Draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Richard Burgon

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully. I said that there was no need for a statutory code of practice for employers, but there will be guidance. We are debating the statutory code of practice for this legislation.

During the final stages of the parliamentary passage of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, the Government committed to introduce a statutory code of practice to provide more detail on the reasonable steps that a trade union should take. In accordance with section 204 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Secretary of State consulted ACAS and, on 25 August, published a draft code of practice, enabling trade unions, employers and other interested parties to contribute their views.

Following careful consideration of those views, a number of changes were made to the draft code, and the updated draft code of practice was laid before Parliament on 13 November. It sets out four reasonable steps that a trade union should take to meet the legal requirements under section 234E of the 1992 Act. Although the code does not impose legal obligations, it is admissible in evidence and is taken into account where a court or tribunal considers it relevant.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

When we strip it down, is this not really about trying to set up a whole series of complicated and uncertain hurdles so that employers or the Government can say that strike action has taken place illegally or unlawfully, and then set about trying to fine trade unions and scupper the democratic right to strike? In the Conservative party, there is a tradition of trying to avoid what it would call heavy-handed state interference in matters. Is the Government’s approach not heavy-handed state interference in the management of independent trade unions? They are trying to determine what picket supervisors and pickets will and will not say to people who have voted for strike action.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that the legislation balances the rights of individuals to access vital public services with the rights of people to go on strike. That is the simple balance that we are trying to strike. At times the Government have to step in, and we should always use legislation as a last resort. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that that has been our political philosophy, but bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of hospital appointments that have been cancelled and the billions of pounds in costs for the hospitality sector, particularly over last winter, it is right to have a better balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of workers in this area.

I will summarise the reasonable steps. First, a trade union should identify the workers who are its members in a work notice. That will enable the union to take reasonable steps regarding those workers. Secondly, trade unions should send an individual communication or notice, known as a compliance notice, to each member identified in a work notice to advise them not to strike during the periods in which they are required by the work notice to work, as well as to encourage them to comply with a work notice. Thirdly, trade unions should instruct picket supervisors to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, picketers avoid trying to persuade members who are identified in a work notice not to cross the picket lines at times when they are required by the work notice to work.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, we do not agree. The provisions and the code of practice are workable. As I have said, we undertook a consultation to make sure that that was the case, so we believe the proposals are workable.

[Richard Burgon]

I am sorry to draw a political parallel, but sometimes the parallel between politics and industrial practice is useful. It is the job of the Conservative party, in my area and others, to convince people to cast their vote for the Conservatives; it is the job of the Labour party to persuade local people to cast their vote for the Labour party. Is the requirement for trade unions to write to their members to tell them not to strike the industrial equivalent of requiring the Conservative party, in my constituency or others, to write to their own members telling them to vote Labour, or vice versa? Is it not a perverse interference to change the role of trade unions in a really authoritarian and heavy-handed way? The state interference here on behalf of employers in industrial disputes is quite appalling.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Richard Burgon

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Minister has let the cat out of the bag in relation to the Government’s attitude to this dreadful Bill and to amendment 2D from the other place. The Minister objected to Lords amendment 2D because it would delay the implementation of the Bill. Let us be clear: the Bill makes history for all the wrong reasons. It is the biggest attack on the role of our trade unions in our democracy for many a long year. Why are the Government so desperate to rush the Bill through? One almost thinks they cannot stomach the idea of even a small delay because they want it to be presented at the Conservative party conference as a bit of red meat to the party faithful—classic anti-trade union politics and trade union bashing.

Let us think about where we are in terms of industrial relations. The Bill, which the Government do not want to consult on properly, comes shortly after over 100,000 nurses in this country voted to take strike action—the result in that recent ballot was that 84% of nurses who cast a vote did so to take strike action. However, because of the Government’s dreadful Trade Union Act 2016, an 84% vote in favour of strike action does not count, is worthless and does not result in strike action, because the turnout was 43%.

The Government helped drive down the turnout by not allowing people to vote by electronic ballot. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who made such a mess of this country in her short tenure, was elected by electronic ballot of Conservative party members. Not allowing people to vote by electronic means reveals the contempt the Government have for the biggest voluntary organisations in our society—the trade union movement. They will not even give workers in our country the modern dignity of being allowed to vote online or in the workplace.

