subject to one—but to draw the definition as wide as possible so that everybody would be forced into the 40% threshold. What assessment has the Minister made of whether it is predicted that the other place will still feel bound by the Salisbury convention, given that the clause clearly breaches a Conservative manifesto commitment, let alone the specific text that was in the Gracious Speech?
What assessment has the Minister made of the effect that the proposals will have on women? We have discussed that at length already, but TUC research suggests that nearly three quarters—73%—of trade union members working in important public services, as defined by the Government, are women. I imagine that Committee members will vote on the proposals shortly; does the Minister think it is appropriate that they do not yet know for certain to whom they will apply? We have to take our responsibilities as legislators in this place very seriously. We do not know what this secondary legislation is, but the Government are again saying, “Trust us, trust us. We’ll be all right. We’re going to put this stuff down and you’ll be fine with it.” That is not acceptable. The Bill has been scheduled for some time; the Government have had plenty of time to introduce the regulations and they have not. What we know for certain, as I said, is that the proposals will impact on public policy areas that are wholly devolved, and that will have the implications we have discussed.
At this stage, it is also important to challenge one particular myth that is being peddled by those in favour of the Bill. It is a particular favourite of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) who, on Second Reading, suggested that unions are required to meet a 75% threshold in Germany. For the record, that is not accurate. Some German trade unions have adopted rules requiring 75% support for industrial action among members, but those are decisions taken by the union within its own democratic structures, not imposed by the state.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many trade unions in this country also have internal procedures whereby they will ask for a higher threshold on certain ballots for strike action in order to make sure that the result is overwhelming, and well beyond what is legally required?
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.
Julie Elliott
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Alan. I want to speak in support of the amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends concerning the differences between “essential” and “important” public services. I totally agree with the comments from my hon. Friend, who has outlined the problems very clearly.
As written, these clauses unworkable in practice. Everything I have said so far in this Committee has been about the practicalities of the Bill and that is really where I want to start today, but before doing that, I want to talk about the definition of essential public services. It is a well established, well trodden path: everybody understands what it is. The Conservative manifesto and Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech both talked about essential public services. During our consideration of the previous group of amendments, the Minister said, “Of course, we respect the mandate of the commitments made in manifestos.” If that is what he believes, this flies in the face of it and is an absolute contradiction, so I would like to hear his comments on that matter.
The TUC is a representative body of 52 trade unions, most of which are not affiliated to a political party, representing almost 6 million people—the TUC expresses the views of a substantial body of people. On pages 2 and 3 of its written evidence, the TUC mentions that the Employment Lawyers Association
“has warned the government against introducing thresholds to services not covered by the ILO definition of ‘essential services’.”
The ELA clearly recognises that there will be problems with the definition. Page 3 of the evidence states:
“The TUC is concerned that the Bill does not define ‘important public services’. Instead the government plans to specify which workers will be covered by 40 per cent threshold in regulations. MPs will therefore have limited opportunity to scrutinise and amend new legislation which restricts the democratic rights of millions of UK workers.”
In oral evidence, Dave Prentis, the general secretary of the largest public sector union, Unison, talked about life and limb cover; but in their oral evidence some of the people who support the Bill did not seem to understand either what life and limb cover is or that it even exists. Dave Prentis’s evidence is highly pertinent. Once again, I feel that the Government are heading blindly into legal action. Recklessly changing the definition will cause major problems and ultimately could restrict, by the back door, the right of workers in the private sector to take what I regard as legitimate strike or industrial action.
The public sector has changed out of all recognition over the past 20 years. It now has substantial organisations, whether in local government, the national health service or other areas. There is a melange of different constructs, whether they are outsourced by contracts, let by bidding, that contain clauses with which some of this legislation might clash, or whether they are in arm’s length management organisations. Will people in cleaning services, for example, be deemed as essential or important, or will they be deemed as not important? Different cleaning services in a hospital might be treated differently. Someone who cleans a reception area might be treated differently from someone who cleans operating theatres. All of those things will come into the mix at every stage of every different industrial dispute. The cost implications have not been thought through.
