Trade Union Bill (First sitting)
Lisa Cameron Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I declare my membership of Unison and my trade union activity over the past 20 years as a trade union activist prior to my election.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I declare my membership of Unite the union and my trade union membership and representation as a senior rep over the past 14 years.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I am a former Community trade union officer, current Community trade union member and chair of the Community parliamentary group.
Victoria Prentis
Q 47 The CBI, I know, feels strongly about this, as you have indicated. Do you feel that anything further could be done?
John Cridland: No, I am comfortable with the provisions that I have read and consulted our members on.
Dr Cameron
Q 48 Is it reasonable that clause 13 would give a Minister the power to overrule agreements made by trade unions and employers about the appropriate amount of facility time? Are your members concerned that that could undermine partnership working in the workplace and lead to further disruption?
John Cridland: If I may answer that, it is certainly the case that facility time is best agreed between employers and trade unions. It is primarily an issue of concern in the public sector, not in the private sector. This is not a matter that the employers in the private sector that I speak for have strong views on.
David Martin: I would be quite adamant that I would not want to see it cut across the existing effective working relationships that have built between trade unions, employees and employers.
Dr Adam Marshall: We have a very small number of members whom this affects, so we do not have a mandate to come forward with comments on that.
Dr Cameron
Q 49 You spoke about the importance of communication with your workers and harmonious employee relations. Have you consulted the workforce at all about their views?
David Martin: Not in its entirety. I have certainly had conversations with the full-time representatives that we have within the organisation in this context. I could not say that I have consulted 25,000 people in the UK.
Stephen Doughty
Q 50 I just want to push John on whom he is representing. I would contend that there are actually a number of voices in business and industry who are concerned that the Bill will do the opposite and will promote less positive industrial relations, which could have an impact on productivity and the ability to negotiate. A whole series of measures in the Bill could foster dissent rather than the agreements and constructive relationships that lead to avoiding industrial action in the first place. I was on a panel with a CBI representative a couple of weeks ago and a representative of a major industrial employers’ organisation said, “Let’s put it this way: we didn’t call for this Bill.” Could you just explain, very clearly, whom you are representing and whether there is an absolute consensus of view across business and industry that this is a good thing for business and the economy as a whole?
John Howell
Q 72 We heard from the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce that all this Bill does is modernise the way in which trade unions behave. It does not introduce a fundamental change in the trade union rules that apply, so it is very difficult in that circumstance to understand why you describe the Bill as unlawful and unwarranted. In the example that you use of not being able to tell what the nature of the dispute is, surely it is in the interests of transparency that that should be settled and be clearly on the ballot paper.
Stephen Cavalier: The problem here—I was in a meeting with some employers’ lawyers and they were expressing it this way—is about forcing such a detailed description of all the matters at issue in a dispute at the start. The lawyers’ concern is that unions will be forced to draw the dispute as broadly as possible to include every single aspect, and moreover, that it is likely to escalate matters because unions will feel reluctant to compromise on individual issues in the dispute, as employers will otherwise argue that consequently the dispute has changed and that there needs to be a re-ballot. It forces extreme behaviour, if you like, and it is likely to mean that a dispute escalates.
In terms of being unlawful, we mentioned in our submission the areas where we believe it contravenes the European convention on human rights and the International Labour Organisation code. The other point to make is that, as the Regulatory Policy Committee said in its response to the impact assessment, there is absolutely no evidence that it will work. In terms of modernising industrial relations, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that there should be separate assessments of the 50% threshold and of the 40% threshold. It completely rejects the analysis of the likely impact of the threshold on the outcomes of disputes, because there is no analysis of the impact of a threshold on voting behaviour and turnouts in the elections themselves.
Dr Cameron
Q 73 The Government are consulting on draft regulations that would repeal the restriction on providing agency staff during industrial disputes. What are your views on these proposed changes? Could they further undermine industrial relations?