The Government object to Lords amendment 2D and do not want to consult on it. Is that any wonder? The greater the consultation that takes place in relation to this abhorrent Bill, the more it becomes clear that the Bill is a complete offence. Let us be clear: the Bill, which the Government do not want to have a proper consultation on, requires trade unions to take reasonable steps to get their own members to break trade union picket lines. This Bill requires trade unions to completely change their function in our democratic society. It is the job of a trade union to persuade trade union members to honour a strike vote, not to break a strike. We see the hand of this authoritarian Government attempting to extend into our trade unions, trying to try to use them as a tool of the state to do the bidding of a Conservative Government, or the bidding of employers. The Bill is rotten and it is no wonder that the Government do not want to consult on it. Any fair-minded person, whatever their politics, would realise that that is not the function of trade unions in our society. We have heard Ministers boasting about how this will result in people being sacked if they do not comply with the requirement to go to work.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated dissent.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Richard Burgon

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I will not.

On the other points, the impact assessment will be available shortly. It is fair to say that we see the Bill as having a net benefit to the economy. Individual impact assessments will support secondary legislation.

To respond to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), we do not believe that the Bill reduces requirements for employers to adhere to health and safety and equality legislation. It is compatible with convention rights and international obligations—

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I am making some progress.

The Bill does not target union members, as clearly stated in proposed new section 234C(6) on page 4 of the Bill. In terms of devolution, we believe that minimum service levels are necessary across Great Britain, but we are of course keen to engage with the devolved Governments through consultation.

Future of Postal Services

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Richard Burgon

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a separate point that I will come to, if I may. I have yet to hear a convincing case for the need for change to meet users’ needs and ensure the financial sustainability of a universal postal service. I have met with both Ofcom and Royal Mail management to discuss that issue. I have made it clear to Royal Mail that it needs to make any case for change to Ofcom, and that I will fully consider any advice the regulator gives me on the future scope of the universal postal service.

The hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who I have worked with closely on other matters regarding the Post Office, raised concerns about quality of service. I am aware that over the last few years the business has faced increased pressures on its operations for a variety of reasons. First, there was the covid pandemic and its lingering effects; secondly, operational revisions were required to modernise and transform the business; and, most recently, there was the industrial dispute with the Communication Workers Union. I do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) that this is union busting. The management has been clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies, but these issues impact both the business and users of postal services, particularly when important mail items are delayed.

[Richard Burgon]

The Minister rejects my allegation that the bosses of Royal Mail are engaged in union busting, but does he not think it is rather strange that over 100 trade union representatives have suddenly been suspended by Royal Mail bosses in the course of the dispute? Is that not rather odd? What conclusion does he draw from that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We do not get involved in negotiations, as Royal Mail is clearly a private company. I welcome the fact that the CWU and Royal Mail are now sitting down with ACAS and trying to resolve the dispute. We should give that process time to reach a resolution. I understand that any strikes have been suspended until the outcome of those negotiations. As I say, the Government are not involved in negotiations because Royal Mail is a private company, but we will monitor the dispute closely, and urge Royal Mail and the Communications Workers Union to reach a resolution as soon as possible.

To ensure that consumers receive an adequate service, Royal Mail is required by Ofcom regulation to, among other things, meet certain performance targets relating to the delivery of universal service products. The regulator has the power to investigate and take enforcement action. Indeed, in 2020 it fined Royal Mail £1.5 million for missing its 2018-19 first-class national delivery targets. Ofcom investigated Royal Mail’s service quality performance in 2021-22, and in doing so considered evidence submitted by Royal Mail of

“exceptional events, beyond the company’s control”

that may explain why targets were missed. In that instance, Ofcom accepted that there had been a continued impact of covid-19 on Royal Mail service delivery, and concluded that

“it was not appropriate to find Royal Mail in breach of its regulatory obligations”.

However, Ofcom was clear that it does not expect covid-19 to have a continuing significant impact on service going forwards. It stated:

“We are concerned by the fact that Royal Mail’s performance in the early part of 2022-23 fell well short of where it should be. We believe the company has had plenty of time to learn lessons from the pandemic, and we are unlikely to consider the factors outlined above as exceptional and beyond its control in future.”

When it comes to renationalisation, we probably part company with many of those on the Opposition Benches who expressed views on the subject, including the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the right hon. Member for Islington North, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, who sponsored the debate, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. I do not believe that renationalisation is the answer. Although there are undoubtably challenges facing Royal Mail, the Government are clear that renationalising the business is not the answer.