It would be much safer, and would practically avoid the risk of litigation, if we stuck to the term “essential public services.” The Conservative Government have a mandate for that from their manifesto commitment and from Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. The term is well defined, unlike the alternative in the Bill, which will be incredibly difficult for MPs to scrutinise and will restrict the right of many people to take industrial action. Almost inevitably, the result will be litigation, which will cost taxpayers money. Every time the Government go to court when they have not thought proposals through—we saw many instances in the previous Parliament, particularly in the energy sector, where the Government lost cases—the cost of that litigation returns to the taxpayers, who fund Government court cases. I urge the Government to consider these proposals carefully. Although we disagree with the Bill’s substance, these amendments would at least make the clause workable. Also, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on his party’s manifesto.
Nick Boles
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The amendments strike at the very heart of the Government’s objective in introducing a 40% threshold for strikes in important public services. I remind the Committee why we are introducing this measure. Nowhere is the impact of strike action more severe than when it takes place in important public services. The reason for that, and it is a thread that runs through all of the sectors listed as important public services, is that broadly—I accept it is not the case in every single detail—each of those services, as public services, operates as a monopoly in the lives of those who rely on it as users. That is not to say that, in time, people cannot put their children into a different school, secure an appointment with a consultant in a hospital trust outside the area in which they live, or find other ways to make the journey that they do every single morning and evening to and from work. It does mean, however, that when strikes happen, it is impossible for the vast majority of the British public who rely on those services to secure that alternative provision within public services. It goes without saying that the Border Force is itself a public monopoly—quite rightly so—and although nuclear decommissioning may involve contractors, thankfully we do not have competing nuclear commissioning regimes.
Where people and businesses rely on the services every day and where they have no choice of an alternative service provider, we believe that those services represent the important service sectors where the additional requirement of the 40% threshold is justified. That threshold ensures that strikes affecting services in those sectors can go ahead only when a reasonable level of support has been secured by the trade union. We are not banning strikes; the legislation is about making sure that enough members support the proposed action before it can go ahead.
The six sectors set out in the Bill as being subject to the 40% threshold have been chosen precisely because they are those where strike action has the potential to have the most far-reaching consequences for a significant number of people. Opposition Members discussed the difference between important services versus essential services. They are right that the ILO defines “essential services” and that that is an accepted definition, but it does so for the purposes of making it clear that it is therefore allowable to prohibit the right to strike in those services. The right to strike can be entirely prohibited in the sectors that the ILO has deemed to be essential, which include some but not all of the same sectors that we have listed—for example, firefighting services, the hospital sector, air traffic control, public or private prison services, electricity services, water supply services and telephone services.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead makes a very good point. Also, as I said, the amendments encourage some clarity from the Government on the issue of timetables. I think the Minister said that—surely, they have in mind a plan. Actually, most trade unions operating in a dispute are trying to find a resolution from the start: industrial action is a last resort. We have to say that again and again. I imagine that in many circumstances there is no plan—they are hoping that management or Government, whoever it might be, will come forward with a reasonable solution through means other than industrial action to solve a dispute.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole premise of the Government’s argument about this part of the Bill comes from a belief that the unions are very top-down, imposing what is going wrong in the workplace, or what workers have a problem with? Whereas actually, the reality of industrial disputes is that problems arise from the bottom, from something that union members are not happy with, which the union officials are trying to sort out and resolve. If that fails, it is the union members that pressure for industrial action, often as a result of consultative balloting in the first place.
Stephen Doughty
That is exactly the point. Indeed, as with many other parts of the Bill, it looks like it has been drafted by people who simply do not understand how trade unions operate in a modern industrial setting. It is based on assertions, ideas and myths that have been created, often by the Minister’s colleagues. I remember the Minister for the Cabinet Office using some very colourful language in this area. It does not reflect actual practice and I hope, given that the Minister is trying to set out the case for this, that he will explain whether the Department has received widespread, conclusive evidence of ignorance, with people writing in saying, “We don’t understand what’s going on, the Government must legislate”. Where is the demand for this legislation, other than in the theoretical towers of Victoria Street?