Mike Emmott: Our view is that the consultation paper overstates the likely impact of removing the prohibition on employment agencies supplying workers on a temporary basis during industrial disputes. It is already possible for employers to recruit temporary labour without any difficulty, provided that they do it directly. For some of the reasons that emerged from the last witness session, we think that issues of training and safety, never mind the availability of qualified staff, will very considerably reduce the impact of this, which is the third of the consultation issues. It is likely to be pretty much a non-event, except possibly in some cases where employers—maybe large employers—have close relationships with agencies, and on a daily basis they take on quite a lot of temporary labour. It might be difficult to know whether or not particular workers were engaged in replacing workers who are on strike. But in general, we do not think that this particular part of the Bill is likely to have any major impact. I do not speak for recruitment agencies or recruitment businesses, but I think that many of them will be quite reluctant to get sucked into industrial disputes.
Stephen Cavalier: Indeed, the recruitment businesses’ own organisation, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, has said that this is a very dangerous proposal which it does not support. The Regulatory Policy Committee itself said that there was absolutely no basis for the Government’s assertion that 22% of days lost would be solved by this. Moreover, there are very good emergency arrangements in place to ensure that cover is provided in the public sector, certainly in the fire service and in midwifery. I am sure that people would much rather have those arrangements than agency workers brought in to put out fires or to deliver babies.
Victoria Prentis
Q 74 My questions really relate to the certification officer, which you present in your evidence as a sort of big bad wolf, and you seem very concerned about the prospect of the additional powers. I put it to you that really the prospect of having a certification officer is surely a sensible solution to difficulties with compliance, and an appropriate response to situations where non-compliance may have occurred. What strikes you as so outrageous about having to produce documents?
Stephen Cavalier: Well, first, the certification officer is not a big bad wolf, and his current iteration is doing a very good job. I would be very interested to hear from the Government what consultation there was with the certification officer about his own powers and his current arrangements, and whether he felt that his powers needed to be extended, and indeed what consultation there was with other agencies on the impacts of these powers. The purpose of the certification officer was to enable individual union members who felt that they were getting the wrong end of the stick from a collective issue to have a voice, which they would otherwise not have had. It is not about allowing outside agencies to influence the state regulator or to put pressure on the state regulator to initiate action. I cannot see how a state regulator can be impartial if they can be prevailed upon externally to take action. Also, if they were funded in the way that is suggested, that would completely alter the nature of the role.
Trade Union Bill
Lisa Cameron Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is important for me to speak in this debate, having been a Unite the union representative for 14 years in health. Trade unions are key social partners that play an important role in our society through effective democracy and by helping to ensure good employment practices, which directly promote economic competitiveness and social justice in wider society. Despite what some Members assert, the daily business of unions is not taken up with organising industrial action. They represent their members in many ways, ensuring healthy and safe workplaces, delivering learning opportunities and bargaining collectively to ensure that pay keeps pace with the cost of living, the benefits of which are also experienced by non-union members.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress reports that international evidence clearly indicates that where unions are able to negotiate collectively with employers, wages are fairer and, as a direct consequence, societies are more equal. Days lost to industrial action are down by 84% in Scotland since the Scottish National party came to power, lower than anywhere else in the UK. That has been built upon over time through true partnership and conciliation. However, the right to withdraw labour as a last resort is a fundamental human right and a hallmark of any free and democratic society. It is safeguarded by a wide range of international treaties, including the European social charter and the European convention on human rights.
There are profound concerns that the right to strike is being put at risk, as the new restrictions will make it so difficult to undertake efficient industrial action that it is, in effect, being legislated out of existence. The Bill would introduce a 50% turnout threshold in all industrial action ballots. In addition, for important public services it would also impose a requirement that 40% of the entire membership must vote in favour, which amounts to 80% of those voting on a 50% turnout. Under those measures, nearly half of all strikes since 1997 would now be illegal.
The Bill proposes restrictions on picketing activities, even though, as highlighted by civil rights groups, pickets are already more regulated than any other kind of protest. The certification officer will be given powers to investigate unions and access membership lists, even if no one has complained about the union’s activities. The SNP recognises that nobody wants strikes, but the way to avoid them is not to provoke confrontation—
Education and Adoption Bill
Lisa Cameron Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and the excellent maiden speeches we have heard today.