One of primary reasons for the sale was to enable Royal Mail to access the capital it needed to invest in and grow the business. When Royal Mail was independently reviewed in 2008 under the last Labour Government, we were told that it was underfunded and had not kept pace with equivalents around the world, which were 40% more efficient. Compare this to the present day: Royal Mail has invested over £2 billion in the UK business since privatisation, including £900 million over the last three years and £441 million in the last financial year in areas such as electric vans, two new parcel hubs, automation and improving its poorest performing delivery offices.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, mentioned the £576 million pounds distributed to shareholders. I point out that there are good years and poor years in terms of financial performance. In the first half of this financial year, I think Royal Mail declared a £219 million loss. That is in the marketplace, so it is not breaching any confidentiality.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Richard Burgon

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is regrettable that we are here for the Third Reading of yet another Conservative Bill that unleashes a Tory attack on the rights of victims and undermines access to justice. When the record of this Conservative Government is written—probably sooner rather than later, if the media reports are to be believed—the way in which they have entrenched a two-tier justice system will be writ large on the political epitaph of the Prime Minister and this Government. The cruelty of the Conservatives’ cuts to legal aid will be one example of that. Their wilful policy of making it harder for people to take on dodgy landlords or to challenge a flawed benefits decision or cruel immigration decision will be another, at a time when people need that kind of support more than ever. The Conservatives’ record on employment tribunal fees will also be something that we in this country will look back on shame. It is not only unlawful, as the Supreme Court decided, but immoral.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

I will not.

The Government’s intent was clear for all to see. They are making it harder for workers to take on unscrupulous bosses—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) wishes to speak for the insurance industry, he can do so. Step up!

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was not going to speak for the insurance companies. I was going to ask whether he welcomed the fact that the Bill will lower the price of insurance for consumers. Does he not welcome that?

[Richard Burgon]

There is absolutely no guarantee of that happening as a result of the Bill. That is not its real purpose. It actually undermines access to justice. As I said on Second Reading, this is yet another attack by the Government on our justice system and on the vulnerable. It is an attack that will, in practice, enrich the Conservatives’ friends in the insurance industry—[Interruption.] As we can hear, Conservative Members do not like that allegation, and they did not like it when I made it on Second Reading. Maybe it touches a nerve. The Government had a chance to disprove it by their actions, by backing amendments that would have ensured that the Bill would not simply line the pockets of the insurers, but they did not do that.

In their media briefing, the Government claim that the Bill is about cutting the number of fraudulent whiplash claims. Of course, no one would disagree with doing that, and had the Government taken measures that did that in reality and simply stopped there, they would undoubtedly have built a broad consensus and the Bill would have been uncontentious. They did not do that, however. Instead, they pressed on with measures that will penalise the many. That, alongside their dire record on access to justice, is why we still believe that these reforms are a smokescreen. I know that there are many Conservative Members who pride themselves on defending our justice system, on upholding the rule of law and on promoting access to justice. Today is the day for those Members to show that they put their commitment to those important principles above narrow party interest by rejecting the unjust proposals.

The Bill started in the Lords, where it faced substantial opposition, not only from Labour Members or Members representing other political parties, but pre-eminent legal experts, including former Lord Chief Justices, who expressed their concerns about the Bill’s impact on access to justice and the independence of the judiciary. The Government only narrowly defeated amendments—similar to those we have discussed today—that would have fundamentally altered the Bill for the better. Since then, they have not taken the opportunity to listen, not even to those pre-eminent legal experts. They have not tried to negotiate or to remove the barriers to justice that define the Bill. For those reasons and others that I will set out, Labour Members will vote against it.

Before addressing the Bill’s provisions, I wish to place on record other elements of the package of reforms that are intended to be passed through statutory instruments. Through that route, the Government want to increase the small claims limit from £1,000 to £2,000 in all cases and from £1,000 to £5,000 in road traffic accident cases. That will make it much harder for workers to get compensation for workplace injuries, and for genuinely injured people to get a fair settlement. A significantly greater number of claims will be dealt with through the small claims procedure, whereby no legal costs are usually awarded, even in successful claims.

When legal fees are not covered, tens of thousands of working people will simply be priced out of obtaining legal assistance, resulting in many pulling, dropping or not pursuing their cases. Of course, others, determined to secure justice, will fight on, but by representing themselves, at a massive disadvantage. An insurance company will be served by a legal expert fighting their case. The victim will be left to try to navigate a complicated legal procedure, placing greater pressure on our already overstrained courts. Some will choose to pay their legal fees out of their compensation, but then, in practice, they will be compensated less than a court found appropriate. As always, the wealthy will be able to afford the best legal advice and the rest will have to suffer.

Justice for the many, not the few is mere rhetoric for the Government. In reality, it is justice for the few, not the many. Is that why the Government are trying to sneak measures through the back door rather than putting them in the Bill so that they could be debated and amended? That is a cowardly attack on workers’ rights, pushed through without real debate or scrutiny. That just about sums the Government up.

I want to give some real-life examples of people affected by the reforms because far too often their voices are not heard in this place.

Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Richard Burgon

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.