With that, I seek the Committee’s view on amendment 14 and the wording of disputes on a ballot paper. Also, in the spirit of wanting to encourage the Government to foster negotiation and allow the maximum time to achieve resolution of disputes, I wish to press amendment 19, which would remove the requirement for timetables altogether, to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Trade Union Bill (Fourth sitting)
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I am sure that you can write to us on that subject, Ms O’Grady. It would be helpful.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q 402 Paul and Len, we took verbal evidence this morning from David Palmer-Jones, the chief executive of SITA UK. He made what I regard as very serious allegations about officers from GMB, Unite and UCATT. Obviously, the latter are not present, so I cannot put the allegations to them. He was talking about intimidation at what he said was picketing, but, upon further questioning, turned out to be demonstrations in Teesside relating to issues with SITA. He said that officials of your unions tacitly approved of the tactics deployed—that is, intimidation—and were actively supporting them. I wanted to give you the opportunity to share your thoughts on that.
Sir Paul Kenny: I do not know what he said to you, but if he wants to write to me, I am happy to look into those concerns. I can tell you that Teesside is a bit of a flashpoint because it involves a company that is importing labour and paying them below the market rate, denying jobs to local people. That is always a difficult situation and there are protests about that. They come from a wide variety of people, including us. I checked yesterday what the situation was—I try to stay in touch with what I think are difficult areas—and I was told that there had been absolutely no arrests and that relations with the police were okay, because I ask those questions. I was told that if ever there is an issue, the inspector talks to whoever the group are, exactly as I described earlier, and if there are any concerns, they are relayed and then dealt with by the people on the ground.
I realise that that has been said to you and I appreciate the fact that you have put it to me. I have absolutely no knowledge of it. I would love to see some substantive evidence of it, and if there was some, we would deal with it. My latest check—presumably, the police can confirm this—is that there has not been any evidence. If there was any sort of behaviour like this, I expect the police would step in. They are there when they are needed, but relationships are pretty good, as I understand it. The dispute has been on for a while now, and to my knowledge not a single person has been charged with any sort of behaviour like this at all.
Forgive me if I am a bit sceptical of people coming along and saying, “At the bottom of the garden there’s lots of fairies.” There may be, but I have not seen them. I would like to see them before I start to legislate against them.
Len McCluskey: Like Paul, I try to keep abreast of sensitive issues, and this is a really sensitive one. It cuts to the very cohesion I was talking about in our society, because people are being brought in—migrant workers—and being asked to work at way below the national rates negotiated with employers. The company itself has a lot to answer for.
I checked recently on the newsreels, and, talking about this dispute, a spokesman for the police said that
“officers then spoke with members of the group and facilitated a peaceful protest while working to minimise disruption to residents and businesses in the area.”
That sums up the way we would expect to conduct our business.
The Chair
Thank you. That brings us to the end of the evidence session. We are grateful for your attendance. You are obviously very busy people, representing an awful lot of people, so we are grateful that you did not send anyone else but came yourself.
Sir Paul Kenny: I beg your pardon, but if I could make one last point, this is it. We spent about three years of parliamentary time discussing whether we were going to charge for plastic bags; we have spent weeks talking about these major changes. None of us knows the implications of many of the questions you have asked. It seems that carrier bags are more important than the future of industrial relations and rights of workers in this country.
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)
Julie Elliott Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Argar
Q 289 I have a quick follow-up for the commissioner, and answer this as you wish. Did you have any reason to believe, or any evidence, notwithstanding that there were no arrests, that those who were either officials in or members of the FBU were those taking the photographs and carrying out that action?
Commissioner Dobson: I have no evidence to suggest that, I am afraid.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q 290 I have a couple of very quick follow-ups to what you were saying, Mr Palmer-Jones. On the incidents you have been talking about in relation to Teesside, can you confirm that that is not industrial action?