One key theme of the debate is adoption. I am pleased that we are giving airtime to the subject. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who spoke passionately. It is an important issue for him to focus on as Chairman of the Education Committee.
First and foremost, I commend the Bill and the intention to reduce the time that children spend in care. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Minister for Children and Families, whose extensive experience as a family law barrister and his personal experience make him so well suited to his brief. I pay tribute to his excellent work with children in care through the Who Cares Trust. He will know as well as anyone the tragic situations that are played out in the family courts every day. I know he is doing his utmost to improve the situation for children and families.
One increasing concern, particularly in my constituency, is the number of children who are taken into the care system every day. It has increased dramatically in recent years. It has become a pressing social issue that we cannot ignore. It has a huge cost to families in human misery, it has social and economic costs to society, and the cost to a child of a life in care.
More efficiency and speeding up adoption is a positive step forward, but it is not a solution in itself. We must look at how we tackle the problem of children entering the care system and think about different benchmarks of success. Increased numbers of children being adopted is not a measure of success, but fewer children entering the care system is.
Before the tragic case of baby Peter Connelly, adoption was always seen as a last resort. There are plenty of examples today when that is not the case. We see judges condemning the social engineering of social workers who judge, assess and find fault with parents. As the Secretary of State rightly said, the decision to remove is for the courts, but the courts can rely only on the evidence put before them. All too often, that evidence is the opinion of a number of professionals who are so anxious about the post-Baby P culture that they act pre-emptively through a fear of missing potential harm.
I believe that the solution must be to work more closely with families to help them stay together safely, and to ensure that we recognise that the best place, if at all possible, is the natural family. Many children experience terrible trauma when they are removed from their natural parents, with whom they have developed a strong and reciprocated bond.
In my experience of working with adoption panels and families who have lost their children to state care, it is wrong to assume that all parents whose children are taken into care are neglectful, dysfunctional or subhuman. Too many people make that assumption.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I declare an interest, having worked as a psychologist in a school. I would be interested in the hon. Lady’s thoughts on access to psychological assessments in the process and, as was mentioned earlier, the priority given to access to mental health services in looked-after and accommodated services.
Lucy Allan
We should provide mental health support to all children going through the care system.
I should like to tell hon. Members a story about a case I worked on. A mother had two children, both of whom were removed when she went to seek help because she believed she could not cope with the parenting of her young toddler. That family ended up completely broken: one child was adopted, and the other was placed into a series of different foster placements and is now awaiting a long-term placement. The judge in his case described him as a well behaved child. He was a pleasant, successful child at school—he was delightful in every sense—but now, having experienced six sets of foster carers in three years, placement disruption is occurring over and over again. That once happy, delightful boy is physically attacking his foster carers, swearing and attacking other children at school. No one can argue that the result is in the best interests of that child, even if the motivation behind those actions was the right one. His life was turned upside down. We can only guess at the trauma, bewilderment and rage that he must have experienced at the break-up of his family.
For many, the loss of their child to the state is a bereavement—there is a total sense of loss and grief, accompanied by rage at the injustice of being judged wanting as a parent. We do our best as parents, and some of us do not do as well as we would like. We should hope that, when the state presumes to judge us, it should also assist us to be the best parents we can be.
Too many grieving parents go on to stem that emptiness by having another child, and then another child. Sequentially, those children are taken into care, but at what cost and for what misery for those children and families? I am delighted by some of the work being done on that. I pay tribute to the Minister, particularly for his social care innovation programme and the financial support being made available to the mothers I have described. I have had a case of a mother who had 10 children taken sequentially into care. That was of no benefit to her or to anyone else.
I conclude by saying that it is not the role of the state to presume to decide what makes for a fit parent. The situation is far more complex than that. We should not hope that we can ever replace the natural bond and the benefit of being within a family setting. I urge the Minister to continue his excellent work to strengthen families and ensure that they stay together to provide the best possible situation for children as they grow up.