Quite simply, the Bill will fill a gap in the law that few people even know exists. Around 4,000 people go missing every single year, yet there is currently no mechanism under the law for anyone else to manage their property and financial affairs. Data protection and contract law prevent dialogue between banks, landlords, insurance companies or utility companies, for example, and any party other than the account holder—I note at this point that the Bill has the full support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders—and the missing person, their estate and their dependants are often worse off as a result. The new status of guardian of the property and affairs of a missing person will fill that gap and help families and others after a disappearance. Many of us have benefited from similar powers in other difficult circumstances, such as when someone close to us passes away or is no longer able to manage their own affairs because of dementia or other mental capacity issues.

The core provision of the Bill is that the court will have the power, on the application of a person with a sufficient interest in the property and affairs of the missing person, to appoint a guardian. The Bill draws on systems used abroad—in certain states of Australia, for instance—and on the system for appointing deputies under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It provides that the guardian will take control of some or all of the property and financial affairs of the missing person, who must generally have been missing for at least 90 days; will have authority to act on the missing person’s behalf; will be able to use the missing person’s property to help those left behind; will be accountable for his or her actions and supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian; will be appointed for a renewable period of up to four years; and, crucially, will be required to act in the missing person’s best interests. The small fee involved will be payable by the missing person’s estate, so there will be little or no cost to the taxpayer.

Clauses 1 to 7 cover who is defined as a missing person, who can be appointed as a guardian, when, how and for how long a guardian can be appointed, and the extent of the guardian’s role and powers. I commend them to the Committee.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. With your permission, I will make all my remarks to the Committee in this debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton on all the work that he has done to introduce the Bill. As he says, it fills a gap that many people are lucky enough not to be aware of. He knows better than most here that such a Bill has been a long time coming and is very welcome indeed.

I can confirm, as expected and as hon. Members will be aware, that we will not oppose the Bill. We support it, and there is strong cross-party support for filling this gap in the law. I understand that the Missing People charity, one of the main promoters of this change in the law, endorses the Bill as drafted. As has been discussed, and as hon. Members know, there is no mechanism in England and Wales to protect the property and affairs of a missing person. As we have heard, the Bill seeks to change that. The absence of such a provision has led to profound hardship for many people.

Hon. Members will recall the Westminster Hall debate in March 2016 in which hon. Members spoke passionately of the experiences of themselves and their constituents, which are relevant to the Bill. As many will remember, the hon. Member for York Outer spoke of his constituent Peter Lawrence, whose daughter Claudia Lawrence has been missing since 2009. It is a well-known case, and I understand that it was announced last month that a review of the case is to be scaled down. I know that Peter Lawrence has campaigned vigorously alongside Missing People for a change in the law for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath also spoke of her personal experience of her uncle vanishing abruptly.

The anguish that those circumstances must cause to families is truly unimaginable to those who have not known the uncertainty and trauma of such a loss. The inability to manage a missing person’s property and finances can only add to that distress, anxiety and anguish. Of course, there may be dependants who require financial support, outstanding bills and obligations or mortgage payments on which families rely—it is very welcome that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has mentioned the support for the Bill from the Council of Mortgage Lenders. As I have mentioned, the importance of trying to maintain some measure of order while a loved one is being traced is perhaps overlooked by the rest of society, who cannot imagine such a situation. Plainly, that needs to be corrected, which is why we welcome the Bill.

There have been faltering attempts at legislation before, so I am glad that we are now seeing real, practical progress. Hon. Members will recall that the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation in 2014, and on 23 March 2015 confirmed that the coalition Government would legislate to create the legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of a missing person. The Ministry recognised the strong support for such an advance in the law. The Justice Minister at the time, Lord Faulks, released a written statement in which he expressed a wish that legislation would follow quickly in the following Parliament.

While the expected legislation did not materialise as swiftly as people would have liked, we are pleased to see practical progress being made today. On 6 June 2016, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport tabled an early-day motion noting the delay in progress and requesting that the Government urgently set out a timetable. However, it is the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that has brought us to this position, and we seem to be well on the way to introducing a piece of practical, useful and necessary legislation.

The hon. Gentleman has previously estimated that some 2,500 people could benefit from a law of this kind. As we have heard, it will give the courts the power to appoint a guardian to manage the property and affairs, and act on behalf, of a missing person. The Bill also proposes safeguards to ensure that that guardian is accountable and acts in the best interests of the missing person. Moreover, the Bill takes inspiration from an existing precedent in Australia, which has a legal system that shares some similarities with our own.

To reiterate, it is welcome that the House is legislating to fill the gap in the law. There has been long-standing and consistent cross-party support for legislation to address the issues. Moreover, campaigners and other interested parties, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the charity Missing People, support the Bill in its current form. There is therefore welcome agreement across the board on the issue. We must not drag our heels. I am glad that we have the opportunity to see the Bill progress today.