David Palmer-Jones: It is not industrial action.
Julie Elliott
Q 291 Therefore, can you confirm that the Bill does not apply to those instances, because they are not pickets?
David Palmer-Jones: The worry, looking at paragraph 37 —again, I am not a lawyer—is that it is the unions that are really supporting the action. Therefore, they are—
Julie Elliott
Q 292 They are not pickets if it is not industrial action.
David Palmer-Jones: They are not pickets; they are protesters.
Julie Elliott
Q 293 Thank you. Can I clarify one other thing you said? You said that officials of trade unions were tacitly approving the tactics deployed. Can you tell me which trade unions were doing that? We have the general secretaries of the big trade unions involved in your company here later today giving evidence, and we would like to put that to them.
David Palmer-Jones: The ones that I met, together with Merseyside—the customer—were Unite, GMB and UCATT.
James Cartlidge
Q 294 Commissioner Dobson, in your earlier remarks you said that nothing in the Bill will worsen relationships in your view, but there are safeguards in it that will be of benefit. Do you welcome the threshold for action, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill?
Commissioner Dobson: I do welcome it, but it is important for the Committee to recognise that I cannot think of an industrial dispute with the Fire Brigades Union in recent years where that threshold would not have been met, so I do not think it would have had any practical impact on previous disputes.
Julie Elliott
Q 333 I have referred to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the GMB and the Labour party, but, in the interests of complete clarity, I was also an officer of the TULO organisation in the northern region for many years before becoming a Member of Parliament.
Byron, can I take us back to the practical impact of this proposed legislation on trade unions and, indeed, the Labour party? Logistically, can you outline how you think this proposed legislation will impact on trade unions, in terms of getting repeated sign-up and collections of moneys, and particularly on the smaller trade unions, which often have very few members of staff? Can you outline what you think the implications of the Bill will be for those people?
Byron Taylor: The implications of the Bill are significant. It is going to impose a great burden of bureaucracy and red tape on the trade union movement. As I have alluded to, trade unions are primarily industrial organisations and focus the majority of their work on industrial activity and dealing with industrial complaints. As for the idea that trade unions will have to divert massive resources—and it will be massive resources—to try to conduct the operations in the way that the Bill envisages, in writing, that is going to be a substantial drain on trade union resources and activities. That will impact heavily and introduce inefficiencies into wider industry, because trade unions are the bodies that are there to negotiate and to ensure that the industry works properly. To introduce this will divert union resources substantially.
If you look at the smaller affiliates of the Labour party or of any small trade union that is now forced to operate in this fashion, they will find themselves caught up in an endless cycle of bureaucracy, seeking people to opt into the political fund, renewing the opt-in and then conducting the political fund ballot. Looking back at the Better Regulation Task Force in 2002, it ruled that trade unions were already over-regulated in the field of political fund activity.
Julie Elliott
Q 334 May I just follow that up with one quick, straightforward question? In the legislation that trade unions operate under, in particular employment law legislation, “reasonableness” is applied everywhere. Would you regard this proposed legislation as reasonable?
Byron Taylor: Would I regard it as reasonable? I come back to the point made by Mr Stephens, and my question would be, is it proportionate, is it reasonable? No, it is not. If there is really some concern about how political funds are being operated in the UK—although there is no evidence to show that there is any concern—is it a proportionate response to ask 4.9 million people to re-opt back into the political fund of their trade union? The answer is no, this is not a proportionate or reasonable response. On that basis, it is clearly a partisan attack on Her Majesty’s Opposition, designed to reduce funding and participation. I fail to see how the Bill increases participation at any level, both in the industrial elements, which I do not intend to speak about, and in the political elements—this Bill seems determined to drive down participation. Where are the means of communication that allow trade unions to talk to their members electronically or via telephone? What we are doing is enforcing a 19th-century form of communication on a 21st-century industry, which is bad for business and bad for the trade union movement.